What Makes a Good Scientist?: Determinants of Peer Evaluation among Biologists
Generate an AI Snapshot to get a quick, structured summary of this paper.
A concise AI-generated summary of the paper will appear here once you click Generate AI Snapshot.
TL;DR
The most powerful predictor of quality judgements was the rated scientist's annual productivity rate: this explained more than 40% of the variance in the evaluators' judgements.
Abstract
This study explores the criteria by which biologists in the United States evaluate their peers' scientific performance. Six distinguished biology professors rated forty-two former National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellows on the basis of the latter's CVs and bibliographies. The most powerful predictor of these quality judgements was the rated scientist's annual productivity rate: this explained more than 40% of the variance in the evaluators' judgements.