Information , Bias , and Efficiency in Expert Evaluation : Evidence from the NIH ∗

@inproceedings{Li2011InformationB,
  title={Information , Bias , and Efficiency in Expert Evaluation : Evidence from the NIH ∗},
  author={Danielle Li},
  year={2011}
}
Experts may have more information about the potential of projects in their area, but may also be biased. This paper develops a framework for separately identifying the effects of bias and information on expert evaluation and applies it in the context of peer review at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). I find that while reviewers are biased in favor of applications from their own subfield, they are also more informed about their quality. On net, the benefits of information tend to… CONTINUE READING
11 Citations
32 References
Similar Papers

References

Publications referenced by this paper.
Showing 1-10 of 32 references

The Role of Connections in Academic Promotions

  • Manuel Bagues, Natalia Zinovyeva
  • The Role of Connections in Academic Promotions
  • 2012

Matthew: Fact or Fable? " Working paper

  • Pierre Azoulay, Toby Stuart, Yanbo Wang
  • Matthew: Fact or Fable? " Working paper
  • 2011
1 Excerpt

How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment

  • Michele Lamont
  • How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of…
  • 2010

Incentivizing innovation: Adding to the toolkit

  • Michael Kremer, Heidi Williams
  • Innovation Policy and the Economy
  • 2010

Political Influence behind the Veil of Peer Review: An Analysis of Public Biomedical Research Funding in the United States

  • Deepak Hegde
  • Journal of Law and Economics
  • 2009

Similar Papers

Loading similar papers…