Panel discussion does not improve reliability of peer review for medical research grant proposals

2012 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikael Fogelholm ◽  
Saara Leppinen ◽  
Anssi Auvinen ◽  
Jani Raitanen ◽  
Anu Nuutinen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Panel Discussion ◽  
Grant Proposals ◽  
Improve Reliability ◽  
Research Grant

scholarly journals Grant reviewer perceptions of the quality and effectiveness of panel discussion

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen A. Gallo ◽  
Karen B. Schmaling ◽  
Lisa A. Thompson ◽  
Scott R. Glisson
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Panel Discussion ◽  
Limited Participation ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Potential Sources ◽  
Grant Proposals ◽  
Proposal Review ◽  
Method Analysis ◽  
Research Grant

AbstractBackgroundFunding agencies have long used panel discussion in the peer review of research grant proposals as a way to utilize a set of expertise and perspectives in making funding decisions. Little research has examined the quality of panel discussions and how effectively they are facilitated.MethodsHere we present a mixed-method analysis of data from a survey of reviewers focused on their perceptions of the quality and facilitation of panel discussion from their last peer review experience.ResultsReviewers indicated that panel discussions were viewed favorably in terms of participation, clarifying differing opinions, informing unassigned reviewers, and chair facilitation. However, some reviewers mentioned issues with panel discussions, including an uneven focus, limited participation from unassigned reviewers, and short discussion times. Most reviewers felt the discussions affected the review outcome, helped in choosing the best science, and were generally fair and balanced. However, those who felt the discussion did not affect the outcome were also more likely to evaluate panel communication negatively, and several reviewers mentioned potential sources of bias related to the discussion. While respondents strongly acknowledged the importance of the chair in ensuring appropriate facilitation of the discussion to influence scoring and to limit the influence of potential sources of bias from the discussion on scoring, nearly a third of respondents did not find the chair of their most recent panel to have performed these roles effectively.ConclusionsIt is likely that improving chair training in the management of discussion as well as creating review procedures that are informed by the science of leadership and team communication would improve review processes and proposal review reliability.

scholarly journals The Keys to Preparing Successful Research Grant Proposals

2001 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 605-612
Author(s):  
Mary A. Marchant
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Application Process ◽  
Department Of Agriculture ◽  
Grant Programs ◽  
Research Initiative ◽  
Grant Proposals ◽  
Research Grant

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.

scholarly journals Grant Review Feedback: Appropriateness and Usefulness

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen A. Gallo ◽  
Karen B. Schmaling ◽  
Lisa A. Thompson ◽  
Scott R. Glisson
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Funding Agency ◽  
Constructive Feedback ◽  
Competitive Funding ◽  
Grant Proposals ◽  
Funding Success ◽  
Negative Perceptions ◽  
Grant Review ◽  
Research Grant

AbstractThe primary goal of the peer review of research grant proposals is to evaluate their quality for the funding agency. An important secondary goal is to provide constructive feedback to applicants for their resubmissions. However, little is known about whether review feedback achieves this goal. In this paper, we present a multi-methods analysis of responses from grant applicants regarding their perceptions of the effectiveness and appropriateness of peer review feedback they received from grant submissions. Overall, 56–60% of applicants determined the feedback to be appropriate (fair, well-written, and well-informed), although their judgments were more favorable if their recent application was funded. Importantly, independent of funding success, women found the feedback better written than men, and more white applicants found the feedback to be fair than non-white applicants. Also, perceptions of a variety of biases were specifically reported in respondents’ feedback. Less than 40% of applicants found the feedback to be very useful in informing their research and improving grantsmanship and future submissions. Further, negative perceptions of the appropriateness of review feedback were positively correlated with more negative perceptions of feedback usefulness. Importantly, respondents suggested that highly competitive funding pay-lines and poor inter-panel reliability limited the usefulness of review feedback. Overall, these results suggest that more effort is needed to ensure that appropriate and useful feedback is provided to all applicants, bolstering the equity of the review process and likely improving the quality of resubmitted proposals.

scholarly journals Grant Review Feedback: Appropriateness and Usefulness

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Gallo ◽  
Karen Schmaling ◽  
Lisa Thompson ◽  
Scott Glisson
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Funding Agency ◽  
Constructive Feedback ◽  
Competitive Funding ◽  
Grant Proposals ◽  
Funding Success ◽  
Negative Perceptions ◽  
Grant Review ◽  
Research Grant

AbstractThe primary goal of the peer review of research grant proposals is to evaluate their quality for the funding agency. An important secondary goal is to provide constructive feedback to applicants for their resubmissions. However, little is known about whether review feedback achieves this goal. In this paper, we present a mixed methods analysis of responses from grant applicants regarding their perceptions of the effectiveness and appropriateness of peer review feedback they received from grant submissions. Overall, 56%-60% of applicants determined the feedback to be appropriate (fair, well-written, and well-informed), although their judgments were more favorable if their recent application was funded. Importantly, independent of funding success, women found the feedback better written than men, and more white applicants found the feedback to be fair than non-white applicants. Also, perceptions of a variety of biases were specifically reported in respondents’ feedback. Less than 40% of applicants found the feedback to be very useful in informing their research and improving grantsmanship and future submissions. Further, negative perceptions of the appropriateness of review feedback were positively correlated with more negative perceptions of feedback usefulness. Importantly, respondents suggested that highly competitive funding pay-lines and poor inter-panel reliability limited the usefulness of review feedback. Overall, these results suggest that more effort is needed to ensure that appropriate and useful feedback is provided to all applicants, bolstering the equity of the review process and likely improving the quality of resubmitted proposals.

scholarly journals Decision Support System on Selection of Lecturer Research Grant Proposals using Preferences Selection Index

2019 ◽  
Vol 1255 ◽  
pp. 012006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siti Sundari ◽  
Karmila ◽  
Masduki Nizam Fadli ◽  
Dedy Hartama ◽  
Agus Perdana Windarto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support System ◽  
Support System ◽  
Selection Index ◽  
Grant Proposals ◽  
Selection Of ◽  
Research Grant

scholarly journals The leaky pipeline in research grant peer review and funding decisions: challenges and future directions

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sayaka Sato ◽  
Pascal Mark Gygax ◽  
Julian Randall ◽  
Marianne Schmid Mast
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gender Inequality ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Grant Funding ◽  
Social Barriers ◽  
Gender Biases ◽  
Funding Opportunities ◽  
Research Grant

Abstract The growing literature on gender inequality in academia attests to the challenge that awaits female researchers during their academic careers. However, research has not yet conclusively resolved whether these biases persist during the peer review process of research grant funding and whether they impact respective funding decisions. Whereas many have argued for the existence of gender inequality in grant peer reviews and outcomes, others have demonstrated that gender equality is upheld during these processes. In the present paper, we illustrate how these opinions have come to such opposing conclusions and consider methodological and contextual factors that render these findings inconclusive. More specifically, we argue that a more comprehensive approach is needed to further the debate, encompassing individual and systemic biases as well as more global social barriers. We also argue that examining gender biases during the peer review process of research grant funding poses critical methodological challenges that deserve special attention. We conclude by providing directions for possible future research and more general considerations that may improve grant funding opportunities and career paths for female researchers.

Publishing Your Research–II

1993 ◽  
Vol 8 (S1) ◽  
pp. S47-S50
Author(s):  
Marvin L. Birnbaum
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Medical Research ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Learning Process ◽  
Principal Reason ◽  
Practice Of Medicine

The principal reason to conduct medical research is twofold: 1) to provide an answer to some question that is important to the investigator(s); and 2) to affect the behavior of others involved in the practice of medicine. In order to accomplish the latter of these two objectives, the results of your labors must be published in a reputable medical Journal so that it can impact upon the practice of your peers. To accomplish this, it is necessary to conform to certain rules in the development of the manuscript, and then have the paper evaluated for its relative merits for publication by a panel of your peers. These issues are addressed in this paper.We all tend to be somewhat naive about the need to write in terms that can be understood and appreciated by our peers. Without clarity and understanding, our work has little impact on others. All that will be accomplished is the knowledge that you think you have gained from what you have done. There are several benefits associated with submission of your hard-earned work for review by your peers. Perhaps the most significant is that the process of peer review constitutes a learning process for the reviewers as well as the authors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document