ArticleeLife2021
A retrospective analysis of the peer review of more than 75,000 Marie Curie proposals between 2007 and 2018.
Article in eLife, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Threats to grant peer review: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Article
- A new approach to grant review assessments: score, then rank.Research integrity and peer review · 2023Article
- Ten simple rules for a successful EU Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions Postdoctoral (MSCA) fellowship application.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Individual versus general structured feedback to improve agreement in grant peer review: a randomized controlled trial.Research integrity and peer review · 2021Article
- Zoom fatigue saps grant reviewers' attention.Nature · 2021Article
- Article
- Ethics issues identified by applicants and ethics experts in Horizon 2020 grant proposals.F1000Research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most funding agencies rely on peer review to evaluate grant applications and proposals, but research into the use of this process by funding agencies has been limited. Here we explore if two changes to the organization of peer review for proposals submitted to various funding actions by the European Union has an influence on the outcome of the peer review process. Based on an analysis of more than 75,000 applications to three actions of the Marie Curie programme over a period of 12 years, we find that the changes - a reduction in the number of evaluation criteria used by reviewers and a move from in-person to virtual meetings - had little impact on the outcome of the peer review process. Our results indicate that other factors, such as the type of grant or area of research, have a larger impact on the outcome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.