How should NIH improve peer review?

Today, the NIH linkurl:announced;http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jun2007/od-08.htm that it was establishing two working groups to examine its peer review process. That process has been under increased scrutiny recently, as study sections have needed to read more and more grant applications with every cycle. And with NIH funding flat, it's no longer good enough to be in the top 30% or so to get funded; in some study sections, it's close to 10%. So many scientists may find the examination welcome. In

By | June 8, 2007

Today, the NIH linkurl:announced;http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jun2007/od-08.htm that it was establishing two working groups to examine its peer review process. That process has been under increased scrutiny recently, as study sections have needed to read more and more grant applications with every cycle. And with NIH funding flat, it's no longer good enough to be in the top 30% or so to get funded; in some study sections, it's close to 10%. So many scientists may find the examination welcome. In 2005, in the pages of The Scientist, David Kaplan linkurl:proposed;http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15701/ a number of ways to improve peer review at the NIH. What do you think of his suggestions, which include decreasing the length of the research plan to between two and four pages so that 20 to 30 reviews for each application could be solicited, and doing away with committee meetings? Where do you suggest the new committees look for improvements? Give us your ideas by linkurl:commenting;http://www.the-scientist.com/forum/addcomment/53276/ on this blog.

Popular Now

  1. Symmetrical Eyes Indicate Dyslexia
  2. German Scientists Resign from Elsevier Journals’ Editorial Boards
  3. Germany Sees Drastic Decrease in Insects
  4. Swapping Cigarettes for Vaping
    The Scientist Swapping Cigarettes for Vaping

    New evidence suggests e-cigarettes are not without risks to human health, but can be useful in getting people to kick their smoking habit.

RayBiotech