Registered report protocol: Factors associated with inter-rater agreement in grant peer review

Grant peer review processes are pivotal in allocating substantial research funding, yet concerns about their reliability persist, primarily due to low inter-rater agreement. This study aims to examine factors associated with agreement among peer reviewers in grant evaluations, leveraging data from 134,991 reviews across four Norwegian research funders. Using a cross-classified linear regression model, we will explore the relationship between inter-rater agreement and multiple factors, including reviewer similarity, experience, expertise, research area, application characteristics, review depth, and temporal trends. Our findings are expected to shed light on whether similarity between reviewers (gender, age), their experience, or expertise correlates with higher agreement. Additionally, we investigate whether characteristics of the applications-such as funding amount, research area, or variability in project size-affect agreement levels. By analyzing applications from diverse disciplines and funding schemes, this study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the drivers of inter-rater agreement and their implications for grant peer review reliability. The results will inform improvements to peer review processes, enhancing the fairness and validity of funding decisions. All data and analysis scripts will be publicly available, ensuring transparency and reproducibility.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS ONE
Published
2025-05-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322696
Primary Topic
scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Registered report protocol: Factors associated with inter-rater agreement in grant peer review

Knut Inge Fostervold, Ida C. Svege, Jan-Ole Hesselberg, Pål Ulleberg et al.
PLoS ONE
scientometrics and bibliometrics research
article

Registered report protocol: Factors associated with inter-rater agreement in grant peer review

Knut Inge Fostervold, Ida C. Svege, Jan-Ole Hesselberg, Pål Ulleberg, Øystein Sørensen, Sigrid Hegna Ingvaldsen
article en

Abstract

Grant peer review processes are pivotal in allocating substantial research funding, yet concerns about their reliability persist, primarily due to low inter-rater agreement. This study aims to examine factors associated with agreement among peer reviewers in grant evaluations, leveraging data from 134,991 reviews across four Norwegian research funders. Using a cross-classified linear regression model, we will explore the relationship between inter-rater agreement and multiple factors, including reviewer similarity, experience, expertise, research area, application characteristics, review depth, and temporal trends. Our findings are expected to shed light on whether similarity between reviewers (gender, age), their experience, or expertise correlates with higher agreement. Additionally, we investigate whether characteristics of the applications-such as funding amount, research area, or variability in project size-affect agreement levels. By analyzing applications from diverse disciplines and funding schemes, this study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the drivers of inter-rater agreement and their implications for grant peer review reliability. The results will inform improvements to peer review processes, enhancing the fairness and validity of funding decisions. All data and analysis scripts will be publicly available, ensuring transparency and reproducibility.

PLoS ONEVol. 20(5)
University of Oslo (NO), 657 Oslo (NO), Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NO)
EkstraStiftelsen Helse og Rehabilitering (Stiftelsen Dam)
Gender equality
Openalex Percentile: Top 88%
scientometrics and bibliometrics research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.