Panel discussion does not improve reliability of peer review for medical research grant proposals

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 65, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 47-52

  Fogelholm, Mikael ^a   Leppinen, Saara ^a   Auvinen, Anssi ^b   Raitanen, Jani ^b   Nuutinen, Anu ^a   Väänänen, Kalervo ^c  

^a ACADEMY OF FINLAND   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TAMPERE   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

Author keywords

Consistency; Funding; Inter reviewer reliability; Interpanel reliability; Peer review; Quality assurance

Indexed keywords

EVALUATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 82255162872     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.05.001     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. V. Demicheli, and C. Di Pietrantonj Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2 2007 MR000003
2. M. Obrecht, K. Tibelius, and G. D'Aloisio Examining the value added by committee discussion in the review of applications for research awards Res Eval 16 2007 79 91
3. H.W. Marsh, U.W. Jayasinghe, and N.W. Bond Improving the peer-review process for grant applications. Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability Am Psychol 63 2008 160 168
4. S. Wessely Peer review of grant applications: what do we know? Lancet 352 1998 301 306
5. D.V. Cicchetti The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: a cross-disciplinary investigation Behav Brain Sci 14 1991 119 135
6. R.L. Kravitz, P. Franks, M.D. Feldman, M. Gerrity, C. Byrne, and W.M. Tierney Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care? PLoS One 5 2010 e10072
7. S. Cole, J.R. Cole, and G.A. Simon Chance and consensus in peer review Science 214 1981 881 886
8. N.E. Mayo, J. Brophy, M.S. Goldberg, M.B. Klein, S. Miller, and R.W. Platt Peering at peer review revealed high degree of chance associated with funding of grant applications J Clin Epidemiol 59 2006 842 848 (Pubitemid 44040875)
9. C. Hodgson How reliable is peer review? An examination of operating grant proposals simultaneously submitted to two similar peer review systems J Clin Epidemiol 50 1997 1189 1195 (Pubitemid 27501055)