Artykuły w czasopismach na temat „Peer review of research grant proposals”
Kliknij ten link, aby zobaczyć inne rodzaje publikacji na ten temat: Peer review of research grant proposals.
Utwórz poprawne odniesienie w stylach APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard i wielu innych
Sprawdź 50 najlepszych artykułów w czasopismach naukowych na temat „Peer review of research grant proposals”.
Przycisk „Dodaj do bibliografii” jest dostępny obok każdej pracy w bibliografii. Użyj go – a my automatycznie utworzymy odniesienie bibliograficzne do wybranej pracy w stylu cytowania, którego potrzebujesz: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver itp.
Możesz również pobrać pełny tekst publikacji naukowej w formacie „.pdf” i przeczytać adnotację do pracy online, jeśli odpowiednie parametry są dostępne w metadanych.
Przeglądaj artykuły w czasopismach z różnych dziedzin i twórz odpowiednie bibliografie.
1
Lindquist, RD, MF Tracy i D. Treat-Jacobson. "Peer review of nursing research proposals". American Journal of Critical Care 4, nr 1 (1.01.1995): 59–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.4037/ajcc1995.4.1.59.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
The grant review process that operationalizes peer review for the critique, scoring, approval, and selection of research grants for funding may intimidate a novice reviewer. This article describes the peer review panel and process of grant review, specifies the role and responsibilities of the reviewer in the review session, and presents considerations for the evaluation of proposals and the preparation of a written critique. A sample critique is provided.
2
Marchant, Mary A. "The Keys to Preparing Successful Research Grant Proposals". Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33, nr 3 (grudzień 2001): 605–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1074070800021040.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
AbstractThis article seeks to demystify the competitive grant recommendation process of scientific peer review panels. The National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRICGP) administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Cooperative State Research, Extension, and Education Service (USDA-CSREES) serves as the focus of this article. This article provides a brief background on the NRICGP and discusses the application process, the scientific peer review process, guidelines for grant writing, and ways to interpret reviewer comments if a proposal is not funded. The essentials of good grant writing discussed in this article are transferable to other USDA competitive grant programs.
3
Conix, Stijn, Andreas De Block i Krist Vaesen. "Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices". F1000Research 10 (8.11.2021): 1126. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73893.1.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
A large part of governmental research funding is currently distributed through the peer review of project proposals. In this paper, we argue that such funding systems incentivize and even force researchers to violate five moral values, each of which is central to commonly used scientific codes of conduct. Our argument complements existing epistemic arguments against peer-review project funding systems and, accordingly, strengthens the mounting calls for reform of these systems.
4
Conix, Stijn, Andreas De Block i Krist Vaesen. "Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices". F1000Research 10 (24.12.2021): 1126. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73893.2.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
A large part of governmental research funding is currently distributed through the peer review of project proposals. In this paper, we argue that such funding systems incentivize and even force researchers to violate five moral values, each of which is central to commonly used scientific codes of conduct. Our argument complements existing epistemic arguments against peer-review project funding systems and, accordingly, strengthens the mounting calls for reform of these systems.
5
Mutz, Rüdiger, Lutz Bornmann i Hans-Dieter Daniel. "Does Gender Matter in Grant Peer Review?" Zeitschrift für Psychologie 220, nr 2 (styczeń 2012): 121–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000103.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
One of the most frequently voiced criticisms of the peer review process is gender bias. In this study we evaluated the grant peer review process (external reviewers’ ratings, and board of trustees’ final decision: approval or no approval for funding) at the Austrian Science Fund with respect to gender. The data consisted of 8,496 research proposals (census) across all disciplines from 1999 to 2009, which were rated on a scale from 1 to 100 (poor to excellent) by 18,357 external reviewers in 23,977 reviews. In line with the current state of research, we found that the final decision was not associated with applicant’s gender or with any correspondence between gender of applicants and reviewers. However, the decisions on the grant applications showed a robust female reviewer salience effect. The approval probability decreases (up to 10%), when there is parity or a majority of women in the group of reviewers. Our results confirm an overall gender null hypothesis for the peer review process of men’s and women’s grant applications in contrast to claims that women’s grants are systematically downrated.
6
Botham, Crystal M., Shay Brawn, Latishya Steele, Cisco B. Barrón, Sofie R. Kleppner i Daniel Herschlag. "Biosciences Proposal Bootcamp: Structured peer and faculty feedback improves trainees’ proposals and grantsmanship self-efficacy". PLOS ONE 15, nr 12 (28.12.2020): e0243973. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243973.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
Grant writing is an essential skill to develop for academic and other career success but providing individual feedback to large numbers of trainees is challenging. In 2014, we launched the Stanford Biosciences Grant Writing Academy to support graduate students and postdocs in writing research proposals. Its core program is a multi-week Proposal Bootcamp designed to increase the feedback writers receive as they develop and refine their proposals. The Proposal Bootcamp consisted of two-hour weekly meetings that included mini lectures and peer review. Bootcamp participants also attended faculty review workshops to obtain faculty feedback. Postdoctoral trainees were trained and hired as course teaching assistants and facilitated weekly meetings and review workshops. Over the last six years, the annual Bootcamp has provided 525 doctoral students and postdocs with multi-level feedback (peer and faculty). Proposals from Bootcamp participants were almost twice as likely to be funded than proposals from non-Bootcamp trainees. Overall, this structured program provided opportunities for feedback from multiple peer and faculty reviewers, increased the participants’ confidence in developing and submitting research proposals, while accommodating a large number of participants.
7
Gallo, Stephen A., i Karen B. Schmaling. "Peer review: Risk and risk tolerance". PLOS ONE 17, nr 8 (26.08.2022): e0273813. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273813.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
Peer review, commonly used in grant funding decisions, relies on scientists’ ability to evaluate research proposals’ quality. Such judgments are sometimes beyond reviewers’ discriminatory power and could lead to a reliance on subjective biases, including preferences for lower risk, incremental projects. However, peer reviewers’ risk tolerance has not been well studied. We conducted a cross-sectional experiment of peer reviewers’ evaluations of mock primary reviewers’ comments in which the level and sources of risks and weaknesses were manipulated. Here we show that proposal risks more strongly predicted reviewers’ scores than proposal strengths based on mock proposal evaluations. Risk tolerance was not predictive of scores but reviewer scoring leniency was predictive of overall and criteria scores. The evaluation of risks dominates reviewers’ evaluation of research proposals and is a source of inter-reviewer variability. These results suggest that reviewer scoring variability may be attributed to the interpretation of proposal risks, and could benefit from intervention to improve the reliability of reviews. Additionally, the valuation of risk drives proposal evaluations and may reduce the chances that risky, but highly impactful science, is supported.
8
Frampton, Geoff, Jonathan Shepherd, Karen Pickett i Jeremy Wyatt. "PP021 Peer Review Innovations For Grant Applications: Efficient And Effective?" International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 33, S1 (2017): 78–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0266462317002124.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
INTRODUCTION:Peer review of grant applications is employed routinely by health research funding bodies to determine which research proposals should be funded. Peer review faces a number of criticisms, however, especially that it is time consuming, financially expensive, and may not select the best proposals. Various modifications to peer review have been examined in research studies but these have not been systematically reviewed to guide Health Technology Assessment (HTA) funding agencies.METHODS:We developed a systematic map based on a logic model to summarize the characteristics of empirical studies that have investigated peer review of health research grant applications. Consultation with stakeholders from a major health research funder (the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research, NIHR) helped to identify topic areas within the map of particular interest. Innovations that could improve the efficiency and/or effectiveness of peer review were agreed as being a priority for more detailed analysis. Studies of these innovations were identified using pre-specified eligibility criteria and were subjected to a full systematic review.RESULTS:The systematic map includes eighty-one studies, most published since 2005, indicating an increasing area of investigation. Studies were mostly observational and retrospective in design, and a large proportion have been conducted in the United States, with many conducted by the National Institutes of Health. An example of an innovation is video training to improve reviewer reliability. Although research councils in the United Kingdom have conducted several relevant studies, these have mainly examined existing practices rather than testing peer review innovations. Full results of the systematic review will be provided in the presentation, and we will assess which innovations could improve the efficiency and/or effectiveness of peer review for selecting health research proposals.CONCLUSIONS:Despite considerable interest in, and criticism of, peer review for helping to select health research proposals, there have been few detailed systematic examinations of the primary research evidence in this area. Our evidence synthesis provides the most up-to-date overview of evidence in this important developing area, with recommendations for health research funders in their decision making.
9
Guthrie, Susan, Daniela Rodriguez Rincon, Gordon McInroy, Becky Ioppolo i Salil Gunashekar. "Measuring bias, burden and conservatism in research funding processes". F1000Research 8 (12.06.2019): 851. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.19156.1.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
Background: Grant funding allocation is a complex process that in most cases relies on peer review. A recent study identified a number of challenges associated with the use of peer review in the evaluation of grant proposals. Three important issues identified were bias, burden, and conservatism, and the work concluded that further experimentation and measurement is needed to assess the performance of funding processes. Methods: We have conducted a review of international practice in the evaluation and improvement of grant funding processes in relation to bias, burden and conservatism, based on a rapid evidence assessment and interviews with research funding agencies. Results: The evidence gathered suggests that efforts so far to measure these characteristics systematically by funders have been limited. However, there are some examples of measures and approaches which could be developed and more widely applied. Conclusions: The majority of the literature focuses primarily on the application and assessment process, whereas burden, bias and conservatism can emerge as challenges at many wider stages in the development and implementation of a grant funding scheme. In response to this we set out a wider conceptualisation of the ways in which this could emerge across the funding process.
10
Fogelholm, Mikael, Saara Leppinen, Anssi Auvinen, Jani Raitanen, Anu Nuutinen i Kalervo Väänänen. "Panel discussion does not improve reliability of peer review for medical research grant proposals". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 65, nr 1 (styczeń 2012): 47–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.05.001.
Pełny tekst źródła
11
Roumbanis, Lambros. "The oracles of science: On grant peer review and competitive funding". Social Science Information 60, nr 3 (5.07.2021): 356–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/05390184211019241.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
From a purely epistemological point of view, evaluating and predicting the future success of new research projects is often considered very difficult. Is it possible to forecast important findings and breakthrough in science, and if not, then what is the point trying to do it anyway? Still, that is what funding agencies all over the world expect their reviewers to do, but a number of previous studies has shown that this form of evaluation of innovation, promise and future impact are a fundamentally uncertain and arbitrary practice. This is the context that I will discuss in the present essay, and I will claim that there is a deeply irrational element embedded in today’s heavy reliance on experts to screen, rank and select among the increasing numbers of good research projects, because they can, in principal, never discern the true potential behind the written proposals. Hence, I think it is motivated to see grant peer review as an ‘oracle of science’. My overall focus will be on the limits of competitive funding and also that the writing and reviewing of proposals is a waste of researchers’ precious time. And I will propose that we really need to develop new ways of thinking about how we organize research and distribute opportunities within academia.
12
Cerroni, Andrea. "Socio-cognitive perverse effects in peer review. Reflections and proposals". Journal of Science Communication 02, nr 03 (21.09.2003): F05. http://dx.doi.org/10.22323/2.02030905.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
Peer review is the evaluation method that has characterized the scientific growth of the last four centuries, the first four of what is called modern science, indeed. It is matter of scientific communication inside scientific community, a subject too poorly studied in comparison with its critical importance for a scientific study of science (science of science). Peer review has been used for scientific paper evaluation before publication (editorial peer review) and for research proposal evaluation before financial support (grants peer review). Both cases present similar pros and cons, so I will treat them as a unique method for scientific evaluation. While the method remained pretty unchanged all along the period, apart from communication technology with peers, science has tremendously changed its organization and its relevance to society. So, peer review is antique and well rooted in practise, but its historical aim should now to be contrasted with the present situation of actual research, practises and social involvement of science.
13
Düzgüneş, Nejat. "‘Science by consensus’ impedes scientific creativity and progress: An alternative to funding biomedical research". F1000Research 11 (19.08.2022): 961. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124082.1.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
The very low success rates of grant applications to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) are highly detrimental to the progress of science and the careers of scientists. The peer review process that evaluates proposals has been claimed arbitrarily to be the best there is. This consensus system, however, has never been evaluated scientifically against an alternative. Here we delineate the 15 major problems with the peer review process, and challenge the Science Advisor to the President, and the leadership of NIH, NSF, and the U.S. Academy of Sciences to refute each of these criticisms. We call for the implementation of more equitable alternatives that will not constrain the progress of science. We propose a system that will fund 80,000 principal investigators, including young scientists, with just half the current NIH budget, three-fold more than the current number of grants, and that will forego the cumbersome, expensive, and counterproductive peer review stage. Further, we propose that the success of the two methods over 5–10 years be compared scientifically.
14
Dumanis, Sonya B., Lauren Ullrich, Patricia M. Washington i Patrick A. Forcelli. "It's Money! Real-World Grant Experience through a Student-Run, Peer-Reviewed Program". CBE—Life Sciences Education 12, nr 3 (wrzesień 2013): 419–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-05-0058.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
Grantsmanship is an integral component of surviving and thriving in academic science, especially in the current funding climate. Therefore, any additional opportunities to write, read, and review grants during graduate school may have lasting benefits on one's career. We present here our experience with a small, student-run grant program at Georgetown University Medical Center. Founded in 2010, this program has several goals: 1) to give graduate students an opportunity to conduct small, independent research projects; 2) to encourage graduate students to write grants early and often; and 3) to give graduate students an opportunity to review grants. In the 3 yr since the program's start, 28 applications have been submitted, 13 of which were funded for a total of $40,000. From funded grants, students have produced abstracts and manuscripts, generated data to support subsequent grant proposals, and made new professional contacts with collaborators. Above and beyond financial support, this program provided both applicants and reviewers an opportunity to improve their writing skills, professional development, and understanding of the grants process, as reflected in the outcome measures presented. With a small commitment of time and funding, other institutions could implement a program like this to the benefit of their graduate students.
15
Severin, Anna, Joao Martins, Rachel Heyard, François Delavy, Anne Jorstad i Matthias Egger. "Gender and other potential biases in peer review: cross-sectional analysis of 38 250 external peer review reports". BMJ Open 10, nr 8 (sierpień 2020): e035058. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035058.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
ObjectivesTo examine whether the gender of applicants and peer reviewers and other factors influence peer review of grant proposals submitted to a national funding agency.SettingSwiss National Science Foundation (SNSF).DesignCross-sectional analysis of peer review reports submitted from 2009 to 2016 using linear mixed effects regression models adjusted for research topic, applicant’s age, nationality, affiliation and calendar period.ParticipantsExternal peer reviewers.Primary outcome measureOverall score on a scale from 1 (worst) to 6 (best).ResultsAnalyses included 38 250 reports on 12 294 grant applications from medicine, architecture, biology, chemistry, economics, engineering, geology, history, linguistics, mathematics, physics, psychology and sociology submitted by 26 829 unique peer reviewers. In univariable analysis, male applicants received more favourable evaluation scores than female applicants (+0.18 points; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.23), and male reviewers awarded higher scores than female reviewers (+0.11; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.15). Applicant-nominated reviewers awarded higher scores than reviewers nominated by the SNSF (+0.53; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.56), and reviewers from outside of Switzerland more favourable scores than reviewers affiliated with Swiss institutions (+0.53; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.56). In multivariable analysis, differences between male and female applicants were attenuated (+0.08; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.13) whereas results changed little for source of nomination and affiliation of reviewers. The gender difference increased after September 2011, when new evaluation forms were introduced (p=0.033 from test of interaction).ConclusionsPeer review of grant applications at SNSF might be prone to biases stemming from different applicant and reviewer characteristics. The SNSF abandoned the nomination of peer reviewers by applicants. The new form introduced in 2011 may inadvertently have given more emphasis to the applicant’s track record. We encourage other funders to conduct similar studies, in order to improve the evidence base for rational and fair research funding.
16
Cicchetti, Domenic V. "The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation". Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14, nr 1 (marzec 1991): 119–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00065675.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
AbstractThe reliability of peer review of scientific documents and the evaluative criteria scientists use to judge the work of their peers are critically reexamined with special attention to the consistently low levels of reliability that have been reported. Referees of grant proposals agree much more about what is unworthy of support than about what does have scientific value. In the case of manuscript submissions this seems to depend on whether a discipline (or subfield) is general and diffuse (e.g., cross-disciplinary physics, general fields of medicine, cultural anthropology, social psychology) or specific and focused (e.g., nuclear physics, medical specialty areas, physical anthropology, and behavioral neuroscience). In the former there is also much more agreement on rejection than acceptance, but in the latter both the wide differential in manuscript rejection rates and the high correlation between referee recommendations and editorial decisions suggests that reviewers and editors agree more on acceptance than on rejection. Several suggestions are made for improving the reliability and quality of peer review. Further research is needed, especially in the physical sciences.
17
F. Recher, Harry. "Editorial Policy on Referees". Pacific Conservation Biology 5, nr 3 (1999): 162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/pc990162.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
There is more to being a scientist than completing a research project and communicating the results to one's peers and the general public. Scientists have a wide range of responsibilities both within the scientific community and within society as a whole. I have frequently urged my colleagues to participate in the political processes of environmental management and conservation. It is equally necessary for scientists to contribute to the mechanics of keeping the scientific community functional. Individuals need to take responsibility for organizing scientific meetings, administering scientific societies, reviewing grant applications, and publishing professional journals. Peer review of the work and research proposals of colleagues is a necessary contribution of time if the machinery of science is to function smoothly. As editor of this journal, I can assure you that not all scientists accept these responsibilities.
18
Nguyen, Quang Nhat. "Revisiting Peer Classroom Observations as A Teacher Professional Development Protocol: A Critical Theoretical Review of Global Practices". Vietnam Journal of Education 5, nr 2 (29.06.2021): 10–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.52296/vje.2021.71.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
Peer observation is among the popular tools to evaluate teacher's performance in the classroom. As education evolves and becomes more eclectic, the focus of peer observation is not merely to assess teachers but also to facilitate them in pursuing their professional development. Characterized by the SALSA (Search, Appraisal, Synthesis and Analysis) framework of Grant and Booth (2009), this critical review searches, appraises, synthesizes, and analyzes the literature in contemporary models of peer observation globally, based on which the author adopts two peer-observation models left out by other researchers. The article then critically discusses the questions regarding the benefits and concerns, as well as proposes holistic solutions to enhance peer observation of teaching. Finally, the author points out the research gaps and offers further pedagogical recommendations for applying peer observation of teaching as a professional development protocol from both managerial and professional perspectives.
19
McDaniel, Andrew, Douglas R. Fullen, Kathleen R. Cho, David R. Lucas, Thomas J. Giordano, Joel Greenson, Andrew P. Lieberman, Lakshmi P. Kunju, Jeffrey L. Myers i Michael H. Roh. "Funding Anatomic Pathology Research: A Retrospective Analysis of an Intramural Funding Mechanism". Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine 137, nr 9 (1.09.2013): 1270–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2012-0546-oa.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
Context.—In 2006, the department of pathology at our institution established an intramural research funding mechanism to support anatomic pathology research projects for faculty and trainee development. A review committee consisting of faculty members with diverse academic interests evaluated applications; proposals were eligible for a maximum award amount of $30 000 per project with a maximum program cost of $150 000 annually. Objective.—To report our experience based on a retrospective review of the research proposals submitted to the committee since the inception of the Anatomic Pathology Research Fund and evaluate the outcomes of the funded projects. Design.—We retrospectively analyzed all project applications that were received by the committee. Outcome data were collected by reviewing progress reports, abstracts for national and international meetings, PubMed search results, and/or direct communication with investigators. Results.—To date, a total of 59 individual projects have been awarded funding, for a total amount of $349 792, with an average award amount of $5381 per project. A total of 26 faculty members have secured funding for projects through this mechanism, and 27 resident and fellow trainees have been engaged in the funded projects. Spanning 11 subspecialty disciplines in anatomic pathology, 32 abstracts (54%) have been presented at national meetings and 26 (44%) have been published in the peer-reviewed literature to date. One project generated data used to secure an extramural (R01) grant. Conclusions.—Our funding mechanism could serve as a model used by other academic departments to support research activities, thereby fostering faculty development through scholarly activities.
20
Poole, Millicent E. "Reviewing for Research Excellence: Expectations, Procedures and Outcomes". Australian Journal of Education 37, nr 3 (listopad 1993): 219–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000494419303700301.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
This paper describes the process by which the Humanities and Social Sciences Panel of the Australian Research Council (ARC) gives effect to the principle of funding ‘research excellence’. A member of this Panel for four years, the author provides an account of the ARC Research Allocation Policy, what criteria assessors are asked to use in judging each research grant application, and the quality controls operating within the system. Peer review is identified as the central element in assessing the excellence of the research proposal, the possibility of a significant conceptual advance and the quality of the researcher(s). Particular comment is made about the success of educational researchers in obtaining ARC funds for research and implications for the future.
21
Torres-Cintrón, Mariela, Margarita Irizarry-Ramírez i Harold Saavedra. "98729 Professional Development Core of the Hispanic Alliance for Clinical and Translational Research: a scientific productivity catalyst for underrepresented minorities (URM) in Clinical and Translational Research (CTR)". Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 5, s1 (marzec 2021): 65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2021.570.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
ABSTRACT IMPACT: The Hispanic Alliance for Clinical and Translational Research Professional Development Core (PDC) will contribute to the improvement of the health of an increasing US Hispanic population, by supporting and training a new cadre of Hispanic/Latino CTR researchers and community leaders that understand this population’s prevalent health needs. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To use the Professional Development Core (PDC) of the Hispanic Alliance for Clinical and Translational Research (Alliance) as a hub that coordinates training, mentoring programs, and grant support to address the need for more underrepresented minorities (URM) in clinical and translational research and mentoring. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: PDC will: (1). Coordinate and offer an effective educational program based for new and mid-career researchers to address the gaps in research competencies on Hispanic/Latino health and healthcare through web-based asynchronous distance training, enhanced with face-to-face interactions. (2). Establish a robust mentoring program to address the mentoring gap for URM faculty by developing mentorship skills of faculty and researchers through a variety of resources, and offering protected time to mentor-mentee teams. (3). Design and implement a tailor-made curriculum to train scientists and community partners jointly, enabling them to carry out multidisciplinary research responsive to the Hispanic/Latino community health’s needs. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: From 2010 to 2019 the PDC supported over 1,000 researchers and faculty and provided 52 activities over the 9 years. PDC-supported researchers submitted 56 proposals and 21 grants (37.5.%) were awarded, for a total of $2, 225,751.00, and to published 94 peer-review papers. We expect that through Alliance PDC will sponsor at least 20 new trainees/mentees in Clinical and Translational Research (CTR), 20 new certified mentors, a continuous support program, and an increase of 30% in the scientific productivity (e.g., grants submission and peer-reviewed publications) of the Hispanic CTRs in Puerto Rico and the establishment of long-term links with the Hispanic community in Puerto Rico and across the United States to address its health needs. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: The PDC programs are significant in addressing the need for qualified researchers and mentors that understand, have the know-how, and are interested in addressing the health needs of a growing USA Hispanic medically underserved population.
22
Bloch, Sidney, i Garry Walter. "The Impact Factor: Time for Change". Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 35, nr 5 (październik 2001): 563–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0004867010060502.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
Objective: The Impact Factor (IF) has received virtually no attention in the psychiatric literature, despite its long-term use, expanding influence and evidence of misapplication. We examine the IF's validity as a measure of a paper's scientific worth, and consider alternative ways to conduct such an appraisal. Method: We explored medical databases and websites, and conferred with acknowledged experts on the subject. Results: Irremediable problems, both conceptual and technical, make the IF a flawed measure. The notion that citations vouch for the quality of an article is questionable. Moreover, the IF's vulnerability to misuse in domains such as academic promotion and research grant assessment is a serious development. Conclusion: The IF (and all measures derived from it) should be abandoned. A ‘return to basics’ in evaluating published work is overdue. As seductive as a simple formula is to assess quality, shortcuts are unavailable and unlikely to be useful. Publishing a short-list of papers annually, judged as objectively as possible by peers to merit special attention, may be a more meaningful option. Conceivably, every psychiatric journal could participate in this cyclical exercise, leading to a ‘grand short-list’. This could be made readily available to all professionals, both researchers and clinicians, by being posted on a suitable website. Since peer review has a long-standing role in scientific publishing, our proposal is essentially an extension of that process.
23
Haryadi, Haryadi, Citra Amalia, Doddy Teguh Yuwono, Fitri Amalia Sholehah i Santika Santika. "SISTEM PENDUKUNG KEPUTUSAN SELEKSI BANTUAN DANA HIBAH PENELITIAN DENGAN METODE ANALYTIC NETWORK PROCE (ANP)". Jurnal Informatika dan Rekayasa Elektronik 4, nr 1 (19.04.2021): 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.36595/jire.v4i1.293.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
At the end of 2019, the ranking for research was issued by the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education at that time, UM Palangkaraya moved up the rankings from the fostered cluster to MADYA. This encourages the institution to further improve the quality of research quality from lecturers. One of them is by providing Penelitian Penelitian Kompetitif Dosen Interna (PKDI). For this reason, research programs carried out in tertiary institutions are required to produce high quality and useful products. The manifestation of this openness is that program proposals received by LP2M will be reviewed by the assessment team (peer review) and then declared accepted or rejected for funding. However, the current assessment process is still carried out manually, namely by looking at certain criteria only, regardless of other assessment criteria. Of course, the manual assessment process is very likely to make mistakes. Therefore, a Web-based Decision Support System (DSS) was built using the Analytic Network Process (ANP) method. Based on the results of the research, it can be seen that the developed SPK can make it easier to assess the feasibility of proposing proposals at UM-Palangkaraya effectively and objectively in obtaining Grants based on the weights and predetermined criteria.
24
Warren, Andrea, Shilpa Constantinides, Edward Frongillo i Christine Blake. "Stakeholder Engagement Strategies for Policy and Programmatic Uptake: Lessons from the Drivers of Food Choice Competitive Grants Program". Current Developments in Nutrition 4, Supplement_2 (29.05.2020): 920. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cdn/nzaa053_125.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
Abstract Objectives This study drew upon experiences of stakeholder engagement in food choice research to advance knowledge about best practices. Methods The Drivers of Food Choice Competitive Grants Program aimed to understand food choice in low- and middle-income-countries. All funded proposals included stakeholder engagement strategies. Data were from document review of proposals and reports and semi-structured interviews with the principal investigators of the 15 projects. Interviews were transcribed and uploaded into NVIVO 12. The lead author analyzed interviews thematically using an a priori code list and led discussion of themes and patterns through peer review with co-authors. Results Grantees developed and implemented a range of strategies. “Uni-directional” strategies were researcher-driven and informational, did not seek input from the target stakeholder, and included one-way communication such as emails, newsletters, meetings, press releases, technical briefs, newspaper articles, and public engagement efforts. “Bi-directional” strategies sought collaboration with stakeholders. Examples were workshops which sought feedback on stakeholder identification, research questions, methods, results, and recommendations. Grantees used unidirectional strategies to increase buy-in and generate demand for results, which helped promote the use of evidence for decision-making. Bi-directional strategies were integral to knowledge production. Grantees thought that bi-directional engagement enhanced the immediate applicability of the research. Grantees developed more- and less-intensive strategies that involved both bi-and uni-directional engagement, depending on goals for uptake. Conclusions This research sheds light on the role of stakeholder engagement strategies in advancing multisectoral nutrition. The current landscape of research and practice is fast-paced and complex; ensuring relevance of research via diverse stakeholder engagement strategies should remain a priority for researchers and funders. Our findings may aid researchers in constructing strategies that are responsive to diverse research programs and goals within complex multisectoral nutrition landscapes. Funding Sources UK Government's Department for International Development and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
25
Bayindir, Esra Eren, Mehmet Yigit Gurdal i Ismail Saglam. "A Game Theoretic Approach to Peer Review of Grant Proposals". Journal of Informetrics 13, nr 4 (listopad 2019): 100981. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.100981.
Pełny tekst źródła
26
Porter, Alan L., i Frederick A. Rossini. "Peer Review of Interdisciplinary Research Proposals". Science, Technology, & Human Values 10, nr 3 (lipiec 1985): 33–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016224398501000304.
Pełny tekst źródła
27
Azizi, Kiran, Shahan Waheed, Rubina Barolia, Naveed Ahmed i Madiha Ismail. "Understanding perceptions and factors involved in do not resuscitate (DNR) decision making in the emergency department of a low-resource country: a mixed-methods study protocol". BMJ Open 10, nr 9 (wrzesień 2020): e038915. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038915.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
IntroductionDo not resuscitate (DNR) decision making is an integral component of emergency medicine practice. There is a paucity of data, protocols and guidelines regarding the perceptions and barriers that are involved in the interactions among healthcare professionals, patients and their caregivers regarding DNR decision making. The aim of this study is, therefore, to explore the perceptions and factors influencing DNR decision making in the emergency department and to evaluate the use of a context-based protocol for DNR decision making.Methods and analysisThis will be a sequential mixed method study beginning with qualitative research involving in-depth interviews (IDIs) with patient family members and focus group discussion with healthcare professionals. The consensual qualitative approach will be used to perform a thematic analysis to the point of saturation. The expected outcome will be to identify key themes that suggest perceptions and factors involved in DNR decision making. After piloting, the derived protocol will then be used with a different group of individuals (150 healthcare professionals) who meet the eligibility criteria in a quantitative cross-sectional study with universal sampling. Data will be analysed using NVIVO in the qualitative phase and SPSS V.19 in the quantitative phase. The study findings will support the development of a standardised protocol for DNR decision making for healthcare professionals in the emergency department.Ethics and disseminationThe proposal was reviewed by the ethics review committee (ERC) of the institution (ERC # 2020-1551-7193). The project is an institution SEED grant recipient PF139/0719. The results will be disseminated among participants, patient communities and healthcare professionals in the institution through seminars, presentations, brochures and emails. The findings will be published in a highly accessed peer-reviewed medical journal and will be presented at international conferences.
28
Hodgson, Corinne. "How reliable is peer review? An examination of operating grant proposals simultaneously submitted to two similar peer review systems". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 50, nr 11 (listopad 1997): 1189–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00167-4.
Pełny tekst źródła
29
Gupta, Vishnu Kumar. "Quality Control through Peer Review Process in Scholarly Communication: Review of Related Literature". IRA-International Journal of Management & Social Sciences (ISSN 2455-2267) 8, nr 3 (7.10.2017): 248. http://dx.doi.org/10.21013/jmss.v8.n3.p3.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
<p>This review of related literature on the theme of peer review process in scholarly communication explains the status of research on periodicals, grant peer review and fellowships. The paper highlights the quality related issues of the scholarly communication and peer review process. Peer reviewers are invited to grant applications or assess fellowship or review manuscript in a peer review process undertake the responsibility for confirming top-level quality and standards in their concerned subject fields. <em></em></p>
30
Kotchen, Theodore A. "NIH Peer Review of Grant Applications for Clinical Research". JAMA 291, nr 7 (18.02.2004): 836. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.7.836.
Pełny tekst źródła
31
Luo, Junwen, Thomas Feliciani, Martin Reinhart, Judith Hartstein, Vineeth Das, Olalere Alabi i Kalpana Shankar. "Analyzing sentiments in peer review reports: Evidence from two science funding agencies". Quantitative Science Studies 2, nr 4 (2021): 1271–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00156.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
Abstract Using a novel combination of methods and data sets from two national funding agency contexts, this study explores whether review sentiment can be used as a reliable proxy for understanding peer reviewer opinions. We measure reviewer opinions via their review sentiments on both specific review subjects and proposals’ overall funding worthiness with three different methods: manual content analysis and two dictionary-based sentiment analysis algorithms (TextBlob and VADER). The reliability of review sentiment to detect reviewer opinions is addressed by its correlation with review scores and proposals’ rankings and funding decisions. We find in our samples that review sentiments correlate with review scores or rankings positively, and the correlation is stronger for manually coded than for algorithmic results; manual and algorithmic results are overall correlated across different funding programs, review sections, languages, and agencies, but the correlations are not strong; and manually coded review sentiments can quite accurately predict whether proposals are funded, whereas the two algorithms predict funding success with moderate accuracy. The results suggest that manual analysis of review sentiments can provide a reliable proxy of grant reviewer opinions, whereas the two SA algorithms can be useful only in some specific situations.
32
Giraudeau, Bruno, Clémence Leyrat, Amélie Le Gouge, Julie Léger i Agnès Caille. "Peer Review of Grant Applications: A Simple Method to Identify Proposals with Discordant Reviews". PLoS ONE 6, nr 11 (14.11.2011): e27557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027557.
Pełny tekst źródła
33
Scherngell, T., I. Roche, M. Horlesberger, D. Besagni, M. E. Zuger i D. Holste. "Initial comparative analysis of model and peer review process for ERC starting grant proposals". Research Evaluation 22, nr 4 (8.08.2013): 248–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvt015.
Pełny tekst źródła
34
van Gunsteren, Wilfred. "On the pitfalls of peer review". F1000Research 4 (11.11.2015): 1244. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7342.1.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
The review process of academic, scientific research and its basic tenets is considered, thereby distinguishing between (i) reviewing of manuscripts to be published in the scientific literature, (ii) reviewing of research proposals to be financed by funding agencies, (iii) reviewing of educational or research institutions with respect to their proper functioning, and (iv) reviewing of scientists with the aim of appointing or tenuring faculty.
35
Vodyanitskaya, E. "Peer Review Regulation in the German Science and Research Association". MGIMO Review of International Relations, nr 5(26) (28.10.2012): 227–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2012-5-26-227-234.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
The article describes peer review procedures used by the German Science and Research Association. It gives thorough analysis of the stages of peer review and provides a number of critical comments to the procedure regarding provision of additional information to grant applicants, increased reimbursement of the reviewers, reveal of information about the reviewers.
36
Hall, Meldra, Jeffrey Engler, Japera Hemming, Ernest Alema-Mensah, Adriana Baez, Kimberly Lawson, Alexander Quarshie i in. "Using a Virtual Community (the Health Equity Learning Collaboratory) to Support Early-Stage Investigators Pursuing Grant Funding". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, nr 11 (30.10.2018): 2408. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112408.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
Junior investigators often have limited access to networks of scientific experts and resources that facilitate competitive grant submissions. Since environments in which scientists are trained are critically important for long-term success, we built and tested a virtual environment for early-stage investigators (ESIs) working on grant proposals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the virtual community’s influence on grant submission patterns among participants from underrepresented groups. As part of a grant writing coaching model, junior investigators were recruited into a professional development program designed to develop competitive grantsmanship skills. Designed by the Research Resources and Outreach Core (RROC) of the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN), the Health Equity Learning Collaboratory (EQ-Collaboratory) provided a virtual community for social support, accountability, constructive feedback, and access to peer networks to help investigators overcome barriers to grant submission. This study assessed differences in outcomes for participants who completed the training within the EQ-Collaboratory compared to those who did not. The analyzed data revealed a statistically significant difference in the average time to submission for participants enrolled in the EQ-Collaboratory. EQ-Collaboratory ESIs submitted proposals 148.6 days earlier, (p < 0.0001). The results suggest that a supportive virtual environment can help investigators more quickly overcome barriers to grant submission.
37
Colletti, Lisa M., Joseph C. Kolars i James O. Woolliscroft. "GME Innovations Grant Program at the University of Michigan Health System—Fostering Changes in Education and Clinical Care". Journal of Graduate Medical Education 5, nr 4 (1.12.2013): 665–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.4300/jgme-d-12-00317.1.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
Abstract Background Changes in graduate medical education (GME) have resulted in curricula, goals and objectives, and assessment methods becoming more formal, yet there is little financial support for the educational research required to develop better teaching approaches and assessment tools. Objective We sought to encourage the development of new educational tools and assessment methods to improve the overall conduct of GME at the University of Michigan. Intervention The University of Michigan Health System has recently established a new educational grant that is designed to foster innovative educational research in GME. We describe the experience with a new and robust internal educational grant, including the source of funding, mechanisms for reviewing and assessing the proposals, the types of proposals that have currently been funded, and the effect and results of these studies on GME at the University of Michigan Health System. Outcomes Projects funded by the grant have changed the curriculum in the involved programs, and many have resulted in sustained changes, including new methodologies in the simulation center, the development of an “academy” of faculty physicians with significant teaching expertise, and the creation of web-based teaching and assessment tools for “just in time” learning, and have been disseminated at national meetings and in peer-reviewed journals. Conclusions The GME Innovations Grant Program at the University of Michigan Health System has been successful to date, funding 11 proposals during the course of 6 years. Some of these proposals have resulted in permanent changes and additions to residency training programs.
38
Langille, Lynn L., i Theresa Mackenzie. "Navigating the Road to Success: Guidelines for Preparing Competitive Grant Proposals". Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2, nr 1 (14.03.2007): 23. http://dx.doi.org/10.18438/b8kk5s.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
Purpose - Difficulty in securing research funding has been cited as one barrier to the involvement of more librarians and information professionals in conducting original research. This article seeks to support the work of librarians who wish to secure research funding by describing some key approaches to the creation of successful grant applications.
Approach - The authors draw on more than 15 years experience in supporting the development of successful research grant proposals. Twelve grant-writing best practices or ‘key approaches’ are described, and a planning timeline is suggested.
Conclusions - Use of these best practices can assist researchers in creating successful research grant proposals that will also help streamline the research process once it is underway. It is important to recognize the competitive nature of research grant competitions, to obtain feedback from an internal review panel, and to use feedback from funding agencies to strengthen future grant applications.
39
Graves, N., A. G. Barnett i P. Clarke. "Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel". BMJ 343, sep27 1 (27.09.2011): d4797. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4797.
Pełny tekst źródła
40
Tamblyn, Robyn, Nadyne Girard, Christina J. Qian i James Hanley. "Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada". Canadian Medical Association Journal 190, nr 16 (22.04.2018): E489—E499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.170901.
Pełny tekst źródła
41
Pier, Elizabeth L., Markus Brauer, Amarette Filut, Anna Kaatz, Joshua Raclaw, Mitchell J. Nathan, Cecilia E. Ford i Molly Carnes. "Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, nr 12 (5.03.2018): 2952–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1714379115.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
Obtaining grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is increasingly competitive, as funding success rates have declined over the past decade. To allocate relatively scarce funds, scientific peer reviewers must differentiate the very best applications from comparatively weaker ones. Despite the importance of this determination, little research has explored how reviewers assign ratings to the applications they review and whether there is consistency in the reviewers’ evaluation of the same application. Replicating all aspects of the NIH peer-review process, we examined 43 individual reviewers’ ratings and written critiques of the same group of 25 NIH grant applications. Results showed no agreement among reviewers regarding the quality of the applications in either their qualitative or quantitative evaluations. Although all reviewers received the same instructions on how to rate applications and format their written critiques, we also found no agreement in how reviewers “translated” a given number of strengths and weaknesses into a numeric rating. It appeared that the outcome of the grant review depended more on the reviewer to whom the grant was assigned than the research proposed in the grant. This research replicates the NIH peer-review process to examine in detail the qualitative and quantitative judgments of different reviewers examining the same application, and our results have broad relevance for scientific grant peer review.
42
Bergenholtz, Henning, i Rufus Gouws. "Proposals for the Writing of Peer Reviews in Lexicography". HERMES - Journal of Language and Communication in Business 27, nr 54 (22.12.2015): 107. http://dx.doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v27i54.22950.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
<p>In lexicography a good review is important for the dictionary maker(s), the publishing house and the whole lexicographical community. It is also important for the reviewers because it can expand their research record. Up to a few years ago reviews were still acknowledged in research databases. Currently they can be included in a database, but they do not count as scientific outputs. The situation for peer reviews is similar. Peer reviews are an important quality assurance tool in the scientific publication process. Good peer reviews have some mutual characteristics with reviews, especially regarding ethical aspects. But there are essential differences. These issues are discussed in this paper and some methodological and ethical proposals for peer reviews are made. One of the proposals could create a debate because it argues for an open peer review process and not for the so-called double blind peer review. Another proposal focuses on the role of the editor and his ability to decide if a peer review should be rejected and not be forwarded to the author.</p>
43
Jayasinghe, Upali W., Herbert W. Marsh i Nigel Bond. "Peer Review in the Funding of Research in Higher Education: The Australian Experience". Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 23, nr 4 (grudzień 2001): 343–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/01623737023004343.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
In this article we evaluate the peer review process used to fund Australian university research across all disciplines. Peer reviews of research proposals (2,989 proposals, 6,233 external reviewers) submitted to the Australian Research Council (ARC) are related to characteristics of the researchers and of external reviewers. The reliability of the peer reviews was disappointingly low (interrater agreement of .53 for researcher ratings based on an average of 4.3 external reviewers per proposal). The gender and age of a researcher and the number of researchers on a research team did not affect the probability that funding would be granted, but professors were more likely to be funded than nonprofessors. Australian external reviewers gave lower ratings than did non-Australian reviewers, particularly those from North America. The number of external reviewers for each proposal and the number of proposals assessed by each external reviewer had small negative effects on ratings. Researcher-nominated external reviewers (those chosen by the authors of a research proposal) gave higher, less-reliable ratings than did panel-nominated external reviewers chosen by the ARC. To improve the reliability of peer reviews, we offer the following recommendations: (a) Researcher-nominated reviewers should not be used; (b) there should be more reviews per proposal; and (c) a smaller number of more highly selected reviewers should perform most of the reviews within each subdiscipline, thereby providing greater control over error associated with individual reviewers.
44
Gallo, Stephen A., Joanne H. Sullivan i DaJoie R. Croslan. "Scientists from Minority-Serving Institutions and Their Participation in Grant Peer Review". BioScience 72, nr 3 (5.01.2022): 289–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab130.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
ABSTRACT Funding disparities currently exist across racial groups for grant applicants and between minority-serving institutions (MSIs) and traditionally White institutions (TWIs), with implicit bias in grant review a likely source of these differences. A survey examining grant review participation was disseminated to thousands of MSI-based scientists, and their responses were compared with those in a previous study of predominantly TWI-based scientists. Despite similar levels of grant submission, only 45% of the MSI-based scientists had recently participated in grant review, which is much lower than the rate reported in the previous study. MSI-based scientists indicated not being invited and a general lack of time (largely because of teaching and service responsibilities) as barriers. Nevertheless, the majority of the MSI-based respondents were interested in reviewing and in training in grant reviewing. These results serve as a call to action for research funders to increase both invitations to review and training opportunities for MSI-based scientists.
45
Guthrie, Susan, Ioana Ghiga i Steven Wooding. "What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?" F1000Research 6 (7.08.2017): 1335. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11917.1.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
Background: Peer review decisions award >95% of academic medical research funding, so it is crucial to understand how well they work and if they could be improved. Methods: This paper summarises evidence from 105 relevant papers identified through a literature search on the effectiveness and burden of peer review for grant funding. Results: There is a remarkable paucity of evidence about the overall efficiency of peer review for funding allocation, given its centrality to the modern system of science. From the available evidence, we can identify some conclusions around the effectiveness and burden of peer review. The strongest evidence around effectiveness indicates a bias against innovative research. There is also fairly clear evidence that peer review is, at best, a weak predictor of future research performance, and that ratings vary considerably between reviewers. There is some evidence of age bias and cronyism. Good evidence shows that the burden of peer review is high and that around 75% of it falls on applicants. By contrast, many of the efforts to reduce burden are focused on funders and reviewers/panel members. Conclusions: We suggest funders should acknowledge, assess and analyse the uncertainty around peer review, even using reviewers’ uncertainty as an input to funding decisions. Funders could consider a lottery element in some parts of their funding allocation process, to reduce both burden and bias, and allow better evaluation of decision processes. Alternatively, the distribution of scores from different reviewers could be better utilised as a possible way to identify novel, innovative research. Above all, there is a need for open, transparent experimentation and evaluation of different ways to fund research. This also requires more openness across the wider scientific community to support such investigations, acknowledging the lack of evidence about the primacy of the current system and the impossibility of achieving perfection.
46
Guthrie, Susan, Ioana Ghiga i Steven Wooding. "What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?" F1000Research 6 (27.03.2018): 1335. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11917.2.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
Background: Peer review decisions award an estimated >95% of academic medical research funding, so it is crucial to understand how well they work and if they could be improved. Methods: This paper summarises evidence from 105 papers identified through a literature search on the effectiveness and burden of peer review for grant funding. Results: There is a remarkable paucity of evidence about the efficiency of peer review for funding allocation, given its centrality to the modern system of science. From the available evidence, we can identify some conclusions around the effectiveness and burden of peer review. The strongest evidence around effectiveness indicates a bias against innovative research. There is also fairly clear evidence that peer review is, at best, a weak predictor of future research performance, and that ratings vary considerably between reviewers. There is some evidence of age bias and cronyism. Good evidence shows that the burden of peer review is high and that around 75% of it falls on applicants. By contrast, many of the efforts to reduce burden are focused on funders and reviewers/panel members. Conclusions: We suggest funders should acknowledge, assess and analyse the uncertainty around peer review, even using reviewers’ uncertainty as an input to funding decisions. Funders could consider a lottery element in some parts of their funding allocation process, to reduce both burden and bias, and allow better evaluation of decision processes. Alternatively, the distribution of scores from different reviewers could be better utilised as a possible way to identify novel, innovative research. Above all, there is a need for open, transparent experimentation and evaluation of different ways to fund research. This also requires more openness across the wider scientific community to support such investigations, acknowledging the lack of evidence about the primacy of the current system and the impossibility of achieving perfection.
47
Huutoniemi, Katri. "Communicating and compromising on disciplinary expertise in the peer review of research proposals". Social Studies of Science 42, nr 6 (17.10.2012): 897–921. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306312712458478.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
This paper analyses peer review deliberations in four evaluation panels that differ in terms of scope and disciplinary heterogeneity. Based on evaluation reports and discussions with panel members, it illustrates a variety of ways in which reviewers bridge their epistemological differences and achieve consensus on the quality of research proposals. The analysis demonstrates that peer review panels are forums in which communication across disciplinary boundaries occurs and interdisciplinary judgments arise. At the same time, disciplinary gate-keeping and incommensurabilities may set limits on such communication. The comparison of deliberative processes sheds light on how collective judgments are shaped and constrained by the disciplinary set-up of the panels in which the reviewers operate and in which the intersubjective dynamics of the deliberations unfold. Based on these findings, the paper considers conditions that may enhance disciplinary interaction and complementary judgments in the peer review of proposals, and thereby expands the prospects for interdisciplinary research.
48
Baimpos, Theodoros, Nils Dittel i Roumen Borissov. "Unravelling the panel contribution upon peer review evaluation of numerous, unstructured and highly interdisciplinary research proposals". Research Evaluation 29, nr 3 (1.07.2020): 316–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvz013.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
Abstract In this study, we analyze the two-phase bottom-up procedure applied by the Future and Emerging Technologies Program (FET-Open) at the Research Executive Agency (REA) of the European Commission (EC), for the evaluation of highly interdisciplinary, multi-beneficiary research proposals which request funding. In the first phase, remote experts assess the proposals and draft comments addressing the pre-defined (by FET-Open) evaluation criteria. In the second phase, a new set of additional experts (of more general expertise and different from the remote ones), after cross reading the proposals and their remote evaluation reports, they convene in an on-site panel where they discuss the proposals. They complete the evaluation by reinforcing per proposal and per criterion one or another assessment, as assigned remotely during the first phase. We analyze the level of the inter-rater agreement among the remote experts and we identify its relative correlation with the funded proposals resulted after the end of the evaluation. Our study also provides comparative figures of the evolution of the proposals` scores during the two phases of the evaluation process. Finally, by carrying out an appropriate quantitative and qualitative analysis of all scores from the seven past cut-offs, we elaborate on the significant contribution of the panel (the second phase of the evaluation) in identifying and promoting the best proposals for funding.
49
Ortenberg, Elia, Karen Roberto, Dana Plude, Janetta Lun i Helena Gabor. "DEMYSTIFYING NIH PEER REVIEW: YOUR APPLICATION FROM SUBMISSION TO SCORE". Innovation in Aging 6, Supplement_1 (1.11.2022): 30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igac059.111.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
Abstract What happens to applications after they are submitted to the National Institutes of Health, and how can you better prepare for the process of peer review? The Center for Scientific Review (CSR) works closely with the 24 funding institutes and centers at the National Institutes of Health that provide funding support for projects of high scientific merit and high potential impact. CSR conducts the first level of review for the majority of grant applications submitted to the NIH, which includes 90% of R01s, 85% of Fellowships, and 95% of Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) applications as well as many other research and training opportunity activities. In this capacity, CSR helps to identify the most meritorious projects, cutting-edge research, and future scientists who will advance the mission of the NIH: to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability. The purpose of this symposium is to provide an overview of 1) what happens to NIH applications before, during, and after peer review at CSR; 2) new and current peer review policies and practices that impact application submission; and 3) strategies for developing a strong NIH grant application. Peer review is the cornerstone of the NIH grant supporting process, and demystifying the process can help attendees understand what’s inside the “Black Box” and the criteria used to identify the most meritorious applications.
50
Turner, Sheila, Judith Lathlean, Fay Chinnery, Rebecca Moran, Eleanor Guegan i Jeremy Wyatt. "PP068 Stakeholder Views On Peer Review Of National Institute for Health Research Grant Applications". International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 33, S1 (2017): 102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0266462317002434.
Pełny tekst źródłaStreszczenie:
INTRODUCTION:It takes on average 17 years to translate a promising laboratory development into better patient treatments or services. About 10 years of this innovation process lies within the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) research pathway. Innovations developed through research have both national and global impact, so selecting the most promising studies to fund is crucial. Peer review of applications is part of the NIHR research funding process, but requires considerable resources. The NIHR is committed to improving efficiency and proportionality of this process. This study is part of a wider piece of work being undertaken by NIHR (1) to reduce the complexity of the funding pathway and thus make a real difference to patients lives.METHODS:This study elicited the views of various stakeholders concerning current and possible future methods for peer review of applications for research funding. Stakeholder groups included: members of boards with responsibility for making funding decisions; applicants (both successful and unsuccessful); peer reviewers and NIHR staff. Qualitative interviews were conducted with stakeholders selected from each group, and results were analyzed and integrated using a thematic template analytical method. The results were used to inform a larger online opinion survey which will be reported separately.RESULTS:The views and insights of thirty stakeholders across the four groups about the peer review process of applications for funding will be presented. Findings generalizable to other funding programs outside the NIHR will be emphasized. The key themes which emerged included: strengths and weaknesses of applications, feedback, targeting and acknowledgement of peer reviewers.CONCLUSIONS:The results of our study of peer review processes carried out by one national research funder has relevance for other funding organizations, both within our country and internationally.