Peer Review Practices for Evaluating Biomedical Research Grants: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Liaw, Lucy; Freedman, Jane E.; Becker, Lance B.; Mehta, Nehal N.; Liscum, Laura

doi:10.1161/res.0000000000000158

Cited by 12 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Peer review has two main aims: to assist journal editors in decision-making regarding publication of articles and to help authors improve the standard of their work (Halder 2011). Modern-day peer review has been described as a process in which research submissions are ‘reviewed by a committee whose membership has the expertise to provide optimal critical evaluation and feedback and is free of conflict or bias’ (Liaw 2017). It is regarded as a key component of the scientific process, and is critical to establishing and maintaining a journal's reputation and impact factor (Halder 2011; Largent 2016).…”

Section: Learning Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open versus blind peer review: is anonymity better than transparency?

Shoham¹,

Pitman²

2020

BJPsych advances

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Peer review is widely accepted as essential to ensuring scientific quality in academic journals, yet little training is provided in the specifics of how to conduct peer review. In this article we describe the different forms of peer review, with a particular focus on the differences between single-blind, double-blind and open peer review, and the advantages and disadvantages of each. These illustrate some of the challenges facing the community of authors, editors, reviewers and readers in relation to the process of peer review. We also describe other forms of peer review, such as post-publication review, transferable review and collaborative review, and encourage clinicians and academics at all training stages to engage in the practice of peer review as part of continuing professional development.

show abstract

Section: Learning Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open versus blind peer review: is anonymity better than transparency?

Shoham¹,

Pitman²

2020

BJPsych advances

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…and training to be a "good reviewer". Skills extrapolated from studies on process improvements are time management and expectations of time commitment [32], how to focus on strengths, weaknesses, and flaws [20], understanding conflict of interest [20,33], and measuring expertise [19].…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The American Heart Association [33] reviewers "undergo extensive online training" about how to review a grant and identify conflicts of interest. The training described in the National Research Council's 2004 report edited by Towne et al [9] included general principles and policies, purpose, applying review criteria, model reviews, describing strengths and weaknesses, and using review criteria in assessments.…”

Section: Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

What makes an effective grants peer reviewer? An exploratory study of the necessary skills

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This exploratory mixed methods study describes skills required to be an effective peer reviewer as a member of review panels conducted for federal agencies that fund research, and examines how reviewer experience and the use of technology within such panels impacts reviewer skill development. Two specific review panel formats are considered: inperson face-to-face and virtual video conference. Data were collected through interviews with seven program officers and five expert peer review panelists, and surveys from 51 respondents. Results include the skills reviewers' consider necessary for effective review panel participation, their assessment of the relative importance of these skills, how they are learned, and how review format affects skill development and improvement. Results are discussed relative to the peer review literature and with consideration of the importance of professional skills needed by successful scientists and peer reviewers.

show abstract

“…The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) utilizes a "long standing and time-tested system of peer review to identify the most promising biomedical research [ [1] , p. 2]," as do many major research funders [2]. However, many reports of poor inter-rater reliability suggest a high degree of subjectivity to the process [3][4][5][6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grant reviewer perceptions of the quality, effectiveness, and influence of panel discussion

Gallo

Schmaling

Thompson

et al. 2020

Res Integr Peer Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Funding agencies have long used panel discussion in the peer review of research grant proposals as a way to utilize a set of expertise and perspectives in making funding decisions. Little research has examined the quality of panel discussions and how effectively they are facilitated. Methods: Here, we present a mixed-method analysis of data from a survey of reviewers focused on their perceptions of the quality, effectiveness, and influence of panel discussion from their last peer review experience. Results: Reviewers indicated that panel discussions were viewed favorably in terms of participation, clarifying differing opinions, informing unassigned reviewers, and chair facilitation. However, some reviewers mentioned issues with panel discussions, including an uneven focus, limited participation from unassigned reviewers, and short discussion times. Most reviewers felt the discussions affected the review outcome, helped in choosing the best science, and were generally fair and balanced. However, those who felt the discussion did not affect the outcome were also more likely to evaluate panel communication negatively, and several reviewers mentioned potential sources of bias related to the discussion. While respondents strongly acknowledged the importance of the chair in ensuring appropriate facilitation of the discussion to influence scoring and to limit the influence of potential sources of bias from the discussion on scoring, nearly a third of respondents did not find the chair of their most recent panel to have performed these roles effectively. Conclusions: It is likely that improving chair training in the management of discussion as well as creating review procedures that are informed by the science of leadership and team communication would improve review processes and proposal review reliability.

show abstract

Peer Review Practices for Evaluating Biomedical Research Grants: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Cited by 12 publications

References 42 publications

Open versus blind peer review: is anonymity better than transparency?

Open versus blind peer review: is anonymity better than transparency?

What makes an effective grants peer reviewer? An exploratory study of the necessary skills

Grant reviewer perceptions of the quality, effectiveness, and influence of panel discussion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About