Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency.
Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0196914
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Wyatt JC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Shepherd J;Frampton GK;Pickett K;Wyatt JC
研究方法和过程，及时，有效和高质量的同行评审的研究资金的建议，在卫生。两阶段证据合成：（1）描述证据库关键特征的系统图，然后（2）对从同行评审“创新”的有效性和效率图中优先考虑的相关研究的利益相关者进行系统评审。标准过程包括文献检索、重复入选标准筛选、研究关键词编码、数据提取、关键评价和研究综合。该系统图共包括来自15个国家的83项研究。证据基础是多种多样的，调查同行审查制度和过程的许多方面。该系统性综述包括来自澳大利亚、加拿大和美国的8项研究，评估了广泛的同行评审创新。这些研究表明，通过缩短提案表格、使用较小的评审小组或加快流程来简化流程，可以加快评审流程并降低成本，但这可能会以牺牲同行评审质量为代价，而这是一个尚未评估的关键方面。利用视频会议或电话会议进行的虚拟同行审评似乎有望通过避免审评人员的旅行而降低成本，但对质量的任何影响也没有得到充分评估。越来越多的国际研究活动进入健康研究资金的同行评审。回顾的研究有方法学上的局限性和对研究资助者的可变概括性。鉴于这些限制，目前无法建议立即实施这些创新。然而，根据现有证据，许多方法似乎很有希望，资助者可以根据需要进行调整并进行评估。在可行的情况下，应进行实验评价，包括随机对照试验，评价对有效性、效率和质量的影响。
To investigate methods and processes for timely, efficient and good quality peer review of research funding proposals in health. A two-stage evidence synthesis: (1) a systematic map to describe the key characteristics of the evidence base, followed by (2) a systematic review of the studies stakeholders prioritised as relevant from the map on the effectiveness and efficiency of peer review ‘innovations’. Standard processes included literature searching, duplicate inclusion criteria screening, study keyword coding, data extraction, critical appraisal and study synthesis. A total of 83 studies from 15 countries were included in the systematic map. The evidence base is diverse, investigating many aspects of the systems for, and processes of, peer review. The systematic review included eight studies from Australia, Canada, and the USA, evaluating a broad range of peer review innovations. These studies showed that simplifying the process by shortening proposal forms, using smaller reviewer panels, or expediting processes can speed up the review process and reduce costs, but this might come at the expense of peer review quality, a key aspect that has not been assessed. Virtual peer review using videoconferencing or teleconferencing appears promising for reducing costs by avoiding the need for reviewers to travel, but again any consequences for quality have not been adequately assessed. There is increasing international research activity into the peer review of health research funding. The studies reviewed had methodological limitations and variable generalisability to research funders. Given these limitations it is not currently possible to recommend immediate implementation of these innovations. However, many appear promising based on existing evidence, and could be adapted as necessary by funders and evaluated. Where feasible, experimental evaluation, including randomised controlled trials, should be conducted, evaluating impact on effectiveness, efficiency and quality.
影响因子：
2.9
作者：
Barnett A;Cerin E;Ching CS;Johnston JM;Lee RS
通讯作者：
Lee RS
DOI：
10.1111/j.1468-2389.2005.00326.x
发表时间：
2005-12-01
影响因子：
2.2
作者：
Bornmann, L;Daniel, HD
通讯作者：
Daniel, HD
影响因子：
5.9
作者：
Martin, Michael R.;Lindquist, Teresa;Kotchen, Theodore A.
通讯作者：
Kotchen, Theodore A.