Literature DB >> 17874983

NHMRC grant applications: a comparison of "track record" scores allocated by grant assessors with bibliometric analysis of publications.

Marcus B Nicol1, Kumara Henadeera, Linda Butler.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the correlation between the publication "track record" score of applicants for National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) project grants and bibliometric measures of the same publication output; and to compare the publication outputs of recipients of NHMRC program grants with those of recipients under other NHMRC grant schemes.
DESIGN: For a 15% random sample of 2000 and 2001 project grant applications, applicants' publication track record scores (assigned by grant assessors) were compared with bibliometric data relating to publications issued in the previous 6 years. Bibliometric measures included total publications, total citations, and citations per publication. The program grants scheme underwent a major revision in 2001 to better support broadly based collaborative research programs. For all successful 2001 and 2002 program grant applications, a citation analysis was undertaken, and the results were compared with citation data on NHMRC grant recipients from other funding schemes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Correlation between publication track record scores and bibliometric indicators.
RESULTS: The correlation between mean project-grant track record scores and all bibliometric indicators was poor and below statistically significant levels. Recipients of program grants had a strong citation record compared with recipients under other NHMRC funding schemes.
CONCLUSION: The poor correlation between track record scores and bibliometric measures for project grant applications suggests that factors other than publication history may influence the assignment of track record scores.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17874983     DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb01279.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med J Aust        ISSN: 0025-729X            Impact factor:   7.738


  3 in total

1.  Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada.

Authors:  Robyn Tamblyn; Nadyne Girard; Christina J Qian; James Hanley
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers.

Authors:  Danielle L Herbert; Adrian G Barnett; Philip Clarke; Nicholas Graves
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-05-28       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Using simplified peer review processes to fund research: a prospective study.

Authors:  Danielle L Herbert; Nicholas Graves; Philip Clarke; Adrian G Barnett
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 2.692

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.