Applications for grants to fund clinical studies do not fare as well in the linkurl:National Institutes of Health's peer review process;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/54735/ as do those for nonclinical studies, according to an NIH report released yesterday (July 14). The linkurl:report,;http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(08)00313-6/fulltext which was conducted by NIH's Center for Scientific Review (CSR) and appears in this month's edition of __The American Journal of Medicine__, says that clinical grant applications have lower acceptance rates mainly because clinical researchers are less likely to apply for grant extensions than are their nonclinical counterparts. "We were criticized all the time that clinical research doesn't fair well in peer review," said linkurl:Toni Scarpa,;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/54034/ director of CSR but not an author on the report, explaining that the center conducted the study to determine whether the problem lay with the peer review process itself or was the result of other factors. "It seems that it is something else." The CSR, NIH's...
Interested in reading more?
Become a Member of
Receive full access to more than 35 years of archives, as well as TS Digest, digital editions of The Scientist, feature stories, and much more!