A retrospective analysis of the peer review of more than 75,000 Marie Curie proposals between 2007 and 2018

Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency

(2019) Holly O Witteman et al.   LANCET

The troubles with peer review for allocating research funding

(2019) Sandra Bendiscioli   EMBO REPORTS

Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency

(2018) Jonathan Shepherd et al.   PLoS One

Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications

(2018) Elizabeth L. Pier et al.   PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Inter-rater reliability and validity of peer reviews in an interdisciplinary field

(2017) Jens Jirschitzka et al.   SCIENTOMETRICS

Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success

(2016) Lindell Bromham et al.   NATURE

NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity

(2016) Ferric C Fang et al.   eLife

Peer Review Evaluation Process of Marie Curie Actions under EU’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research

(2015) David G. Pina et al.   PLoS One

Examining the Predictive Validity of NIH Peer Review Scores

(2015) Mark D. Lindner et al.   PLoS One

Big names or big ideas: Do peer-review panels select the best science proposals?

(2015) D. Li et al.   SCIENCE

A retrospective analysis of the effect of discussion in teleconference and face-to-face scientific peer-review panels

(2015) Afton S Carpenter et al.   BMJ Open

Early career grants, performance, and careers: A study on predictive validity of grant decisions

(2015) Peter van den Besselaar et al.   Journal of Informetrics

Grant Peer Review: Improving Inter-Rater Reliability with Training

(2015) David N. Sattler et al.   PLoS One

The Validation of Peer Review through Research Impact Measures and the Implications for Funding Strategies

(2014) Stephen A. Gallo et al.   PLoS One

Scientific peer review

(2013) Lutz Bornmann   ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Substantial Agreement of Referee Recommendations at a General Medical Journal – A Peer Review Evaluation at Deutsches Ärzteblatt International

(2013) Christopher Baethge et al.   PLoS One

Teleconference versus Face-to-Face Scientific Peer Review of Grant Application: Effects on Review Outcomes

(2013) Stephen A. Gallo et al.   PLoS One

Bias in peer review

(2012) Carole J. Lee et al.   JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Research efficiency: Turn the scientific method on ourselves

(2012) Pierre Azoulay   NATURE

Peer Review of Grant Applications: Criteria Used and Qualitative Study of Reviewer Practices

(2012) Hendy Abdoul et al.   PLoS One

Heterogeneity of Inter-Rater Reliabilities of Grant Peer Reviews and Its Determinants: A General Estimating Equations Approach

(2012) Rüdiger Mutz et al.   PLoS One

Panel discussion does not improve reliability of peer review for medical research grant proposals

(2011) Mikael Fogelholm et al.   JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

The Validity of Peer Review in a General Medicine Journal

(2011) Jeffrey L. Jackson et al.   PLoS One

An Analysis of Preliminary and Post-Discussion Priority Scores for Grant Applications Peer Reviewed by the Center for Scientific Review at the NIH

(2010) Michael R. Martin et al.   PLoS One

A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants

(2010) Lutz Bornmann et al.   PLoS One

Peer review of grant applications in biology and medicine. Reliability, fairness, and validity

(2009) Martin Reinhart   SCIENTOMETRICS

Sample Size and Precision in NIH Peer Review

(2008) David Kaplan et al.   PLoS One

Does the Committee Peer Review Select the Best Applicants for Funding? An Investigation of the Selection Process for Two European Molecular Biology Organization Programmes

(2008) Lutz Bornmann et al.   PLoS One