All

What are you looking for?

All
Projects
Results
Organizations

Quick search

  • Projects supported by TA ČR
  • Excellent projects
  • Projects with the highest public support
  • Current projects

Smart search

  • That is how I find a specific +word
  • That is how I leave the -word out of the results
  • “That is how I can find the whole phrase”

When Zero May not be Zero: A Cautionary Note on the use of Inter-rater Reliability in Evaluating Grant Peer Review

The result's identifiers

  • Result code in IS VaVaI

    <a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F67985807%3A_____%2F21%3A00541889" target="_blank" >RIV/67985807:_____/21:00541889 - isvavai.cz</a>

  • Result on the web

    <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12681" target="_blank" >http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12681</a>

  • DOI - Digital Object Identifier

    <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12681" target="_blank" >10.1111/rssa.12681</a>

Alternative languages

  • Result language

    angličtina

  • Original language name

    When Zero May not be Zero: A Cautionary Note on the use of Inter-rater Reliability in Evaluating Grant Peer Review

  • Original language description

    Considerable attention has focused on studying reviewer agreement via inter‐rater reliability (IRR) as a way to assess the quality of the peer review process. Inspired by a recent study that reported an IRR of zero in the mock peer review of top‐quality grant proposals, we use real data from a complete range of submissions to the National Institutes of Health and to the American Institute of Biological Sciences to bring awareness to two important issues with using IRR for assessing peer review quality. First, we demonstrate that estimating local IRR from subsets of restricted‐quality proposals will likely result in zero estimates under many scenarios. In both data sets, we find that zero local IRR estimates are more likely when subsets of top‐quality proposals rather than bottom‐quality proposals are considered. However, zero estimates from range‐restricted data should not be interpreted as indicating arbitrariness in peer review. On the contrary, despite different scoring scales used by the two agencies, when complete ranges of proposals are considered, IRR estimates are above 0.6 which indicates good reviewer agreement. Furthermore, we demonstrate that, with a small number of reviewers per proposal, zero estimates of IRR are possible even when the true value is not zero.

  • Czech name

  • Czech description

Classification

  • Type

    J<sub>imp</sub> - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database

  • CEP classification

  • OECD FORD branch

    10103 - Statistics and probability

Result continuities

  • Project

    <a href="/en/project/GA21-03658S" target="_blank" >GA21-03658S: Theoretical foundations of computational psychometrics</a><br>

  • Continuities

    I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Others

  • Publication year

    2021

  • Confidentiality

    S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Data specific for result type

  • Name of the periodical

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A-Statistics in Society

  • ISSN

    0964-1998

  • e-ISSN

    1467-985X

  • Volume of the periodical

    184

  • Issue of the periodical within the volume

    3

  • Country of publishing house

    US - UNITED STATES

  • Number of pages

    16

  • Pages from-to

    904-919

  • UT code for WoS article

    000641375900001

  • EID of the result in the Scopus database

    2-s2.0-85104530726