Abstract
This study explores the criteria by which biologists in the United States evaluate their peers' scientific performance. Six distinguished biology professors rated forty-two former National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellows on the basis of the latter's CVs and bibliographies. The most powerful predictor of these quality judgements was the rated scientist's annual productivity rate: this explained more than 40% of the variance in the evaluators' judgements.
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.
