In scientific grant peer review, groups of expert scientists meet to engage in the collaborative
decision-making task of evaluating and scoring grant applications. Prior research on grant …

This paper examines the peer review procedure of a national science funding organization
(Swiss National Science Foundation) by means of the three most frequently studied criteria …

Background: Grant funding allocation is a complex process that in most cases relies on peer
review. A recent study identified a number of challenges associated with the use of peer …

Obtaining grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is increasingly
competitive, as funding success rates have declined over the past decade. To allocate …

Objective To investigate methods and processes for timely, efficient and good quality peer
review of research funding proposals in health. Methods A two-stage evidence synthesis:(1) …

Objective To prospectively test two simplified peer review processes, estimate the
agreement between the simplified and official processes, and compare the costs of peer …

Various types of bias and confounding have been described in the biomedical literature that
can affect a study before, during, or after the intervention has been delivered. The peer …

Purpose Prior text analysis of R01 critiques suggested that female applicants may be
disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health (NIH) peer review, particularly for renewals …

The Working Group on Peer Review of the Advisory Committee to the Director of NIH has
recommended that at least 4 reviewers should be used to assess each grant application. A …

The rising rate of preprints and publications, combined with persistent inadequate reporting
practices and problems with study design and execution, have strained the traditional peer …