The standard way that science measures the value of a bit of research is how often it's cited by other scientists in their work. If i spend five years working on an experiment and no one mentions that experiment again, it would be considered a failure. And if it's mentioned a thou and times, it's considered a home run. So what is the correlation between the score of your grant application and the number of citations your work gets once it's finished? I think you know where this is going. We had a assume that we would find a reasonably strong correlation between the apere view score and the grant productivity. But then again, exactly as i said, if we knew what we were