English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The legitimacy of decision-making procedures (peer review) at funding agencies for basic research depends heavily on the organisation’s ability to minimise distortions in approval probability – for example based on age, gender or research field – wherever possible. Due to human fallibility, erroneous decisions can never be ruled out entirely, but if systematic differences appear in the probability of funding approvals, then such differences either have to be eliminated by changing the decision-making procedure or they have to be made transparent and explainable. The purpose of this study is to examine any such systematic distortions in the decision-making process of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) for Stand-Alone Projects from 1999 to 2008

Factors Influencing Approval Probability in Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Decision-Making Procedures - FWF Stand-Alone Projects Programme, 1999 to 2008