Bibliometric indicators to assist the peer review process in grant decisions

Grant Lewison, Robert Cottrell, Diane Dixon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The Wellcome Trust has been using bibliometrics for the last three years to inform the panel that makes decisions on longer-term research grants in neurosciences. These compare an applicant's publications with those of a handful of scientific peers, and citations to these papers compared with a norm group in the applicant's subfield. This paper reports three surveys, two of panel members and one of applicants, to determine their knowledge and views of bibliometrics and of which indicators were the most useful. More than two-thirds of the respondents were in favour of using bibliometrics. They considered citation scores and journal-impact category rankings as being the most helpful. The panel has now decided to continue using bibliometric indicators but to simplify the analysis to make it more cost-effective.

LanguageEnglish
Pages47-52
Number of pages6
JournalResearch Evaluation
Volume8
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 1999

Fingerprint

peer review
applicant
grant
group norm
neurosciences
ranking
costs

Keywords

  • peer review process
  • bibliometrics
  • research grants

Cite this

Lewison, Grant ; Cottrell, Robert ; Dixon, Diane. / Bibliometric indicators to assist the peer review process in grant decisions. In: Research Evaluation. 1999 ; Vol. 8, No. 1. pp. 47-52.
@article{1f43fdf19b5149fea676b96a7b5da532,
title = "Bibliometric indicators to assist the peer review process in grant decisions",
abstract = "The Wellcome Trust has been using bibliometrics for the last three years to inform the panel that makes decisions on longer-term research grants in neurosciences. These compare an applicant's publications with those of a handful of scientific peers, and citations to these papers compared with a norm group in the applicant's subfield. This paper reports three surveys, two of panel members and one of applicants, to determine their knowledge and views of bibliometrics and of which indicators were the most useful. More than two-thirds of the respondents were in favour of using bibliometrics. They considered citation scores and journal-impact category rankings as being the most helpful. The panel has now decided to continue using bibliometric indicators but to simplify the analysis to make it more cost-effective.",
keywords = "peer review process, bibliometrics, research grants",
author = "Grant Lewison and Robert Cottrell and Diane Dixon",
year = "1999",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3152/147154499781777621",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
pages = "47--52",
journal = "Educational Research and Evaluation",
issn = "1380-3611",
number = "1",

}

Bibliometric indicators to assist the peer review process in grant decisions. / Lewison, Grant; Cottrell, Robert; Dixon, Diane.

In: Research Evaluation, Vol. 8, No. 1, 01.01.1999, p. 47-52.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bibliometric indicators to assist the peer review process in grant decisions

AU - Lewison, Grant

AU - Cottrell, Robert

AU - Dixon, Diane

PY - 1999/1/1

Y1 - 1999/1/1

N2 - The Wellcome Trust has been using bibliometrics for the last three years to inform the panel that makes decisions on longer-term research grants in neurosciences. These compare an applicant's publications with those of a handful of scientific peers, and citations to these papers compared with a norm group in the applicant's subfield. This paper reports three surveys, two of panel members and one of applicants, to determine their knowledge and views of bibliometrics and of which indicators were the most useful. More than two-thirds of the respondents were in favour of using bibliometrics. They considered citation scores and journal-impact category rankings as being the most helpful. The panel has now decided to continue using bibliometric indicators but to simplify the analysis to make it more cost-effective.

AB - The Wellcome Trust has been using bibliometrics for the last three years to inform the panel that makes decisions on longer-term research grants in neurosciences. These compare an applicant's publications with those of a handful of scientific peers, and citations to these papers compared with a norm group in the applicant's subfield. This paper reports three surveys, two of panel members and one of applicants, to determine their knowledge and views of bibliometrics and of which indicators were the most useful. More than two-thirds of the respondents were in favour of using bibliometrics. They considered citation scores and journal-impact category rankings as being the most helpful. The panel has now decided to continue using bibliometric indicators but to simplify the analysis to make it more cost-effective.

KW - peer review process

KW - bibliometrics

KW - research grants

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0344151580&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3152/147154499781777621

DO - 10.3152/147154499781777621

M3 - Article

VL - 8

SP - 47

EP - 52

JO - Educational Research and Evaluation

T2 - Educational Research and Evaluation

JF - Educational Research and Evaluation

SN - 1380-3611

IS - 1

ER -