Subjective influences in the grant review process

1986 ◽  
Vol 50 (12) ◽  
pp. 726-727
Author(s):  
RS Mackenzie ◽  
RE Martin
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Grant Review

scholarly journals How to get and keep your lab funded

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (21) ◽  
pp. 2519-2521
Author(s):  
Jonathan Chernoff
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Decisive Factor ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Grant Proposals ◽  
Grant Review

Much has been written about the seemingly capricious manner by which grant proposals are ranked and awarded by the National Institutes of Health and similar agencies, yet some scientists are able to maintain stable funding over long periods of time. While raw luck may certainly play a role in this process, particularly when paylines are tight, it is also possible that skill—in the art of grant writing at least—could represent a decisive factor. Here, I submit that, even as we attempt to reform and one day perfect the grant review process, there are actions that applicants can take today to get better results from the system we have.

Peer review of nursing research proposals

1995 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
RD Lindquist ◽  
MF Tracy ◽  
D Treat-Jacobson
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Nursing Research ◽  
Review Panel ◽  
Research Grants ◽  
Review Session ◽  
Grant Review ◽  
Selection Of

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.

Post-Grant Review: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly for Biotechnology Companies

2012 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Smitha Uthaman ◽  
Deborah Lu ◽  
Thomas Kowalski
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Biotechnology Companies ◽  
The Many ◽  
Grant Review

This paper summarizes the Post-Grant Review process, one of the many interesting aspects of patent reform brought about by the enactment of the America Invents Act, and the effect it may have on how Biotechnology companies conduct business and manage their intellectual property.

scholarly journals Strengthening Community Involvement in Grant Review: Insights from the Community–University Research Partnership (CURES) Pilot Review Process

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Paberzs ◽  
Patricia Piechowski ◽  
Debra Warrick ◽  
Carolyn Grawi ◽  
Celeste Choate ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Community Involvement ◽  
Review Process ◽  
University Research ◽  
Research Partnership ◽  
Grant Review

scholarly journals An output evaluation of a health research foundation’s enhanced grant review process for new investigators

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory W. Hammond ◽  
Mê-Linh Lê ◽  
Tannis Novotny ◽  
Stephanie P. B. Caligiuri ◽  
Grant N. Pierce ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Grant Review

scholarly journals The Decision-Making Constraints and Processes of Grant Peer Review, and Their Effects on the Review Outcome

2022 ◽  
pp. 297-326
Author(s):  
Liv Langfeldt
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Empirical Study ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Direct Observation ◽  
Research Council ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Ranking Methods ◽  
Research Councils ◽  
Grant Review

AbstractWhen distributing grants, research councils use peer expertise as a guarantee for supporting the best projects. However, there are no clear norms for assessments, and there may be a large variation in what criteria reviewers emphasize – and how they are emphasized. The determinants of peer review may therefore be accidental, in the sense that who reviews what research and how reviews are organized may determine outcomes. This chapter deals with how the review process affects the outcome of grant review. It is a reprint of a study of the multitude of review procedures practiced in The Research Council of Norway (RCN) in the 1990s. While it is outdated as an empirical study of the RCN, it provides some general insights into the dynamics of grant review panels and the effects of different ways of organising the decision-making in the panels. Notably, it is still one of the few in-depth studies of grant review processes based on direct observation of panel meetings and full access to applications and review documents. A central finding is that rating scales and budget restrictions are more important than review guidelines for the kind of criteria applied by the reviewers. The decision-making methods applied by the review panels when ranking proposals are found to have substantial effects on the outcome. Some ranking methods tend to support uncontroversial and safe projects, whereas other methods give better chances for scholarly pluralism and controversial research.

Grants: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly, and the Puzzling

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Jeffrey J. Martin
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Higher Education ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Research Publications ◽  
Grant Applications ◽  
External Funds ◽  
Grant Review ◽  
Meaningful Research

Grants play a major role in higher education, including kinesiology. However, critical commentaries on the role of external funds appear nonexistent in kinesiology. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to outline the most common criticisms of grants to stimulate a conversation in kinesiology. First, I discuss benefits of grants. Second, I examine the role of grants in higher education. Third, I discuss how external funds are not required to contribute meaningful research. Fourth, I examine how a major reason for grants, to produce research publications, often goes unfullfilled. Fifth, I show how the development of grant applications (especially unsuccessful applications) is an inefficient expenditure of resources. Sixth, I discuss how pursuing grants can be detrimental to other important academy goals. Seventh, I examine how grants may negatively influence faculty and administrator morale and quality of life. Eighth, I report on some common criticisms of the grant review process and discuss some alternative reviewing systems. Finally, I end with a brief summary and some recommendations.

scholarly journals Engaging people with lived experience in the grant review process

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Rittenbach ◽  
Candice G. Horne ◽  
Terence O’Riordan ◽  
Allison Bichel ◽  
Nicholas Mitchell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Medical Condition ◽  
Steering Committee ◽  
Scientific Review ◽  
Systems Research ◽  
Proposed Model ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Grant Review

AbstractPeople with lived experience are individuals who have first-hand experience of the medical condition(s) being considered. The value of including the viewpoints of people with lived experience in health policy, health care, and health care and systems research has been recognized at many levels, including by funding agencies. However, there is little guidance or established best practices on how to include non-academic reviewers in the grant review process. Here we describe our approach to the inclusion of people with lived experience in every stage of the grant review process. After a budget was created for a specific call, a steering committee was created. This group included researchers, people with lived experience, and health systems administrators. This group developed and issued the call. After receiving proposals, stage one was scientific review by researchers. Grants were ranked by this score and a short list then reviewed by people with lived experience as stage two. Finally, for stage three, the Steering Committee convened and achieved consensus based on information drawn from stages one and two. Our approach to engage people with lived experience in the grant review process was positively reviewed by everyone involved, as it allowed for patient perspectives to be truly integrated. However, it does lengthen the review process. The proposed model offers further practical insight into including people with lived experience in the review process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document