Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support

Chance and Consensus in Peer Review

Stephen Cole, Jonathan R. Cole and Gary A. Simon
Science
New Series, Vol. 214, No. 4523 (Nov. 20, 1981), pp. 881-886
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1686309
Page Count: 6
  • More info
  • Cite this Item
If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support
Chance and Consensus in Peer Review
Preview not available

Abstract

An experiment in which 150 proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation were evaluated independently by a new set of reviewers indicates that getting a research grant depends to a significant extent on chance. The degree of disagreement within the population of eligible reviewers is such that whether or not a proposal is funded depends in a large proportion of cases upon which reviewers happen to be selected for it. No evidence of systematic bias in the selection of NSF reviewers was found.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
881
    881
  • Thumbnail: Page 
882
    882
  • Thumbnail: Page 
883
    883
  • Thumbnail: Page 
884
    884
  • Thumbnail: Page 
885
    885
  • Thumbnail: Page 
886
    886