Targeted, actionable and fair: Reviewer reports as feedback and its effect on ECR career choices.

Previous studies of the use of peer review for the allocation of competitive funding agencies have concentrated on questions of efficiency and how to make the 'best' decision, by ensuring that successful applicants are also the more productive or visible in the long term. This paper examines the components of feedback received from an unsuccessful grant application, is associated with motivating applicants career decisions to persist (reapply for funding at T), or to switch (not to reapply, or else leave academia). This study combined data from interviews with unsuccessful ECR applicants ( = 19) to The Wellcome Trust 2009-19, and manual coding of reviewer comments received by applicants ( = 81).

The association between four citation metrics and peer rankings of research influence of Australian researchers in six fields of public health.

Doubt about the relevance, appropriateness and transparency of peer review has promoted the use of citation metrics as a viable adjunct or alternative in the assessment of research impact. It is also commonly acknowledged that research metrics will not replace peer review unless they are shown to correspond with the assessment of peers. This paper evaluates the relationship between researchers' influence as evaluated by their peers and various citation metrics representing different aspects of research output in 6 fields of public health in Australia.