Peer review-based selection decisions in individual research funding, applicants' publication strategies and performance: The case of the ERC Starting Grants

Unknown author

44 citations0/0 files storedResearch Evaluation

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

scientometrics and bibliometrics research Research, Science, and Academia Psychology Research and Bibliometrics

Abstract

This article investigates the dependence of funding decisions on past publication performance amongst applicants for the Starting Grants Programme, offered by the European Research Council. Publication data will be contrasted with individual publication strategies generated by an online survey. The empirical results will be discussed against the background of evaluation studies on similar funding schemes for young scientists (Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds; Bornmann and Daniel 2007, Individual Grant for the Advancement of Research Leaders: Melin and Danell 2006, and the Emmy Noether-Programme (ENP): Hornbostel et al. 2009, Neufeld and von Ins 2011]. Most of these studies focus on the respective peer review system by bibliometrically investigating its ability to select the ‘best’ applicants for funding, although they come to different results. However, an overview of the studies reveals that potential differences in the past publication performance between approved and rejected applicants depend not only on selection decisions (or the peer review) but also on further programme-specific factors such as finiteness/openness of the overall budget and the level of self- or ‘pre-selection’ amongst potential applicants. As the European Research Council Starting Grants is a highly prestigious international funding programme for young scientists with demanding eligibility requirements and low acceptance rates, it constitutes a unique case study for further investigating the relationship between peer review-based selection decisions and applicants’ publication performance.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 44 citations exist upstream.

References

2006The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor 2010Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations 2010Bibliometrics as a Performance Measurement Tool for Research Evaluation: The Case of Research Funded by the National Cancer Institute of Canada 2008Does the Committee Peer Review Select the Best Applicants for Funding? An Investigation of the Selection Process for Two European Molecular Biology Organization Programmes 2006The top eight percent: development of approved and rejected applicants for a prestigious grant in Sweden 2007Convergent validation of peer review decisions using the h indexExtent of and reasons for type I and type II errors 2010There are neither “king” nor “crown” in scientometrics: Comments on a supposed “alternative” method of normalization 2008Funding of young scientist and scientific excellence

Cited by

2017Toward predicting research proposal success 2014Bibliometric indicators of young authors in astrophysics: Can later stars be predicted?2019Effects of seniority, gender and geography on the bibliometric output and collaboration networks of European Research Council (ERC) grant recipients 2019European Research Council: excellence and leadership over time from a gender perspective

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.