BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is a persistent degree of uncertainty and
dissatisfaction with the peer review process underlining the need to validate the current …

OBJECTIVE: Peer review is the gold standard for evaluating scientific quality. Compared
with studies on inter-reviewer variability, research on panel evaluation is scarce. To …

Evaluating Grant Peer Review in the Health Sciences: A review of the literature | Policy
Commons Skip to main content Policy Commons Organizations Publications Topics Tables Lists …

Purpose We previously reported that National Institutes of Health (NIH) peer review
outcomes in 2002 were slightly but significantly less favorable for grant applications for …

To determine level of agreement and correlation between two similar but separate peer
review systems, proposals simultaneously submitted during the same funding year to two …

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 …

Reviewing Peer Review at the NIH | NEJM Skip to main content NEJM Group Follow Us
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube LinkedIn Prepare to become a physician, build your …

The predictive validity of peer review at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has not yet
been demonstrated empirically. It might be assumed that the most efficient and expedient …

This study developed and evaluated a brief training program for grant reviewers that aimed
to increase inter-rater reliability, rating scale knowledge, and effort to read the grant review …

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 …