panels select the best science proposals?

 

Danielle Li1*† and Leila Agha2,3*†

 

This paper examines the success of peer-review panels in predicting the future quality of

proposed research.We construct new data to track publication, citation, and patenting

outcomes associated with more than 130,000 research project (R01) grants funded by

the U.S. National Institutes of Health from1980 to 2008.We find that better peer-review scores

are consistently associated with better research outcomes and that this relationship persists

even when we include detailed controls for an investigator’s publication history, grant history,

institutional affiliations, career stage, and degree types. A one–standard deviation worse

peer-review score among awarded grants is associated with 15% fewer citations, 7% fewer

publications, 19% fewer high-impact publications, and 14%fewer follow-on patents.