How to Improve Peer Review at NIH :The Scientist [12/9/2005]

Supplements

Survey Series

The Scientist Daily

Science headlines delivered daily.
Register today.

Institutions

For Advertisers

by David Kaplan

OPINION

How to Improve Peer Review at NIH

A revamped process will engender innovative research

Email: David Kaplan - david.kaplan@case.edu
The Scientist 2005, 19(17):10

Published

12 September 2005

Peer reviewers for the National Institutes of Health are faced with the impossible. They are asked to evaluate applications that are too complex and too long in an amount of time that is too short. The process requires them to provide a score with a level of precision that is not defensible, and calls for consensus about topics that usually do not allow for definitive positions. It is not surprising, therefore, that the system does not work well in identifying innovative projects. It does, however, work effectively in funding established investigators proposing reasonable, if obvious, projects.


	The article you are attempting to read is Premium content which is only available to our online subscribers.

Subscribing to The Scientist is easy and inexpensive.

And you can choose from many options. Try us out with an online day pass starting at only $4.95. Or, get it all with unlimited online access to The Scientist Archive and door-to-door delivery of our monthly print magazine.


	The Scientist also offers site licenses to institutions and organizations. When your librarian adds The Scientist to the library's collection, you can get unlimited online access through your place of work or study. Recommend The Scientist today