Abstract
Scientific peer review is still the most common system for fund allocation despite having been shown in multiple instances to lack accuracy in identifying the most meritorious applications among high quality ones. This study evaluates two aspects of the selection process of the top-ranked applicants to the EMBO Long-Term Fellowship program in 2007. First, the accuracy of the system is evaluated by comparing the level of career progression of the candidates in 2017 with the original award decisions made in 2007. The second aspect, explores the relationship of career progression with indicators derived from the information available to evaluators at the time of application. The results obtained suggest that the peer review system is not substantially better than random selection in identifying the best candidates once an initial pre-selection of the most promising ones is performed. Not only that, the analysis of the indicators studied, some of which have not been analyzed in detail in the past, suggests that among other potential sources of uncertainty, the information available at the time of application is not sufficiently predictive of career progression. As previously described, however, we find clear differences in career progression between men and women. We propose a new mixed model of fellowship evaluation in which peer review is used to select high quality applications, and random allocation of funds is subsequently used to award fellowships among these top ranked candidates.
