Institutionalized biases in the award of research grants: a preliminary analysis revisiting the principle of accumulative advantage

[1]  The Advisers of the United States National Science Foundation , 1975, Social studies of science.

[2]  S A Glantz,et al.  Inappropriate and appropriate selection of 'peers' in grant review. , 1994, JAMA.

[3]  J. Grant,et al.  No evidence of sexism in peer review , 1997, Nature.

[4]  Harold Maurice Collins,et al.  New Light on Old Boys: Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Review System , 1991 .

[5]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Behavioral Law and Economics: Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-serving Biases , 1997 .

[6]  J. Pfeffer,et al.  Organizational Decision Making as a Political Process: The Case of a UniversityBudget. , 1974 .

[7]  Clyde Manwell,et al.  Reform peer review: The Peters and Ceci study in the context of other current studies of scientific evaluation , 1982, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[8]  R. Merton.  The Matthew Effect in Science , 1968, Science.

[9]  J. Ziman.  Pipers and Tunes in Science. (Book Reviews: Prometheus Bound. Science in a Dynamic Steady State.) , 2005 .

[10]  S. Ceci,et al.  Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again , 1982, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[11]  D. Chubin,et al.  Peerless Science: Peer Review and U. S. Science Policy , 1990 .

[12]  D. Horrobin,et al.  Peer review of grant applications: a harbinger for mediocrity in clinical research? , 1996, The Lancet.

[13]  Simon Wessely,et al.  Peer review of grant applications: what do we know? , 1998, The Lancet.

[14]  H. Zuckerman.  Nobel laureates in science: patterns of productivity, collaboration, and authorship. , 1967, American sociological review.

[15]  Daryl E. Chubin,et al.  Peer Review at the NSF: A Dialectical Policy Analysis , 1979 .

[16]  D. Braun,et al.  The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science , 1998 .

[17]  C. Wennerås,et al.  A chair of one's own , 2000, Nature.

[18]  D. Moore,et al.  Why good accountants do bad audits. , 2002, Harvard business review.

[19]  Charles W. McCutchen.  Peer Review: Treacherous Servant, Disastrous Master , 1991 .

[20]  Harriet Zuckerman,et al.  Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States: , 1979 .

[21]  Dale L. Sullivan.  Keeping the rhetoric orthodox: Forum control in science , 2000 .

[22]  C. Wennerås,et al.  Nepotism and sexism in peer-review , 1997, Nature.

[23]  Peter A. Abrams,et al.  The Predictive Ability of Peer Review of Grant Proposals: The Case of Ecology and the US National Science Foundation , 1991 .

[24]  B. Mehlenbacher.  The Rhetorical Nature of Academic Research Funding , 1994, RhetNet: A Dialogic Publishing (Ad)Venture.

[25]  L. Leydesdorff,et al.  The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and , 2000 .