The Assessment of Potential Impact of Applications by Grant Review Panels.
The Assessment of Potential Impact of Applications by Grant Review Panels.
复制标题
拨款审查小组对申请的潜在影响进行评估。
DOI：
10.1097/ede.0000000000000452
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Doubeni,ChykeA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Doubeni,ChykeA
© 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. www. epidem. com| 315 a prior track record of grant funding and publications, career trajectory, and the adequacy of resources at the applicant’s institution to support the research. not surprisingly, this can be a hurdle for new investigators or experienced investigators venturing into new areas—it is like getting credit: you need a credit history to get credit. the reviewers of Snow’s grant concluded that he lacked “experience in epidemiologic research,” but Snow’s prior work in this area should have mitigated this concern. other issues identified by the reviewers amplified the perception of Snow’s lack of experience or training, including concerns of lack of scientific rigor: a weak conceptual framework, inadequately characterized measures and study population, and a lack of clear timeline and plan to address potential hurdles. new investigators could deflect a focus on their limited experience by pairing up with experienced investigators. Having a great team is important, but it is critical to demonstrate that each team member played a role in shaping the research plan. as a crucial process in the advancement of knowledge, and with increasing interest in transdisciplinary science to tackle complex health problems, grant review panels need to also evolve and become more diverse. Such evolution requires careful training to cultivate panel members and chairs who can integrate and translate information across disciplines and give a balanced voice to all viewpoints. In that vein, applicants should keep in mind that some reviewers may not be content experts in their proposed research and should thus present their ideas clearly, defining terms that may be unfamiliar to other scientists. If needed, seeking help with grant preparation could aid in developing a thoughtful rationale and approach and remove signs of carelessness that could get in the way of garnering needed support for innovative ideas. Snow was encouraged to add an additional objective to his proposal, but it is not always necessary to do so. reviewers’ comments can provide insight to improve research design, but reviewers should not rewrite an application and they are not obligated to comment on every flaw in an application. When revising an application, it is important to be responsive without losing focus, but also not ignore potential concerns reviewers failed to mention. there is little guarantee that the same reviewer will be assigned to a revised application. Funders have a clear interest in gaining a return on their investment to ensure sustainability. In fact, the key question for review panels is what is the likely return on investment from this application? Will it create new generalizable knowledge, enhance the adaptation and implementation of proven evidence, and address pressing public health challenges? Peer review aims to improve the odds in this gamble, but review panels should only serve advisory roles and not decide which applications to fund. Careful programmatic review of all applications could help detect and mitigate concerns about reviewer bias and assure equity. objective parameters for rating grants may decrease variability, but there is currently little evidence base to guide this. as of october 2015, there have been 148 nIH-supported scientists who have received nobel Prizes, and, undoubtedly, the peer-review process had a role in this history. 4 It is important to train and engage a diverse pool of reviewers and panel chairs and provide them with opportunities to learn from each other to help reduce variability in scoring. Snow had an understanding that the reviewers lacked but it may not have been conveyed convincingly …
