Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability
Marsh, Herbert Warren Jayasinghe, Upali W. Bond, Nigel W.
Marsh, Herbert Warren
Jayasinghe, Upali W.
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
Date
2008
Type
Journal article
Journal
American Psychologist
Book
Volume
63
Issue
3
Page Range
160-168
Article Number
ACU Department
Institute for Positive Psychology and Education
Faculty of Education and Arts
Faculty of Education and Arts