Assessing Research Impact

Abstract

This article describes the use of peer review for federal research impact evaluation. For selected agencies, it covers peer review practices for proposed and existing programs. It shows that nearer-term research impacts typically play a more important role in the review outcome than longer-term impacts; however, they do not have quite the importance of team quality, research approach, or the research merit. Although advanced review processes can improve the efficiency of a review, three of the most important intangible factors for a high-quality peer review are motivation of the review leader, and competence and independence of the review team members. Although peer review in its broadest sense is the most widely used method in research selection, review, and expost assessment, it has its deficiencies, and there is no single method that provides a complete impact evaluation. The use of quantitative techniques such as bibliometrics to supplement peer review is an area ripe for exploitation.