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.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Nicol MB, Henadeera K, Butler L. NHMRC grant applications: a comparison of “track record” scores allocated by grant assessors with bibliometric analysis of publications. Med J Aust 2007; 187: 348-352. <MJA full text>
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.