Peer reviewers’ dilemmas: a qualitative exploration of decisional conflict in the evaluation of grant applications in the medical humanities and social sciences
Independent evaluations of grant applications by subject experts are an important part of the peer-review system. However, little is known about the real-time experiences of peer reviewers or experts who perform reviews of a grant application independently. This study sought to gain insight into thi...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Humanities & social sciences communications Vol. 9; no. 1; pp. 1 - 11 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
England
Springer Nature B.V
04.03.2022
Springer Nature |
| Subjects: | |
| ISSN: | 2662-9992, 2662-9992 |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Abstract | Independent evaluations of grant applications by subject experts are an important part of the peer-review system. However, little is known about the real-time experiences of peer reviewers or experts who perform reviews of a grant application independently. This study sought to gain insight into this stage of the grant evaluation process by observing how experts conduct an independent review in near real time. Using the think aloud approach and Critical Decision Method of interviewing, in-depth interviews were conducted with 16 peer reviewers from a range of roles and disciplines within the medical humanities and social sciences. Participants were asked to think aloud while reviewing applications to different grant schemes from a single prestigious funder. The analysis shows reviewers encountered five dilemmas during the evaluation process. These dilemmas were related to whether or not one should (1) accept an invitation to review, (2) rely exclusively on the information presented in the application, (3) pay attention to institutional prestige, (4) offer comments about aspects that are not directly related to academics’ area of expertise, and (5) to take risks and overlook shortcomings rather than err on the side of caution. In order to decide on the appropriate course of action, reviewers often engaged in a series of deliberations and trade-offs—varying in length and complexity. However, their interpretation of what was ‘right’ was influenced by their values, preferences and experiences, but also by relevant norms and their understanding of the funder’s guidelines and priorities. As a result, the way reviewers approached the identified dilemmas was idiosyncratic and sometimes diametrically opposed to other reviewers’ views, which could lead to variation in peer-review outcomes. The dilemmas we have uncovered suggest that peer reviewers engage in thoughtful considerations during the peer-review process. We should, therefore, be wary of reducing the absence of consensus as resulting from biased, instinctive thinking. Rather, these findings highlight the diversity of values, priorities and habits and ways of working each reviewer brings to the fore when reviewing the applicants and their project proposals and call for further reflection on, and study of, this “invisible work” to better understand and continue to improve the peer-reviewing process. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Independent evaluations of grant applications by subject experts are an important part of the peer-review system. However, little is known about the real-time experiences of peer reviewers or experts who perform reviews of a grant application independently. This study sought to gain insight into this stage of the grant evaluation process by observing how experts conduct an independent review in near real time. Using the think aloud approach and Critical Decision Method of interviewing, in-depth interviews were conducted with 16 peer reviewers from a range of roles and disciplines within the medical humanities and social sciences. Participants were asked to think aloud while reviewing applications to different grant schemes from a single prestigious funder. The analysis shows reviewers encountered five dilemmas during the evaluation process. These dilemmas were related to whether or not one should (1) accept an invitation to review, (2) rely exclusively on the information presented in the application, (3) pay attention to institutional prestige, (4) offer comments about aspects that are not directly related to academics' area of expertise, and (5) to take risks and overlook shortcomings rather than err on the side of caution. In order to decide on the appropriate course of action, reviewers often engaged in a series of deliberations and trade-offs-varying in length and complexity. However, their interpretation of what was 'right' was influenced by their values, preferences and experiences, but also by relevant norms and their understanding of the funder's guidelines and priorities. As a result, the way reviewers approached the identified dilemmas was idiosyncratic and sometimes diametrically opposed to other reviewers' views, which could lead to variation in peer-review outcomes. The dilemmas we have uncovered suggest that peer reviewers engage in thoughtful considerations during the peer-review process. We should, therefore, be wary of reducing the absence of consensus as resulting from biased, instinctive thinking. Rather, these findings highlight the diversity of values, priorities and habits and ways of working each reviewer brings to the fore when reviewing the applicants and their project proposals and call for further reflection on, and study of, this "invisible work" to better understand and continue to improve the peer-reviewing process.Independent evaluations of grant applications by subject experts are an important part of the peer-review system. However, little is known about the real-time experiences of peer reviewers or experts who perform reviews of a grant application independently. This study sought to gain insight into this stage of the grant evaluation process by observing how experts conduct an independent review in near real time. Using the think aloud approach and Critical Decision Method of interviewing, in-depth interviews were conducted with 16 peer reviewers from a range of roles and disciplines within the medical humanities and social sciences. Participants were asked to think aloud while reviewing applications to different grant schemes from a single prestigious funder. The analysis shows reviewers encountered five dilemmas during the evaluation process. These dilemmas were related to whether or not one should (1) accept an invitation to review, (2) rely exclusively on the information presented in the application, (3) pay attention to institutional prestige, (4) offer comments about aspects that are not directly related to academics' area of expertise, and (5) to take risks and overlook shortcomings rather than err on the side of caution. In order to decide on the appropriate course of action, reviewers often engaged in a series of deliberations and trade-offs-varying in length and complexity. However, their interpretation of what was 'right' was influenced by their values, preferences and experiences, but also by relevant norms and their understanding of the funder's guidelines and priorities. As a result, the way reviewers approached the identified dilemmas was idiosyncratic and sometimes diametrically opposed to other reviewers' views, which could lead to variation in peer-review outcomes. The dilemmas we have uncovered suggest that peer reviewers engage in thoughtful considerations during the peer-review process. We should, therefore, be wary of reducing the absence of consensus as resulting from biased, instinctive thinking. Rather, these findings highlight the diversity of values, priorities and habits and ways of working each reviewer brings to the fore when reviewing the applicants and their project proposals and call for further reflection on, and study of, this "invisible work" to better understand and continue to improve the peer-reviewing process. Independent evaluations of grant applications by subject experts are an important part of the peer-review system. However, little is known about the real-time experiences of peer reviewers or experts who perform reviews of a grant application independently. This study sought to gain insight into this stage of the grant evaluation process by observing how experts conduct an independent review in near real time. Using the think aloud approach and Critical Decision Method of interviewing, in-depth interviews were conducted with 16 peer reviewers from a range of roles and disciplines within the medical humanities and social sciences. Participants were asked to think aloud while reviewing applications to different grant schemes from a single prestigious funder. The analysis shows reviewers encountered five dilemmas during the evaluation process. These dilemmas were related to whether or not one should (1) accept an invitation to review, (2) rely exclusively on the information presented in the application, (3) pay attention to institutional prestige, (4) offer comments about aspects that are not directly related to academics’ area of expertise, and (5) to take risks and overlook shortcomings rather than err on the side of caution. In order to decide on the appropriate course of action, reviewers often engaged in a series of deliberations and trade-offs—varying in length and complexity. However, their interpretation of what was ‘right’ was influenced by their values, preferences and experiences, but also by relevant norms and their understanding of the funder’s guidelines and priorities. As a result, the way reviewers approached the identified dilemmas was idiosyncratic and sometimes diametrically opposed to other reviewers’ views, which could lead to variation in peer-review outcomes. The dilemmas we have uncovered suggest that peer reviewers engage in thoughtful considerations during the peer-review process. We should, therefore, be wary of reducing the absence of consensus as resulting from biased, instinctive thinking. Rather, these findings highlight the diversity of values, priorities and habits and ways of working each reviewer brings to the fore when reviewing the applicants and their project proposals and call for further reflection on, and study of, this “invisible work” to better understand and continue to improve the peer-reviewing process. Abstract Independent evaluations of grant applications by subject experts are an important part of the peer-review system. However, little is known about the real-time experiences of peer reviewers or experts who perform reviews of a grant application independently. This study sought to gain insight into this stage of the grant evaluation process by observing how experts conduct an independent review in near real time. Using the think aloud approach and Critical Decision Method of interviewing, in-depth interviews were conducted with 16 peer reviewers from a range of roles and disciplines within the medical humanities and social sciences. Participants were asked to think aloud while reviewing applications to different grant schemes from a single prestigious funder. The analysis shows reviewers encountered five dilemmas during the evaluation process. These dilemmas were related to whether or not one should (1) accept an invitation to review, (2) rely exclusively on the information presented in the application, (3) pay attention to institutional prestige, (4) offer comments about aspects that are not directly related to academics’ area of expertise, and (5) to take risks and overlook shortcomings rather than err on the side of caution. In order to decide on the appropriate course of action, reviewers often engaged in a series of deliberations and trade-offs—varying in length and complexity. However, their interpretation of what was ‘right’ was influenced by their values, preferences and experiences, but also by relevant norms and their understanding of the funder’s guidelines and priorities. As a result, the way reviewers approached the identified dilemmas was idiosyncratic and sometimes diametrically opposed to other reviewers’ views, which could lead to variation in peer-review outcomes. The dilemmas we have uncovered suggest that peer reviewers engage in thoughtful considerations during the peer-review process. We should, therefore, be wary of reducing the absence of consensus as resulting from biased, instinctive thinking. Rather, these findings highlight the diversity of values, priorities and habits and ways of working each reviewer brings to the fore when reviewing the applicants and their project proposals and call for further reflection on, and study of, this “invisible work” to better understand and continue to improve the peer-reviewing process. |
| ArticleNumber | 70 |
| Author | Vallée-Tourangeau, Gaëlle Vandrevala, Tushna Wheelock, Ana Harries, Priscilla |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Gaëlle orcidid: 0000-0003-1080-4443 surname: Vallée-Tourangeau fullname: Vallée-Tourangeau, Gaëlle – sequence: 2 givenname: Ana surname: Wheelock fullname: Wheelock, Ana – sequence: 3 givenname: Tushna orcidid: 0000-0002-1140-8445 surname: Vandrevala fullname: Vandrevala, Tushna – sequence: 4 givenname: Priscilla orcidid: 0000-0003-3123-6799 surname: Harries fullname: Harries, Priscilla |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36530545$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNp9kr9uFDEQxlcoiISQF6BAlmhoFmyv7V3ToYg_kSJBAbU1Z88mPnnti717QMdr0PJoPAnmLjmhFFQeff7N2Jrve9wcxRSxaZ4y-pJR2b8qgkmtW8p5S6tAW_WgOeFK8VZrzY_-qY-bs1LWlFIuGRd8eNQcd0p2VAp50vz6hJhJxq3Hr5jL7x8_ifMBpwnKawLkZoHgZ5j9Fgl-24SUa50iSSNxaH2pNQRiUxyDtzPxkczXldxCWA7gVYY4E9hsKrITyx03oatSINfLBNHPHguB6EhJ1le1WI_RYnnSPBwhFDy7PU-bL-_efj7_0F5-fH9x_uaytUKwuWV2NVrl0I2rgSpACoyioEyqHnSvBPQr3q0G12k2jAi8c_W-7kBLFBrc0J02F_u5LsHabLKfIH83CbzZCSlfGciztwENDoL3nUM5MhBCDaCtRIdQX1I956LOerGftcnpZsEym8kXiyFAxLQUw3sph-qa0hV9fg9dpyXXtVZKyWqY4B2t1LNbalnVtR2-d-dkBfgesDmVknE8IIyav4kx-8SYmhizS4xRtWm412R3bqc4Z_Dhf61_AKyCyAs |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1093_reseval_rvae050 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11192_023_04915_y crossref_primary_10_1162_qss_a_00207 crossref_primary_10_1080_2331186X_2024_2319432 |
| Cites_doi | 10.1016/j.respol.2003.09.005 10.1002/asi.22784 10.1002/ev.1459 10.1038/scientificamerican1077-34 10.1016/0030-5073(79)90048-5 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001272 10.1109/21.31053 10.1057/ejis.2012.20 10.1177/030631284014003004 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32611-4 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.302656 10.1186/s12913-015-0721-7 10.1257/jep.26.3.157 10.1177/0894439312465254 10.1016/S0167-2681(99)00023-2 10.1177/0306312702032002003 10.1006/obhd.1998.2758 10.2307/j.ctvc77c0h 10.1177/016224399101600303 10.1080/00050060600823275 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 10.12688/f1000research.11917.1 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05627-6 10.3152/147154406781776020 10.1371/journal.pone.0165147 10.1177/0162243908329381 10.3152/147154406781776039 10.1111/1467-985X.00278 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)78485-3 10.1126/science.aaa0185 10.1371/journal.pone.0035247 10.1177/1098214005283748 10.31234/osf.io/483zj 10.7554/eLife.71368 10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_4 10.1177/0162243910377624 10.1016/j.joi.2015.07.011 10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.11.006 10.1177/1473325002001003636 10.1080/08870440008400302 10.4135/9781452231594 10.3152/095820210X12809191250762 10.4159/9780674054158 10.1007/s11192-008-0211-3 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | The Author(s) 2022. corrected publication 2022. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: The Author(s) 2022. corrected publication 2022. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. |
| DBID | AAYXX CITATION NPM 0-V 3V. 7XB 88J 8BJ 8FK 8G5 ABUWG AFKRA ALSLI AZQEC BENPR CCPQU DWQXO FQK GNUQQ GUQSH JBE M2O M2R MBDVC PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PKEHL POGQB PQEST PQQKQ PQUKI PRINS PRQQA Q9U 7X8 DOA |
| DOI | 10.1057/s41599-022-01050-6 |
| DatabaseName | CrossRef PubMed ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection ProQuest Central (Corporate) ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016) Social Science Database (Alumni Edition) International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016) Research Library (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central UK/Ireland Social Science Premium Collection ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Central ProQuest One Community College ProQuest Central Korea International Bibliography of the Social Sciences ProQuest Central Student Research Library Prep International Bibliography of the Social Sciences Research Library Social Science Database Research Library (Corporate) ProQuest Central Premium ProQuest One Academic (New) Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest Sociology & Social Sciences Collection ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE) ProQuest One Academic (retired) ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest Central China ProQuest One Social Sciences ProQuest Central Basic MEDLINE - Academic DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef PubMed Publicly Available Content Database Research Library Prep ProQuest Sociology & Social Sciences Collection ProQuest Central Student ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Social Science Journals (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition) ProQuest One Community College Research Library (Alumni Edition) Sociology & Social Sciences Collection ProQuest Central China ProQuest Central International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) ProQuest Central Korea ProQuest Research Library ProQuest Central (New) Social Science Premium Collection ProQuest One Social Sciences ProQuest Central Basic ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition ProQuest Social Science Journals ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic (New) ProQuest Central (Alumni) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic CrossRef Publicly Available Content Database PubMed |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: DOA name: DOAJ : Directory of Open Access Journals [open access] url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website – sequence: 2 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 3 dbid: PIMPY name: Publicly Available Content Database url: http://search.proquest.com/publiccontent sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| EISSN | 2662-9992 |
| EndPage | 11 |
| ExternalDocumentID | oai_doaj_org_article_e84273de5f1a4468a9c5edea7a967224 36530545 10_1057_s41599_022_01050_6 |
| Genre | Journal Article |
| GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: Wellcome Trust grantid: 214532 |
| GroupedDBID | 0R~ 8G5 AAJSJ AAKKN AASML AAYXX ABEEZ ABUWG ACACY ACULB AFFHD AFGXO AFKRA ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALSLI AZQEC BENPR C24 C6C CCPQU CITATION DWQXO EBLON EBS GNUQQ GROUPED_DOAJ GUQSH M2O M2R M~E PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PRQQA SNYQT NPM 0-V 3V. 7XB 8BJ 8FK FQK JBE MBDVC PKEHL POGQB PQEST PQQKQ PQUKI PRINS Q9U 7X8 PUEGO |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-1cbfc6dedfb806ae0a10e401567a9764a7b23b8d3918fea23d10e54595e49ad83 |
| IEDL.DBID | BENPR |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 9 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000764738300003&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 2662-9992 |
| IngestDate | Mon Nov 10 04:29:31 EST 2025 Wed Oct 01 17:16:23 EDT 2025 Sun Nov 09 00:01:15 EST 2025 Mon Jul 21 06:08:14 EDT 2025 Sat Nov 29 05:53:58 EST 2025 Tue Nov 18 22:31:53 EST 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 1 |
| Language | English |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c441t-1cbfc6dedfb806ae0a10e401567a9764a7b23b8d3918fea23d10e54595e49ad83 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 |
| ORCID | 0000-0002-1140-8445 0000-0003-1080-4443 0000-0003-3123-6799 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://www.proquest.com/docview/2652424230?pq-origsite=%requestingapplication% |
| PMID | 36530545 |
| PQID | 2652424230 |
| PQPubID | 2049611 |
| PageCount | 11 |
| ParticipantIDs | doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_e84273de5f1a4468a9c5edea7a967224 proquest_miscellaneous_2755805069 proquest_journals_2652424230 pubmed_primary_36530545 crossref_primary_10_1057_s41599_022_01050_6 crossref_citationtrail_10_1057_s41599_022_01050_6 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2022-03-04 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2022-03-04 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 03 year: 2022 text: 2022-03-04 day: 04 |
| PublicationDecade | 2020 |
| PublicationPlace | England |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: England – name: London |
| PublicationTitle | Humanities & social sciences communications |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Humanit Soc Sci Commun |
| PublicationYear | 2022 |
| Publisher | Springer Nature B.V Springer Nature |
| Publisher_xml | – name: Springer Nature B.V – name: Springer Nature |
| References | MQ Patton (1050_CR41) 2002; 1 O Svenson (1050_CR46) 1979; 23 1050_CR39 P Gluckman (1050_CR17) 2012 DR Thomas (1050_CR47) 2006; 27 G Mallard (1050_CR29) 2009; 34 N Danthi (1050_CR8) 2014; 114 DM Messick (1050_CR34) 1999; 39 RK Merton (1050_CR33) 1973 AG Barnett (1050_CR3) 2015; 15 I Feller (1050_CR13) 2013 R Elliott (1050_CR11) 2005 HM Collins (1050_CR7) 2002; 32 U Sandström (1050_CR44) 2008; 74 M Lamont (1050_CR25) 2011; 2 JK Esser (1050_CR12) 1998; 73 J Dykema (1050_CR10) 2013; 31 JM Weber (1050_CR52) 2004; 8 LH Kidder (1050_CR22) 1987; 1987 M Olbrecht (1050_CR37) 2010; 19 D Rousseau (1050_CR43) 1995 H Abdoul (1050_CR1) 2012; 7 SA Gallo (1050_CR16) 2016; 11 K Malterud (1050_CR30) 2001; 358 UW Jayasinghe (1050_CR20) 2003; 166 CJ Lee (1050_CR27) 2013; 64 S Cole (1050_CR6) 1977; 237 A Kaatz (1050_CR21) 2016; 91 D Moran (1050_CR35) 2000 B Doolin (1050_CR9) 2012; 21 S Guthrie (1050_CR19) 2017; 6 1050_CR15 MQ Patton (1050_CR40) 2005 HW Marsh (1050_CR32) 2007; 42 V Braun (1050_CR4) 2006; 3 G Charness (1050_CR5) 2012; 26 D Li (1050_CR28) 2015; 348 TJ Pinch (1050_CR42) 1984; 14 JG March (1050_CR31) 1994 GA Klein (1050_CR23) 1989; 19 L Yardley (1050_CR54) 2000; 15 L Langfeldt (1050_CR26) 2006; 15 RK Nakamura (1050_CR36) 2021; 10 DS Greenberg (1050_CR18) 1998; 351 SL Star (1050_CR45) 2010; 35 O O’Neill (1050_CR38) 2002 HO Witteman (1050_CR53) 2019; 393 M Lamont (1050_CR24) 2009 I Feller (1050_CR14) 2006; 15 GDL Travis (1050_CR48) 1991; 16 S Avin (1050_CR2) 2019; 76 MW van Someren (1050_CR50) 1994 N Viner (1050_CR51) 2004; 33 P van den Besselaar (1050_CR49) 2015; 9 |
| References_xml | – start-page: 147 volume-title: A Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Health Psychology year: 2005 ident: 1050_CR11 – volume: 33 start-page: 443 year: 2004 ident: 1050_CR51 publication-title: Res Policy doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2003.09.005 – volume: 64 start-page: 2 year: 2013 ident: 1050_CR27 publication-title: J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol doi: 10.1002/asi.22784 – volume: 1987 start-page: 57 year: 1987 ident: 1050_CR22 publication-title: New Dir Program Eval doi: 10.1002/ev.1459 – volume: 237 start-page: 34 year: 1977 ident: 1050_CR6 publication-title: Sci Am doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican1077-34 – volume: 23 start-page: 86 year: 1979 ident: 1050_CR46 publication-title: Organ Behav Hum Perform doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(79)90048-5 – volume: 91 start-page: 1080 year: 2016 ident: 1050_CR21 publication-title: Acad Med doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001272 – volume: 19 start-page: 462 year: 1989 ident: 1050_CR23 publication-title: IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern doi: 10.1109/21.31053 – volume: 21 start-page: 570 issue: 5 year: 2012 ident: 1050_CR9 publication-title: European Journal of Information Systems doi: 10.1057/ejis.2012.20 – volume: 14 start-page: 399 issue: 3 year: 1984 ident: 1050_CR42 publication-title: Soc Stud Sci doi: 10.1177/030631284014003004 – volume: 393 start-page: 531 year: 2019 ident: 1050_CR53 publication-title: Lancet doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32611-4 – volume-title: Which science to fund: time to review peer-review? year: 2012 ident: 1050_CR17 – volume: 114 start-page: 600 year: 2014 ident: 1050_CR8 publication-title: Circ Res doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.302656 – volume: 15 start-page: 1 year: 2015 ident: 1050_CR3 publication-title: BMC Health Serv Res doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-0721-7 – volume-title: The think aloud method: a practical approach to modelling cognitive processes year: 1994 ident: 1050_CR50 – volume: 26 start-page: 157 year: 2012 ident: 1050_CR5 publication-title: J Econ Perspect doi: 10.1257/jep.26.3.157 – volume: 31 start-page: 359 year: 2013 ident: 1050_CR10 publication-title: Soc Sci Comput Rev doi: 10.1177/0894439312465254 – volume: 39 start-page: 11 year: 1999 ident: 1050_CR34 publication-title: J Econ Behav Organ doi: 10.1016/S0167-2681(99)00023-2 – volume: 32 start-page: 235 year: 2002 ident: 1050_CR7 publication-title: Soc Stud Sci doi: 10.1177/0306312702032002003 – volume: 73 start-page: 116 year: 1998 ident: 1050_CR12 publication-title: Organ Behav Hum Decis Process doi: 10.1006/obhd.1998.2758 – ident: 1050_CR39 doi: 10.2307/j.ctvc77c0h – volume: 16 start-page: 322 year: 1991 ident: 1050_CR48 publication-title: Sci Technol Hum Values doi: 10.1177/016224399101600303 – volume: 42 start-page: 33 year: 2007 ident: 1050_CR32 publication-title: Aust Psychol doi: 10.1080/00050060600823275 – volume: 3 start-page: 77 year: 2006 ident: 1050_CR4 publication-title: Qual Res Psychol doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa – volume-title: A question of trust: The BBC Reith Lectures 2002 year: 2002 ident: 1050_CR38 – volume: 6 start-page: 1335 year: 2017 ident: 1050_CR19 publication-title: F1000Research doi: 10.12688/f1000research.11917.1 – start-page: 1633 volume-title: Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science, vol 3 year: 2005 ident: 1050_CR40 – volume: 358 start-page: 483 year: 2001 ident: 1050_CR30 publication-title: Lancet doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05627-6 – volume: 15 start-page: 5 year: 2006 ident: 1050_CR14 publication-title: Res Eval doi: 10.3152/147154406781776020 – volume: 11 start-page: e0165147 year: 2016 ident: 1050_CR16 publication-title: PLoS ONE doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165147 – volume: 34 start-page: 573 year: 2009 ident: 1050_CR29 publication-title: Sci Technol Hum Values doi: 10.1177/0162243908329381 – volume: 15 start-page: 31 year: 2006 ident: 1050_CR26 publication-title: Res Eval doi: 10.3152/147154406781776039 – volume: 166 start-page: 279 year: 2003 ident: 1050_CR20 publication-title: J R Stat Soc A doi: 10.1111/1467-985X.00278 – volume: 351 start-page: 686 year: 1998 ident: 1050_CR18 publication-title: Lancet doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)78485-3 – volume: 348 start-page: 434 year: 2015 ident: 1050_CR28 publication-title: Science doi: 10.1126/science.aaa0185 – volume-title: Introduction to phenomenology year: 2000 ident: 1050_CR35 – volume: 7 start-page: e35247 year: 2012 ident: 1050_CR1 publication-title: PLoS ONE doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035247 – volume-title: Primer on decision making: how decisions happen year: 1994 ident: 1050_CR31 – volume: 2 start-page: 47 year: 2011 ident: 1050_CR25 publication-title: SWAG Bull – volume: 27 start-page: 237 year: 2006 ident: 1050_CR47 publication-title: Am J Eval doi: 10.1177/1098214005283748 – ident: 1050_CR15 doi: 10.31234/osf.io/483zj – volume: 10 start-page: e71368 year: 2021 ident: 1050_CR36 publication-title: ELife doi: 10.7554/eLife.71368 – volume: 8 start-page: 281 year: 2004 ident: 1050_CR52 publication-title: Personal Soc Psychol Rev doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_4 – volume: 35 start-page: 601 year: 2010 ident: 1050_CR45 publication-title: Sci Technol Hum Val doi: 10.1177/0162243910377624 – volume: 9 start-page: 826 year: 2015 ident: 1050_CR49 publication-title: J Informetr doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.07.011 – start-page: 115 volume-title: Handbook on the theory and practice of program evaluation year: 2013 ident: 1050_CR13 – volume-title: The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations year: 1973 ident: 1050_CR33 – volume: 76 start-page: 13 year: 2019 ident: 1050_CR2 publication-title: Stud Hist Philos Sci Part A doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.11.006 – volume: 1 start-page: 261 year: 2002 ident: 1050_CR41 publication-title: Qual Soc Work doi: 10.1177/1473325002001003636 – volume: 15 start-page: 215 year: 2000 ident: 1050_CR54 publication-title: Psychol Health doi: 10.1080/08870440008400302 – volume-title: Psychological contracts in organizations: understanding written and unwritten agreements year: 1995 ident: 1050_CR43 doi: 10.4135/9781452231594 – volume: 19 start-page: 293 year: 2010 ident: 1050_CR37 publication-title: Res. Eval. doi: 10.3152/095820210X12809191250762 – volume-title: How professors think year: 2009 ident: 1050_CR24 doi: 10.4159/9780674054158 – volume: 74 start-page: 175 year: 2008 ident: 1050_CR44 publication-title: Scientometrics doi: 10.1007/s11192-008-0211-3 |
| SSID | ssj0002512428 |
| Score | 2.2418816 |
| Snippet | Independent evaluations of grant applications by subject experts are an important part of the peer-review system. However, little is known about the real-time... Abstract Independent evaluations of grant applications by subject experts are an important part of the peer-review system. However, little is known about the... |
| SourceID | doaj proquest pubmed crossref |
| SourceType | Open Website Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source |
| StartPage | 1 |
| SubjectTerms | Academic staff Applicants Application Evaluation Experts Grants Habits Humanities Interviews Peer review Peers Prestige Social sciences Thinking aloud |
| SummonAdditionalLinks | – databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals dbid: DOA link: http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV07bxQxELZQlIIGBYXHhhANEh1a3b78WDoSJaKKUoB0neW1xxApt4duL9T8DVp-Gr8k48cdl4LQ0K5nV5Y94_m-Hc8MY2_9MLjGd2RIhOaJoPRYGiuHUhJ7blDJzlY2NpuQl5dqPu-vdlp9hTthqTxwWrgZqo48rEPua0PURZnecnRopOmFJP8TTl9CPTtkKpzBwWsTsM5ZMoRJZhN5qpBw34SbCBUnznTPE8WC_X9HmdHbXBywJxkmwoc0vafsEY6H7NcV4gpSsgmhtt8_foIjo14szPQeDKT8yFjIGzBerYurDksPLnfSoU_anAcC1yMQ-IM_5b6D4BdyXWvYjWpv5BYpogNfU8UMIthgRgfpnztkRzo9Y58vzj-dfSxzj4XSEhBal7UdvBUOnR9UJQxWpq6wC_nVtMBSdEYOTTso1_a18mia1tE4oa6eY9cbp9rnbG9cjviSQdX62lbeEeOSRPoEAR8rlSGhkL3K24LVm_XWNhcgD30wbnQMhHOp0x5p2iMd90iLgr3bvvMtld94UPo0bONWMpTOjg9IoXRWKP0vhSrY8UYJdLbnSTeChzwa4msFe7MdJksM4RUz4vKWZCTniuYh-oK9SMqznUkrOB2sHT_6HzN8xR43UY_bsuqO2d56dYuv2b79vr6eVifREO4AUyEOQw priority: 102 providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Title | Peer reviewers’ dilemmas: a qualitative exploration of decisional conflict in the evaluation of grant applications in the medical humanities and social sciences |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36530545 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2652424230 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2755805069 https://doaj.org/article/e84273de5f1a4468a9c5edea7a967224 |
| Volume | 9 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000764738300003&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| journalDatabaseRights | – providerCode: PRVAON databaseName: DOAJ : Directory of Open Access Journals [open access] customDbUrl: eissn: 2662-9992 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0002512428 issn: 2662-9992 databaseCode: DOA dateStart: 20200101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.doaj.org/ providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals – providerCode: PRVHPJ databaseName: ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources customDbUrl: eissn: 2662-9992 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0002512428 issn: 2662-9992 databaseCode: M~E dateStart: 20200101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://road.issn.org providerName: ISSN International Centre – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: ProQuest Central (subscription) customDbUrl: eissn: 2662-9992 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0002512428 issn: 2662-9992 databaseCode: BENPR dateStart: 20151201 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.proquest.com/central providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Proquest Research Library customDbUrl: eissn: 2662-9992 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0002512428 issn: 2662-9992 databaseCode: M2O dateStart: 20151201 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://search.proquest.com/pqrl providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Publicly Available Content Database customDbUrl: eissn: 2662-9992 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0002512428 issn: 2662-9992 databaseCode: PIMPY dateStart: 20151201 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: http://search.proquest.com/publiccontent providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Social Science Database customDbUrl: eissn: 2662-9992 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0002512428 issn: 2662-9992 databaseCode: M2R dateStart: 20151201 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://search.proquest.com/socscijournals providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVAVX databaseName: SpringerOpen customDbUrl: eissn: 2662-9992 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0002512428 issn: 2662-9992 databaseCode: C24 dateStart: 20150112 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://link.springer.com/search?facet-content-type=%22Journal%22 providerName: Springer Nature |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1Lj9QwDLbYGQ5ceIhXYRkFiRuqto-kSbkgFu0KDjtUCKThFKV5LCsx7TKd5czf4MpP45fgpJkuHNgLlx5at0plx_5sxzbAM9e2pnAUNxKieXRQapsqzduUo_dcWMGpznQYNsGXS7Fa1U0MuA3xWOVOJwZFbXrtY-QHRcV8JQMi5pfnX1M_NcpnV-MIjT2Y-05ldAbzw6Nl836KsnjrjQA7VssgNjkY0GL5wvvCn0jIGPpOf1mk0Lj_32gzWJ3jW_-73ttwM-JN8moUkDtwzXZ34Wdj7YaMVSsI_359_0EMaof1Wg0viCJjoWXoCE5sOKMX2Ed6R0wcyYOf1LGghJx1BFEkuewb7glP0QZuyZ_p8R3dekwNkc9j6w301InqDBmD9yRa5OEefDw--vD6TRqHNaQaEdU2zXXrdGWsca3IKmUzlWeW-kJtrhDyUMXbomyFKetcOKuK0uBzhG81s7RWRpT3Ydb1nX0IJCtdrjNn0HXj6D1WiKA0FwqJfBksKxPIdwyTOnYy9wM1vsiQUWdcjkyWyGQZmCyrBJ5P75yPfTyupD70cjBR-h7c4Ua_OZVxS0srKGI_Y5nLFTrVQtWaWWMV_m_FERklsL-TDBkVwyAvxSKBp9Nj3NI-T6M6218gDWdM4DqqOoEHo_RNKykrhhqaskdXf_wx3CiCiJdpRvdhtt1c2CdwXX_bng2bBezxlVjEvbIIYQi8nhTvwhXvzJu3J82n3-AEIsM |
| linkProvider | ProQuest |
| linkToHtml | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMw1V3NbtQwELZKQYILP-IvUMBIcEJRE8eOHSSE-KtatV1VqEi9GceelJXYbNlsQdx4Da48AA_FkzC2kxQO9NYD182slc1-nvkm42-GkEdNXTvWcNxIyOYxQakgNVbWqcTsmYGS3GY2DJuQk4k6OKj2VsjPQQvjj1UOPjE4aje3_h35OiuFVzIgY35-9Cn1U6N8dXUYoRFhsQ1fv2DK1j3beo3_72PGNt7sv9pM-6kCqcXQv0xzWze2dOCaWmWlgczkGXCvKJYGYzM3smZFrVxR5aoBwwqH15FnVAJ4ZZwqcN1z5DzHTMj36t9lb8d3Op4rIJ3vtTnIhNY7jI9e5s_8-YdMYKb2V_wLYwL-zW1DjNu48r89navkcs-m6YsI_2tkBdrr5McewIJGTQ6S21_fvlOHvm82M91TamiUkYZ-5xTCCcQATjpvqOsHDuGStpfL0GlLkSPTk67o3vAQI_yS_ln8H-xmsfBFP8TGIlPoqGkdjaUJ2vON7gZ5dyaP5SZZbect3CY0K5rcZo3DxFRiblwiP7RSGTTyIl9RJCQfAKJt36fdjwv5qMN5ASF1BJVGUOkAKl0m5Mn4naPYpeRU65ced6Ol7zAePpgvDnXvsDQojszWgWhyw3mpTGUFODD4e0uJvC8hawMSde_2On0Cw4Q8HC-jw_JVKNPC_BhtpBAK76OsEnIron28k6IUGH-4uHP64g_Ixc393R29szXZvksusbC9ijTja2R1uTiGe-SC_bycdov7YX9S8v6sIf8bMkJ5ow |
| linkToPdf | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMw1V1Lb9QwELZKQYgLDwElUMBIcELRJo4dO0gIAWVFVVitEEi9GcePshKblM0WxI2_wZWfwc_hlzC2kxQO9NYD12Ri5fHNzDfxPBC67-raEEdBkYDNQ4BS2VRpXqccomdiBac602HYBJ_NxP5-Nd9AP4daGJ9WOdjEYKhNq_0_8gkpma9kAMY8cX1axHxn-uTwU-onSPmd1mGcRoTInv36BcK37vHuDnzrB4RMX7x9_jLtJwykGmjAOs117XRprHG1yEplM5VnlvrqYq7AT1PFa1LUwhRVLpxVpDBwHjhHxSytlBEFrHsGneWUMa9dr8mb8f-O5w1A7fs6HWBFkw58pS_5Jz4XImMQtf3lC8PIgH_z3ODvppf-5zd1GV3sWTZ-GtXiCtqwzVX0Y27tCsdaHSC9v759xwZs4nKpukdY4VheGvqgYxsyEwNoceuw6QcRwZK6L6PBiwYDd8bH3dK94AF4_jX-MylgkFvGDTH8ITYcWdgOq8bguGWBex7SXUPvTuW1XEebTdvYGwhnhct15gwErBxi5hJ4o-ZCgZAv_mVFgvIBLFL3_dv9GJGPMuQRMC4jwCQATAaAyTJBD8drDmP3khOln3kMjpK-83g40K4OZG_IpBUUGK-xzOWK0lKoSjNrrILnLTnwwQRtD6iUvTns5DEkE3RvPA2GzO9Oqca2RyDDGRNwH2WVoK2I_PFOipKBX6Ls5smL30XnAeny1e5s7xa6QIKmFWlGt9HmenVkb6Nz-vN60a3uBFXF6P1pI_43EQiCaQ |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Peer+reviewers%27+dilemmas%3A+a+qualitative+exploration+of+decisional+conflict+in+the+evaluation+of+grant+applications+in+the+medical+humanities+and+social+sciences&rft.jtitle=Humanities+%26+social+sciences+communications&rft.au=Vall%C3%A9e-Tourangeau%2C+Ga%D1%91lle&rft.au=Wheelock%2C+Ana&rft.au=Vandrevala%2C+Tushna&rft.au=Harries%2C+Priscilla&rft.date=2022-03-04&rft.eissn=2662-9992&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=1&rft_id=info:doi/10.1057%2Fs41599-022-01050-6&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F36530545&rft.externalDocID=36530545 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2662-9992&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2662-9992&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2662-9992&client=summon |