↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Peer Review of Grant Applications: A Simple Method to Identify Proposals with Discordant Reviews

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Peer Review of Grant Applications: A Simple Method to Identify Proposals with Discordant Reviews
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0027557
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruno Giraudeau, Clémence Leyrat, Amélie Le Gouge, Julie Léger, Agnès Caille

Abstract

Grant proposals submitted for funding are usually selected by a peer-review rating process. Some proposals may result in discordant peer-review ratings and therefore require discussion by the selection committee members. The issue is which peer-review ratings are considered as discordant. We propose a simple method to identify such proposals. Our approach is based on the intraclass correlation coefficient, which is usually used in assessing agreement in studies with continuous ratings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 6%
Spain 2 6%
Canada 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Belgium 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 26 76%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 21%
Researcher 6 18%
Professor 5 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 9%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Other 9 26%
Unknown 5 15%