| Автор | Forsdyke, D. R. |
| Дата выпуска | 1994 |
| dc.description | A major goal of a research granting agency is to select those researchers who will best advance its mission. Noting a poor correlation between undergraduate academic record and subsequent success in medical research, agency officials have argued that less reliance should be placed on academic record. However, from the same data, a contrary conclusion can be drawn. Consider the existence of two evaluation systems, A (teacher evaluation), and B (peer review). It is assumed here that at the time of undergraduate education, A applied to a group of individuals on repeated occasions would generate a consistent rank order. Similarly, B applied to the same group of individuals would generate a consistent rank order, which would usually be different from the A‐generated rank order. At a later point in time, A is not feasible. Grants are then awarded based on B. Thus, individuals who score highly under B prosper. I propose that, since rank orders obtained on different occasions using different evaluation systems may not be well correlated, it is not surprising that there is a poor correlation between early A success and later B success. However, this disregards the real issue. Which evaluation system is the best predictor of the ability to advance agency goals? Because A is not feasible at the later time‐point, it does not follow that we should discard the results obtained earlier. Rather than questioning the reliability of A applied earlier, agency officials should be questioning the reliability of B applied later. |
| Формат | application.pdf |
| Издатель | Taylor & Francis Group |
| Копирайт | Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC |
| Тема | grant agency |
| Тема | evaluation systems |
| Тема | rank order variation |
| Название | A theoretical basis for accepting undergraduate academic record as a predictor of success in a research career. Implications for the validity of peer review |
| Тип | research-article |
| DOI | 10.1080/08989629408573859 |
| Electronic ISSN | 1545-5815 |
| Print ISSN | 0898-9621 |
| Журнал | Accountability in Research |
| Том | 3 |
| Первая страница | 269 |
| Последняя страница | 274 |
| Аффилиация | Forsdyke, D. R.; Department of Biochemistry, Queen's University |
| Выпуск | 4 |
| Библиографическая ссылка | Baird, L.L. 1985. Do grades and tests predict adult accomplishment?. Research in Higher Education, 23: 3–85. |
| Библиографическая ссылка | Forsdyke, D.R. Canadian medical research strategy for the 80s. Medical Hypothesis, 11141–156. 1983 |
| Библиографическая ссылка | Forsdyke, D.R. A systems analyst asks about AIDS research funding. Lancet, 21382–1384. 1989 |
| Библиографическая ссылка | Forsdyke, D.R. Bicameral grant review: an alternative to conventional peer review. FASEB J, 52312–2314. 1991 |
| Библиографическая ссылка | Forsdyke, D.R. Bicameral grant review: how a systems analyst with AIDS would reform research funding. Accountability in Research, 31–5. 1992 |
| Библиографическая ссылка | Forsdyke, D.R. On giraffes and peer review. FASEB J, 7619–621. 1993 |
| Библиографическая ссылка | Merton, R.K. The Sociology of Science, 1973University of Chicago Press. |
| Библиографическая ссылка | O'Brecht, M., Pihl, R. O. and Bois, P. Criteria for grating training awards to graduate students. Research in Higher Education, 30647–664. 1989 |
| Библиографическая ссылка | O'Brecht, M. and Pihl, R.O. Granting agency criteria for awarding graduate research scholarships. Canadian J. Higher Education, 2147–58. 1991 |
| Библиографическая ссылка | Osmond, D.A. Malice's wonderland. Research funding and peer review. J. Neurobiology, 1495–112. 1983 |
