Articles in this special issue deal with the assessment of the impact of research and are divided into segments concerning semiquantitative approaches; qualitative approaches; and quantitative and fiscal approaches. These articles illustrate the importance of the role of motivation and associated incentives. (SLD)

Reliability and accuracy of peer ratings by 32, 28, 33 general surgery residents over 3 years were examined. Peer ratings were found highly reliable, with high level of test-retest reliability replicated across three years. Halo effects appear to pose greatest threat to rater accuracy, though chief residents tended to exhibit less halo effect than…

The use of peer review for federal research impact evaluation is described. Advanced review processes can improve the efficiency of a review, but the most important factors in a quality review are leader motivation and the competence and independence of review team members. No single method provides complete impact evaluation. (SLD)

Peer review practices of scholarly journals were examined through a survey of 215 members of a professional society in the field of mass communication. Both researchers and referees had mixed feelings about peer review and specific journals and dissatisfaction with the direction and content of research published. (SLD)

Assumptions and theories underlying grants peer review as a way to select research proposals for funding and its usefulness as an evaluation methodology are explored. Issues arising from the operation of peer-based systems at the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health are examined. (SLD)