Assigning evaluators to research grant applications: the case of Slovak Research and Development Agency

What works for peer review and decision-making in research funding: a realist synthesis

INTRODUCTION

Allocation of research funds relies on peer review to support funding decisions, and these processes can be susceptible to biases and inefficiencies. The aim of this work was to determine which past interventions to peer review and decision-making have worked to improve research funding practices, how they worked, and for whom.

METHODS

Realist synthesis of peer-review publications and grey literature reporting interventions in peer review for research funding.

RESULTS

We analysed 96 publications and 36 website sources. Sixty publications enabled us to extract stakeholder-specific context-mechanism-outcomes configurations (CMOCs) for 50 interventions, which formed the basis of our synthesis. Shorter applications, reviewer and applicant training, virtual funding panels, enhanced decision models, institutional submission quotas, applicant training in peer review and grant-writing reduced interrater variability, increased relevance of funded research, reduced time taken to write and review applications, promoted increased investment into innovation, and lowered cost of panels.

CONCLUSIONS

Reports of 50 interventions in different areas of peer review provide useful guidance on ways of solving common issues with the peer review process. Evidence of the broader impact of these interventions on the research ecosystem is still needed, and future research should aim to identify processes that consistently work to improve peer review across funders and research contexts.

Factors influencing the scientific performance of Momentum grant holders: an evaluation of the first 117 research groups

The Momentum program launched in 2009 provides funding of up to 1 million Euro to establish new, independent research groups at Hungarian academic institutions. Here, our aim was to determine factors associated with the scientific output of these research groups. Publication data were downloaded from the Hungarian Scientific Work Archive (www.mtmt.hu), impact factor data were obtained from Thomson Reuters (jcr.incites.thomsonreuters.com), and journal ranks were extracted from the Scimago Journal Rank database (www.scimagojr.com). Investigated input features for each grant holder include gender, degree, targeted category, international mobility, international grants, number of publications, total number of citations, H-index, best publications, impact factors in the last 2 years, and assessment scores provided by the experts. Evaluated performance indicators include cumulative impact factor, number of D1 publications, and number of first/last author D1 publications during the grant running time. Grant holders’ publication output increased by 23 and 52% for life sciences and material sciences researchers. Scientific performance was independent from gender, degree, international grants, category applied for, and citations received for the best pre-grant publication. Those with international mobility had significantly lower scientific output (yearly impact factor, number of D1 publications, number of first/last author publications). Scores received from grant review experts were independent from later publication activity. The strongest correlations were observed between scientific output and total number of citations, H-index, and impact factor in the last 2 years pre-grant. In summary, group leaders with a dynamic publication track record were able to attain the most additional momentum. Our results can help accelerate and improve future grant review processes.