Ex ante evaluations have received little attention in the literature, resulting in a scattered set of contributions, despite their potential impact on society at large and on the academic careers of the members of research teams proposing interdisciplinary projects. Firstly, a review of the existing literature on the evaluation of interdisciplinary research proposals is presented. Then, two alternatives to the traditional peer-review process are described in the context of interdisciplinary research. The conclusions are of potential use both to academics involved in interdisciplinary research projects and to those responsible for funding such projects.
AboelelaSWLarsonEBakkenSCarrasquilloO. (2007) Defining interdisciplinary research: Conclusions from a critical review of the literature. Health Services Research42: 329–346.
2.
AnzaiTKusamaRKodamaHSengokuS (2012) Holistic observation and monitoring of the impact of interdisciplinary academic research projects: An empirical assessment in Japan. Technovation32(6): 345–357.
3.
BailarJC (1991) Reliability, fairness, objectivity, and other inappropriate goals in peer review. Behavioral and Brain Sciences14(1): 137–138.
4.
Boix MansillaV (2006) Assessing expert interdisciplinary work at the frontier: An empirical exploration. Research Evaluation15(1): 17–29.
5.
BornmannL (2008) Scientific peer review: An analysis of the peer review process from the perspective of sociology of science theories. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge6(2): 23–38.
6.
BornmannL (2011) Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology45(1): 197–245.
7.
BrekkeJS (2014) A science of social work, and social work as an integrative scientific discipline: Have we gone too far, or not far enough?Research on Social Work Practice24(5): 517–523.
ColeJR (2000) The role of journals in the growth of scientific knowledge. In: CroninBAtkinsHB (eds) The Web of Knowledge: A Festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc., 109–142.
10.
ColeSColeJRSimonGA (1981) Chance and consensus in peer-review. Science214(4523): 881–886.
Di IacovoFMoruzzoRRossignoliCMScarpelliniP (2015) Measuring effects of transdisciplinary research: The case of a social farming project. Futures. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.10.009.
13.
FazeyIBunseLMsikaJPinkeM. (2014) Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research. Global Environment Change25(March): 204–220.
14.
FogelholmMLeppinenSAuvinenARaitanenJ. (2012) Panel discussion does not improve reliability of peer review for medical research grant proposals. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology65(1): 47–52.
15.
FreyBS (2003) Publishing as prostitution? Choosing between one’s own ideas and academic success. Public Choice116(1–2): 205–223.
16.
GravesNBarnettAGClarkeP (2011) Funding grant proposal for scientific research: Retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel. BMJ343. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4797.
HanssonFMønstedM (2012) Changing the peer review or changing the peers – Recent development in assessment of large research collaborations. Higher Education Policy25: 361–379.
19.
HolbrookJBHroticS (2013) Blue skies, impacts, and peer review. RT. A Journal on research policy & evaluation1(1): 1–24.
20.
HolsteDScherngellTRocheIHörlesbergerM. (2012) Capturing frontier research in grant proposals and initial analysis of the comparison between model vs. peer review. Paper presented at the Science and Technology Indicators Conference2012, September, Montreal, Canada. Available at: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00956426/document.
21.
HuutoniemiK (2010) Evaluating interdisciplinary research. In: FrodemanRKleinJTMitchamC (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 309–320.
22.
HuutoniemiK (2012) Communication and compromising on disciplinary expertise in the peer review of research proposals. Social Studies of Sciences42(6): 897–921.
23.
HuutoniemiKKleinJTBruunKHukkinenJ (2010) Analyzing interdisciplinarity: Typology and indicators. Research Policy39: 79–88.
24.
JahnTKeilF (2015) An actor-specific guideline for quality assurance in transdisciplinary research. Futures65(January): 195–208.
25.
KleinJT (2006) Afterword: The emergent literature on interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research evaluation. Research Evaluation15(1): 75–80.
26.
KönigBDiehlKTscherningKHelmingK (2013) A framework for structuring interdisciplinary research management. Research Policy42(1): 261–272.
27.
LamontM (2009) How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
LamontMHuutoniemiK (2011) Comparing customary rules of fairness: Evaluative practices in various types of peer review panels. In: CamicCGrossNLamontN (eds) Social Knowledge in the Making. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 209–232.
29.
LamontMMallardGGuetzkowJ (2006) Beyond blind faith: Overcoming the obstacles to interdisciplinary evaluation. Research Evaluation15(1): 43–55.
30.
LangfeldtL (2006) The policy challenges of peer review: Managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments. Research Evaluation15(1): 31–41.
MarshHWBallS (1991) Reflections on the peer review process. Behavioral and Brain Sciences14(1): 157–158.
39.
Molas-GallartJ (2012) Research governance and the role of evaluation: A comparative study. American Journal of Evaluation33(4): 583–598.
40.
Molas-GallartJRafolsITangP (2014) On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and impact: Different modalities of interdisciplinarity lead to different types of impact. Journal of Science Policy and Research Management29(2): 69–89.
41.
ParéGTrudelMJaanaMKitsiouS (2014) Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008.
PorterALRafolsI (2009) Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics81: 719–745
44.
PorterALRoessnerJDCohenASPerraultM (2006) Interdisciplinary research: Meaning, metrics and nurture. Research Evaluation15(3): 187–195.
45.
PöschlU (2013) Multi-stage open peer review: Scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience6(33): 1–16.
46.
RafolsIMeyerM (2010) Diversity measures and network centralities as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics82: 263–287.
47.
RafolsILeydesdorffLO’HareANightingaleP. (2012) How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management. Research Policy41(7): 1262–1282.
Van ArensbergenPvan der WeijdenIvan den BesselaarP (2014) The selection of talent as a group process. A literature review on the social dynamics of decision making in grant panels. Research Evaluation23(4): 298–311.
54.
WagnerCSRoessnerJDBobbKKleinJT. (2011) Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Infometrics165: 14–26.
55.
WangQSandstömU (2015) Defining the role of cognitive distance in the peer review process with an explorative study of a grant scheme in infection biology. Research Evaluation. doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvv009.
