Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Evaluation Review
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Raff, S. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Raff, S. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Rann Research At NSF

Some Results of an Evaluation

Samuel J. Raff

Bethesda Corporation

A survey of possible users of the results of 100 completed research projects funded by NSF/RANN (the Applied Research directorate of the National Science Foundation) provided a basis for ranking these projects in order of indications of use, and a statistical analysis was performed comparing several characteristics of the processing of the pro posals which led to them. Characteristics of the 30 top-ranked projects were compared to the bottom 30. No statistically significant difference in peer review scores was found but there are two statistically significant (5% or better) indications that the RANN program managers viewed the proposals leading to the top 30 projects more favorably than those leading to the bottom 30. These indications are faster processing and more peer reviewers. There are also two statisticallv significant indications that these program managers viewed the research proposed in the top 30 as being more applied in nature. These are: a smaller fraction of university personnel among the reviewers and, among the NSF reviewers, a greater fraction of RANN personnel.

Evaluation Review, Vol. 3, No. 3, 497-512 (1979)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X7900300311
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?