We have blatantly taken this blog topic from the pages of The Scientist. It seems a good idea to have this discussion.
How should NIH improve peer review? [And we add] How should Canadian research groups improve peer review?
How should NIH improve peer review? [And we add] How should Canadian research groups improve peer review?
The original post (below) came from Ivan Oransk
Today (June 08, 2007) the NIH announced that it was establishing two working groups to examine its peer review process. That process has been under increased scrutiny recently, as study sections have needed to read more and more grant applications with every cycle. And with NIH funding flat, it's no longer good enough to be in the top 30% or so to get funded; in some study sections, it's close to 10%. So many scientists may find the examination welcome.
In 2005, in the pages of The Scientist, David Kaplan proposed a number of ways to improve peer review at the NIH. What do you think of his suggestions, which include decreasing the length of the research plan to between two and four pages so that 20 to 30 reviews for each application could be solicited, and doing away with committee meetings? Where do you suggest the new committees look for improvements? Give The Scientist your ideas by commenting on The Scientist blog or provide your comments using the tools below.
Today (June 08, 2007) the NIH announced that it was establishing two working groups to examine its peer review process. That process has been under increased scrutiny recently, as study sections have needed to read more and more grant applications with every cycle. And with NIH funding flat, it's no longer good enough to be in the top 30% or so to get funded; in some study sections, it's close to 10%. So many scientists may find the examination welcome.
In 2005, in the pages of The Scientist, David Kaplan proposed a number of ways to improve peer review at the NIH. What do you think of his suggestions, which include decreasing the length of the research plan to between two and four pages so that 20 to 30 reviews for each application could be solicited, and doing away with committee meetings? Where do you suggest the new committees look for improvements? Give The Scientist your ideas by commenting on The Scientist blog or provide your comments using the tools below.
No comments:
Post a Comment