How to change NIH peer review?

NIH Director Elias Zerhouni has presented US biomedical researchers with a mission: "Fund the best science, by the best scientists, with the least administrative burden."Since July, 2007, the NIH has received more than 2600 suggestions from researchers about ways to improve the agency's peer review process. Currently, the agency is sifting through the suggestions, and plans to conduct pilot experiments to test their effectiveness early next year.The stakes are high: Each year, the Center for Scientific Review -- the portal for NIH grants -- receives 80,000 applications, and recruits more than 18,000 external experts for peer review.Now's your chance to have your say. Below is a list of some of the changes the agency is considering. Tell us what you think. Which ideas do you love, hate? If you want to weigh in on any idea, click here. Comments can be anonymous.

Find ways to identify and encourage the best reviewers. Could there be incentives to review grant applications? What might those entail? Supplement reviewers' extant grants? Cut service time from three times per year to twice per year?
Reduce face-to-face meetings with reviewers, to help shorten the time spent reviewing and encourage others to participate.
Set up two levels of review, similar to an editorial board model.

Give applicants an opportunity to respond to preliminary comments about applications, establishing a dialogue between applicant and reviewer.
Cut applications down to seven pages. If so, what should those pages focus on?
Concentrate on one criterion: Innovation/impact.
Shift the focus from projects to people, similar to how the HHMI operates. Under this program, researchers with a proven track record could obtain more regular support.
Redo the scoring system. If so, how should it look? Suggestions ranged from reducing the score to a 7-point scale, and breaking down total score into several dimensions such as impact, investigator, and project, etc.

Any feedback? We want to know. Tell us what you think here.For more details on proposed changes, such as presentations by the experts involved in the process, visit the Peer Review Advisory Committee's Web site.The Editors of The Scientist mail@the-scientist.comLinks within this article:A. McCook, "Is peer review broken?" The Scientist, Feb. 1, 2006. http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/23061/Peer Review Advisory Committee Meetings http://grants1.nih.gov/