FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1557544219> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1557544219 startingPage "47" @default.
• W1557544219 abstract "Abstract Review panels determine the success or failure of most proposals, and writers are well advised to polish their prose in a manner that will win their approval. Indeed, many successful proposal writers count their service on review panels among the most powerful learning experiences in their own research careers. Information on how review panels work is abundant, but little has been written on the personal perspectives of reviewers-the critical factors that lead to their support or rejection of any given proposal, how they view the strengths and weaknesses of the peer review system and whether serving on panels has shaped their own proposal writing strategies. This paper presents the findings of interviews with sixteen senior Virginia Tech faculty with extensive experience on review panels. Most participants strongly endorsed the peer review system, though reservations were expressed concerning its administrative complexities and the difficulties in assigning proposals to reviewers with appropriate expertise. The paper concludes with reviewers' recommendations to improve the overall system. Background It can be argued that most research administrators owe their jobs to a key power group in academe: grant reviewers. These folks are the gatekeepers who decide who will get money to fund research, and it is quite a bit of money, as universities now consume about $40 billion in RD Smith, 1997; Wessely, 1998). To be funded, grant proposals must receive very high marks from reviewers. NSF reports that just half of proposals rated Very Good to Excellent by reviewers were funded in 2003 (NSF, 2004). At NIH, the streamlining procedure can eliminate up to half of the proposals submitted from full discussion by the panel; these are returned to the PI's with no score. For the rest, the numerical panel scores are ranked from top to bottom, often with very small differentials before the payline is reached and the money runs out (NIH, 2003). Overall success ratios range from 20 to 30 percent at most agencies, but these figures include a significant percentage of resubmissions, and many grant programs fund as few as 10 to 15 per cent. With budgets in sponsor agencies flattening and universities ramping up their research goals, competition can only intensify, adding to the need for a better understanding of the people who serve on these vitally important bodies. Much has been published about the review process, especially the established practices of major federal agencies such as NSF and NIH. Relatively little has been written about the experience of being a reviewer. An exception is biologist Pam Member, who has written a strong personal affirmation of the review process as a valuable learning experience that has particular impact on one's proposal writing skills (Member, 2003). …" @default.
• W1557544219 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1557544219 creator A5034616436 @default.
• W1557544219 date "2005-04-01" @default.
• W1557544219 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W1557544219 title "What Do Grant Reviewers Really Want, Anyway?" @default.
• W1557544219 cites W194236826 @default.
• W1557544219 cites W1969691662 @default.
• W1557544219 cites W1997670471 @default.
• W1557544219 cites W2109430173 @default.
• W1557544219 cites W2167919917 @default.
• W1557544219 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W1557544219 type Work @default.
• W1557544219 sameAs 1557544219 @default.
• W1557544219 citedByCount "9" @default.
• W1557544219 countsByYear W15575442192012 @default.
• W1557544219 countsByYear W15575442192015 @default.
• W1557544219 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1557544219 hasAuthorship W1557544219A5034616436 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConcept C120912362 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConcept C163258240 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConcept C18762648 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConcept C2776304142 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConcept C2780378061 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConceptScore W1557544219C120912362 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConceptScore W1557544219C121332964 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConceptScore W1557544219C127413603 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConceptScore W1557544219C144133560 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConceptScore W1557544219C15744967 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConceptScore W1557544219C162853370 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConceptScore W1557544219C163258240 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConceptScore W1557544219C17744445 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConceptScore W1557544219C18762648 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConceptScore W1557544219C199539241 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConceptScore W1557544219C2776304142 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConceptScore W1557544219C2780378061 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConceptScore W1557544219C39549134 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConceptScore W1557544219C509550671 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConceptScore W1557544219C62520636 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConceptScore W1557544219C71924100 @default.
• W1557544219 hasConceptScore W1557544219C78519656 @default.
• W1557544219 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W1557544219 hasLocation W15575442191 @default.
• W1557544219 hasOpenAccess W1557544219 @default.
• W1557544219 hasPrimaryLocation W15575442191 @default.
• W1557544219 hasRelatedWork W111364958 @default.
• W1557544219 hasRelatedWork W1568210900 @default.
• W1557544219 hasRelatedWork W1581492637 @default.
• W1557544219 hasRelatedWork W1599548907 @default.
• W1557544219 hasRelatedWork W1966963811 @default.
• W1557544219 hasRelatedWork W1982340630 @default.
• W1557544219 hasRelatedWork W2072277944 @default.
• W1557544219 hasRelatedWork W2083136615 @default.
• W1557544219 hasRelatedWork W2087011980 @default.
• W1557544219 hasRelatedWork W2130362509 @default.
• W1557544219 hasRelatedWork W217661956 @default.
• W1557544219 hasRelatedWork W21876113 @default.
• W1557544219 hasRelatedWork W2291506484 @default.
• W1557544219 hasRelatedWork W2312237809 @default.
• W1557544219 hasRelatedWork W248849737 @default.
• W1557544219 hasRelatedWork W272408504 @default.
• W1557544219 hasRelatedWork W2750783907 @default.
• W1557544219 hasRelatedWork W321333665 @default.
• W1557544219 hasRelatedWork W326282796 @default.
• W1557544219 hasRelatedWork W349978211 @default.
• W1557544219 hasVolume "36" @default.
• W1557544219 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1557544219 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1557544219 magId "1557544219" @default.
• W1557544219 workType "article" @default.