SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
FENS‐Kavli Network of Excellence: Postponed, non‐competitive peer review for research funding
16 references·0 citing·44 second hop
FENS‐Kavli Network of Excellence: Postponed, non‐competitive peer review for research funding (2022)FENS‐Kavli Network of Excellence: Postpon…Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions (2019)Contest models highlight inhe…Concentration or dispersal of research funding? (2019)Concentration or dispersal of…What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences? (2018)What do we know about grant p…The Matthew effect in science funding (2018)The Matthew effect in science…The changing forms and expectations of peer review (2018)The changing forms and expect…Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications (2018)Low agreement among reviewers…Funding, evaluation, and the performance of national research systems (2018)Funding, evaluation, and the …Research Funding: the Case for a Modified Lottery (2016)Research Funding: the Case fo…NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity (2016)NIH peer review percentile sc…Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science (2016)Looking Across and Looking Be…Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success (2016)Interdisciplinary research ha…On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers (2013)On the time spent preparing g…Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding (2013)Big Science vs. Little Scienc…Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel (2011)Funding grant proposals for s…Fund people not projects (2011)Fund people not projectsThe Matthew Effect in Science (1968)The Matthew Effect in ScienceA catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research (2009)Estimates of the Continuously Publishing Core in the Scientific Workforce (2014)Knowledge creation in collaboration networks: Effects of tie configuration (2015)The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. (1968)Evaluation, Policy Learning and Evidence‐Based Policy Making (2002)Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences (2011)How to Receive More Funding for Your Research? Get Connected to the Right People! (2015)Which gender gap? Factors affecting researchers’ scientific impact in science and medicine (2016)TALENT VERSUS LUCK: THE ROLE OF RANDOMNESS IN SUCCESS AND FAILURE (2018)Classical peer review: an empty gun (2010)Feminist scholars working around the neoliberal university (2017)Research portfolio analysis and topic prominence (2017)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)The value of research funding for knowledge creation and dissemination: A study of SNSF Research Grants (2021)A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society (2007)Analyzing interdisciplinarity: Typology and indicators (2009)The science of science: From the perspective of complex systems (2017)Science of science (2018)Machine behaviour (2019)Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests (1951)Answering the Call for a Standard Reliability Measure for Coding Data (2007)How Professors Think (2009)Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature (2020)The leaky pipeline in research grant peer review and funding decisions: challenges and future directions (2020)Chance and Consensus in Peer Review (1981)Resistance to Reform: Status Quo Bias in the Presence of Individual-Specific Uncertainty: Comment (2004)Systemic and Reflexive: Foundations of Cumulative Dis/Advantage and Life-Course Processes (2018)Topic choice contributes to the lower rate of NIH awards to African-American/black scientists (2019)Global citation inequality is on the rise (2021)Little Science, Big Science (1963)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Pandemic publishing: Medical journals strongly speed up their publication process for COVID-19 (2020)The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future (2024)The present and future of peer review: Ideas, interventions, and evidence (2025)Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (1975)Endogenous Technological Change (1990)Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning (1991)Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators (2017)Social Media and Their Affordances for Organizing: A Review and Agenda for Research (2017)Matthew Effects in Reading: Some Consequences of Individual Differences in the Acquisition of Literacy (1986)Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf's law (2005)The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge (2007)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1968The Matthew Effect in Science6,700 cited
  • 2018The Matthew effect in science funding636 cited
  • 2016Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success598 cited
  • 2016Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science483 cited
  • 2018Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications210 cited
  • 2013Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding189 cited
  • 2018The changing forms and expectations of peer review179 cited
  • 2016Research Funding: the Case for a Modified Lottery162 cited
  • 2011Fund people not projects158 cited
  • 2013On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers157 cited
  • 2011Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel134 cited
  • 2019Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions120 cited
  • 2019Concentration or dispersal of research funding?114 cited
  • 2016NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity111 cited
  • 2018What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

102 cited
  • 2018Funding, evaluation, and the performance of national research systems97 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.