Danielle Li

TL;DR: It is found that better peer-review scores are consistently associated with better research outcomes and that this relationship persists even when detailed controls for an investigator’s publication history, grant history, institutional affiliations, career stage, and degree types are included.

TL;DR: The authors developed a framework for separately identifying the influence of expertise and bias in project evaluation and applied it in the context of peer review at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and found that while reviewers favor applicants whose work is related to theirs, they are also more informed about the quality of those appli- cants.

TL;DR: It is found that about 10% of NIH grants generate a patent directly but 30% generate articles that are subsequently cited by patents, and there is no systematic relationship between the “basic” versus “applied” research focus of a grant and its propensity to be cited by a patent.

TL;DR: This paper found evidence consistent with the Peter Principle that firms prioritize current job performance in promotion decisions at the expense of other observable characteristics that better predict managerial performance, suggesting either that firms are making inefficient promotion decisions or that the benefits of promotion-based incentives are great enough to justify the costs of managerial mismatch.