Cover Image

Can Large Language Models Evaluate Grant Proposal Quality? Revisiting the Wennerås and Wold Peer Review Data

Fuente: arXiv

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors:	Sandström, Ulf, Thelwall, Mike
Format:	Preprint
Published:	2026
Subjects:	Digital Libraries
Online Access:	Acceder al recurso
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Similar Items

Can Smaller Large Language Models Evaluate Research Quality?
by: Thelwall, Mike
Published: (2025)

Evaluating Research Quality with Large Language Models: An Analysis of ChatGPT's Effectiveness with Different Settings and Inputs
by: Thelwall, Mike
Published: (2024)

Prompt perturbation and fraction facilitation sometimes strengthen Large Language Model scores
by: Thelwall, Mike
Published: (2025)

Do Large Language Models know Which Published Articles have been Retracted?
by: Thelwall, Mike
Published: (2026)

Can Small and Reasoning Large Language Models Score Journal Articles for Research Quality and Do Averaging and Few-shot Help?
by: Thelwall, Mike, et al.
Published: (2025)

Research quality evaluation by AI in the era of Large Language Models: Advantages, disadvantages, and systemic effects
by: Thelwall, Mike
Published: (2025)

Large Language Models for Departmental Expert Review Quality Scores
by: Langfeldt, Liv, et al.
Published: (2026)

Evaluating the Predictive Capacity of ChatGPT for Academic Peer Review Outcomes Across Multiple Platforms
by: Thelwall, Mike, et al.
Published: (2024)

Is OpenAlex Suitable for Research Quality Evaluation and Which Citation Indicator is Best?
by: Thelwall, Mike, et al.
Published: (2025)

Quantitative Methods in Research Evaluation Citation Indicators, Altmetrics, and Artificial Intelligence
by: Thelwall, Mike
Published: (2024)

Can ChatGPT evaluate research quality?
by: Thelwall, Mike
Published: (2024)

Implicit and Explicit Research Quality Score Probabilities from ChatGPT
by: Thelwall, Mike, et al.
Published: (2025)

Journal Quality Factors from ChatGPT: More meaningful than Impact Factors?
by: Thelwall, Mike, et al.
Published: (2024)

In which fields do ChatGPT scores align better than citations with research quality?
by: Thelwall, Mike
Published: (2025)

A Global South Strategy for Evaluating Research Value with ChatGPT
by: Nunkoo, Robin, et al.
Published: (2025)

Can ChatGPT evaluate research environments? Evidence from REF2021
by: Kousha, Kayvan, et al.
Published: (2025)

Can ChatGPT be a good follower of academic paradigms? Research quality evaluations in conflicting areas of sociology
by: Thelwall, Mike, et al.
Published: (2025)

Will AI be overconfident about academic research findings when reliant on abstracts? (v1)
by: Thelwall, Mike
Published: (2026)

Designing large language model prompts to extract scores from messy text: A shared dataset and challenge
by: Thelwall, Mike
Published: (2026)

Which stylistic features fool ChatGPT research evaluations?
by: Kousha, Kayvan, et al.
Published: (2026)

Have LLM-associated terms increased in article full texts in all fields?
by: Thelwall, Mike, et al.
Published: (2026)

Research evaluation with ChatGPT: Is it age, country, length, or field biased?
by: Thelwall, Mike, et al.
Published: (2024)

Estimating the quality of academic books from their descriptions with ChatGPT
by: Thelwall, Mike, et al.
Published: (2025)

In which fields can ChatGPT detect journal article quality? An evaluation of REF2021 results
by: Thelwall, Mike, et al.
Published: (2024)

How much are LLMs changing the language of academic papers after ChatGPT? A multi-database and full text analysis
by: Kousha, Kayvan, et al.
Published: (2025)

Assessing the societal influence of academic research with ChatGPT: Impact case study evaluations
by: Kousha, Kayvan, et al.
Published: (2024)

Can news and social media attention reduce the influence of problematic research?
by: Zheng, Er-Te, et al.
Published: (2025)

Evaluating the quality of published medical research with ChatGPT
by: Thelwall, Mike, et al.
Published: (2024)

Gender and Discipline Shape Length, Content and Tone of Grant Peer Review Reports
by: Müller, Stefan, et al.
Published: (2025)

Do male leading authors retract more articles than female leading authors?
by: Zheng, Er-Te, et al.
Published: (2025)

How is science discussed on Bluesky?
by: Zheng, Er-Te, et al.
Published: (2025)

Which international co-authorships produce higher quality journal articles?
by: Thelwall, Mike, et al.
Published: (2022)

Evaluating Multilingual Metadata Quality in Crossref
by: Donathan II, Dennis, et al.
Published: (2025)

Can social media provide early warning of retraction? Evidence from critical tweets identified by human annotation and large language models
by: Zheng, Er-Te, et al.
Published: (2024)

On The Peer Review Reports: Does Size Matter?
by: Maddi, Abdelghani, et al.
Published: (2024)

Deferred Acceptance Algorithm Improves Peer Review Process
by: Bartneck, Christoph, et al.
Published: (2026)

Pre-review to Peer review: Pitfalls of Automating Reviews using Large Language Models
by: Akella, Akhil Pandey, et al.
Published: (2025)

R-Index: A Metric for Assessing Researcher Contributions to Peer Review
by: Malekzadeh, Milad
Published: (2024)

ML Researchers Support Openness in Peer Review But Are Concerned About Resubmission Bias
by: Rao, Vishisht, et al.
Published: (2025)

Automated Peer Reviewing in Paper SEA: Standardization, Evaluation, and Analysis
by: Yu, Jianxiang, et al.
Published: (2024)