Peer Review

The Dec. 9, 1996, issue of The Scientist discusses researcher disagreement with the National Institutes of Health plan to improve its peer-review processes [T.W. Durso, page 1]. My reading of the peer-review literature, supplemented by the conduct of hundreds of peer reviews, leads me to the following documented conclusions on the subject (R.N. Kostoff, "The Handbook of Research Impact Assessment," 6th ed., Summer 1996, Defense Technical Information Center Report No. ADA296021; R.N. Kostoff, "F

| 2 min read

Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
2:00
Share

The Dec. 9, 1996, issue of The Scientist discusses researcher disagreement with the National Institutes of Health plan to improve its peer-review processes [T.W. Durso, page 1]. My reading of the peer-review literature, supplemented by the conduct of hundreds of peer reviews, leads me to the following documented conclusions on the subject (R.N. Kostoff, "The Handbook of Research Impact Assessment," 6th ed., Summer 1996, Defense Technical Information Center Report No. ADA296021; R.N. Kostoff, "Federal Research Impact Assessment: Axioms, Approaches, Applications," Scientometrics, 34:2, 1995). For evaluating basic research proposals, the three main criteria are research merit, research approach, and team quality. These map quite well into the three criteria proposed by the NIH Rating of Grant Applications committee (significance/approach/feasibility).

For research sponsored by a mission-oriented organization, a fourth factor related to mission relevance is useful. To ensure equity for evaluating truly fundamental research, a very liberal interpretation of mission relevance is ...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

The Scientist Logo
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

Meet the Author

  • Ronald Kostoff

    This person does not yet have a bio.

Published In

Share
Image of a woman in a microbiology lab whose hair is caught on fire from a Bunsen burner.
April 1, 2025, Issue 1

Bunsen Burners and Bad Hair Days

Lab safety rules dictate that one must tie back long hair. Rosemarie Hansen learned the hard way when an open flame turned her locks into a lesson.

View this Issue
Faster Fluid Measurements for Formulation Development

Meet Honeybun and Breeze Through Viscometry in Formulation Development

Unchained Labs
Conceptual image of biochemical laboratory sample preparation showing glassware and chemical formulas in the foreground and a scientist holding a pipette in the background.

Taking the Guesswork Out of Quality Control Standards

sartorius logo
An illustration of PFAS bubbles in front of a blue sky with clouds.

PFAS: The Forever Chemicals

sartorius logo
Unlocking the Unattainable in Gene Construction

Unlocking the Unattainable in Gene Construction

dna-script-primarylogo-digital

Products

Metrion Biosciences Logo

Metrion Biosciences launches NaV1.9 high-throughput screening assay to strengthen screening portfolio and advance research on new medicines for pain

Biotium Logo

Biotium Unveils New Assay Kit with Exceptional RNase Detection Sensitivity

Atelerix

Atelerix signs exclusive agreement with MineBio to establish distribution channel for non-cryogenic cell preservation solutions in China

Green Cooling

Thermo Scientific™ Centrifuges with GreenCool Technology

Thermo Fisher Logo