Affordable Access

deepdyve-link
Publisher Website

A retrospective analysis of the peer review of more than 75,000 Marie Curie proposals between 2007 and 2018.

Authors
  • Pina, David G1
  • Buljan, Ivan2
  • Hren, Darko3
  • Marušić, Ana2
  • 1 Research Executive Agency, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. , (Belgium)
  • 2 Department for Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia. , (Croatia)
  • 3 Department of Psychology, University of Split School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Split, Croatia. , (Croatia)
Type
Published Article
Journal
eLife
Publisher
"eLife Sciences Organisation, Ltd."
Publication Date
Jan 13, 2021
Volume
10
Identifiers
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.59338
PMID: 33439120
Source
Medline
Keywords
Language
English
License
Unknown

Abstract

Most funding agencies rely on peer review to evaluate grant applications and proposals, but research into the use of this process by funding agencies has been limited. Here we explore if two changes to the organization of peer review for proposals submitted to various funding actions by the European Union has an influence on the outcome of the peer review process. Based on an analysis of more than 75,000 applications to three actions of the Marie Curie programme over a period of 12 years, we find that the changes - a reduction in the number of evaluation criteria used by reviewers and a move from in-person to virtual meetings - had little impact on the outcome of the peer review process. Our results indicate that other factors, such as the type of grant or area of research, have a larger impact on the outcome. © 2021, Pina et al.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times