Cargando…
NIH peer review: Criterion scores completely account for racial disparities in overall impact scores
Previous research has found that funding disparities are driven by applications’ final impact scores and that only a portion of the black/white funding gap can be explained by bibliometrics and topic choice. Using National Institutes of Health R01 applications for council years 2014–2016, we examine...
Autores principales: | Erosheva, Elena A., Grant, Sheridan, Chen, Mei-Ching, Lindner, Mark D., Nakamura, Richard K., Lee, Carole J. |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
American Association for the Advancement of Science
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7269672/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32537494 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz4868 |
Ejemplares similares
-
NIH Peer Review: Scored Review Criteria and Overall Impact
por: Lindner, Mark D., et al.
Publicado: (2015) -
Examining the Predictive Validity of NIH Peer Review Scores
por: Lindner, Mark D., et al.
Publicado: (2015) -
How Criterion Scores Predict the Overall Impact Score and Funding Outcomes for National Institutes of Health Peer-Reviewed Applications
por: Eblen, Matthew K., et al.
Publicado: (2016) -
Correction: Examining the Predictive Validity of NIH Peer Review Scores
Publicado: (2015) -
NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity
por: Fang, Ferric C, et al.
Publicado: (2016)