A multilevel cross-classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: the effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings
about
Do author-suggested reviewers rate submissions more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers? A study on atmospheric chemistry and physicsThe Influence of Peer Reviewer Expertise on the Evaluation of Research Funding ApplicationsWomen in Academic Science: A Changing LandscapeMechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitismThe Impacts of Ignoring a Crossed Factor in Analyzing Cross-Classified Data.Heterogeneity of inter-rater reliabilities of grant peer reviews and its determinants: a general estimating equations approachTeleconference versus face-to-face scientific peer review of grant application: effects on review outcomes.Peer Review Evaluation Process of Marie Curie Actions under EU's Seventh Framework Programme for ResearchAre Social Scientists Harder on Their Colleagues Than Physical Scientists Were on Theirs in the Past? Commentary on Trafimow & Rice (2009).Impact of Not Addressing Partially Cross-Classified Multilevel Structure in Testing Measurement Invariance: A Monte Carlo Study.The impact of omitting the interaction between crossed factors in cross-classified random effects modelling.What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?A SIMULATION OF DISAGREEMENT FOR CONTROL OF RATIONAL CHEATING IN PEER REVIEWAnd the winner is … : inter-rater reliability among scholarship assessorsCitation gamesmanship: testing for evidence of ego bias in peer reviewAuthor-suggested reviewers: gender differences and influences on the peer review process at an ecology journalPeer review process: Assessments by applicant-nominated referees are biased, inflated, unreliable and invalid
P2860
Q21091101-D7745A1C-4077-499F-BC29-BF825105E522Q28109661-B02AB510-A6F7-49A0-ADD2-8D9C791EC233Q28265069-182E4B19-A878-41E8-8A0E-9348EDDF1829Q28657604-53AF1E63-CF4C-479F-9BF3-F7858B28610CQ31036298-28493A70-5E4D-41BF-8588-765816D5B9D0Q34465202-4EA43FCC-C2E9-48B7-A80C-350063B4525AQ34950354-E8758C53-9E54-4F48-9609-BCC0278A97DCQ35678788-779CA994-F7FA-471D-A03E-DC4B7BC59F65Q38544413-77268D50-E605-4C7F-BD9B-83CFDDC72024Q39376236-EBE9DD5D-6806-41CB-BDFA-95499218E525Q51850734-D9E5BE4C-AAF9-4048-8DC7-3AFB8349F6ADQ53282277-A597735E-DC28-4AEB-8FE7-FD7EBD386CD3Q56854678-5994D133-F93D-4069-B7CC-6BB9C339D23EQ57198085-39B7B109-4CB1-4758-A520-C5EAD98DAA83Q57768454-F98AA2DC-4410-460C-AE7B-4611CC99B1D1Q58042235-6AD8E0E1-A1CA-4248-9C68-E960766D516AQ59153422-F3503C66-460F-4D22-A90D-8E81849DB4A0
P2860
A multilevel cross-classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: the effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings
description
article
@en
im Oktober 2003 veröffentlichter wissenschaftlicher Artikel
@de
wetenschappelijk artikel
@nl
наукова стаття, опублікована в жовтні 2003
@uk
name
A multilevel cross-classified ...... attributes on assessor ratings
@en
A multilevel cross-classified ...... attributes on assessor ratings
@nl
type
label
A multilevel cross-classified ...... attributes on assessor ratings
@en
A multilevel cross-classified ...... attributes on assessor ratings
@nl
prefLabel
A multilevel cross-classified ...... attributes on assessor ratings
@en
A multilevel cross-classified ...... attributes on assessor ratings
@nl
P2860
P356
P1476
A multilevel cross-classified ...... attributes on assessor ratings
@en
P2093
Nigel Bond
Upali W. Jayasinghe
P2860
P304
P356
10.1111/1467-985X.00278
P407
P577
2003-10-01T00:00:00Z