Understanding the factors associated with successful funding outcomes of research project
grant (R01) applications is critical for the biomedical research community. R01 applications …

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 …

Background The purpose and effectiveness of peer review is currently a subject of hot
debate, as is the need for greater openness and transparency in the conduct of clinical trials …

Teleconferencing as a setting for scientific peer review is an attractive option for funding
agencies, given the substantial environmental and cost savings. Despite this, there is a …

Background Peer review is assumed to improve the quality of research reports as tools for
scientific communication, yet strong evidence that this outcome is obtained consistently has …

Purpose Manuscripts submitted to Academic Medicine (AM) undergo an internal editor
review to determine whether they will be sent for external peer review. Increasingly …

Funding agencies rely on peer review and expert panels to select the research deserving
funding. Peer review has limitations, including bias against risky proposals or …

Background Peer review is the most widely used method for evaluating grant applications in
clinical research. Criticisms of peer review include lack of equity, suspicion of biases, and …

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the prestige of a journal, measured by its impact factor,
influences the numbers of citations obtained by published articles, independently of their …

There is no simple relationship between reviewer and reviewed. Even if most reviewers at
the main US agencies did not have direct knowledge of the applicants, most had an …