Authors : Adrian G Barnett, Scott R. Glisson, Stephen Gallo
Decisions about which applications to fund are generally based on the mean scores of a panel of peer reviewers. As well as the mean, a large disagreement between peer reviewers may also be worth considering, as it may indicate a high-risk application with a high return.
We examined the peer reviewers’ scores for 227 funded applications submitted to the American Institute of Biological Sciences between 1999 and 2006. We examined the mean score and two measures of reviewer disagreement: the standard deviation and range.
The outcome variable was the relative citation ratio, which is the number of citations from all publications associated with the application, standardised by field and publication year.
There was a clear increase in relative citations for applications with a better mean. There was no association between relative citations and either of the two measures of disagreement.
We found no evidence that reviewer disagreement was able to identify applications with a higher than average return. However, this is the first study to empirically examine this association, and it would be useful to examine whether reviewer disagreement is associated with research impact in other funding schemes and in larger sample sizes.
URL : Do funding applications where peer reviewers disagree have higher citations? A cross-sectional study
DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15479.2
Authors : Anisa Rowhani-Farid, Michelle Allen, Adrian G. Barnett
The foundation of health and medical research is data. Data sharing facilitates the progress of research and strengthens science. Data sharing in research is widely discussed in the literature; however, there are seemingly no evidence-based incentives that promote data sharing.
A systematic review (registration: doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6PZ5E) of the health and medical research literature was used to uncover any evidence-based incentives, with pre- and post-empirical data that examined data sharing rates.
We were also interested in quantifying and classifying the number of opinion pieces on the importance of incentives, the number observational studies that analysed data sharing rates and practices, and strategies aimed at increasing data sharing rates.
Only one incentive (using open data badges) has been tested in health and medical research that examined data sharing rates. The number of opinion pieces (n = 85) out-weighed the number of article-testing strategies (n = 76), and the number of observational studies exceeded them both (n = 106).
Given that data is the foundation of evidence-based health and medical research, it is paradoxical that there is only one evidence-based incentive to promote data sharing. More well-designed studies are needed in order to increase the currently low rates of data sharing.
URL : What incentives increase data sharing in health and medical research? A systematic review
Alternative location : http://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-017-0028-9