Posts Tagged ‘Peer Review’

NIH Commissioned Study Results on Race, Ethinicity and NIH Research Awards.

August 19, 2011 Leave a comment

Findings of a US National Institutes of Health (NIH) commissioned study to investigate gaps in NIH grant success rates among various racial and ethnic groups have been published in the Aug 19 issue of Science.  The study reported that even after controlling for education, institution, and other factors that influence the likelihood of success, black investigators were still 10 percentage points less likely than white investigators to receive a new research project grant.

Dr. Lawrence Collins, Director of the NIH, and Lawrence Tabak, NIH Principal Deputy Director, have pledged to remedy that with a thorough investigation of ways to improve the peer review process, encourage greater diversity on review boards, increase technical assistance to applicants in grant preparation, and support innovative ways to increase local mentoring of junior faculty.    As they say in their commentary “Troubling data such as these require substantive action. Compelling evidence supports the view that diversification of the research workforce is an imperative for our nation’s continued success”. They call upon every institution and scientist supported by NIH to join in reinvigorating efforts to diversify the nation’s current and future biomedical research workforce.

The study can be downloaded  here

Lawrence Tabak and Francis Collins Commentary on the study can be downloaded here.

News article about the study can be downloaded here

Peer review under review

August 16, 2011 1 comment

Two interesting reports were mentioned on  DocuTicker today concerning the use of peer review in scientific publications:  Peer review in scientific publications by the U.K. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee; and Alternatives to peer review in research funding by the Rand Corporation.

A detailed examination of the current peer-review system was conducted this year by the UK Science and Technology Committee,  examining its effectiveness, and  touching on issues of impact, publication ethics and research integrity.  Among its recommendations the report advocated for a development of standards and training for all editors and, particularly, for early-career researchers in peer review, acknowledging that the system depends on the integrity and competence of the people involved, and the degree of editorial oversight and the quality assurance of the peer review system itself.  The committee felt strongly that research data should be fully disclosed and, especially in the case of publicly funded research, made publicly available, to ensure reliability, testing, and reproducibility. Citing the importance of post-publication peer review and commentary, the use of new media and social networking tools was seen as an “enormous opportunity for experimentation” as a supplement to pre-publication peer-review. As well  post-publication review was recognized as an important vehicle in ensuring wide and expedient transmission of interesting research,  facilitation of rapid review by the global audience, and  in alerting the community to ”potential deficiencies and problems with published work”.

The Rand Europe Report, Alternatives to Peer Review in Research Project Funding  acknowledged that while peer review is considered the gold standard for reviewing research proposals, it is not always the best methodology for every research funding process.  The discussion of a set of established approaches that offer alternatives to traditional peer review are presented to inspire thinking among research funders to apply based on their situation and mission.