Peer and panel review are the dominant forms of grant decision-making, despite its serious weaknesses as shown by many studies. This paper contributes to the understanding of the grant selection process through a linguistic analysis of the review reports. We reconstruct in that way several aspects of the evaluation and selection process: what dimensions of the proposal are discussed during the process and how, and what distinguishes between the successful and non-successful applications? We combine the linguistic findings with interviews with panel members and with bibliometric performance scores of applicants. The former gives the context, and the latter helps to interpret the linguistic findings. The analysis shows that the performance of the applicant and the content of the proposed study are assessed with the same categories, suggesting that the panelists actually do not make a difference between past performance and promising new research ideas. The analysis also suggests that the panels focus on rejecting the applications by searching for weak points, and not on finding the high-risk/high-gain groundbreaking ideas that may be in the proposal. This may easily result in sub-optimal selections, in low predictive validity, and in bias.
General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
The notion of junior scientists’ independence has increasingly become relevant in the evaluation of scientific excellence. In this paper, we deconstruct independence—as an element of excellence—in the context of reviewing a prestigious European Research Grant. Conducting qualitative interviews with this grant’s reviewers, we reveal five different dimensions of how reviewers construct the notion of independence: two dimensions are directly linked to the applicants’ relationship to their supervisors: reviewers were talking about independence as a result of emancipation from the applicants’ (former) supervisor and as a concept that researchers need to negotiate with them. Beyond, three topical dimensions of independence could be identified, referring to originality, networks and mobility. We further show that gender is deeply inscribed into these dimensions, especially when reviewers use their own biographical background for assessing the independence of an early career researcher. These experiences are subject to gender bias through (i) individual stereotypical pictures of masculinity and femininity and (ii) the specific norms of scientific disciplines and structures. These individual gendered constructions of independence might give space to gender bias in the assessment of independence and thus of excellence.
No abstract
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.