A Meta-evaluation of Scientific Research Proposals: Different Ways of Comparing Rejected to Awarded Applications

AI-generated keywords: funding decisions scientific research proposals citation impact productivity scientometric performance

AI-generated Key Points

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.

  • Study investigates funding decisions of two renowned funding agencies
  • Focuses on life sciences and social sciences
  • Analyzes 671 applications in social sciences and 668 applications in life sciences
  • Awardees outperform rejected applicants on average in both fields
  • Most preeminent rejected applicants achieve higher citation impact than awardees
  • Differences between fields: awardees perform better in life sciences, but most preeminent rejected applicants have higher productivity in social sciences
  • Provides insights into funding decision-making processes and potential biases or limitations
  • Examines scientometric performance indicators alongside grant and fellowship applications
  • Contributes to understanding evaluation and funding of scientific research proposals across disciplines
  • Emphasizes importance of considering multiple criteria when assessing funding applications.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Lutz Bornmann, Loet Leydesdorff, Peter van den Besselaar

Abstract: 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.

Submitted to arXiv on 18 Nov. 2009

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 0911.3558v1

This paper's license doesn't allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing process is here made with the paper's metadata rather than the article.

In the study titled "A Meta-evaluation of Scientific Research Proposals: Different Ways of Comparing Rejected to Awarded Applications," authors Lutz Bornmann, Loet Leydesdorff, and Peter van den Besselaar investigate the funding decisions of two renowned funding agencies by combining data sets on grant and fellowship applications. The study focuses on two fields of science, namely life sciences and social sciences. The researchers analyze a total of 671 applications in social sciences and 668 applications in life sciences. They find that, on average, the applicants who were awarded funding outperform all the rejected applicants in both fields. However, when considering only the most preeminent rejected applicants, they discover that these individuals actually achieve higher citation impact than the awardees. Furthermore, the study reveals differences between the two fields in terms of productivity. In life sciences, the awardees demonstrate better performance on average compared to the most preeminent rejected applicants. Conversely, in social sciences, the situation is reversed; with the most preeminent rejected applicants exhibiting higher productivity than those who received funding. This research provides valuable insights into how funding decisions are made by prestigious agencies and sheds light on potential biases or limitations within these processes. By examining scientometric performance indicators alongside grant and fellowship applications, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of how scientific research proposals are evaluated and funded across different disciplines. It also highlights how important it is for decision makers to consider multiple criteria when assessing applications for funding opportunities.
Created on 05 Dec. 2023

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.