24. September 2025
Research Funding Selection & Negativity Bias (Economics of Science)
Kolloquium mit Hanna Hottenrott
Das Leibniz-Institut für Psychologie (ZPID) lädt Interessierte im Rahmen seiner Kolloquiumsreihe herzlich ein. Am Mittwoch, dem 24. September 2025 von 14-15 Uhr spricht Prof. Dr. Hanna Hottenrott, ZEW-Leibniz Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung & TU München. Ihr Thema lautet: "Negativity Bias in Science Funding: The Role of Two-Step Procedures and Group Decision-Making".
Das Kolloquium findet in englischer Sprache im Leibniz-Institut für Psychologie (ZPID) am Standort im Wissenschaftspark (EG, Raum 02.14, Max-Planck-Straße 22, 54296 Trier) und auch online statt. Nach der Anmeldung unter madr(at)leibniz-psychology.org versenden wir gerne den Link zur-Online-Veranstaltung, vor Ort ist die Teilnahme ohne Anmeldung möglich.
Abstract:
Negative potency—the tendency to give disproportionate weight to negative over positive information—poses a critical challenge in science funding, where decision-makers must evaluate uncertain and ambitious research ideas taking into account budget constraints. This study investigates the presence and mitigation of negative potency within a two-step evaluation process used by a national funding agency. Drawing on a unique dataset of research grant applications spanning 11 years, we examine how individual assessments by thematic experts (TEs) and subsequent group deliberations by panels shape funding outcomes. We find strong evidence of negative potency at the individual level: TEs are significantly more influenced by negative than by positive referee assessments, particularly in relation to project feasibility. However, this effect dissipates during the panel stage, where group deliberation and relative comparisons across a broader pool of proposals appear to neutralize the impact of initial negativity. These findings make two key contributions. First, they extend the literature on decision-making biases in science funding by identifying deliberation as mechanism for mitigating negativity. Second, they provide actionable insights for policy: designing evaluation systems that incorporate structured group processes may help reduce bias and promote more balanced, inclusive, and merit-based funding decisions.
29. September 2025
Perspectives from Peerspectives: structured peer review training for early career researchers
Kolloquium mit Jessica L. Rohmann & Toivo Glatz
Das Leibniz-Institut für Psychologie (ZPID) lädt Interessierte im Rahmen seiner Kolloquiumsreihe herzlich ein. Am Montag, dem 29. September 2025 von 14:15 -15:45 Uhr sprechen Dr. Jessica L. Rohmann und Dr. Toivo Glatz, Institute of Public Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Ihr Thema lautet: "Perspectives from Peerspectives: structured peer review training for early career researchers".
Das Kolloquium findet in englischer Sprache im Leibniz-Institut für Psychologie (ZPID) am Standort im Wissenschaftspark (EG, Raum 02.14, Max-Planck-Straße 22, 54296 Trier) und auch online statt. Nach der Anmeldung unter madr(at)leibniz-psychology.org versenden wir gerne den Link zur-Online-Veranstaltung, vor Ort ist die Teilnahme ohne Anmeldung möglich.
Abstract:
Peer review is a vital part of academic publishing, yet most scientists receive little or no formal training in how to conduct it effectively. In this talk, we will explain why it is important to begin teaching both the theoretical foundations and the practical skills of peer review early in a scientist’s career. We will introduce Peerspectives, a semester-long, researcher-led peer review training course that partners with scholarly journals. This collaboration allows participants to contribute to real scientific peer review while earning academic credit. Originally designed for early-career researchers in the biomedical sciences, the course creates space for participants to critically examine the scientific publishing system and encourages them to apply what they have learned in their academic studies to evaluate research quality and reporting practices. By gaining a clearer understanding of what editors and reviewers value, participants also strengthen their own scientific writing and communication. We will share findings from our evaluation study of the program, highlight our train-the-trainer workshops and customizable teaching materials, and outline ongoing efforts to expand the course to other disciplines.