Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta01057323DOJ Data Set 9Other

From: "jeffrey E." <jeevacation®gmail.com>

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
efta-efta01057323
Pages
2
Persons
0
Integrity

Summary

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
From: "jeffrey E." <jeevacation®gmail.com> To: Joi ito Subject: Re: Researchers can't evaluate novel ideas Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 15:27:19 +0000 No , Paris after 4 eastern On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 5:23 PM Joi ito c wrote: What time zone are you in? Can you talk at 1PM ET? > On May 16, 2018, at 10:35, jeffrey E. <jeevacation®gmail.com> wrote: > can talk when you like > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:19 PM Joi ito c wrote: > hups://pubsonline.inforrns.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2285 > Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science > Selecting among alternative projects is a core management task in all innovating organizations. In this paper, we focus on the evaluation of frontier scientific research projects. We argue that the "intellectual distance" between the knowledge embodied in research proposals and an evaluator's own expertise systematically relates to the evaluations given. To estimate relationships, we designed and executed a grant proposal process at a leading research university in which we randomized the assignment of evaluators and proposals to generate 2,130 evaluator—proposal pairs. We find that evaluators systematically give lower scores to research proposals that are closer to their own areas of expertise and to those that are highly novel. The patterns are consistent with biases associated with boundedly rational evaluation of new ideas. The patterns are inconsistent with intellectual distance simply contributing "noise" or being associated with private interests of evaluators. We discuss implications for policy, managerial intervention, and allocation of resources in the ongoing accumulation of scientific knowledge. please note > The information contained in this communication is > confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may > constitute inside information, and is intended only for > the use of the addressee. It is the property of > JEE > Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this > communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited > and may be unlawful. If you have received this > communication in error, please notify us immediately by > return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation®gmail.com, and > destroy this communication and all copies thereof, > including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved please note EFTA01057323 The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of JEE Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected], and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved EFTA01057324

Technical Artifacts (2)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Domainpubsonline.inforrns.org

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.