Most funding agencies rely on peer review to evaluate grant applications and proposals, but research into the use of this process by funding agencies has been limited. Here we explore if two changes to the organization of peer review for proposals submitted to various funding actions by the European Union has an influence on the outcome of the peer review process. Based on an analysis of more than 75,000 applications to three actions of the Marie Curie programme over a period of 12 years, we find that the changes – a reduction in the number of evaluation criteria used by reviewers and a move from in-person to virtual meetings – had little impact on the outcome of the peer review process. Our results indicate that other factors, such as the type of grant or area of research, have a larger impact on the outcome.

中文翻译：

---

对 2007 年至 2018 年间超过 75,000 份玛丽居里提案的同行评审的回顾性分析

大多数资助机构依靠同行评审来评估赠款申请和提案，但资助机构使用这一过程的研究受到限制。在这里，我们探讨了对欧盟提交给各种资助行动的提案的同行评审组织的两项变化是否会对同行评审过程的结果产生影响。根据对 75,000 多份玛丽居里计划在 12 年内三项行动的申请的分析，我们发现这些变化——审稿人使用的评估标准数量减少以及从面对面转向虚拟会议——对同行评审过程的结果几乎没有影响。我们的结果表明，其他因素，如资助类型或研究领域，对结果的影响更大。