Bicameral Grant Review: An Alternative to Conventional Peer Review

1991 ◽  
Vol 5 (9) ◽  
pp. 2313-2313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald R. Forsdyke
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Grant Review

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.

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 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.

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.

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

An empirical review of gambling expansion and gambling-related harm

2018 ◽  
Vol 64 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 295-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debi A. LaPlante ◽  
Heather M. Gray ◽  
Pat M. Williams ◽  
Sarah E. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Expansion Method ◽  
Responsible Gambling ◽  
Review Literature ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Empirical Comparison ◽  
Related Harm

Abstract. Aims: To discuss and review the latest research related to gambling expansion. Method: We completed a literature review and empirical comparison of peer reviewed findings related to gambling expansion and subsequent gambling-related changes among the population. Results: Although gambling expansion is associated with changes in gambling and gambling-related problems, empirical studies suggest that these effects are mixed and the available literature is limited. For example, the peer review literature suggests that most post-expansion gambling outcomes (i. e., 22 of 34 possible expansion outcomes; 64.7 %) indicate no observable change or a decrease in gambling outcomes, and a minority (i. e., 12 of 34 possible expansion outcomes; 35.3 %) indicate an increase in gambling outcomes. Conclusions: Empirical data related to gambling expansion suggests that its effects are more complex than frequently considered; however, evidence-based intervention might help prepare jurisdictions to deal with potential consequences. Jurisdictions can develop and evaluate responsible gambling programs to try to mitigate the impacts of expanded gambling.

A retrospective analysis of peer review at Physiologia Plantarum

1994 ◽  
Vol 92 (4) ◽  
pp. 535-542 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terence M. Murphy ◽  
Jessica M. Utts
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Retrospective Analysis
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document