{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013513513513513514, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.295, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Success rate validity of peer assessment for research grant applications

The peer assessment of research grant applications has a long history of controversy and criticisms. Its validity, nevertheless, has been a difficult task in the absence of the assessment standards. For improvement of the assessment validity, a validity of success rate as a functional component of the peer assessment of research grant applications is studied in this paper. Two different kinds of true peers were conceptualized and defined – one is for inherent true peers independent of, and the other for apparent true peers dependent on, how assessment is arranged – to find the low and upper bounds of assessment uncertainty. Validity order was derived for various generic cases of assessment arrangement using the set theory concept for the apparent true peers. Formulas for validity of success rate for research grant applications were derived, which may be useful for assessment planning and streamlining diverted anecdotal opinions on the funding success rate in the literature. A case study was conducted using Australian Research Council (ARC) data available in the literature to demonstrate practicality and significance for the derived validity formulas of success rate.