IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v45y1999i1d10.1007_bf02458466.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Blind review of research proposals in Korea: Its effectiveness and factors affecting applicant detection

Author

Listed:
  • M. Lee

    (Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology)

  • K. Om

    (Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology)

  • J. Koh

    (Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology)

Abstract

This article addresses the potential effectiveness of blind review in selecting and funding research proposals in a “scientifically small” country. By analyzing 474 responses of the blinded reviewers ever worked for Korea Science and Engineering Fund, it was found that blind review is fairly effective. About two thirds of the blinded reviewers were unable to recognize the applicants accurately. The applicant detection was affected by (1) physical age, (2) professional experience, and (3) geographical location of doctoral education of the applicant, (4) review experience, (5) rank of employing universities of the reviewers, and (6) similirity of research interest between an applicant and a reviewer. It was also found that blind review was more strongly advocated by those who had made a wrong guess or who had given up guessing. Implications of the findings and future research directions were discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • M. Lee & K. Om & J. Koh, 1999. "Blind review of research proposals in Korea: Its effectiveness and factors affecting applicant detection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 45(1), pages 17-31, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:45:y:1999:i:1:d:10.1007_bf02458466
    DOI: 10.1007/BF02458466
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF02458466
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF02458466?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
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lee, Mushin & Son, Byoungho & Om, Kiyong, 1996. "Evaluation of national R&D projects in Korea," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 805-818, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Katarína Cechlárová & Tamás Fleiner & Eva Potpinková, 2014. "Assigning evaluators to research grant applications: the case of Slovak Research and Development Agency," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(2), pages 495-506, May.
    2. Mushin Lee & Kiyong Om & Joon Koh, 2000. "The Bias of Sighted Reviewers in Research Proposal Evaluation: A Comparative Analysis of Blind and Open Review in Korea," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 48(1), pages 99-116, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kiwon Lee & Suchul Lee, 2023. "Enhancing R&D Performance Management: A Case of R&D Projects in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-14, July.
    2. Takahiro NISHI, 2015. "Corporate diversification and board composition in Japanese electronics corporations," International Journal of Business and Management, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences, vol. 3(2), pages 27-44, May.
    3. Sharon Poczter, 2017. "Rethinking the government as innovator: Evidence from Asian firms," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 367-397, June.
    4. Lee, Hakyeon & Park, Yongtae & Choi, Hoogon, 2009. "Comparative evaluation of performance of national R&D programs with heterogeneous objectives: A DEA approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 196(3), pages 847-855, August.
    5. Mushin Lee & Kiyong Om & Joon Koh, 2000. "The Bias of Sighted Reviewers in Research Proposal Evaluation: A Comparative Analysis of Blind and Open Review in Korea," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 48(1), pages 99-116, June.
    6. Bae, Sung Joo & Lee, Hyeonsuh, 2020. "The role of government in fostering collaborative R&D projects: Empirical evidence from South Korea," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    7. Leonardo Sastoque Pinilla & Raúl Llorente Rodríguez & Nerea Toledo Gandarias & Luis Norberto López de Lacalle & Mahboobeh Ramezani Farokhad, 2019. "TRLs 5–7 Advanced Manufacturing Centres, Practical Model to Boost Technology Transfer in Manufacturing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-14, September.
    8. Sara Amoroso & Simone Vannuccini, 2019. "Teaming up with Large R&D Investors: Good or Bad for Knowledge Production and Diffusion?," SPRU Working Paper Series 2019-20, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    9. Noh, Heeyong & Seo, Ju-Hwan & Sun Yoo, Hyoung & Lee, Sungjoo, 2018. "How to improve a technology evaluation model: A data-driven approach," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 72, pages 1-12.
    10. Sakakibara, Mariko & Cho, Dong-Sung, 2002. "Cooperative R&D in Japan and Korea: a comparison of industrial policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 673-692, July.
    11. Kyoungmi Lee & Sunglok Choi & Jae-Suk Yang, 2021. "Can expensive research equipment boost research and development performances?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7715-7742, September.

    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:spr:scient:v:45:y:1999:i:1:d:10.1007_bf02458466. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.