Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Lauer, Michael S
• Nakamura, Richard

Titel

Reviewing Peer Review at the NIH

Ist Teil von

• The New England journal of medicine, 2015-11, Vol.373 (20), p.1893-1895

Ort / Verlag

United States: Massachusetts Medical Society

Erscheinungsjahr

2015

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Recent reports suggest that peer reviews of National Institutes of Health grant applications are at best imprecise predictors of research projects' scientific impact. But these findings may not mean that peer review is failing. Since 1946, federal funding of civilian scientists in biomedical research by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has been guided by expert review by scientific peers. NIH science funding, the largest single U.S. government source of such support, has shrunk steadily (as measured in inflation-adjusted dollars) since 2003, which marked the end of a period during which the NIH budget had doubled. The award rate has therefore declined — a problem that's been exacerbated by growth in the number of grant applications submitted (see graph). Since review scores are seen as the proximate cause of a research project's failure to . . .