DBF
Development and Verification of a Bibliometric model for the Identification of Frontier Research
| Coordinatore |
Spiacenti, non ci sono informazioni su questo coordinatore. Contattare Fabio per maggiori infomrazioni, grazie. |
| Nazionalità Coordinatore | Non specificata |
| Totale costo | 466˙883 € |
| EC contributo | 333˙416 € |
| Programma | FP7-IDEAS-ERC
Specific programme: "Ideas" implementing the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) |
| Anno di inizio | 2009 |
| Periodo (anno-mese-giorno) | 2009-09-01 - 2013-02-28 |
Partecipanti
| # | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE
Organization address
address: Rue Michel -Ange 3 contact info |
FR (PARIS) | beneficiary | 152˙903.00 |
| 2 |
AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH
Organization address
address: Donau-City-Strasse 1 contact info |
AT (WIEN) | hostInstitution | 180˙513.00 |
Mappa
Word cloud
Esplora la "nuvola delle parole (Word Cloud) per avere un'idea di massima del progetto.
Obiettivo del progetto (Objective)
'The goal of the proposed work is to provide a bibliometric monitoring for the peer review process of the ERC grant schemes. Particular interest will be devoted to the extent the grant applications fulfil attributes of frontier research and the influence of these attributes on the decision of the panels. For this purpose, bibliometric parameters corresponding to what was defined as frontier research by the EC’s High Level Expert Group (HLEG) in 2005 will be elaborated and applied on the relevant information available in the grant applications as well as in the relevant publications authored by the applicants prior to their submission of their grant application. By doing so, a bibliometric ranking of the submitted applications will be obtained which can be compared to the ranking/selection made by the peer review process. By comparing the two rankings, it shall be found out whether the peer review process shows a systematic bias in one or more categories of researchers or projects. A per case analysis for the most evident deviations will be carried out under the involvement of experts in the respective field in order to identify either the need for adaptations in the bibliometric model or the need for drafting suggestions for the improvement of the peer review process. The work shall result in a methodology that allows the ERC to monitor the operation of the peer review process from a bibliometric perspective and potentially shall yield additional elements in the future execution of the peer review process. Such elements could be periodic monitoring activities for each call or a methodology for the pre-evaluation of future grant applications in order to support the reviewers or the panel members with an additional input and orientation for the assessment of such applications.'