Case File
efta-efta01057323DOJ Data Set 9OtherFrom: "jeffrey E." <jeevacation®gmail.com>
Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
efta-efta01057323
Pages
2
Persons
0
Integrity
Extracted Text (OCR)
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 BrowserEmail addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.
Domain
pubsonline.inforrns.orgEmail
[email protected]Related Documents (6)
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown
EFTA02053996
1p
DOJ Data Set 11OtherUnknown
EFTA02662396
1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown
From: "Jeffrey E." <[email protected]>
1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown
From: Joi Ito
1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown
From: "Jeffrey E." <[email protected]>
2p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown
From: "jeffrey E." <[email protected]>
1p
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.