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…

There has been a recent increase in attention toward the proper targets of evaluation in science funding policy. Specifically, some claim that we should 'fund people, not projects' to allow for increased autonomy for researchers. Critics argue that this movement unduly opens room for biases against several marginalized groups of scientists. In…

The allocation of scientific funding through grant programs is crucial for research advancement. While independent peer panels typically handle evaluations, their decisions can lean on personal preferences that go beyond the stated criteria, leading to inconsistencies and potential biases. Given these concerns, our study employs a novel method,…

The extent to which predatory journals can harm scientific practice increases as the numbers of such journals expand, in so far as they undermine scientific integrity, quality, and credibility, especially if those journals leak into prestigious databases. Journal Citation Reports (JCRs), a reference for the assessment of researchers and for…

To blind or not researcher's identity has often been a topic of debate in the context of peer-review process for scientific publication and research grant application. This article reports on how knowing the name and experience of researchers/institutions influences the qualification of a proposal. We present our experience of managing the…