Abstract
This study explores the criteria by which biologists in the United States evaluate their peers' scientific performance. Six distinguished biology professors rated forty-two former National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellows on the basis of the latter's CVs and bibliographies. The most powerful predictor of these quality judgements was the rated scientist's annual productivity rate: this explained more than 40% of the variance in the evaluators' judgements.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.