Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.authorCabezas-Clavijo, Álvaro
dc.contributor.authorRobinson García, Nicolás 
dc.contributor.authorEscabias-Machuca, Manuel
dc.contributor.authorJiménez Contreras, Evaristo 
dc.date.accessioned2013-12-03T13:04:08Z
dc.date.available2013-12-03T13:04:08Z
dc.date.issued2013-06
dc.identifier.citationCabezas-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]es_ES
dc.identifier.otherdoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068258
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10481/29534
dc.descriptionThe 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.es_ES
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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 areases_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Licensees
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es
dc.subjectBibliometric indicatorses_ES
dc.subjectPeer reviewes_ES
dc.subjectSpaines_ES
dc.subjectGrant proposalses_ES
dc.subjectResearch fundinges_ES
dc.subjectResearch policyes_ES
dc.subjectEvaluation agencieses_ES
dc.titleReviewers’ ratings and bibliometric indicators: hand in hand when assessing over research proposals?es_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES


Ficheros en el ítem

[PDF]

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License
Excepto si se señala otra cosa, la licencia del ítem se describe como Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License