|
Abstract:
|
The currently low funding success rates at many granting agencies has put both peer reviewers and research funders in a conundrum, where they are forced to differentiate proposals of similar quality. Reviewers often assess proposal quality through the use of pre-defined criteria, resulting in a numeric, subjective rating of its merit. Given reported issues of poor reliability and difficulty in the interpretation of scores, asking reviewers to comparatively rank proposals that they would like to see funded could help to more objectively discriminate between similarly-scoring proposals, and aid the funding decision process. We will speak about our first-hand experiences with ranking in grant peer review.
|
