全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...
PLOS ONE  2012 

Heterogeneity of Inter-Rater Reliabilities of Grant Peer Reviews and Its Determinants: A General Estimating Equations Approach

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048509

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

Background One of the most important weaknesses of the peer review process is that different reviewers’ ratings of the same grant proposal typically differ. Studies on the inter-rater reliability of peer reviews mostly report only average values across all submitted proposals. But inter-rater reliabilities can vary depending on the scientific discipline or the requested grant sum, for instance. Goal Taking the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) as an example, we aimed to investigate empirically the heterogeneity of inter-rater reliabilities (intraclass correlation) and its determinants. Methods The data consisted of N = 8,329 proposals with N = 23,414 overall ratings by reviewers, which were statistically analyzed using the generalized estimating equations approach (GEE). Results We found an overall intraclass correlation (ICC) of reviewer? ratings of ρ = .259 with a 95% confidence interval of [.249,.279]. In humanities the ICCs were statistically significantly higher than in all other research areas except technical sciences. The ICC in biosciences deviated statistically significantly from the average ICC. Other factors (besides the research areas), such as the grant sum requested, had negligible influence on the ICC. Conclusions Especially in biosciences, the number of reviewers of each proposal should be increased so as to increase the ICC.

References

[1]  Bornmann L (2011) Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 45: 199–245.
[2]  Hemlin S, Rasmussen S (2006) The shift in academic quality control. Science Technology & Human Values 31: 173–198.
[3]  Marsh HW, Jayasinghe UW, Bond NW (2008) Improving the peer-review process for grant applications - reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. American Psychologist 63: 160–168.
[4]  Cicchetti DV (1991) The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: a cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14: 119–135.
[5]  Jayasinghe UW, Marsh HW, Bond N (2003) A multilevel cross-classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: the effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society - Series A: Statistics in Society 166: 279–300.
[6]  Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel H-D (2010) A reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: a multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinant. PLOS ONE 5.
[7]  Bornmann L, Daniel H-D (2010) Reliability of reviewers’ ratings at an interactive open access journal using public peer review: a case study on atmospheric chemistry and physics. Learned Publishing 23: 124–131.
[8]  Lamont M (2011) Huutoniemi (2011) Opening the black box of evaluation: how quality is recognized by peer review panels. Bulletin SAGW 2: 47–49.
[9]  Mallard G, Lamont M, Guetzkow J (2009) Fairness as appropriateness: negotiating epistemological differences in peer review. Science, Technology and Human Values 34: 573–606.
[10]  Liang KY, Zeger SL (1986) Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 73: 13–22.
[11]  Zeger SL, Liang KY (1986) Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics 42: 121–130.
[12]  Lipsitz S, Fitzmaurice G (2008) Generalized estimation equations for longitudinal data analysis. In: Fitzmaurice G, Davidian M, Verbeke G, Molenberghs G, editors. Longitudinal data analysis. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC. 43–78.
[13]  Yan J, Fine J (2004) Estimating equations for association structures. Statistics in Medicine 23: 859–974.
[14]  Fischer C, Recklings F (2010) Factors influencing approval probability in FWF decision-making procedures. Vienna, Austria: Fonds zur F?rderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung (FWF).
[15]  Enders CK (2010) Applied missing data analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.
[16]  Bornmann L, Mutz R, Marx W, Schier H, Daniel H-D (2011) A multilevel modelling approach to investigating the predictive validity of editorial decisions: do the editors of a high-profile journal select manuscripts that are highly cited after publication? Journal of the Royal Statistical Society - Series A: Statistics in Society 174: 857–879.
[17]  McGraw KO, Wong SP (1996) Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods 1: 30–46.
[18]  Hox J (2010) Multilevel analysis - techniques and applications. New York: Routledge.
[19]  Shrout PE, Fleiss PE (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin 86: 420–428.
[20]  Ukoumunne OC (2002) A comparison of confidence interval methods for the intraclass correlation coefficient in cluster-randomized trials. Statistics in Medicine 21: 3757–3774.
[21]  Ukoumunne OC, Davison AC, Gulliford MC, Chinn S (2003) Non-parametric bootstrap confidence intervals for the intraclass correlation coefficient. Statistics in Medicine 22: 3805–3821.
[22]  Raykov T (2011) Intraclass correlation coefficients in hierarchical designs: evaluating equations. Structural Equation Modeling 18: 73–90.
[23]  Xiao Y, Liu J, Bhandry M (2009) Profile likelihood based confidence intervals for common intraclass correlation coefficients. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation 39: 111–118.
[24]  SAS Institute Inc. (2011) SAS/STAT 9.3 user’s guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
[25]  Ziegler A, Kastner C, Blettner M (1998) The generalised estimating equations: an annotated bibliography. Biometrical Journal 40: 115–139.
[26]  Crespi CM, Wong WK, Mishra SI (2009) Using second-order generalized estimating equations to model heterogeneous intraclass correlation in cluster-randomized trials. Statistics in Medicine 28: 814–827.
[27]  Prentice RL, Zhao LP (1991) Estimating equations for parameters in mean and covariance of multivariate discrete and continuous responses. Biometrics 47: 825–839.
[28]  Halekoh U, H?jsgaard S, Yan J (2006) The R package geepack for generalized estimating equations. Journal of Statistical Software 15: 1–11.
[29]  Oakes M (1986) Statistical inference: A commentary for the social and behavioural sciences. New York: Wiley.
[30]  Goldstein H, Healy MJR (1995) The graphical representation of a collection of means. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society - Series A 158: 175–177.
[31]  Mutz R, Daniel H-D (2007) Development of a ranking procedure by mixed Rasch model and multilevel analysis -psychology as an example. Diagnostica 53: 3–16.
[32]  Yan J (2002) geepack: yet another package for generalized estimating equations. R-News 2: 12–14.
[33]  Pan W (2001) Model selection in estimating equations. Biometrics 57: 529–534.
[34]  Pan W (2001) Akaike’s information criterion in generalized estimating equations. Biometrics 57: 120–125.
[35]  Horton NJ, Bebchuk JD, Jones CL, Lipsitz SR, Catalano PJ, et al. (1999) Goodness-of-fit for GEE: an example with mental health service utilization. Statistics in Medicine 18: 213–222.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133