NDLI: Peer Review Evaluation Process of Marie Curie Actions under EU’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research

Content Provider	PubMed Central
Author	Pina, David G. Hren, Darko Marušić, Ana
Editor	Bornmann, Lutz
Copyright Year	2015
Abstract	We analysed the peer review of grant proposals under Marie Curie Actions, a major EU research funding instrument, which involves two steps: an independent assessment (Individual Evaluation Report, IER) performed remotely by 3 raters, and a consensus opinion reached during a meeting by the same raters (Consensus Report, CR). For 24,897 proposals evaluated from 2007 to 2013, the association between average IER and CR scores was very high across different panels, grant calls and years. Median average deviation (AD) index, used as a measure of inter-rater agreement, was 5.4 points on a 0-100 scale (interquartile range 3.4-8.3), overall, demonstrating a good general agreement among raters. For proposals where one rater disagreed with the other two raters (n=1424; 5.7%), or where all 3 raters disagreed (n=2075; 8.3%), the average IER and CR scores were still highly associated. Disagreement was more frequent for proposals from Economics/Social Sciences and Humanities panels. Greater disagreement was observed for proposals with lower average IER scores. CR scores for proposals with initial disagreement were also significantly lower. Proposals with a large absolute difference between the average IER and CR scores (≥10 points; n=368, 1.5%) generally had lower CR scores. An inter-correlation matrix of individual raters' scores of evaluation criteria of proposals indicated that these scores were, in general, a reflection of raters’ overall scores. Our analysis demonstrated a good internal consistency and general high agreement among raters. Consensus meetings appear to be relevant for particular panels and subsets of proposals with large differences among raters’ scores.
Related Links	http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130753
Starting Page	130753
File Format	PDF
ISSN	19326203
e-ISSN	19326203
Journal	PLoS ONE
Issue Number	6
Volume Number	10
Language	English
Publisher	Public Library of Science
Publisher Date	2015-06-01
Access Restriction	Open
Rights Holder	Public Library of Science
Subject Keyword	Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all) Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all) Medicine(all) Research in Higher Education
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article
Subject	Multidisciplinary

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Reliability of the Peer-Review Process for Adverse Event Rating

Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals

Use of Trial Register Information during the Peer Review Process

Marie Curie Actions in the 6th Framework Programme of the European Commission

MATIN: A Random Network Coding Based Framework for High Quality Peer-to-Peer Live Video Streaming

Context-Aware Reviewer Assignment for Trust Enhanced Peer Review

Does the Committee Peer Review Select the Best Applicants for Funding? An Investigation of the Selection Process for Two European Molecular Biology Organization Programmes

Peer Review, Program Officers and Science Funding

Sample Size and Precision in NIH Peer Review

Peer Review Evaluation Process of Marie Curie Actions under EU’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research

Similar Documents

Reliability of the Peer-Review Process for Adverse Event Rating

Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals

Use of Trial Register Information during the Peer Review Process

Marie Curie Actions in the 6th Framework Programme of the European Commission

MATIN: A Random Network Coding Based Framework for High Quality Peer-to-Peer Live Video Streaming

Context-Aware Reviewer Assignment for Trust Enhanced Peer Review

Does the Committee Peer Review Select the Best Applicants for Funding? An Investigation of the Selection Process for Two European Molecular Biology Organization Programmes

Peer Review, Program Officers and Science Funding

Sample Size and Precision in NIH Peer Review

Peer Review Evaluation Process of Marie Curie Actions under EU’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research