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
Authors
Bibliographic Details
- Journal:
- AUSTRALIAN PSYCHOLOGIST
- Volume:
- 42
- Issue:
- 1
- Pages:
- 33-38
- Publication date:
- 2007-03-01
- DOI:
- EISSN:
-
1742-9544
- ISSN:
-
0005-0067
- Source identifiers:
-
103370
Item Description
- Language:
- English
- Pubs id:
-
pubs:103370
- UUID:
-
uuid:b799c7da-43a3-4bc4-9d0e-860ab9301d86
- Local pid:
- pubs:103370
- Deposit date:
- 2012-12-19
Terms of use
- Copyright date:
- 2007
If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record