NIH Peer Review: Scored Review Criteria and Overall Impact.
NIH Peer Review: Scored Review Criteria and Overall Impact.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/1098214015582049
复制
发表时间：
2016-06
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Chacko G
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lindner MD;Vancea A;Chen MC;Chacko G
美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）是世界上最大的生物医学研究资金来源。资助决定主要基于同行评审过程的结果，旨在对研究的质量，科学价值和潜在影响进行公平，公正，及时和公正的审查。人们一直对评审员使用的标准表示担忧，NIH最近对评审程序的修改现在可以对评审员如何评估资金申请进行分析。本研究审查了R01赠款申请的标准和整体影响分数记录分配的审查员。结果表明，所有评分的审查标准，包括创新，都与整体影响力得分有关。此外，良好的分数是必要的所有五个评分审查标准，而不仅仅是研究方法的分数，以实现一个良好的整体影响得分。
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest source of funding for biomedical research in the world. Funding decisions are made largely based on the outcome of a peer review process that is intended to provide a fair, equitable, timely, and unbiased review of the quality, scientific merit, and potential impact of the research. There have been concerns about the criteria reviewers are using, and recent changes in review procedures at the NIH now make it possible to conduct an analysis of how reviewers evaluate applications for funding. This study examined the criteria and overall impact scores recorded by assigned reviewers for R01 grant applications. The results suggest that all the scored review criteria, including innovation, are related to the overall impact score. Further, good scores are necessary on all five scored review criteria, not just the score for research methodology, in order to achieve a good overall impact score.