An analysis of preliminary and post-discussion priority scores for grant applications peer reviewed by the center for scientific review at the NIH

PLoS ONE

Volumn 5, Issue 11, 2010, Pages

  Martin, Michael R ^a   Kopstein, Andrea ^b   Janice, Joy M ^c  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

^b SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION   (United States)

^c Tunnell Government Services   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONTROLLED STUDY; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; PEER REVIEW; RESEARCH PRIORITY; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; STANDARD; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES;

HUMANS; NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (U.S.); PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 78649501769     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013526     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. The National Institutes of Health Peer Review Process. Office of Extramural Research, National Institutes of Health. (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer_review_process.htm#Overview).
2. Section 492 of the Public Health Service Act and federal regulations governing ''Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications and Research and Development Contract Proposals'' (42 CFR Part 52).
3. Smith R (2006) Peer reviews: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 99: 176-182.
4. Kaplan D, Lacetera N, Kaplan C (2008) Sample size and precision in NIH peer review. PLoS ONE 3(7): e2761. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002761.
5. Kotchen TA, Lindquist T, Malik K, Ehrenfeld E (2004) NIH Peer Review of Grant Applications for Clinical Research. JAMA 291: 836-843.
6. Kotchen TA, Lindquist T, Sostek AM, Hoffman R, Malik K, et al. (2006) Outcomes of National Institutes of Health Peer Review of Clinical Grant Applications. J Invest Med 54: 13-19.
7. Johnson VE (2008) Statistical analysis of the National Institutes of Health peer review system. PNAS 105: 11076-11080.
8. Martin MR, Lindquist T, Kotchen TA (2008) Why are peer review outcomes less favorable for clinical science than basic science applications? Amer J Med 121: 637-641.
9. NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts. Notice. Triage and Streamlined Summary Statement Format to be used by the Division of Research Grants. http://grants. nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not94-277.html.
10. NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts. Notice New Basis for Priority Score Percentiles at NIH. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/historical/ 1988_08_12_Vol_17_No_26.pdf.
11. New and Early Stage Investigator Policies. Office of Extramural Research. National Institutes of Health http://grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/.
12. Enhancing peer review at NIH (2010) http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/.