IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0068258.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reviewers’ Ratings and Bibliometric Indicators: Hand in Hand When Assessing Over Research Proposals?

Author

Listed:
  • Álvaro Cabezas-Clavijo
  • Nicolás Robinson-García
  • Manuel Escabias
  • Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras

Abstract

Background: The peer review system has been traditionally challenged due to its many limitations especially for allocating funding. Bibliometric indicators may well present themselves as a complement. Objective: We analyze the relationship between peers’ ratings and bibliometric indicators for Spanish researchers in the 2007 National R&D Plan for 23 research fields. Methods and Materials: We analyze peers’ ratings for 2333 applications. We also gathered principal investigators’ research output and impact and studied the differences between accepted and rejected applications. We used the Web of Science database and focused on the 2002-2006 period. First, we analyzed the distribution of granted and rejected proposals considering a given set of bibliometric indicators to test if there are significant differences. Then, we applied a multiple logistic regression analysis to determine if bibliometric indicators can explain by themselves the concession of grant proposals. Results: 63.4% of the applications were funded. Bibliometric indicators for accepted proposals showed a better previous performance than for those rejected; however the correlation between peer review and bibliometric indicators is very heterogeneous among most areas. The logistic regression analysis showed that the main bibliometric indicators that explain the granting of research proposals in most cases are the output (number of published articles) and the number of papers published in journals that belong to the first quartile ranking of the Journal Citations Report. Discussion: Bibliometric indicators predict the concession of grant proposals at least as well as peer ratings. Social Sciences and Education are the only areas where no relation was found, although this may be due to the limitations of the Web of Science’s coverage. These findings encourage the use of bibliometric indicators as a complement to peer review in most of the analyzed areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Álvaro Cabezas-Clavijo & Nicolás Robinson-García & Manuel Escabias & Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras, 2013. "Reviewers’ Ratings and Bibliometric Indicators: Hand in Hand When Assessing Over Research Proposals?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-1, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0068258
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068258
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0068258
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0068258&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0068258?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:plo:pone00:0068258. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.