NHMRC grant applications: a comparison of “track record” scores allocated by grant assessors with bibliometric analysis of publications

Michael J Davies
Med J Aust 2008; 188 (6): . || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb01661.x
Published online: 17 March 2008

To the Editor: Predicting research quality on the basis of past research publications is clearly imprecise, as noted by Nicol et al in their recent article on National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) grant applications.1 They note that assessor ratings of applicants’ “track records” correspond poorly with the bibliometric data for authors, and that there is vast variability between discipline panels. For immunology, the correlation between track record scores and journal impact or citations was high, at over 0.7. For public health, the correlation was actually negative.

  • Michael J Davies

  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA.

Competing interests:

I hold an NHMRC Fellowship; am currently a Chief Investigator on NHMRC project, strategic, and program grants; and am a grant reviewer for the NHMRC. I also hold two postgraduate qualifications in public health.


remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.