Improving the Peer-Review Process for Grant Applications: Reliability, Validity, Bias, and Generalizability

Autor/inn/en	Marsh, Herbert W.; Jayasinghe, Upali W.; Bond, Nigel W.
Titel	Improving the Peer-Review Process for Grant Applications: Reliability, Validity, Bias, and Generalizability
Quelle	In: American Psychologist, 63 (2008) 3, S.160-168 (9 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0003-066X
Schlagwörter	Academic Rank (Professional); Psychological Studies; Validity; Social Sciences; Humanities; Grants; Peer Evaluation; Reliability; Foreign Countries; Gender Bias; Australia + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Gültigkeit; Social science; Sozialwissenschaften; Gesellschaftswissenschaften; Geisteswissenschaften; Humanwissenschaften; Grant; Finanzielle Beihilfe; Reliabilität; Ausland; Geschlechterstereotyp; Australien
Abstract	Peer review is a gatekeeper, the final arbiter of what is valued in academia, but it has been criticized in relation to traditional psychological research criteria of reliability, validity, generalizability, and potential biases. Despite a considerable literature, there is surprisingly little sound peer-review research examining these criteria or strategies for improving the process. This article summarizes the authors' research program with the Australian Research Council, which receives thousands of grant proposals from the social science, humanities, and science disciplines and reviews by assessors from all over the world. Using multilevel cross-classified models, the authors critically evaluated peer reviews of grant applications and potential biases associated with applicants, assessors, and their interaction (e.g., age, gender, university, academic rank, research team composition, nationality, experience). Peer reviews lacked reliability, but the only major systematic bias found involved the inflated, unreliable, and invalid ratings of assessors nominated by the applicants themselves. The authors propose a new approach, the reader system, which they evaluated with psychology and education grant proposals and found to be substantially more reliable and strategically advantageous than traditional peer reviews of grant applications. (Author).
Anmerkungen	American Psychological Association. Journals Department, 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242. Tel: 800-374-2721; Tel: 202-336-5510; Fax: 202-336-5502; e-mail: order@apa.org; Web site: http://www.apa.org/publications
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10