TY - JOUR
KW - Black box
KW - Grant proposal
KW - Grant review panels
KW - Peer review process
KW - Research funding
AU - John Coveney
AU - Danielle L. Herbert
AU - Kathy Hill
AU - Karen E. Mow
AU - Nicholas Graves
AU - Adrian Barnett
AB - In Australia, the peer review process for competitive funding is usually conducted by a peer review group in conjunction with prior assessment from external assessors. This process is quite mysterious to those outside it. The purpose of this research was to throw light on grant review panels (sometimes called the ‘black box’) through an examination of the impact of panel procedures, panel composition and panel dynamics on the decision-making in the grant review process. A further purpose was to compare experience of a simplified review process with more conventional processes used in assessing grant proposals in Australia.
BT - Research Integrity and Peer Review
DA - 2017-12-04
DO - 10.1186/s41073-017-0043-x
IS - 1
N2 - In Australia, the peer review process for competitive funding is usually conducted by a peer review group in conjunction with prior assessment from external assessors. This process is quite mysterious to those outside it. The purpose of this research was to throw light on grant review panels (sometimes called the ‘black box’) through an examination of the impact of panel procedures, panel composition and panel dynamics on the decision-making in the grant review process. A further purpose was to compare experience of a simplified review process with more conventional processes used in assessing grant proposals in Australia.
PY - 2017
EP - 19
ST - ‘Are you siding with a personality or the grant proposal?
T2 - Research Integrity and Peer Review
TI - ‘Are you siding with a personality or the grant proposal?’: observations on how peer review panels function
UR - https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0043-x
VL - 2
Y2 - 2024-12-12
SN - 2058-8615
ER -