ArticlePloS one2023
Supporting grant reviewers through the scientometric ranking of applicants.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionComparing the scientific output of different researchers applying for a grant is a tedious work. In Hungary, to help reviewers to rapidly rank the scientific productivity of a researcher, a grant decision support tool was established and is available at www.scientometrics.org. In the present study, our goal was to assess the impact of this decision support tool on grant review procedures.
methodsThe established, publicly available scientometric portal uses four metrics, including the H-index, the yearly citations without self-citations, the number of publications in the last five years, and the number of highly cited publications of a researcher within eleven independent scientific disciplines. Publication-age matched researchers are then ranked and the results are provided to grant reviewers. A questionnaire was completed by reviewers regarding utilization of the scientometric ranking system. The outcome of the grant selection was analyzed by comparing scientometric parameters of applying and funded applicants. We compared three grant allocation rounds before to two grant allocation rounds after the introduction of the portal.
resultsThe scientometric decision support tool was introduced in 2020 to assist grant selection in Hungary and all basic research grant applicants (n = 6,662) were screened. The average score of funded proposals compared to submitted proposals increased by 94% after the introduction of the ranking. Correlation between ranking scores and actual grant selection was strong in life and material sciences but some scientific panels had opposite correlation in social sciences and humanities. When comparing selection outcome to H-index across all applicants, both type I and type II errors decreased. All together 540 reviewers provided feedback representing all eleven scientific disciplines and 83.05% of the reviewers (especially younger reviewers) found the ranking useful.
conclusionsThe scientometric decision support tool can save time and increase transparency of grant review processes. The majority of reviewers found the ranking-based scientometric analysis useful when assessing the publication performance of an applicant.
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.