Journal article icon

Journal article

Peer review process: Assessments by applicant-nominated referees are biased, inflated, unreliable and invalid

Abstract:

How trustworthy are peer reviews by applicant-nominated assessors (ANAs)? For Australian Research Council (ARC) proposals (N = 2,330) with at least one ANA and one assessor nominated by the funding panel (PNAs), ANAs gave substantially higher ratings in all nine discipline panels (covering sciences, social sciences, and humanities). Compared to reviews by PNAs, ANA ratings were less related to ratings by other assessors, less related to the ARC final assessment, and contributed to the unrelia...

Expand abstract
Publication status:
Published

Actions


Access Document


Publisher copy:
10.1080/00050060600823275

Authors


More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Department:
Oxford, SSD, Education
Role:
Author
Journal:
AUSTRALIAN PSYCHOLOGIST
Volume:
42
Issue:
1
Pages:
33-38
Publication date:
2007-03-05
DOI:
EISSN:
1742-9544
ISSN:
0005-0067
URN:
uuid:b799c7da-43a3-4bc4-9d0e-860ab9301d86
Source identifiers:
103370
Local pid:
pubs:103370
Language:
English

Terms of use


Metrics


Views and Downloads






If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record

TO TOP