Optimal Allocation of Proposals to Reviewers to Facilitate Effective Ranking

References

• Bogart K. P. Preference structures II: Distances between asymmetric relations. SIAM J. Appl. Math. (1975) 29(2):254–262Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campanario J. M. Peer review for journals as it stands today. Sci. Comm. (1998) 19:181–211Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cicchetti D. V. The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-entropy investigation. Behavioral Brain Sci. (1991) 14:119–186Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cook W., Kress M.Ordinal Information and Preference Structures: Decision Models and Applications (1991) (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ) Google Scholar
• Cook W., Seiford L. Priority ranking and consensus formation. Management Sci. (1978) 24(16):1721–1732Link, Google Scholar
• Dirk L. A measure of originality: The elements of science source. Social Stud. Sci. (1999) 29(5):765–776Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garg R. K. The influence of positive and negative wording and issue involvement on responses to Likert scales in marketing research. J. Marketing Res. Soc. (1996) 38(3):235–246Google Scholar
• Hodgson C. Evaluation of cardiovascular grant-in-aid applications by peer-review—Influence of internal and external reviewers and committees. Canadian J. Cardiology (1995) 11(10):864–868Google Scholar
• Jayasinghe U. W., Marsh H. W., Bond N. Peer review in the funding of research in higher education: The Australian experience. Ed. Eval. Policy Anal. (2001) 23(4):343–364Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kemeny J. G., Snell L. J. Preference ranking: An axiomatic approach. Mathematical Models in the Social Science (1962) 9–23Chapter 2. Ginn, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
• Kirkwood C. W., Sarin R. K. Ranking with partial information—A method and an application. Oper. Res. (1985) 33(1):38–48Link, Google Scholar
• Langfeldt L. The decision-making constraints and processes of grant peer review, and their effects on the review outcomes. Social Stud. Sci. (2001) 31(6):820–841Crossref, Google Scholar