A Concept for Inferring 'Frontier Research' in Research Project Proposals

This paper discusses a concept for inferring attributes of 'frontier research' in peer-reviewed research project proposals under the European Research Council (ERC) scheme. The concept serves two purposes: 1) to conceptualize and define, automatically extract, and comparatively assess attributes of frontier research in proposals; and 2) to build and compare outcomes of a statistical model with the review decision in order to obtain further insight and reflect upon the influence of frontier research in the peer-review process. To this end, indicators (including scientific 'novelty', 'risk', or interdisciplinarity') across scientific disciplines and in accord with the strategic definition of frontier research by the Council are elaborated, exploiting textual proposal information and other bibliometric data of applicants. Subsequently, a concept is discussed to measure ex-post the influence of indicators on the decision probability (or, alternatively, the odds) of a proposal to be accepted. The final analysis of the classification and decision probabilities compares and contrasts review decisions in order to, e.g., statistically explain congruence between frontier research and review decision or reveal differential representation of attributes. Ultimately, the concept is aiming at a methodology that monitors the effectiveness and efficiency of peer-review processes.

[1]  T. Asfour,et al.  Facts & Figures , 1962, Contemporary Canadian Picture Books.

[2]  Anton J. Nederhof,et al.  Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review , 2006, Scientometrics.

[3]  S. McKinnon,et al.  You are what you measure. , 2000 .

[4]  L. Bornmann,et al.  The effectiveness of the peer review process: inter-referee agreement and predictive validity of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie. , 2008, Angewandte Chemie.

[5]  David F. Channell Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation , 1999 .

[6]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Past performance, peer review and project selection: a case study in the social and behavioral sciences , 2009, 0911.1306.

[7]  Primoz Juznic,et al.  Scientometric indicators: peer-review, bibliometric methods and conflict of interests , 2010, Scientometrics.

[8]  B. Martin,et al.  Frontier Research: The European Challenge , 2005 .

[9]  M. Hojat,et al.  Impartial Judgment by the “Gatekeepers” of Science: Fallibility and Accountability in the Peer Review Process , 2003, Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice.

[10]  Claire François,et al.  Identification and characterisation of technological topics in the field of Molecular Biology , 2010, Scientometrics.

[11]  D. E. Stokes Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation , 1997 .

[12]  Chris Millard,et al.  Making the cut , 2013, History of the human sciences.

[13]  Claire François,et al.  An advanced diffusion model to identify emergent research issues: the case of optoelectronic devices , 2010, Scientometrics.

[14]  B. Sweitzer,et al.  How well does a journal's peer review process function? A survey of authors' opinions. , 1994, JAMA.

[15]  Fawzy A. Torkey,et al.  A Text Mining Technique Using Association Rules Extraction , 2008 .

[16]  Sungjoo Lee,et al.  Development and application of a keyword-based knowledge map for effective R&D planning , 2010, Scientometrics.

[17]  H. Marsh,et al.  Improving the Peer-review Process for Grant Applications , 2022 .

[18]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Scientific peer review , 2011, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[19]  「論壇人間文化」編集部会 The humanities review = 論壇人間文化 , 2007 .

[20]  W. Greene,et al.  计量经济分析 = Econometric analysis , 2009 .