IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v18y2009i4p273-288.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Past performance, peer review and project selection: a case study in the social and behavioral sciences

Author

Listed:
  • Peter van den Besselaar
  • Loet Leydesdorff

Abstract

Does past performance influence success in grant applications? We tested whether the decisions of the Netherlands Research Council for the Economic and Social Sciences correlate with the past performances of applicants in publications and citations, and with the results of the Council's peer reviews. The Council proves successful in distinguishing grant applicants with above-average from below-average performance, but within the former group there was no correlation between past performance and receiving a grant. When comparing the best-performing researchers who were denied funding with those who received it, the rejected researchers significantly outperformed the funded ones. The best rejected proposals score on average as high on the outcomes of the peer-review process as the accepted proposals. The Council successfully corrected for gender effects during the selection process. We explain why these findings may apply beyond this case. However, if research councils are not able to select the ‘best’ researchers, perhaps they should reconsider their mission. We discuss the role of research councils in the science system in terms of variation, innovation and quality control. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter van den Besselaar & Loet Leydesdorff, 2009. "Past performance, peer review and project selection: a case study in the social and behavioral sciences," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(4), pages 273-288, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:18:y:2009:i:4:p:273-288
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820209X475360
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:18:y:2009:i:4:p:273-288. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.