Search

Background: In the evaluation of research proposals, reviewers are often required to provide their opinions using various forms of quantitative and qualitative criteria. In 2020, the European Commission removed, for the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) Innovative Training Networks (ITN) funding scheme, the numerical scores from the individual evaluations but retained them in the consensus report. This study aimed to assess whether there were any differences in reviewer comments’ linguistic characteristics after the numerical scoring was removed, compared to comments from 2019 when numerical scoring was still present. Methods: This was an observational study and the data were collected for the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) Innovative Training Networks (ITN) evaluation reports from the calls of 2019 and 2020, for both individual and consensus comments and numerical scores about the quality of the research proposal on three evaluation criteria: Excellence, Impact and Implementation. All comments were analyzed using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) program. Results: For both years, the comments for proposal’s strengths were written in a style that reflects objectivity, clout, and positive affect, while in weaknesses cold and objective style dominated, and that pattern remained stable across proposal status and research domains. Linguistic variables explained a very small proportion of the variance of the differences between 2019 and 2020 (McFadden R2=0.03). Conclusions: Removing the numerical scores was not associated with the differences in linguistic characteristics of the reviewer comments. Future studies should adopt a qualitative approach to assess whether there are conceptual changes in the content of the comments.

Background: In the evaluation of research proposals, reviewers are often required to provide their opinions using various forms of quantitative and qualitative criteria. In 2020, the European Commission removed, for the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) Innovative Training Networks (ITN) funding scheme, the numerical scores from the individual evaluations but retained them in the consensus report. This study aimed to assess whether there were any differences in reviewer comments’ linguistic characteristics after the numerical scoring was removed, compared to comments from 2019 when numerical scoring was still present. Methods: This was an observational study and the data were collected for the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) Innovative Training Networks (ITN) evaluation reports from the calls of 2019 and 2020, for both individual and consensus comments and numerical scores about the quality of the proposal on three evaluation criteria: Excellence, Impact and Implementation. All comments were analyzed using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) program. Results: For both years, the comments for proposal's strengths were written in a style that reflects objectivity, clout, and positive affect, while in weaknesses cold and objective style dominated, and that pattern remained stable across proposal status and research domains. Linguistic variables explained a very small proportion of the variance of the differences between 2019 and 2020 (McFadden R2=0.03). Conclusions: Removing the numerical scores was not associated with the differences in linguistic characteristics of the reviewer comments. Future studies should adopt a qualitative approach to assess whether there are conceptual changes in the content of the comments.

Background: We assessed the ethics review of proposals selected for funding under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) and the European Research Council (ERC) in Horizon 2020, EU’s framework programme for research and innovation, 2014-2020. Methods: We analysed anonymized datasets for 3,054 MSCA individual fellowships (IF), 417 MSCA Innovative Training Networks (ITN), and 1,465 ERC main-listed proposals with ethics conditional clearance, over four years (2016 to 2019). The datasets included the information on ethics issues identified by applicants in their proposal and ethics issues and requirements identified by ethics experts during the ethics review. Results: 42% of proposals received ethical clearance. For proposals with conditional ethics clearance (n=3546), most of the identified ethics issues by both applicants and ethics experts were in the ethics categories related to humans; protection of personal data; environment, health and safety; and non-EU countries. Ethics experts identified twice as many ethics issues compared to applicants across funding schemes, years, and from high- and low-research performing countries. ERC grants had the highest number of ethics requirements per proposal (median (Md)=8, interquartile range (IQR=4-14), compared to ITN (Md=6, IQR=3-13) and IF grants (Md=3, IQR=2-6). The majority of requirements had to be fulfilled after grant agreement: 99.4% for IF, 99.5% for ITN, and 26.0% for ERC. For 9% of the proposals, the requirements included the appointment of an independent ethics advisor and 1% of the proposals had to appoint an ethics advisory board. Conclusions: Many applicants for highly competitive H2020 funding schemes lack awareness of ethics issues raised by their proposed research. There is a need for better training of researchers at all career stages about ethics issues in research, more support to researchers from research organizations to follow the funding agencies requirements, as well as further development and harmonization of the ethics appraisal process during grant assessment.

Background: We assessed the ethics review of proposals selected for funding under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) and the European Research Council (ERC) in Horizon 2020, EU’s framework programme for research and innovation, 2014-2020. Methods: We analysed anonymized datasets for 3,054 MSCA individual fellowships (IF), 417 MSCA Innovative Training Networks (ITN), and 1,465 ERC main-listed proposals with ethics conditional clearance, over four years (2016 to 2019). The datasets included the information on ethics issues identified by applicants in their proposal and ethics issues and requirements identified by ethics experts during the ethics review. Results: 42% of proposals received ethical clearance. For proposals with conditional ethics clearance (n=3546), most of the identified ethics issues by both applicants and ethics experts were in the ethics categories related to humans; protection of personal data; environment, health and safety; and non-EU countries. Ethics experts identified twice as many ethics issues compared to applicants across funding schemes, years, and from high- and low-research performing countries. ERC grants had the highest number of ethics requirements per proposal (median (Md)=8, interquartile range (IQR=4-14), compared to ITN (Md=6, IQR=3-13) and IF grants (Md=3, IQR=2-6). The majority of requirements had to be fulfilled after grant agreement: 99.4% for IF, 99.5% for ITN, and 26.0% for ERC. For 9% of the proposals, the requirements included the appointment of an independent ethics advisor and 1% of the proposals had to appoint an ethics advisory board. Conclusions: Many applicants for highly competitive H2020 funding schemes lack awareness of ethics issues raised by their proposed research. There is a need for better training of researchers at all career stages about ethics issues in research, more support to researchers from research organizations to follow the funding agencies requirements, as well as further development and harmonization of the ethics appraisal process during grant assessment.

Most funding agencies rely on peer review to evaluate grant applications and proposals, but research into the use of this process by funding agencies has been limited. Here we explore if two changes to the organization of peer review for proposals submitted to various funding actions by the European Union has an influence on the outcome of the peer review process. Based on an analysis of more than 75,000 applications to three actions of the Marie Curie programme over a period of 12 years, we find that the changes – a reduction in the number of evaluation criteria used by reviewers and a move from in-person to virtual meetings – had little impact on the outcome of the peer review process. Our results indicate that other factors, such as the type of grant or area of research, have a larger impact on the outcome.

Assessing the success and performance of researchers is a difficult task, as their grant output is influenced by a series of factors, including seniority, gender and geographical location of their host institution. In order to assess the effects of these factors, we analysed the publication and citation outputs, using Scopus and Web of Science, and the collaboration networks of European Research Council (ERC) starting (junior) and advanced (senior) grantees. For this study, we used a cohort of 355 grantees from the Life Sciences domain of years 2007-09. While senior grantees had overall greater publication output, junior grantees had a significantly greater pre-post grant award increase in their overall number of publications and in those on which they had last authorship. The collaboration networks size and the number of sub-communities increased for all grantees, although more pronounced for juniors, as they departed from smaller and more compact pre-award co-authorship networks. Both junior and senior grantees increased the size of the community within which they were collaborating in the post-award period. Pre-post grant award performance of grantees was not related to gender, although male junior grantees had more publications than female grantees before and after the grant award. Junior grantees located in lower research-performing countries published less and had less diverse collaboration networks than their peers located in higher research-performing countries. Our study suggests that research environment has greater influence on post-grant award publications than gender especially for junior grantees. Also, collaboration networks may be a useful complement to publication and citation outputs for assessing post-grant research performance, especially for grantees who already have a high publication output and who get highly competitive grants such as those from ERC.

We analysed the peer review of grant proposals under Marie Curie Actions, a major EU research funding instrument, which involves two steps: an independent assessment (Individual Evaluation Report, IER) performed remotely by 3 raters, and a consensus opinion reached during a meeting by the same raters (Consensus Report, CR). For 24,897 proposals evaluated from 2007 to 2013, the association between average IER and CR scores was very high across different panels, grant calls and years. Median average deviation (AD) index, used as a measure of inter-rater agreement, was 5.4 points on a 0-100 scale (interquartile range 3.4-8.3), overall, demonstrating a good general agreement among raters. For proposals where one rater disagreed with the other two raters (n=1424; 5.7%), or where all 3 raters disagreed (n=2075; 8.3%), the average IER and CR scores were still highly associated. Disagreement was more frequent for proposals from Economics/Social Sciences and Humanities panels. Greater disagreement was observed for proposals with lower average IER scores. CR scores for proposals with initial disagreement were also significantly lower. Proposals with a large absolute difference between the average IER and CR scores (≥10 points; n=368, 1.5%) generally had lower CR scores. An inter-correlation matrix of individual raters' scores of evaluation criteria of proposals indicated that these scores were, in general, a reflection of raters' overall scores. Our analysis demonstrated a good internal consistency and general high agreement among raters. Consensus meetings appear to be relevant for particular panels and subsets of proposals with large differences among raters' scores.