Cognition

Peer reviewers’ dilemmas: a qualitative exploration of decisional conflict in the evaluation of grant applications in the medical humanities and social sciences
Independent evaluations of grant applications by subject experts are an important part of the peer-review system. However, little is …
Gaëlle Vallée-Tourangeau, Ana Wheelock, Tushna Vandrevala, Priscilla Harries
Preprint PDF Project DOI
Peer reviewers’ dilemmas: a qualitative exploration of decisional conflict in the evaluation of grant applications in the medical humanities and social sciences
Applying Social Judgment Theory to better understand what peer reviewers pay attention to when evaluating fellowship grant proposals.
While research has revealed startling inconsistencies and lack of agreement in reviewers’ evaluations of grant proposals (Pier et al., …
Last updated on Mar 3, 2021
Project Slides Follow
Applying Social Judgment Theory to better understand what peer reviewers pay attention to when evaluating fellowship grant proposals.
Slides
Applying Social Judgment Theory to better understand what peer reviewers pay attention to when evaluating fellowship grant proposals.
Last updated on Mar 4, 2021
Towards Outstanding Research Reviews
This research programme is funded by the Wellcome Trust Research on Research Awards (2019-2022) and aims to better understand how peer reviewers evaluate research proposals in grant funding applications.
Towards Outstanding Research Reviews
Interactivity and cognition
This research programme aims to better understand how interactivity transforms higher cognition and impacts cognitive performance.
Interactivity and cognition