Universidad de Granada Digibug

Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Granada >
1.-Investigación >
Departamentos, Grupos de Investigación e Institutos >
Grupo: EC3. Evaluación de la Ciencia y la Comunicación Científica (HUM777) >
EC3 - Artículos >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10481/29534

Title: Reviewers’ ratings and bibliometric indicators: hand in hand when assessing over research proposals?
Authors: Cabezas-Clavijo, Álvaro
Robinson-García, Nicolás
Escabias-Machuca, Manuel
Jiménez-Contreras, Evaristo
Issue Date: Jun-2013
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
Description: The authors would like to thank Rodrigo Costas and Antonio Callaba de Roa for their helpful comments in previous version of this paper as well as the two anonymous reviewers for the constructive comments. We would also like to thank Bryan J. Robinson for revising the text. Nicolas Robinson-García is currently supported with a FPU grant from the Spanish government, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad.
Keywords: Bibliometric indicators
Peer review
Grant proposals
Research funding
Research policy
Evaluation agencies
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10481/29534
Rights : Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License
Citation: Cabezas-Clavijo Á, Robinson-García N, Escabias M, Jiménez-Contreras E (2013) Reviewers’ Ratings and Bibliometric Indicators: Hand in Hand When Assessing Over Research Proposals?. PLoS ONE 8(6): e68258. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068258. [http://hdl.handle.net/10481/29534]
Appears in Collections:EC3 - Artículos

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
postprint.pdf751.87 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Recommend this item

This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License
Creative Commons

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.


Valid XHTML 1.0! OpenAire compliant DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2007 MIT and Hewlett-Packard - Feedback

© Universidad de Granada