WIKIMEDIA, AREYNThe National Institutes of Health (NIH) peer-review scoring system, which is used to select grant proposals for funding, is an accurate predictor of how impactful proposed research will ultimately become, according to an analysis published today (April 23) in Science. Overall, applicants with the highest-scoring grants published the most papers, garnered the most citations, and earned the most patents, researchers have found.
“This is the most important science policy paper in a long time,” said Pierre Azoulay of the MIT Sloan School of Management who was not involved in the research. When it comes to peer review, “most of the pontifications that you hear—most of the anger, editorials, suggestions for reform—have been remarkably data-free. So this paper, as far as I am concerned, is really a breath of fresh air.”
“[As] it turns out,” he added, “the NIH is doing a pretty good job.”
The process by which NIH grants are applied for, reviewed, and awarded has come under scrutiny in recent years. Among the concerns is that the large investment of time and effort by both the applicants and reviewers reduces the time both can spend ...
