Siga este link para ver outros tipos de publicações sobre o tema: Peer review of research grant proposals.
Artigos de revistas sobre o tema "Peer review of research grant proposals"
Crie uma referência precisa em APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, e outros estilos
Veja os 50 melhores artigos de revistas para estudos sobre o assunto "Peer review of research grant proposals".
Ao lado de cada fonte na lista de referências, há um botão "Adicionar à bibliografia". Clique e geraremos automaticamente a citação bibliográfica do trabalho escolhido no estilo de citação de que você precisa: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
Você também pode baixar o texto completo da publicação científica em formato .pdf e ler o resumo do trabalho online se estiver presente nos metadados.
Veja os artigos de revistas das mais diversas áreas científicas e compile uma bibliografia correta.
1
Lindquist, RD, MF Tracy e D. Treat-Jacobson. "Peer review of nursing research proposals". American Journal of Critical Care 4, n.º 1 (1 de janeiro de 1995): 59–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.4037/ajcc1995.4.1.59.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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, n.º 3 (dezembro de 2001): 605–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1074070800021040.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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 e Krist Vaesen. "Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices". F1000Research 10 (8 de novembro de 2021): 1126. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73893.1.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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 e Krist Vaesen. "Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices". F1000Research 10 (24 de dezembro de 2021): 1126. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73893.2.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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
Botham, Crystal M., Shay Brawn, Latishya Steele, Cisco B. Barrón, Sofie R. Kleppner e Daniel Herschlag. "Biosciences Proposal Bootcamp: Structured peer and faculty feedback improves trainees’ proposals and grantsmanship self-efficacy". PLOS ONE 15, n.º 12 (28 de dezembro de 2020): e0243973. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243973.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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.
6
Gallo, Stephen A., e Karen B. Schmaling. "Peer review: Risk and risk tolerance". PLOS ONE 17, n.º 8 (26 de agosto de 2022): e0273813. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273813.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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.
7
Mutz, Rüdiger, Lutz Bornmann e Hans-Dieter Daniel. "Does Gender Matter in Grant Peer Review?" Zeitschrift für Psychologie 220, n.º 2 (janeiro de 2012): 121–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000103.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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.
8
Frampton, Geoff, Jonathan Shepherd, Karen Pickett e 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.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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
Holland, Christy K. "How to write a peer-polished proposal in 15 weeks". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 155, n.º 3_Supplement (1 de março de 2024): A104—A105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/10.0026964.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Creating a meticulously crafted proposal requires a strategic approach and systematic planning. An overview of a semester-long graduate course on how to write successful NIH grant applications will be provided. Particular emphasis is given to developing proposals for the Ruth L. Kirschstein Predoctoral Individual National Research Service Award (https://researchtraining.nih.gov/programs/fellowships/F31) or to disease-based foundations. The writing process involves drafting components in several key phases. The initial four weeks focus on understanding the proposal requirements, identifying the target audience, organizing a brilliant biosketch and remarkable resources and environment pages, and establishing a clear hypothesis and specific aims. An extensive literature review is conducted in the subsequent two weeks to contextualize the proposal, identify a gap in knowledge, and stress the significance and innovation of the proposed work. Weeks 7 and 8 are devoted to the development of a robust research approach and methodology, including data collection, analysis techniques, expected outcomes, potential challenges, and alternative approaches. The review process, refinement and enhancement take center stage for the remaining weeks. Peer review and feedback mechanisms are incorporated to iteratively improve each proposal's coherence, logic, and persuasiveness. This systematic 15-week timeline emphasizes iterative refinement through peer input, ensuring a polished proposal ready for submission.
10
Guthrie, Susan, Daniela Rodriguez Rincon, Gordon McInroy, Becky Ioppolo e Salil Gunashekar. "Measuring bias, burden and conservatism in research funding processes". F1000Research 8 (12 de junho de 2019): 851. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.19156.1.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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.
11
Roumbanis, Lambros. "The oracles of science: On grant peer review and competitive funding". Social Science Information 60, n.º 3 (5 de julho de 2021): 356–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/05390184211019241.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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
Düzgüneş, Nejat. "‘Science by consensus’ impedes scientific creativity and progress: An alternative to funding biomedical research". F1000Research 11 (19 de agosto de 2022): 961. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124082.1.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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.
13
Fogelholm, Mikael, Saara Leppinen, Anssi Auvinen, Jani Raitanen, Anu Nuutinen e Kalervo Väänänen. "Panel discussion does not improve reliability of peer review for medical research grant proposals". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 65, n.º 1 (janeiro de 2012): 47–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.05.001.
Texto completo da fonte
14
Cerroni, Andrea. "Socio-cognitive perverse effects in peer review. Reflections and proposals". Journal of Science Communication 02, n.º 03 (21 de setembro de 2003): F05. http://dx.doi.org/10.22323/2.02030905.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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.
15
Düzgüneş, Nejat. "‘Science by consensus’ impedes scientific creativity and progress: A simple alternative to funding biomedical research". F1000Research 11 (4 de dezembro de 2023): 961. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124082.2.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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. We challenge the Science Advisor to the President, and the leadership of NIH, NSF, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and other funding agencies throughout the world 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 at least 80,000 principal investigators, including young scientists, with about half the current NIH budget, seven-times as many as the current number of NIH “research project grants,” and that will forego the cumbersome, expensive, and counterproductive “peer” review stage. Further, we propose that the success of the two systems over 5–10 years be compared scientifically.
16
Düzgüneş, Nejat. "‘Science by consensus’ impedes scientific creativity and progress: A simple alternative to funding biomedical research". F1000Research 11 (21 de fevereiro de 2024): 961. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124082.3.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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. We challenge the Science Advisor to the President, and the leadership of NIH, NSF, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and other funding agencies throughout the world 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 at least 80,000 principal investigators, including young scientists, with about half the current NIH budget, seven-times as many as the current number of NIH “research project grants,” and that will forego the cumbersome, expensive, and counterproductive “peer” review stage. Further, we propose that the success of the two systems over 5–10 years be compared scientifically.
17
Dumanis, Sonya B., Lauren Ullrich, Patricia M. Washington e Patrick A. Forcelli. "It's Money! Real-World Grant Experience through a Student-Run, Peer-Reviewed Program". CBE—Life Sciences Education 12, n.º 3 (setembro de 2013): 419–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-05-0058.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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.
18
Severin, Anna, Joao Martins, Rachel Heyard, François Delavy, Anne Jorstad e Matthias Egger. "Gender and other potential biases in peer review: cross-sectional analysis of 38 250 external peer review reports". BMJ Open 10, n.º 8 (agosto de 2020): e035058. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035058.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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.
19
Cicchetti, Domenic V. "The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation". Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14, n.º 1 (março de 1991): 119–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00065675.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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.
20
Graham, Chris L. B., Thomas E. Landrain, Amber Vjestica, Camille Masselot, Elliot Lawton, Leo Blondel, Luca Haenal, Bastian Greshake Tzovaras e Marc Santolini. "Community review: a robust and scalable selection system for resource allocation within open science and innovation communities". F1000Research 11 (18 de abril de 2023): 1440. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.125886.2.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Resource allocation is essential to the selection and implementation of innovative projects in science and technology. With large stakes involved in concentrating large fundings over a few promising projects, current “winner-take-all” models for grant applications are time-intensive endeavours that mobilise significant researcher time in writing extensive project proposals, and rely on the availability of a few time-saturated volunteer experts. Such processes usually carry over several months, resulting in high effective costs compared to expected benefits. Faced with the need for a rapid response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, we devised an agile “community review” system, similar to distributed peer review (DPR) systems, to allocate micro-grants for the fast prototyping of innovative solutions. Here we describe and evaluate the implementation of this community review across 147 projects from the “Just One Giant Lab’s OpenCOVID19 initiative” and “Helpful Engineering” open research communities. The community review process uses granular review forms and requires the participation of grant applicants in the review process. We show that this system is fast, with a median duration of 10 days, scalable, with a median of 4 reviewers per project independent of the total number of projects, and fair, with project rankings highly preserved after the synthetic removal of reviewers. We investigate potential bias introduced by involving applicants in the process, and find that review scores from both applicants and non-applicants have a similar correlation of r=0.28 with other reviews within a project, matching previous observations using traditional approaches. Finally, we find that the ability of projects to apply to several rounds allows to both foster the further implementation of successful early prototypes, as well as provide a pathway to constructively improve an initially failing proposal in an agile manner. This study quantitatively highlights the benefits of a frugal community review system for agile resource allocation.
21
F. Recher, Harry. "Editorial Policy on Referees". Pacific Conservation Biology 5, n.º 3 (1999): 162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/pc990162.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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.
22
Haworth, Kevin J., Carl J. Fichtenbaum, Eric P. Smith, Nives Zimmerman e Margaret V. Powers-Fletcher. "Value of multidisciplinary peer mentoring". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 153, n.º 3_supplement (1 de março de 2023): A192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/10.0018624.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Biomedical acoustics is a multidisciplinary field. As such, both the scientific field and its members have the potential to benefit from the interactions and cross-fertilization of different subfields. Peer mentoring groups (PMGs) can promote multidisciplinary interaction. A PMG involves the intentional, structured, and consistent interaction of individuals at similar career stages. The horizontal organization of a PMG can promote a safe and supportive environment, enabling greater knowledge sharing. PMG knowledge sharing is bidirectional, providing benefits to all participants and an opportunity to leverage diversity, which yields outcomes. In one example from our institution, a research-active group of junior faculty from different academic divisions within a department of internal medicine met biweekly to review, on a rotating basis, active grant applications, critiques of rejected proposals, and career development challenges. Another example was an interdepartmental graduate program where doctoral students studying a range of fields (e.g., infectious diseases, cancer, metabolism, and cardiovascular disease) engaged in a journal club and a seminar series. In both settings, participants had the opportunity to benefit from the recognition of thematic and methodological overlap in their otherwise disparate studies, which promoted best practices in research. In summary, PMGs provide value to both participants and the field.
23
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 e Michael H. Roh. "Funding Anatomic Pathology Research: A Retrospective Analysis of an Intramural Funding Mechanism". Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine 137, n.º 9 (1 de setembro de 2013): 1270–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2012-0546-oa.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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.
24
Gurung, Jeevan Kumar. "Obtrusive Plagiarism and Data Falsification in Biological Sciences: Trends and Remedies". Damak Campus Journal 11, n.º 1 (31 de dezembro de 2023): 36–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/dcj.v11i1.63481.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Scientific misconduct includes plagiarism, falsification and fabrication. The intentional presentation of other’s work as own work without any authority is referred as plagiarism. Plagiarism also contains other’s images, structure and designed elements. It affects both published and unpublished materials obtained through evaluation of dissertations, peer review process or grant proposals. Fabrication is another research misconduct in which some fake activities are committed such as making up data, results and reporting them. If there is no any experimentation, it is also called fabrication. The Study shows that 60% of articles published in predatory journals are not found to be cited over the five-year period from the date of publication. Clear ethical standards should be made for assuring the researchers whether their work break certain codes or not. The investigation of organizations must be transparent, fair and prompt into research irregularities.
25
Poole, Millicent E. "Reviewing for Research Excellence: Expectations, Procedures and Outcomes". Australian Journal of Education 37, n.º 3 (novembro de 1993): 219–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000494419303700301.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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.
26
Torres-Cintrón, Mariela, Margarita Irizarry-Ramírez e 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 (março de 2021): 65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2021.570.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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.
27
Bloch, Sidney, e Garry Walter. "The Impact Factor: Time for Change". Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 35, n.º 5 (outubro de 2001): 563–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0004867010060502.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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.
28
Haryadi, Haryadi, Citra Amalia, Doddy Teguh Yuwono, Fitri Amalia Sholehah e Santika Santika. "SISTEM PENDUKUNG KEPUTUSAN SELEKSI BANTUAN DANA HIBAH PENELITIAN DENGAN METODE ANALYTIC NETWORK PROCE (ANP)". Jurnal Informatika dan Rekayasa Elektronik 4, n.º 1 (19 de abril de 2021): 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.36595/jire.v4i1.293.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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.
29
Kline, Chelsea, Matthew Baumgart, Julie Bynum, Sheryl Zimmerman e Sam Fazio. "ACCELERATING DEMENTIA RESEARCH AND EARLY-CAREER DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE SUMMER RESEARCH INSTITUTE". Innovation in Aging 7, Supplement_1 (1 de dezembro de 2023): 787. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igad104.2543.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Abstract Today, there are more than six million Americans living with Alzheimer’s disease and more than 11 million unpaid caregivers. By 2060, the number of Americans living with Alzheimer’s could reach 14 million. These statistics highlight the need for early career investigators to join the dementia research workforce and accelerate breakthroughs in this field. In 2020, the National Institutes on Aging (NIA) funded the Alzheimer’s Association Interdisciplinary Summer Research Institute (AA-ISRI) focused on early career investigators interested in psychosocial and public health research related to dementia. AA-ISRI is a five-day immersive experience in which 24 early career investigators are selected to come to Chicago, attend didactic lectures led by expert faculty, develop research proposals in small groups, and receive one-to-one mentoring. Participants leave AA-ISRI with a greater understanding of the tools needed to succeed in dementia research and an extensive network of colleagues and mentors. Based on evaluations collected from participants from the first two years of the program, 97% of respondents indicated they were satisfied with the program, 94% felt the program increased their understanding of Alzheimer’s, and 90% said the program improved their independent research skills. Participants have shared that AA-ISRI is a highly unique opportunity that every early career investigator in the field should attend. Alumni from the first two years of AA-ISRI have gone on to publish 40+ peer-reviewed publications and have been awarded 15+ grants. This poster will review the development of AA-ISRI, key outcomes, and its impact on the future of dementia research.
30
Warren, Andrea, Shilpa Constantinides, Edward Frongillo e 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 de maio de 2020): 920. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cdn/nzaa053_125.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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.
31
Van Wart, Audra, Ulrike Mende, Judy Kimberly, Ghada Bourjeily e Sharon Rounds. "127 Advance RI-K Scholar Career Development Program: A one-year intensive program for developing early career faculty in an IDeA state". Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 8, s1 (abril de 2024): 37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.124.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
OBJECTIVES/GOALS: We developed a state-wide program to support early career faculty in preparing mentored career development awards, and connect them to resources, mentorship, and career development opportunities. We aimed to build self-efficacy along multiple axes, including research design and grantsmanship, and to facilitate networking with mentors and peers. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The program recruited four cohorts of faculty over the course of four years, for a total of 32 faculty participants (63% physician scientists). Participants were selected by a Steering Committee, and represented a variety of specialties from 19 departments across Brown University, University of Rhode Island, and affiliated hospitals. Participation required an institutional commitment of 20% minimum protected time to engage in research and a year-long curriculum that included biweekly didactic sessions, project development support, individual consultations, feedback on drafts, and internal study section review. Participants completed pre-, interim-, and final-assessments, which collected measures of self-efficacy, professional development needs, program satisfaction, and formative feedback. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Over the first 3 years, 21 participants completed the program, 43% have received NIH or VA K/CDA awards so far, and 48% received other federal or non-federal awards. Over 25 faculty from across institutions participated in leadership and didactics, with even greater participation on mentorship teams, panels, and grant review. All cohorts showed improvements in measures of self-efficacy in grantsmanship and research and reported high satisfaction with program activities. Participants found individualized proposal feedback and internal study sections to be most valuable, and frequently cited the value of peer-learning opportunities. Challenges for scholars include mentorship challenges, competing priorities/protected time, and various external factors that impacted individual research progress. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The program has successfully supported cohorts of junior clinical and translational faculty from across the state in launching their independent research careers. The program may serve as a model for IDeA state inter-institutional collaboration in developing diverse faculty cohorts in the early stages of preparing their career development award.
32
Bayindir, Esra Eren, Mehmet Yigit Gurdal e Ismail Saglam. "A Game Theoretic Approach to Peer Review of Grant Proposals". Journal of Informetrics 13, n.º 4 (novembro de 2019): 100981. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.100981.
Texto completo da fonte
33
Porter, Alan L., e Frederick A. Rossini. "Peer Review of Interdisciplinary Research Proposals". Science, Technology, & Human Values 10, n.º 3 (julho de 1985): 33–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016224398501000304.
Texto completo da fonte
34
Azizi, Kiran, Shahan Waheed, Rubina Barolia, Naveed Ahmed e 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, n.º 9 (setembro de 2020): e038915. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038915.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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.
35
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, n.º 3 (7 de outubro de 2017): 248. http://dx.doi.org/10.21013/jmss.v8.n3.p3.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
<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>
36
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, n.º 11 (novembro de 1997): 1189–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00167-4.
Texto completo da fonte
37
Ardern, Clare L., Nadia Martino, Sammy Nag, Robyn Tamblyn, David Moher, Adrian Mota e Karim M. Khan. "Three years of quality assurance data assessing the performance of over 4000 grant peer review contributions to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Project Grant Competition". FACETS 8 (1 de janeiro de 2023): 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/facets-2022-0175.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) commenced a Quality Assurance Program in 2019 to monitor the quality of peer review in its Project Grant Competition Peer Review Committees. Our primary aim was to describe the performance of CIHR grant peer reviewers, based on the assessments made by CIHR peer review leaders during the first 3 years of the Research Quality Assurance Program. All Peer Review Committee Chairs and (or) Scientific Officers who led peer review for CIHR in 2019, 2020, and 2021 completed Reviewer Quality Feedback forms immediately following Peer Review Committee meetings. The form assessed Performance, Future potential, Review quality, Participation, and Responsiveness. We summarised and descriptively synthesised data from assessments conducted after each of the four grant competitions. The performance of peer reviewers on 4438 occasions was rated by Chairs and Scientific Officers. Approximately one in three peer reviewers submitted outstanding reviews or discussed additional applications and one in 10 demonstrated potential as a future Peer Review Committee leader. At most, one in 20 peer reviewers was considered to have not performed adequately with respect to review quality, participation, or responsiveness. There is a need for more research on the processes involved in allocating research grant funding.
38
Luo, Junwen, Thomas Feliciani, Martin Reinhart, Judith Hartstein, Vineeth Das, Olalere Alabi e Kalpana Shankar. "Analyzing sentiments in peer review reports: Evidence from two science funding agencies". Quantitative Science Studies 2, n.º 4 (2021): 1271–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00156.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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.
39
Kotchen, Theodore A. "NIH Peer Review of Grant Applications for Clinical Research". JAMA 291, n.º 7 (18 de fevereiro de 2004): 836. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.7.836.
Texto completo da fonte
40
Giraudeau, Bruno, Clémence Leyrat, Amélie Le Gouge, Julie Léger e Agnès Caille. "Peer Review of Grant Applications: A Simple Method to Identify Proposals with Discordant Reviews". PLoS ONE 6, n.º 11 (14 de novembro de 2011): e27557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027557.
Texto completo da fonte
41
Scherngell, T., I. Roche, M. Horlesberger, D. Besagni, M. E. Zuger e D. Holste. "Initial comparative analysis of model and peer review process for ERC starting grant proposals". Research Evaluation 22, n.º 4 (8 de agosto de 2013): 248–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvt015.
Texto completo da fonte
42
van Gunsteren, Wilfred. "On the pitfalls of peer review". F1000Research 4 (11 de novembro de 2015): 1244. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7342.1.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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.
43
Hall, Meldra, Jeffrey Engler, Japera Hemming, Ernest Alema-Mensah, Adriana Baez, Kimberly Lawson, Alexander Quarshie et al. "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, n.º 11 (30 de outubro de 2018): 2408. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112408.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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.
44
Vodyanitskaya, E. "Peer Review Regulation in the German Science and Research Association". MGIMO Review of International Relations, n.º 5(26) (28 de outubro de 2012): 227–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2012-5-26-227-234.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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.
45
Tamblyn, Robyn, Nadyne Girard, James Hanley, Bettina Habib, Adrian Mota, Karim M. Khan e Clare L. Ardern. "Ranking versus rating in peer review of research grant applications". PLOS ONE 18, n.º 10 (5 de outubro de 2023): e0292306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292306.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The allocation of public funds for research has been predominantly based on peer review where reviewers are asked to rate an application on some form of ordinal scale from poor to excellent. Poor reliability and bias of peer review rating has led funding agencies to experiment with different approaches to assess applications. In this study, we compared the reliability and potential sources of bias associated with application rating with those of application ranking in 3,156 applications to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Ranking was more reliable than rating and less susceptible to the characteristics of the review panel, such as level of expertise and experience, for both reliability and potential sources of bias. However, both rating and ranking penalized early career investigators and favoured older applicants. Sex bias was only evident for rating and only when the applicant’s H-index was at the lower end of the H-index distribution. We conclude that when compared to rating, ranking provides a more reliable assessment of the quality of research applications, is not as influenced by reviewer expertise or experience, and is associated with fewer sources of bias. Research funding agencies should consider adopting ranking methods to improve the quality of funding decisions in health research.
46
Colletti, Lisa M., Joseph C. Kolars e 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, n.º 4 (1 de dezembro de 2013): 665–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.4300/jgme-d-12-00317.1.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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.
47
Langille, Lynn L., e Theresa Mackenzie. "Navigating the Road to Success: Guidelines for Preparing Competitive Grant Proposals". Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2, n.º 1 (14 de março de 2007): 23. http://dx.doi.org/10.18438/b8kk5s.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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.
48
Pier, Elizabeth L., Markus Brauer, Amarette Filut, Anna Kaatz, Joshua Raclaw, Mitchell J. Nathan, Cecilia E. Ford e Molly Carnes. "Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, n.º 12 (5 de março de 2018): 2952–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1714379115.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
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.
49
Bergenholtz, Henning, e Rufus Gouws. "Proposals for the Writing of Peer Reviews in Lexicography". HERMES - Journal of Language and Communication in Business 27, n.º 54 (22 de dezembro de 2015): 107. http://dx.doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v27i54.22950.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
<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>
50
Owoaje, Eme T. "Grant writing". Journal of Global Medicine 3, S1 (30 de dezembro de 2023): e135. http://dx.doi.org/10.51496/jogm.v3.s1.135.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Grant writing is the process of responding to an application for a financial grant from institutions such as research organisations, government agencies, corporations, foundations, trusts, and international funding organisations. The skills required to write successful grants are referred to as grantsmanship. Over the past few decades, the process of applying for grants has become increasingly complex and highly competitive. Therefore, the grant proposals must be based on innovative ideas, capable of advancing the current status of knowledge, compelling, and well-written. Types of Research Grants Collaborative research grants are usually interdisciplinary, multicentre, and multicountry. These are led by senior researchers with a team of co-investigators including post–doctoral fellows, and postgraduate students. Fellowships are individual research grants that provide the fellow who obtains the grant the time to focus on the research project for a stipulated time. Targeted grants are for early-career, mid-career, or senior researchers. The grant announcement for these indicates the category of researchers who are eligible to apply. Networking grants are aimed at developing teams and establishing teams of academic and research collaborators for a particular research topic. These grants provide funding for researchers to engage in discussions regarding potential research ideas. Small grants fund small research projects or preliminary research that provide initial data for larger research projects in the future. Travel grants are usually for professional development and are provided by disciplinary specialist organisations. The researcher is supported to travel to institutions that have resources or opportunities that are not available at their home institution. Knowledge transfer grants or industrial partnerships are grants aimed at promoting collaboration and knowledge exchange between academic and non-academic collaborators. The funds can also be used for proof of concept, pilots, and getting new products to the market. Conference grants are used to disseminate research findings or host research conferences. Grant proposals The proposals should conform to the guidelines indicated in the funding opportunity announcement. Funders have guidelines regarding the sections of the proposals, font type, and font sizes to be used, sections of the proposal, page limits for each section, and the overall proposal. Project narrative This section provides the most comprehensive description of the proposed project. The main areas are the background and literature review that identify research gaps. It contains the research problem and questions/aims and objectives and documents the proposed research methods. Other areas addressed are the project management and delivery plan, which may require work packages. The budget and budget justification are also addressed in this section. Other documents required are: The curriculum vitae of the investigators detailing their previous research and how it relates to the current application. Well-written letters of support from collaborators and collaborating institutions that address the roles and responsibilities of team members are essential. This is particularly important for collaborative research that involves various partners from other universities, non-academic organisations, and industry. These partners should provide signed letters of support that indicate the specific contribution of the collaborator and commitment research project, and the contribution in cash or in-kind.