Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability
Journal article
Marsh, Herbert Warren, Jayasinghe, Upali W. and Bond, Nigel W.. (2008). Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. American Psychologist. 63(3), pp. 160 - 168. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.160
Authors | Marsh, Herbert Warren, Jayasinghe, Upali W. and Bond, Nigel W. |
---|---|
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. |
Keywords | peer review; grant proposals; bias; validity; reliability |
Year | 2008 |
Journal | American Psychologist |
Journal citation | 63 (3), pp. 160 - 168 |
Publisher | American Psychological Association |
ISSN | 0003-066X |
Digital Object Identifier (DOI) | https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.160 |
Page range | 160 - 168 |
Research Group | Institute for Positive Psychology and Education |
Place of publication | United States of America |
https://acuresearchbank.acu.edu.au/item/854q7/improving-the-peer-review-process-for-grant-applications-reliability-validity-bias-and-generalizability
151
total views0
total downloads0
views this month0
downloads this month