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

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.

• - 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.

A study looked at how two famous funding agencies decide who to give money to. They focused on science and social studies. They looked at 671 applications for social studies and 668 applications for science. The people who got the money did better than the ones who didn't in both fields. But, the best people who didn't get the money did even better than the ones who did in social studies. In science, the people who got the money did better overall. The study helps us understand how decisions are made about giving out money for research. It also reminds us that we should look at lots of different things when deciding who to give money to." Definitions- Funding: Money given to support something, like research. - Awardees: People who receive an award or prize. - Rejected applicants: People whose application was not accepted. - Citation impact: How many times a research paper is mentioned by other researchers. - Productivity: How much work someone does or how many things they create. - Biases: When someone has unfair preferences or opinions about something. - Limitations: Things that make it harder to do something or have an effect on it. - Scientometric performance indicators: Ways of measuring how well someone's work is doing in their field. - Grant and fellowship applications: Requests for money to support research or education projects.

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

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 researchers analyze a total of 671 applications in social sciences and 668 applications in life sciences. Through their analysis, they uncover valuable insights into how scientific research proposals are evaluated and funded across different disciplines.

Comparing Performance Between Awardees and Rejects

The researchers 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 (those with higher citation impact than awardees), they discover that these individuals actually achieve higher citation impact than those who received funding. This suggests that decision makers should consider multiple criteria when assessing applications for funding opportunities.

Differences Between Life Sciences and Social Sciences

The study reveals differences between the two fields in terms of productivity as well. In life sciences, the awardees demonstrate better performance on average compared to the most preeminent rejected applicants; whereas in social sciences, it is reversed—the most preeminent rejected applicants exhibiting higher productivity than those who received funding.

Conclusion

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