Abstract
Grant proposals submitted for funding are usually selected by a peer-review rating process. Some proposals may result in discordant peer-review ratings and therefore require discussion by the selection committee members. The issue is which peer-review ratings are considered as discordant. We propose a simple method to identify such proposals. Our approach is based on the intraclass correlation coefficient, which is usually used in assessing agreement in studies with continuous ratings.
Highlights
Green et al [5] demonstrated that the rating intervals of the scale (0.5 or 0.1) did not influence the final assessment
We propose a simple method to help selection committees identify proposals that require discussion because of lack of agreement in peerreviews
Underlying concept of the proposed approach Considering that the underlying question of our research is agreement, we focus on the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), the parameter usually assessed for continuous outcomes [6]
Summary
Proposals with discordant peer-review ratings need to be discussed before a global ranking of proposals. Disagreement among ratings translates into a high intra-proposal standard deviation for proposals 3, 14, 19, 20 and 15, for example. The ceiling standard deviation should be fixed relative to the inter-proposal heterogeneity rather than be an absolute value.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
