preprint meta-evaluation study

[Loet Leydesdorff]

A Meta-evaluation of Scientific Research Proposals: 
Different Ways of Comparing Rejected to Awarded Applications. 
Journal of Informetrics (forthcoming) 

Lutz Bornmann, Loet Leydesdorff, & Peter van den Besselaar

Combining different data sets with information on grant and fellowship
applications submitted to two renowned funding agencies, we are able to
compare their funding decisions (award and rejection) with scientometric
performance indicators across two fields of science (life sciences and
social sciences). The data sets involve 671 applications in social sciences
and 668 applications in life sciences. In both fields, awarded applicants
perform on average better than all rejected applicants. If only the most
preeminent rejected applicants are considered in both fields, they score
better than the awardees on citation impact. With regard to productivity we
find differences between the fields: While the awardees in life sciences
outperform on average the most preeminent rejected applicants, the situation
is reversed in social sciences.
 
html-version at http://www.leydesdorff.net/meta-evaluation/index.htm
PDF at http://www.leydesdorff.net/meta-evaluation/meta-evaluation.2009.pdf