Exportar Publicação

A publicação pode ser exportada nos seguintes formatos: referência da APA (American Psychological Association), referência do IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), BibTeX e RIS.

Exportar Referência (APA) 
Santos, J. M. (2024). Who gets the grant? A persona-based investigation into research funding panelist preferences. Research Evaluation. 33
Exportar Referência (IEEE) 
J. M. Santos,  "Who gets the grant? A persona-based investigation into research funding panelist preferences", in Research Evaluation, vol. 33, 2024
Exportar BibTeX 
@article{santos2024_1734717766558,
	author = "Santos, J. M.",
	title = "Who gets the grant? A persona-based investigation into research funding panelist preferences",
	journal = "Research Evaluation",
	year = "2024",
	volume = "33",
	number = "",
	doi = "10.1093/reseval/rvae030",
	url = "https://academic.oup.com/rev"
}
Exportar RIS 
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Who gets the grant? A persona-based investigation into research funding panelist preferences
T2  - Research Evaluation
VL  - 33
AU  - Santos, J. M.
PY  - 2024
SN  - 0958-2029
DO  - 10.1093/reseval/rvae030
UR  - https://academic.oup.com/rev
AB  - The allocation of scientific funding through grant programs is crucial for research advancement. While independent peer panels typically handle evaluations, their decisions can lean on personal preferences that go beyond the stated criteria, leading to inconsistencies and potential biases. Given these concerns, our study employs a novel method, using simulated, data-driven, and narrative personas of fictional candidates, to identify the attributes that significantly influence panelist choices and profile what an optimal candidate would look like. Our findings reveal a preference for mid-career, multidisciplinary researchers with significant publications, citations, and prior project experience. Such optimal candidates also lean toward applied science, collaborative research, interactions with both industry and the public, and a progressive stance on science. Contrary to existing literature, this study found indications of a bias toward female candidates, which we interpret as a result of deliberate correction caused by awareness of existing biases in academia. Age emerged as another influential factor, suggesting either a preference for younger researchers or a perception of waning productivity among seasoned academics. Consistency in a candidate’s profile, rather than standout attributes, was also favored by panelists.
ER  -