scholarly journals Characterization of the Peer Review Network at the Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Boyack ◽  
Mei-Ching Chen ◽  
George Chacko
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
System Level ◽  
Graph Visualization ◽  
Structural Reorganization ◽  
Scientific Review ◽  
Grant Applications ◽  
Monitoring Tools ◽  
Visualization Techniques

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest source of funding for biomedical research in the world. This funding is largely effected through a competitive grants process. Each year the Center for Scientific Review (CSR) at NIH manages the evaluation, by peer review, of more than 55,000 grant applications. A relevant management question is how this scientific evaluation system, supported by finite resources, could be continuously evaluated and improved for maximal benefit to the scientific community and the taxpaying public. Towards this purpose, we have created the first system-level description of peer review at CSR by applying text analysis, bibliometric, and graph visualization techniques to administrative records. We identify otherwise latent relationships across scientific clusters, which in turn suggest opportunities for structural reorganization of the system based on expert evaluation. Such studies support the creation of monitoring tools and provide transparency and knowledge to stakeholders

scholarly journals Shining a Light Inside the “Black Box” of NIH Application Submission and Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 765-765
Author(s):  
Elia Ortenberg ◽  
Shalanda Bynum
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Black Box ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Grant Application ◽  
Scientific Review ◽  
Training Opportunity ◽  
Business Innovation ◽  
Innovation Research ◽  
Grant Applications ◽  
Potential Impact

Abstract What happens to applications after they are submitted to the National Institutes of Health, and how can you better prepare yourself and your application 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 project is to provide an overview of 1) what happens to NIH applications before, during, and after peer review at CSR; 2) a summary of new and current peer review policies and practices that impact investigators and their submitted applications; and 3) strategies for developing a strong NIH grant application. Peer review is the cornerstone of the NIH grant supporting process, and an insider’s view can shine a light inside the “Black Box” of how the most meritorious projects are identified.

Outcomes of National Institutes of Health Peer Review of Clinical Grant Applications

2006 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore A. Kotchen ◽  
Teresa Lindquist ◽  
Anita Miller Sostek ◽  
Raymond Hoffmann ◽  
Karl Malik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Grant Applications

scholarly journals Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications

2018 ◽  
Vol 115 (12) ◽  
pp. 2952-2957 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth L. Pier ◽  
Markus Brauer ◽  
Amarette Filut ◽  
Anna Kaatz ◽  
Joshua Raclaw ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Grant Applications ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Funding Success ◽  
Numeric Rating

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.

scholarly journals THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF NIH PEER REVIEW: THE CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC REVIEW

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S210-S210
Author(s):  
Elia Femia ◽  
Dana Plude ◽  
George W Rebok
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Technology Development ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Development Programs ◽  
Grant Application ◽  
Scientific Review ◽  
Major Health ◽  
Grant Applications ◽  
Training Opportunities

Abstract The National Institutes of Health is the largest public funder of biomedical and bio-behavioral research in the United States. The mission is to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability. To achieve this mission, the NIH provides support for cutting-edge research and technology development in a variety of fields, ranging from translation of innovative ideas in technology to basic science on major health challenges and disease. There are many types of research and training opportunities and technology development programs that are supported by the NIH across the 24 institutes and centers that provide funding. The majority of grant applications are reviewed by the NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR). In this symposium, attendees will get 1) an overview of the types of applications submitted to the NIH for support; 2) the basics of the NIH peer review process and criteria and scoring system for evaluating applications, and 3) tips for writing a more successful grant application. Peer review is the cornerstone of the NIH grants process, and an insider’s view can lead to a better understanding of how the most meritorious projects are identified that lead to innovative re-search in the biomedical and bio-behavioral sciences.

scholarly journals NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity

eLife ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ferric C Fang ◽  
Anthony Bowen ◽  
Arturo Casadevall
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Recent Analysis ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Grant Applications ◽  
The Us ◽  
Percentile Scores

Peer review is widely used to assess grant applications so that the highest ranked applications can be funded. A number of studies have questioned the ability of peer review panels to predict the productivity of applications, but a recent analysis of grants funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the US found that the percentile scores awarded by peer review panels correlated with productivity as measured by citations of grant-supported publications. Here, based on a re-analysis of these data for the 102,740 funded grants with percentile scores of 20 or better, we report that these percentile scores are a poor discriminator of productivity. This underscores the limitations of peer review as a means of assessing grant applications in an era when typical success rates are often as low as about 10%.

scholarly journals Open Research Data and Open Peer Review: Perceptions of a Medical and Health Sciences Community in Greece

Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 14
Author(s):  
Eirini Delikoura ◽  
Dimitrios Kouis
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Stage Of Development ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Proper Training ◽  
To Receive

Recently significant initiatives have been launched for the dissemination of Open Access as part of the Open Science movement. Nevertheless, two other major pillars of Open Science such as Open Research Data (ORD) and Open Peer Review (OPR) are still in an early stage of development among the communities of researchers and stakeholders. The present study sought to unveil the perceptions of a medical and health sciences community about these issues. Through the investigation of researchers` attitudes, valuable conclusions can be drawn, especially in the field of medicine and health sciences, where an explosive growth of scientific publishing exists. A quantitative survey was conducted based on a structured questionnaire, with 179 valid responses. The participants in the survey agreed with the Open Peer Review principles. However, they ignored basic terms like FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) and appeared incentivized to permit the exploitation of their data. Regarding Open Peer Review (OPR), participants expressed their agreement, implying their support for a trustworthy evaluation system. Conclusively, researchers need to receive proper training for both Open Research Data principles and Open Peer Review processes which combined with a reformed evaluation system will enable them to take full advantage of the opportunities that arise from the new scholarly publishing and communication landscape.

Peer review at National Institutes of Health: Small steps forward

2008 ◽  
Vol 64 (5) ◽  
pp. A15-A17 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Claiborne Johnston ◽  
Stephen L. Hauser
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
National Institutes Of Health

Be an NIH Reviewer: Contribute to Multidisciplinary Research

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 367-374
Author(s):  
Melinda L. Jenkins
Keyword(s):  
Small Business ◽  
Review Process ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Small Business Innovation Research ◽  
Multidisciplinary Research ◽  
Scientific Review ◽  
Business Innovation ◽  
Innovation Research ◽  
Study Section ◽  
Nursing Expertise

One of the best ways to contribute to multidisciplinary research and to improve your own knowledge of the review process at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is to serve as a peer reviewer for research, traineeship, and small business innovation research proposals. Proactive targeted outreach to Scientific Review Officers (SROs) at NIH will increase your chances to become a reviewer. Reviewers with nursing expertise are especially welcome as multidisciplinary research is becoming more prevalent. Steps to identify a likely study section, contact the correct SRO, and review responsibly are described in this article, written by an experienced NIH review officer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document