IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v24y2015i3p271-281..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Defining the role of cognitive distance in the peer review process with an explorative study of a grant scheme in infection biology

Author

Listed:
  • Qi Wang
  • Ulf Sandström

Abstract

The aim of this article is twofold: (1) to provide a methodology for measurement of cognitive distance between researchers and (2) to explore the role of cognitive distance on the results of peer review processes. Cited references and the content of articles are used to represent their respective scientific knowledge bases. Based on the two different approaches—Author-Bibliographic Coupling analysis and Author-Topic analysis—we apply the methodology on a recent competition for grants from the Swedish Strategic Foundation. Results indicate that cognitive distances between applicants and reviewers might influence peer review results, but that the impact is to some extent at the unexpected end. The main contribution of this article is the elaboration on the relevance of the concept of cognitive distance to the issue of research evaluation in general, and especially in relation to peer review as a model used in grant decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Qi Wang & Ulf Sandström, 2015. "Defining the role of cognitive distance in the peer review process with an explorative study of a grant scheme in infection biology," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 271-281.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:24:y:2015:i:3:p:271-281.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvv009
    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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rousseau, Ronald & Guns, Raf & Rahman, A.I.M. Jakaria & Engels, Tim C.E., 2017. "Measuring cognitive distance between publication portfolios," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 583-594.
    2. Gerald Schweiger & Adrian Barnett & Peter van den Besselaar & Lutz Bornmann & Andreas De Block & John P. A. Ioannidis & Ulf Sandstrom & Stijn Conix, 2024. "The Costs of Competition in Distributing Scarce Research Funds," Papers 2403.16934, arXiv.org.
    3. Varsha Singh, 2018. "Comparing research productivity of returnee-PhDs in science, engineering, and the social sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1241-1252, June.
    4. Carla Mara Hilário & Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio & Daniel Martínez-Ávila & Dietmar Wolfram, 2023. "Authorship order as an indicator of similarity between article discourse and author citation identity in informetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5389-5410, October.
    5. Peter van den Besselaar & Ulf Sandström & Hélène Schiffbaenker, 2018. "Studying grant decision-making: a linguistic analysis of review reports," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 313-329, October.
    6. A. I. M. Jakaria Rahman & Raf Guns & Loet Leydesdorff & Tim C. E. Engels, 2016. "Measuring the match between evaluators and evaluees: cognitive distances between panel members and research groups at the journal level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1639-1663, December.

    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:24:y:2015:i:3:p:271-281.. 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.