It is good to know that the plans were changed, and that the applicants will receive the reviewers' full comments. The bad news is that the change will impose an even higher burden on the study-section members, who now must write their reviews in an objective editorial style, suitable for consumption by deeply disappointed applicants. In the good old days, reviewers who do not write well, like me, relied on the editorial abilities and good judgment of the scientific-review administrators. It is obvious that to write the critiques in final form will require more time and effort, no matter what Stamper says. However, this problem has been neglected, perhaps because reviewers are not paid for their writing time. Despite the reviewers' increase in work, applicants whose proposals are deemed NC will not receive a summary of the IRG discussions. This can hardly be considered an advantage for the applicants, but ...
NIH Triage
The Scientist, Oct. 17, 1994, page 13) concerning my commentary "Triage At NIH: A Smoke Screen Concealing The Real Problems Facing American Science" (The Scientist, Sept. 5, 1994, page 13) contains some interesting news, but also some unsubstantiated statements. I was glad to learn that the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has changed the triage procedures regarding communication with the applicants, who now will receive th
Written byJose Musacchio
| 2 min read
Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
2:00
Share
Interested in reading more?
Become a Member of
Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member? Login Here
