  The peer review system has been traditionally challenged due to its many
limitations especially for allocating funding. Bibliometric indicators may well
present themselves as a complement. Objective: We analyze the relationship
between peers' ratings and bibliometric indicators for Spanish researchers in
the 2007 National R&D Plan for 23 research fields. We analyze peers' ratings
for 2333 applications. We also gathered principal investigators' research
output and impact and studied the differences between accepted and rejected
applications. We used the Web of Science database and focused on the 2002-2006
period. First, we analyzed the distribution of granted and rejected proposals
considering a given set of bibliometric indicators to test if there are
significant differences. Then, we applied a multiple logistic regression
analysis to determine if bibliometric indicators can explain by themselves the
concession of grant proposals. 63.4% of the applications were funded.
Bibliometric indicators for accepted proposals showed a better previous
performance than for those rejected; however the correlation between peer
review and bibliometric indicators is very heterogeneous among most areas. The
logistic regression analysis showed that the main bibliometric indicators that
explain the granting of research proposals in most cases are the output (number
of published articles) and the number of papers published in journals that
belong to the first quartile ranking of the Journal Citations Report.
Bibliometric indicators predict the concession of grant proposals at least as
well as peer ratings. Social Sciences and Education are the only areas where no
relation was found, although this may be due to the limitations of the Web of
Science's coverage. These findings encourage the use of bibliometric indicators
as a complement to peer review in most of the analyzed areas.
