A retrospective analysis of the peer review of more than 75,000 Marie Curie proposals between 2007 and 2018
Most funding agencies rely on peer review to evaluate grant applications and proposals, but research into the use of this process by funding agencies has been limited. Here we explore if two changes to the organization of peer review for proposals submitted to various funding actions by the European...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
eLife Sciences Publications Ltd
2021-01-01
|
| Series: | eLife |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://elifesciences.org/articles/59338 |
| _version_ | 1818028313350766592 |
|---|---|
| author | David G Pina Ivan Buljan Darko Hren Ana Marušić |
| author_facet | David G Pina Ivan Buljan Darko Hren Ana Marušić |
| author_sort | David G Pina |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Most funding agencies rely on peer review to evaluate grant applications and proposals, but research into the use of this process by funding agencies has been limited. Here we explore if two changes to the organization of peer review for proposals submitted to various funding actions by the European Union has an influence on the outcome of the peer review process. Based on an analysis of more than 75,000 applications to three actions of the Marie Curie programme over a period of 12 years, we find that the changes – a reduction in the number of evaluation criteria used by reviewers and a move from in-person to virtual meetings – had little impact on the outcome of the peer review process. Our results indicate that other factors, such as the type of grant or area of research, have a larger impact on the outcome. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-10T05:01:48Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-728ec30c13804eac99a0d4999d26f8d6 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2050-084X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-10T05:01:48Z |
| publishDate | 2021-01-01 |
| publisher | eLife Sciences Publications Ltd |
| record_format | Article |
| series | eLife |
| spelling | doaj.art-728ec30c13804eac99a0d4999d26f8d62022-12-22T02:01:21ZengeLife Sciences Publications LtdeLife2050-084X2021-01-011010.7554/eLife.59338A retrospective analysis of the peer review of more than 75,000 Marie Curie proposals between 2007 and 2018David G Pina0https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4930-748XIvan Buljan1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8719-7277Darko Hren2https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6465-6568Ana Marušić3https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6272-0917Research Executive Agency, European Commission, Brussels, BelgiumDepartment for Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, CroatiaDepartment of Psychology, University of Split School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Split, CroatiaDepartment for Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, CroatiaMost funding agencies rely on peer review to evaluate grant applications and proposals, but research into the use of this process by funding agencies has been limited. Here we explore if two changes to the organization of peer review for proposals submitted to various funding actions by the European Union has an influence on the outcome of the peer review process. Based on an analysis of more than 75,000 applications to three actions of the Marie Curie programme over a period of 12 years, we find that the changes – a reduction in the number of evaluation criteria used by reviewers and a move from in-person to virtual meetings – had little impact on the outcome of the peer review process. Our results indicate that other factors, such as the type of grant or area of research, have a larger impact on the outcome.https://elifesciences.org/articles/59338meta-researchpeer reviewgrant evaluationMarie Skłodowska-Curie Actionsreviewer agreementresearch funding |
| spellingShingle | David G Pina Ivan Buljan Darko Hren Ana Marušić A retrospective analysis of the peer review of more than 75,000 Marie Curie proposals between 2007 and 2018 eLife meta-research peer review grant evaluation Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions reviewer agreement research funding |
| title | A retrospective analysis of the peer review of more than 75,000 Marie Curie proposals between 2007 and 2018 |
| title_full | A retrospective analysis of the peer review of more than 75,000 Marie Curie proposals between 2007 and 2018 |
| title_fullStr | A retrospective analysis of the peer review of more than 75,000 Marie Curie proposals between 2007 and 2018 |
| title_full_unstemmed | A retrospective analysis of the peer review of more than 75,000 Marie Curie proposals between 2007 and 2018 |
| title_short | A retrospective analysis of the peer review of more than 75,000 Marie Curie proposals between 2007 and 2018 |
| title_sort | retrospective analysis of the peer review of more than 75 000 marie curie proposals between 2007 and 2018 |
| topic | meta-research peer review grant evaluation Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions reviewer agreement research funding |
| url | https://elifesciences.org/articles/59338 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT davidgpina aretrospectiveanalysisofthepeerreviewofmorethan75000mariecurieproposalsbetween2007and2018 AT ivanbuljan aretrospectiveanalysisofthepeerreviewofmorethan75000mariecurieproposalsbetween2007and2018 AT darkohren aretrospectiveanalysisofthepeerreviewofmorethan75000mariecurieproposalsbetween2007and2018 AT anamarusic aretrospectiveanalysisofthepeerreviewofmorethan75000mariecurieproposalsbetween2007and2018 AT davidgpina retrospectiveanalysisofthepeerreviewofmorethan75000mariecurieproposalsbetween2007and2018 AT ivanbuljan retrospectiveanalysisofthepeerreviewofmorethan75000mariecurieproposalsbetween2007and2018 AT darkohren retrospectiveanalysisofthepeerreviewofmorethan75000mariecurieproposalsbetween2007and2018 AT anamarusic retrospectiveanalysisofthepeerreviewofmorethan75000mariecurieproposalsbetween2007and2018 |