title: Reviewers' ratings and bibliometric indicators: hand in hand when assessing over research proposals?
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The peer review system has been traditionally challenged due to its many limitations especially for allocating funding. Bibliometric indicators may well present themselves as a complement.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  We analyze the relationship between peers' ratings and bibliometric indicators for Spanish researchers in the 2007 National R&D Plan for 23 research fields.
  
  
  METHODS
  We analyze peers' ratings for 2333 applications. We also gathered principal investigators' research output and impact and studied the differences between accepted and rejected applications. We used the Web of Science database and focused on the 2002-2006 period. First, we analyzed the distribution of granted and rejected proposals considering a given set of bibliometric indicators to test if there are significant differences. Then, we applied a multiple logistic regression analysis to determine if bibliometric indicators can explain by themselves the concession of grant proposals.
  
  
  RESULTS
  63.4% of the applications were funded. Bibliometric indicators for accepted proposals showed a better previous performance than for those rejected; however the correlation between peer review and bibliometric indicators is very heterogeneous among most areas. The logistic regression analysis showed that the main bibliometric indicators that explain the granting of research proposals in most cases are the output (number of published articles) and the number of papers published in journals that belong to the first quartile ranking of the Journal Citations Report.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Bibliometric indicators predict the concession of grant proposals at least as well as peer ratings. Social Sciences and Education are the only areas where no relation was found, although this may be due to the limitations of the Web of Science's coverage. These findings encourage the use of bibliometric indicators as a complement to peer review in most of the analyzed areas.
authors.affiliation: EC3: Evaluación de la Ciencia y de la Comunicación Científica, Facultad de Comunicación y Documentación, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain.
authors.forename: Alvaro
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Cabezas-Clavijo
authors.forename: Nicolás
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Robinson-García
authors.forename: Manuel
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Escabias
authors.forename: Evaristo
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Jiménez-Contreras
mesh_terms: D015706:Bibliometrics; D035843:Biomedical Research; D016208:Databases, Factual; D005381:Financing, Organized; D006801:Humans; D011642:Publications; D011643:Publishing; D012107:Research Design; D012108:Research Personnel; D013030:Spain