NIH Peer Review

Lindner, Mark D.; Vancea, Adrian; Chen, Mei‐Ching; Chacko, George

doi:10.1177/1098214015582049

Cited by 21 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Making ‘innovation’ an assessment criteria is another approach ( Lindner et al , 2016 ; Luukkonen, 2012 ). Views on this are mixed, some suggesting panels lack the expertise to assess innovation ( Costello, 2010 ), whilst others see the approach as effective ( Spiegel, 2010 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Peer review decisions award an estimated >95% of academic medical research funding, so it is crucial to understand how well they work and if they could be improved. Methods: This paper summarises evidence from 105 papers identified through a literature search on the effectiveness and burden of peer review for grant funding. Results: There is a remarkable paucity of evidence about the efficiency of peer review for funding allocation, given its centrality to the modern system of science. From the available evidence, we can identify some conclusions around the effectiveness and burden of peer review. The strongest evidence around effectiveness indicates a bias against innovative research. There is also fairly clear evidence that peer review is, at best, a weak predictor of future research performance, and that ratings vary considerably between reviewers. There is some evidence of age bias and cronyism. Good evidence shows that the burden of peer review is high and that around 75% of it falls on applicants. By contrast, many of the efforts to reduce burden are focused on funders and reviewers/panel members. Conclusions: We suggest funders should acknowledge, assess and analyse the uncertainty around peer review, even using reviewers’ uncertainty as an input to funding decisions. Funders could consider a lottery element in some parts of their funding allocation process, to reduce both burden and bias, and allow better evaluation of decision processes. Alternatively, the distribution of scores from different reviewers could be better utilised as a possible way to identify novel, innovative research. Above all, there is a need for open, transparent experimentation and evaluation of different ways to fund research. This also requires more openness across the wider scientific community to support such investigations, acknowledging the lack of evidence about the primacy of the current system and the impossibility of achieving perfection.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Views on this are mixed, some suggesting panels lack the expertise to assess innovation ( Costello, 2010 ), whilst others see the approach as effective ( Spiegel, 2010 ). Analysis of NIH application scores suggests that those for innovation are closely correlated with overall scores ( Lindner et al , 2016 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The utility of bibliometric indices during the NIH grant review process is unclear. Successful K-award applications must outline career development opportunities, a mentorship plan, and an institutional commitment to the candidate 30 . The publication productivity of the candidate is less salient for K awards than for R awards 30 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transition to Independent Research Funding Among National Institutes of Health K Grant Awardees at Departments of Orthopaedic Surgery

Silvestre

Hines

Chang

et al. 2021

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) supports mentored research career development awards (K awards) to increase the pipeline of independently funded scientists. This study analyzed the portfolio of K grants that were awarded to orthopaedic surgery departments and characterized the factors that were associated with successful transition to independent NIH research funding, including R01 grants. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of K-award recipients in orthopaedic surgery departments in the United States from 1996 to 2018. A query was performed on the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) database for NIH grants that were awarded to departments of orthopaedic surgery, general surgery, otolaryngology, obstetrics and gynecology, ophthalmology, and urology. Rates of transition to independent research funding were compared by specialty for K grants that were awarded from 1996 to 2011. The percentage of faculty with mentored research career development awards and the return on investment (ROI) were calculated. An internet and Scopus (Elsevier) database search determined the investigator characteristics. The factors that were associated with successful transition to independent funding were determined via chi-square and unpaired t tests. Results: Sixty K-award recipients were identified in orthopaedic surgery departments. Most were men (77%) and research scientists (53%). Fifty percent of the K-award recipients transitioned to independent research funding. Research scientists had the highest rate of transition to independent research funding (71%, p = 0.016) relative to clinicians (0%) and orthopaedic surgeons (40%). Higher levels of publication productivity were associated with successful transition to independent research funding. Similar rates of transition to independent research funding existed among surgical specialties (p = 0.107). Orthopaedic surgery had the lowest percentage of faculty with a K award (1.4%) but had the highest ROI (198%) of these awards. Conclusions: Orthopaedic surgery had similar rates of transition to independent research funding when compared with other surgical specialties but had a lower prevalence of K awards among faculty. Orthopaedic surgeon-scientists have lower rates of transition to independent research funding when compared with their research-scientist colleagues. These findings highlight a need for greater support to foster the pipeline of future NIH-funded orthopaedic investigators.

show abstract

“…The review and choice of TCI Scholars was modeled after the National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant review process [ 12 ]. A panel of 5–6 senior TCI research faculty served as reviewers and each application had 3 independent reviews.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%