Grant peer review: improving inter-rater reliability with training

DN Sattler, PE McKnight, L Naney, R Mathis - PloS one, 2015 - journals.plos.org
This study developed and evaluated a brief training program for grant reviewers that aimed
to increase inter-rater reliability, rating scale knowledge, and effort to read the grant review …

Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications

EL Pier, M Brauer, A Filut, A Kaatz… - Proceedings of the …, 2018 - National Acad Sciences
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 …

NIH peer review: scored review criteria and overall impact

MD Lindner, A Vancea, MC Chen… - American Journal of …, 2016 - journals.sagepub.com
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest source of funding for biomedical
research in the world. Funding decisions are made largely based on the outcome of a peer …

Peering at peer review revealed high degree of chance associated with funding of grant applications

NE Mayo, J Brophy, MS Goldberg, MB Klein… - Journal of clinical …, 2006 - Elsevier
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is a persistent degree of uncertainty and
dissatisfaction with the peer review process underlining the need to validate the current …

'Your comments are meaner than your score': Score calibration talk influences intra-and inter-panel variability during scientific grant peer review

EL Pier, J Raclaw, A Kaatz, M Brauer… - Research …, 2017 - academic.oup.com
In scientific grant peer review, groups of expert scientists meet to engage in the collaborative
decision-making task of evaluating and scoring grant applications. Prior research on grant …

An analysis of preliminary and post-discussion priority scores for grant applications peer reviewed by the Center for Scientific Review at the NIH

MR Martin, A Kopstein, JM Janice - PLoS One, 2010 - journals.plos.org
There has been the impression amongst many observers that discussion of a grant
application has little practical impact on the final priority scores. Rather the final score is …

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

M Fogelholm, S Leppinen, A Auvinen… - Journal of clinical …, 2012 - Elsevier
OBJECTIVE: Peer review is the gold standard for evaluating scientific quality. Compared
with studies on inter-reviewer variability, research on panel evaluation is scarce. To …

Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada

R Tamblyn, N Girard, CJ Qian, J Hanley - Cmaj, 2018 - Can Med Assoc
BACKGROUND: Peer review is used to determine what research is funded and published,
yet little is known about its effectiveness, and it is suspected that there may be biases. We …

Examining the predictive validity of NIH peer review scores

MD Lindner, RK Nakamura - PLoS One, 2015 - journals.plos.org
The predictive validity of peer review at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has not yet
been demonstrated empirically. It might be assumed that the most efficient and expedient …

Outcomes of National Institutes of Health peer review of clinical grant applications

TA Kotchen, T Lindquist… - Journal of …, 2006 - journals.sagepub.com
Purpose We previously reported that National Institutes of Health (NIH) peer review
outcomes in 2002 were slightly but significantly less favorable for grant applications for …