Literature DB >> 12564746

The nonuse of psychological research at two federal agencies.

Hal R Arkes1.   

Abstract

In 1994 the Government Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report critical of some features of the proposal review processes at the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. I provide two examples of procedures the agencies could have adopted to address the GAO's criticisms. I also relate the history of the two agencies' reluctance to use the psychological research literature to guide them as their new review procedures were instituted. Finally, I enumerate possible reasons for the agencies' decision not to follow or even test suggestions based on the judgment and decision-making research literature.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12564746     DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.01410

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Sci        ISSN: 0956-7976


  3 in total

1.  Peer review, program officers and science funding.

Authors:  Paul J Roebber; David M Schultz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-04-12       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Do author-suggested reviewers rate submissions more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers? A study on atmospheric chemistry and physics.

Authors:  Lutz Bornmann; Hans-Dieter Daniel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-10-14       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Is it time for studying real-life debiasing? Evaluation of the effectiveness of an analogical intervention technique.

Authors:  Balazs Aczel; Bence Bago; Aba Szollosi; Andrei Foldes; Bence Lukacs
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-08-04
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.