Send us a link
If reviewers can't reliably tell the difference between top grant proposals, why should they pretend they can? A new wave of funders is turning to lotteries to break the tie.
Analyzing evaluation dynamics across the editorial review and peer review stages, this study finds strong selective effects associated with higher institutional prestige, larger team size, and certain topics and countries.
Grant-awarding committees are dominated by men, but first-ever majority female cohort of academy fellows gives reason for hope.
Can Large Language Models (LLMs) support the process or validate expert evaluations? ChatGPT-4o mini scores correlated positively with expert scores in almost all 34 (field-based) Units of Assessment (UoAs).
This paper presents a systematic review of the literature on hyperprolific authorship to examine how it is defined, investigated, and perceived across disciplines.
Nation prevented far more in medical spending and lost productivity than it spent on testing, buying & delivering the 2021 vaccines.
The Spark grants scheme, run by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), anonymises applications. This has meant a more diverse range of winners, particularly younger scientists and those new to SNSF funding.
Reform efforts may need to reconsider the usefulness of value-led strategies.
Embracing uncertainty could improve peer review processes.
When evidence-based policymaking is so often mired in disagreement and controversy, how can we know if the process is meeting its stated goals?
A more nuanced balance between the use of metrics and peer review in research assessment might be needed.
For research funders seeking to minimize bias in their selection process, removing applicants’ institutional affiliations from their submissions could help address a common disparity: disproportionate funding going to those at the most prestigious places.
Major platforms such as the Web of Science, widely used to generate metrics and evaluate researchers, are proprietary. More than 30 research and funding organizations call for the community to commit to platforms that instead are free for all, more transparent about their methods, and without restrictions about how the data can be used.
The European Research Council (ERC) introduced a more inclusive application form for applicants this year to give researchers on all career pathways a fair chance to demonstrate their excellence.
The European Research Council is revamping its project evaluation process from 2024 in line with the EU-wide push for a less prescriptive approach to evaluating scientific impact.
The UK Government’s research evaluation system encourages a higher quantity and lower quality of work from academics, according to a recent paper.
The targeted research Missions set up under Horizon Europe are turning three years old this year, and their ambitious logic is facing its first test in an upcoming review at the midpoint of the EU's €95.9 billion research programme.
In a landmark decision this week, the European Research Council (ERC) announced changes to its application forms and evaluation procedures that will be implemented starting with the 2024 calls for proposals.
Why the greatest scientific experiment in history failed, and why that's a great thing.
Dominant approaches to research quality rest on the assumption that academic peers are the only relevant stakeholders in its assessment. In contrast, impact assessment frameworks recognize a large and heterogeneous set of actors as stakeholders.
China created a research evaluation system based on publications indexed in the SCI and on the Journal Impact Factor, which helped China become the largest contributor to scientific literature and increase the position of its universities in global rankings.
