Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40446073›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Registered report protocol: Factors associated with inter-rater agreement in grant peer review.

Jan-Ole Hesselberg, Pål Ulleberg, Øystein Sørensen, Knut Inge Fostervold, Sigrid Hegna Ingvaldsen, Ida Svege

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jan-Ole HesselbergDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-5183-7933
Pål UllebergDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Øystein SørensenDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Knut Inge FostervoldDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Sigrid Hegna IngvaldsenThe Foundation Dam, Oslo, Norway.
Ida SvegeNIFU Nordic Institute for Studies of Innovation, Research and Education, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-9354-7256

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Grant peer review processes are pivotal in allocating substantial research funding, yet concerns about their reliability persist, primarily due to low inter-rater agreement. This study aims to examine factors associated with agreement among peer reviewers in grant evaluations, leveraging data from 134,991 reviews across four Norwegian research funders. Using a cross-classified linear regression model, we will explore the relationship between inter-rater agreement and multiple factors, including reviewer similarity, experience, expertise, research area, application characteristics, review depth, and temporal trends. Our findings are expected to shed light on whether similarity between reviewers (gender, age), their experience, or expertise correlates with higher agreement. Additionally, we investigate whether characteristics of the applications-such as funding amount, research area, or variability in project size-affect agreement levels. By analyzing applications from diverse disciplines and funding schemes, this study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the drivers of inter-rater agreement and their implications for grant peer review reliability. The results will inform improvements to peer review processes, enhancing the fairness and validity of funding decisions. All data and analysis scripts will be publicly available, ensuring transparency and reproducibility.

Indexed as

Financing, OrganizedPeer ReviewPeer Review, ResearchFemaleHumansMaleNorwayObserver VariationPre-Registration PublicationReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID40446073
PMCPMC12124745

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.