Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38312111›Full record

ArticleResearch Evaluation2023

Targeted, actionable and fair: Reviewer reports as feedback and its effect on ECR career choices.

Gemma Elizabeth Derrick, Alessandra Zimmermann, Helen Greaves, Jonathan Best, Richard Klavans

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research Evaluation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Gemma Elizabeth DerrickSchool of Education, Centre for Higher Education Transformations (CHET), University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Alessandra ZimmermannProposal Analytics, SciTech Strategies, Inc. Wayne, PA, USA.
Helen GreavesSchool of Education, Centre for Higher Education Transformations (CHET), University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Jonathan BestThe Wellcome Trust, 215 Euston Road, London NW1 2BE, UK.
Richard KlavansProposal Analytics, SciTech Strategies, Inc. Wayne, PA, USA.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous studies of the use of peer review for the allocation of competitive funding agencies have concentrated on questions of efficiency and how to make the 'best' decision, by ensuring that successful applicants are also the more productive or visible in the long term. This paper examines the components of feedback received from an unsuccessful grant application, is associated with motivating applicants career decisions to persist (reapply for funding at T

Indexed as

early career researcherspeer reviewqualitativeresearch behaviourresearch careers

Identifiers

PMID38312111
PMCPMC10831695

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.