Reviewers' ratings and bibliometric indicators: hand in hand when assessing over research proposals?
The peer review system has been traditionally challenged due to its many limitations especially for allocating funding. Bibliometric indicators may well present themselves as a complement. We analyze the relationship between peers' ratings and bibliometric indicators for Spanish researchers in...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2013-06, Vol.8 (6), p.e68258-e68258 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e68258 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | e68258 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 8 |
| creator | Cabezas-Clavijo, Alvaro Robinson-García, Nicolás Escabias, Manuel Jiménez-Contreras, Evaristo |
| description | The peer review system has been traditionally challenged due to its many limitations especially for allocating funding. Bibliometric indicators may well present themselves as a complement.
We analyze the relationship between peers' ratings and bibliometric indicators for Spanish researchers in the 2007 National R&D Plan for 23 research fields.
We analyze peers' ratings for 2333 applications. We also gathered principal investigators' research output and impact and studied the differences between accepted and rejected applications. We used the Web of Science database and focused on the 2002-2006 period. First, we analyzed the distribution of granted and rejected proposals considering a given set of bibliometric indicators to test if there are significant differences. Then, we applied a multiple logistic regression analysis to determine if bibliometric indicators can explain by themselves the concession of grant proposals.
63.4% of the applications were funded. Bibliometric indicators for accepted proposals showed a better previous performance than for those rejected; however the correlation between peer review and bibliometric indicators is very heterogeneous among most areas. The logistic regression analysis showed that the main bibliometric indicators that explain the granting of research proposals in most cases are the output (number of published articles) and the number of papers published in journals that belong to the first quartile ranking of the Journal Citations Report.
Bibliometric indicators predict the concession of grant proposals at least as well as peer ratings. Social Sciences and Education are the only areas where no relation was found, although this may be due to the limitations of the Web of Science's coverage. These findings encourage the use of bibliometric indicators as a complement to peer review in most of the analyzed areas. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0068258 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1399727460</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_812e3ec72f8d484c8ab4d46d43766232</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>1399507881</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c526t-b8d1b1586c50a5e44da7fbc77b18b403ad4bfec33aad1a391dad8d56659374ff3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptUl1rFDEUHUSxtfoPRAd8qC-75jsZH5RS_CgUBNHncJPc2c0yO1mT2S3-e2edaWlFCJyQe86594ZTVS8pWVKu6btN2uceuuUu9bgkRBkmzaPqlDacLRQj_PG9-0n1rJQNIZIbpZ5WJ4wbQcZzWoXveIh4g7mc1xmG2K9KDX2oXXRdTFsccvR17EP0MKRc3tfrYzX2E96ssa-hFCxlVNbpgLnOWBCyX9e7nHapQFc-Pq-etCPiixnPqp-fP_24_Lq4_vbl6vLieuElU8PCmUAdlUZ5SUCiEAF067zWjhonCIcgXIuec4BAgTc0QDBBKiUbrkXb8rPq9eS761Kx8wcVS3nTaKaFIiPjamKEBBu7y3EL-bdNEO3fh5RXFvIQfYfWUIYcvWatCcIIb8CJIFQQXCvFOBu9Pszd9m6LwWM_ZOgemD6s9HFtV-lguWpkQ8Ro8HY2yOnXHstgt7F47DroMe2nuSXRxtCR-uYf6v-3ExPL51RKxvZuGErsMTS3KnsMjZ1DM8pe3V_kTnSbEv4HHyPB0w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1399727460</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reviewers' ratings and bibliometric indicators: hand in hand when assessing over research proposals?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Cabezas-Clavijo, Alvaro ; Robinson-García, Nicolás ; Escabias, Manuel ; Jiménez-Contreras, Evaristo</creator><contributor>Bornmann, Lutz</contributor><creatorcontrib>Cabezas-Clavijo, Alvaro ; Robinson-García, Nicolás ; Escabias, Manuel ; Jiménez-Contreras, Evaristo ; Bornmann, Lutz</creatorcontrib><description>The peer review system has been traditionally challenged due to its many limitations especially for allocating funding. Bibliometric indicators may well present themselves as a complement.
We analyze the relationship between peers' ratings and bibliometric indicators for Spanish researchers in the 2007 National R&D Plan for 23 research fields.
We analyze peers' ratings for 2333 applications. We also gathered principal investigators' research output and impact and studied the differences between accepted and rejected applications. We used the Web of Science database and focused on the 2002-2006 period. First, we analyzed the distribution of granted and rejected proposals considering a given set of bibliometric indicators to test if there are significant differences. Then, we applied a multiple logistic regression analysis to determine if bibliometric indicators can explain by themselves the concession of grant proposals.
63.4% of the applications were funded. Bibliometric indicators for accepted proposals showed a better previous performance than for those rejected; however the correlation between peer review and bibliometric indicators is very heterogeneous among most areas. The logistic regression analysis showed that the main bibliometric indicators that explain the granting of research proposals in most cases are the output (number of published articles) and the number of papers published in journals that belong to the first quartile ranking of the Journal Citations Report.
Bibliometric indicators predict the concession of grant proposals at least as well as peer ratings. Social Sciences and Education are the only areas where no relation was found, although this may be due to the limitations of the Web of Science's coverage. These findings encourage the use of bibliometric indicators as a complement to peer review in most of the analyzed areas.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068258</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23840840</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Bibliometrics ; Biomedical Research ; Citation analysis ; Databases, Factual ; Financing, Organized ; Humans ; Indicators ; Peer review ; Peers ; Proposals ; Publishing ; R&D ; Ratings ; Regression analysis ; Research & development ; Research Design ; Research funding ; Research Personnel ; Researchers ; Science ; Scientometrics ; Social sciences ; Spain ; Studies</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2013-06, Vol.8 (6), p.e68258-e68258</ispartof><rights>2013 Cabezas-Clavijo et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2013 Cabezas-Clavijo et al 2013 Cabezas-Clavijo et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c526t-b8d1b1586c50a5e44da7fbc77b18b403ad4bfec33aad1a391dad8d56659374ff3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c526t-b8d1b1586c50a5e44da7fbc77b18b403ad4bfec33aad1a391dad8d56659374ff3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3695904/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3695904/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793,79600,79601</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23840840$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Bornmann, Lutz</contributor><creatorcontrib>Cabezas-Clavijo, Alvaro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robinson-García, Nicolás</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Escabias, Manuel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiménez-Contreras, Evaristo</creatorcontrib><title>Reviewers' ratings and bibliometric indicators: hand in hand when assessing over research proposals?</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>The peer review system has been traditionally challenged due to its many limitations especially for allocating funding. Bibliometric indicators may well present themselves as a complement.
We analyze the relationship between peers' ratings and bibliometric indicators for Spanish researchers in the 2007 National R&D Plan for 23 research fields.
We analyze peers' ratings for 2333 applications. We also gathered principal investigators' research output and impact and studied the differences between accepted and rejected applications. We used the Web of Science database and focused on the 2002-2006 period. First, we analyzed the distribution of granted and rejected proposals considering a given set of bibliometric indicators to test if there are significant differences. Then, we applied a multiple logistic regression analysis to determine if bibliometric indicators can explain by themselves the concession of grant proposals.
63.4% of the applications were funded. Bibliometric indicators for accepted proposals showed a better previous performance than for those rejected; however the correlation between peer review and bibliometric indicators is very heterogeneous among most areas. The logistic regression analysis showed that the main bibliometric indicators that explain the granting of research proposals in most cases are the output (number of published articles) and the number of papers published in journals that belong to the first quartile ranking of the Journal Citations Report.
Bibliometric indicators predict the concession of grant proposals at least as well as peer ratings. Social Sciences and Education are the only areas where no relation was found, although this may be due to the limitations of the Web of Science's coverage. These findings encourage the use of bibliometric indicators as a complement to peer review in most of the analyzed areas.</description><subject>Bibliometrics</subject><subject>Biomedical Research</subject><subject>Citation analysis</subject><subject>Databases, Factual</subject><subject>Financing, Organized</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Indicators</subject><subject>Peer review</subject><subject>Peers</subject><subject>Proposals</subject><subject>Publishing</subject><subject>R&D</subject><subject>Ratings</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Research & development</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Research funding</subject><subject>Research Personnel</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Scientometrics</subject><subject>Social sciences</subject><subject>Spain</subject><subject>Studies</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNptUl1rFDEUHUSxtfoPRAd8qC-75jsZH5RS_CgUBNHncJPc2c0yO1mT2S3-e2edaWlFCJyQe86594ZTVS8pWVKu6btN2uceuuUu9bgkRBkmzaPqlDacLRQj_PG9-0n1rJQNIZIbpZ5WJ4wbQcZzWoXveIh4g7mc1xmG2K9KDX2oXXRdTFsccvR17EP0MKRc3tfrYzX2E96ssa-hFCxlVNbpgLnOWBCyX9e7nHapQFc-Pq-etCPiixnPqp-fP_24_Lq4_vbl6vLieuElU8PCmUAdlUZ5SUCiEAF067zWjhonCIcgXIuec4BAgTc0QDBBKiUbrkXb8rPq9eS761Kx8wcVS3nTaKaFIiPjamKEBBu7y3EL-bdNEO3fh5RXFvIQfYfWUIYcvWatCcIIb8CJIFQQXCvFOBu9Pszd9m6LwWM_ZOgemD6s9HFtV-lguWpkQ8Ro8HY2yOnXHstgt7F47DroMe2nuSXRxtCR-uYf6v-3ExPL51RKxvZuGErsMTS3KnsMjZ1DM8pe3V_kTnSbEv4HHyPB0w</recordid><startdate>20130628</startdate><enddate>20130628</enddate><creator>Cabezas-Clavijo, Alvaro</creator><creator>Robinson-García, Nicolás</creator><creator>Escabias, Manuel</creator><creator>Jiménez-Contreras, Evaristo</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130628</creationdate><title>Reviewers' ratings and bibliometric indicators: hand in hand when assessing over research proposals?</title><author>Cabezas-Clavijo, Alvaro ; Robinson-García, Nicolás ; Escabias, Manuel ; Jiménez-Contreras, Evaristo</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c526t-b8d1b1586c50a5e44da7fbc77b18b403ad4bfec33aad1a391dad8d56659374ff3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Bibliometrics</topic><topic>Biomedical Research</topic><topic>Citation analysis</topic><topic>Databases, Factual</topic><topic>Financing, Organized</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Indicators</topic><topic>Peer review</topic><topic>Peers</topic><topic>Proposals</topic><topic>Publishing</topic><topic>R&D</topic><topic>Ratings</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Research & development</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Research funding</topic><topic>Research Personnel</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Scientometrics</topic><topic>Social sciences</topic><topic>Spain</topic><topic>Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cabezas-Clavijo, Alvaro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robinson-García, Nicolás</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Escabias, Manuel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiménez-Contreras, Evaristo</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cabezas-Clavijo, Alvaro</au><au>Robinson-García, Nicolás</au><au>Escabias, Manuel</au><au>Jiménez-Contreras, Evaristo</au><au>Bornmann, Lutz</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reviewers' ratings and bibliometric indicators: hand in hand when assessing over research proposals?</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2013-06-28</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>e68258</spage><epage>e68258</epage><pages>e68258-e68258</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>The peer review system has been traditionally challenged due to its many limitations especially for allocating funding. Bibliometric indicators may well present themselves as a complement.
We analyze the relationship between peers' ratings and bibliometric indicators for Spanish researchers in the 2007 National R&D Plan for 23 research fields.
We analyze peers' ratings for 2333 applications. We also gathered principal investigators' research output and impact and studied the differences between accepted and rejected applications. We used the Web of Science database and focused on the 2002-2006 period. First, we analyzed the distribution of granted and rejected proposals considering a given set of bibliometric indicators to test if there are significant differences. Then, we applied a multiple logistic regression analysis to determine if bibliometric indicators can explain by themselves the concession of grant proposals.
63.4% of the applications were funded. Bibliometric indicators for accepted proposals showed a better previous performance than for those rejected; however the correlation between peer review and bibliometric indicators is very heterogeneous among most areas. The logistic regression analysis showed that the main bibliometric indicators that explain the granting of research proposals in most cases are the output (number of published articles) and the number of papers published in journals that belong to the first quartile ranking of the Journal Citations Report.
Bibliometric indicators predict the concession of grant proposals at least as well as peer ratings. Social Sciences and Education are the only areas where no relation was found, although this may be due to the limitations of the Web of Science's coverage. These findings encourage the use of bibliometric indicators as a complement to peer review in most of the analyzed areas.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>23840840</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0068258</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2013-06, Vol.8 (6), p.e68258-e68258 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1399727460 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Bibliometrics Biomedical Research Citation analysis Databases, Factual Financing, Organized Humans Indicators Peer review Peers Proposals Publishing R&D Ratings Regression analysis Research & development Research Design Research funding Research Personnel Researchers Science Scientometrics Social sciences Spain Studies |
| title | Reviewers' ratings and bibliometric indicators: hand in hand when assessing over research proposals? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T22%3A39%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reviewers'%20ratings%20and%20bibliometric%20indicators:%20hand%20in%20hand%20when%20assessing%20over%20research%20proposals?&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Cabezas-Clavijo,%20Alvaro&rft.date=2013-06-28&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=e68258&rft.epage=e68258&rft.pages=e68258-e68258&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0068258&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_plos_%3E1399507881%3C/proquest_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1399727460&rft_id=info:pmid/23840840&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_812e3ec72f8d484c8ab4d46d43766232&rfr_iscdi=true |