Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2790002968> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 80 of
80
with 100 items per page.
- W2790002968 endingPage "229" @default.
- W2790002968 startingPage "216" @default.
- W2790002968 abstract "The process of peer review is used to identify the most scientifically meritorious research projects for funding. Impact and innovation are among the criteria used to determine overall merit. A criticism of peer review has been the perception that reviewers are biased against innovation, such as one study that found reviewers to systematically assign poorer scores to highly novel work. Moreover, reviewers’ definitions for excellent research and paradigm-shifting research are different; innovative research may not always be considered excellent. Therefore, it is clear more needs to be done to understand the decision-making processes of reviewers in evaluating risk and innovation in research. In an effort to address this gap, the American Institute of Biological Sciences developed a comprehensive peer review survey that examined, in part, the differences in applicant and reviewer perceptions of review outcomes. The survey was disseminated to 13,091 reviewers and applicants, of whom 9.4% responded. Only 24% of respondent applicants indicated that innovation was addressed in their review feedback, while 81% of respondent reviewers indicated they factored innovation into selecting the best science and 73% viewed innovation as an essential component of scientific excellence. Similarly, while only 27% of respondent applicants reported receiving comments on the riskiness of their grant applications, 58% of respondent reviewers indicated that the risks associated with innovative research impacted the scores they assigned to the grant applications. These results indicate a potential source of bias in how innovation and risk are evaluated in grant applications." @default.
- W2790002968 created "2018-03-29" @default.
- W2790002968 creator A5008381135 @default.
- W2790002968 creator A5021564598 @default.
- W2790002968 creator A5047736476 @default.
- W2790002968 creator A5065003939 @default.
- W2790002968 date "2018-02-24" @default.
- W2790002968 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
- W2790002968 title "Risk evaluation in peer review of grant applications" @default.
- W2790002968 cites W1975626251 @default.
- W2790002968 cites W2005950835 @default.
- W2790002968 cites W2007188662 @default.
- W2790002968 cites W2032020071 @default.
- W2790002968 cites W2032864034 @default.
- W2790002968 cites W2043241540 @default.
- W2790002968 cites W2049997637 @default.
- W2790002968 cites W2050990045 @default.
- W2790002968 cites W2055124066 @default.
- W2790002968 cites W2091375917 @default.
- W2790002968 cites W2092309740 @default.
- W2790002968 cites W2128186353 @default.
- W2790002968 cites W2129508295 @default.
- W2790002968 cites W2132860491 @default.
- W2790002968 cites W2144981148 @default.
- W2790002968 cites W2160120158 @default.
- W2790002968 cites W2273766569 @default.
- W2790002968 cites W2326936937 @default.
- W2790002968 cites W2413221400 @default.
- W2790002968 cites W2461645408 @default.
- W2790002968 cites W2533264585 @default.
- W2790002968 cites W2602549869 @default.
- W2790002968 cites W2800559265 @default.
- W2790002968 cites W3122634626 @default.
- W2790002968 cites W3124633065 @default.
- W2790002968 cites W4237327899 @default.
- W2790002968 doi "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-018-9677-6" @default.
- W2790002968 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
- W2790002968 type Work @default.
- W2790002968 sameAs 2790002968 @default.
- W2790002968 citedByCount "21" @default.
- W2790002968 countsByYear W27900029682018 @default.
- W2790002968 countsByYear W27900029682019 @default.
- W2790002968 countsByYear W27900029682020 @default.
- W2790002968 countsByYear W27900029682021 @default.
- W2790002968 countsByYear W27900029682022 @default.
- W2790002968 countsByYear W27900029682023 @default.
- W2790002968 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2790002968 hasAuthorship W2790002968A5008381135 @default.
- W2790002968 hasAuthorship W2790002968A5021564598 @default.
- W2790002968 hasAuthorship W2790002968A5047736476 @default.
- W2790002968 hasAuthorship W2790002968A5065003939 @default.
- W2790002968 hasBestOaLocation W27900029681 @default.
- W2790002968 hasConcept C138368954 @default.
- W2790002968 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
- W2790002968 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
- W2790002968 hasConceptScore W2790002968C138368954 @default.
- W2790002968 hasConceptScore W2790002968C17744445 @default.
- W2790002968 hasConceptScore W2790002968C199539241 @default.
- W2790002968 hasIssue "2" @default.
- W2790002968 hasLocation W27900029681 @default.
- W2790002968 hasLocation W27900029682 @default.
- W2790002968 hasOpenAccess W2790002968 @default.
- W2790002968 hasPrimaryLocation W27900029681 @default.
- W2790002968 hasRelatedWork W2339174950 @default.
- W2790002968 hasRelatedWork W2412927958 @default.
- W2790002968 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
- W2790002968 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
- W2790002968 hasRelatedWork W2915442417 @default.
- W2790002968 hasRelatedWork W2917793984 @default.
- W2790002968 hasRelatedWork W2948086185 @default.
- W2790002968 hasRelatedWork W2969800458 @default.
- W2790002968 hasRelatedWork W3042686891 @default.
- W2790002968 hasRelatedWork W4303980696 @default.
- W2790002968 hasVolume "38" @default.
- W2790002968 isParatext "false" @default.
- W2790002968 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W2790002968 magId "2790002968" @default.
- W2790002968 workType "article" @default.