Face-to-face panel meetings versus remote evaluation of fellowship applications: simulation study at the Swiss National Science Foundation.
Options
BORIS DOI
Publisher DOI
PubMed ID
33952554
Description
OBJECTIVES
To trial a simplified, time and cost-saving method for remote evaluation of fellowship applications and compare this with existing panel review processes by analysing concordance between funding decisions, and the use of a lottery-based decision method for proposals of similar quality.
DESIGN
The study involved 134 junior fellowship proposals for postdoctoral research ('Postdoc.Mobility'). The official method used two panel reviewers who independently scored the application, followed by triage and discussion of selected applications in a panel. Very competitive/uncompetitive proposals were directly funded/rejected without discussion. The simplified procedure used the scores of the two panel members, with or without the score of an additional, third expert. Both methods could further use a lottery to decide on applications of similar quality close to the funding threshold. The same funding rate was applied, and the agreement between the two methods analysed.
SETTING
Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF).
PARTICIPANTS
Postdoc.Mobility panel reviewers and additional expert reviewers.
PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE
Per cent agreement between the simplified and official evaluation method with 95% CIs.
RESULTS
The simplified procedure based on three reviews agreed in 80.6% (95% CI: 73.9% to 87.3%) of applicants with the official funding outcome. The agreement was 86.6% (95% CI: 80.6% to 91.8%) when using the two reviews of the panel members. The agreement between the two methods was lower for the group of applications discussed in the panel (64.2% and 73.1%, respectively), and higher for directly funded/rejected applications (range: 96.7%-100%). The lottery was used in 8 (6.0%) of 134 applications (official method), 19 (14.2%) applications (simplified, three reviewers) and 23 (17.2%) applications (simplified, two reviewers). With the simplified procedure, evaluation costs could have been halved and 31 hours of meeting time saved for the two 2019 calls.
CONCLUSION
Agreement between the two methods was high. The simplified procedure could represent a viable evaluation method for the Postdoc.Mobility early career instrument at the SNSF.
To trial a simplified, time and cost-saving method for remote evaluation of fellowship applications and compare this with existing panel review processes by analysing concordance between funding decisions, and the use of a lottery-based decision method for proposals of similar quality.
DESIGN
The study involved 134 junior fellowship proposals for postdoctoral research ('Postdoc.Mobility'). The official method used two panel reviewers who independently scored the application, followed by triage and discussion of selected applications in a panel. Very competitive/uncompetitive proposals were directly funded/rejected without discussion. The simplified procedure used the scores of the two panel members, with or without the score of an additional, third expert. Both methods could further use a lottery to decide on applications of similar quality close to the funding threshold. The same funding rate was applied, and the agreement between the two methods analysed.
SETTING
Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF).
PARTICIPANTS
Postdoc.Mobility panel reviewers and additional expert reviewers.
PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE
Per cent agreement between the simplified and official evaluation method with 95% CIs.
RESULTS
The simplified procedure based on three reviews agreed in 80.6% (95% CI: 73.9% to 87.3%) of applicants with the official funding outcome. The agreement was 86.6% (95% CI: 80.6% to 91.8%) when using the two reviews of the panel members. The agreement between the two methods was lower for the group of applications discussed in the panel (64.2% and 73.1%, respectively), and higher for directly funded/rejected applications (range: 96.7%-100%). The lottery was used in 8 (6.0%) of 134 applications (official method), 19 (14.2%) applications (simplified, three reviewers) and 23 (17.2%) applications (simplified, two reviewers). With the simplified procedure, evaluation costs could have been halved and 31 hours of meeting time saved for the two 2019 calls.
CONCLUSION
Agreement between the two methods was high. The simplified procedure could represent a viable evaluation method for the Postdoc.Mobility early career instrument at the SNSF.
Date of Publication
2021-05-05
Publication Type
Article
Subject(s)
600 - Technology::610 - Medicine & health
300 - Social sciences, sociology & anthropology::360 - Social problems & social services
Keyword(s)
health economics health policy statistics & research methods
Language(s)
en
Contributor(s)
Bieri, Marco | |
Roser, Katharina | |
Heyard, Rachel |
Additional Credits
Institut für Sozial- und Präventivmedizin (ISPM)
Series
BMJ open
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group
ISSN
2044-6055
Access(Rights)
open.access