Bornmann L, Daniel HD "Criteria used by a peer review committee for selection of research fellows - A boolean probit analysis " International Journal of Selection and Assessment 13(4): 296-303, December 2005.

[Eugene Garfield]

E-mail : bornmann at gess.ethz.ch

Title: Criteria used by a peer review committee for selection of research
fellows - A boolean probit analysis

Author(s): Bornmann L, Daniel HD

Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT 13 (4): 296-303
DEC 2005

Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 38      Times Cited: 0

Abstract:
An international foundation for the promotion of basic research in
biomedicine, the Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds (B.I.F.), reports that
fellowships are awarded to post-graduate researchers according to the
following main criteria: (1) scientific quality as demonstrated by the
applicant's achievements to date, (2) the originality of the proposed
research project, and (3) the scientific standing of the laboratory where
the research will be conducted. Using the Boolean probit statistical
technique, this study examines the multiple conjunctural causation that a
fellowship will be awarded only if all three of these criteria are assessed
positively by the B.I.F. peer review committee. In agreement with the
prescriptive principles of the foundation the results suggest that the
B.I.F. approves applications only if all of the three criteria are rated
positively.


Addresses: Bornmann L (reprint author), ETH, Swiss Fed Inst Technol,
Zanhringerstr 24, Zurich, CH-8092 Switzerland
ETH, Swiss Fed Inst Technol, Zurich, CH-8092 Switzerland
Univ Zurich, Zurich, CH-8006 Switzerland

E-mail Addresses: bornmann at gess.ethz.ch
Publisher: BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, 9600 GARSINGTON RD, OXFORD OX4 2DQ, OXON,
ENGLAND
Subject Category: PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED; MANAGEMENT
IDS Number: 995GN
ISSN: 0965-075X

CITED REFERENCES:
*CYT SOFTW CORP
STATXACT VERS 6 : 2004

 *CYT SOFTW CORP
STATXACT VERS 6 CYT : 2004

 *R DEV COR TEAM
R LANG ENV STAT COMP : 2005

 *STATACORP
STAT STAT SOFTW REL : 2005

 *US GEN ACC OFF
PEER REV PRACT FED S : 1999

 ABRAMS PA
THE PREDICTIVE ABILITY OF PEER-REVIEW OF GRANT PROPOSALS - THE CASE OF
ECOLOGY AND THE UNITED-STATES-NATIONAL-SCIENCE-FOUNDATION
SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE 21 : 111 1991

 AGRESTI A
CATEGORICAL DATA ANA : 2002

 BORNMANN L
BIF FUTURA 19 : 7 2004

 BORNMANN L
Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review.
Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees'
decisions
SCIENTOMETRICS 63 : 297 2005

 BRAUMOELLER BF
Causal complexity and the study of politics
POLITICAL ANALYSIS 11 : 209 2003

 BRAUMOELLER BF
POLITICAL ANAL 13 : 2005

 BRAUMOELLER BF
STATA J 4 : 436 2004

 CHUBIN D
PEERLESS SCI PEER RE : 1990

 CICCHETTI DV
BEHAVIORAL BRAIN SCI 14 : 1 1991

 COCHRAN WG
SOME METHODS FOR STRENGTHENING THE COMMON X2 TESTS
BIOMETRICS 10 : 417 1954

 COHEN J
STAT POWER ANAL BEHA : 1988

 COLE S
MAKING SCI NATURE SO : 1992

 CONROY RM
STATA J 2 : 290 2002

 CRAMER H
MATH METHODS STAT : 1980

 DEMICHELI V
COCHRANE LIB : 2004

 FROHLICH H
BIF FUTURA 16 : 69 2001

 GARFIELD E
LAUNCHING THE ISI ATLAS OF SCIENCE - FOR THE NEW-YEAR, A NEW GENERATION OF
REVIEWS
CURRENT CONTENTS : 3 1987

 GEISLER E
METRICS SCI TECHNOLO : 2000

 GILLETT R
RESEARCH PERFORMANCE INDICATORS BASED ON PEER-REVIEW - A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
HIGHER EDUCATION QUARTERLY 43 : 20 1989

 GORDON SC
Quantitative leverage through qualitative knowledge: Augmenting the
statistical analysis of complex causes
POLITICAL ANALYSIS 12 : 233 2004

 HARTMANN I
PEER-REVIEW AT THE DEUTSCHE-FORSCHUNGSGEMEINSCHAFT
SCIENTOMETRICS 19 : 419 1990

 HEMLIN S
SOCIAL EPISTEMOLOGY 10 : 209 1996

 KING G
UNIFYING POLITICAL M : 1989

 KLINE RB
SIGNIFICANCE TESTING : 2004

 MAHONEY J
The possibility principle: Choosing negative cases in comparative research
AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW 98 : 653 2004

MEADOWS AJ
COMMUNICATING RES : 1998

 NORMAN KL
IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS IN THE REVIEW OF GRANT PROPOSALS
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY 71 : 156 1986

 SEKHON JS
POLIT ANAL 7 : 189 1998

 WELLER AC
EDITORIAL PEER REV I : 2002

 WESSELY S
Peer review of grant applications: what do we know?
LANCET 352 : 301 1998

 WIENER SL
PEER REVIEW - INTER-REVIEWER AGREEMENT DURING EVALUATION OF RESEARCH GRANT
APPLICATIONS
CLINICAL RESEARCH 25 : 306 1977

 WOOD FQ
PEER REV HLTH SCI : 14 2003

 ZIMAN J
REAL SCI WHAT IT IS : 2000