Lindner Mark D, Vancea Adrian, Chen Mei-Ching, Chacko George
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA; Office of the Vice-Chancellor for Research and Graduate School of Library and Information Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Champaign 61820.
Am J Eval. 2016 Jun;37(2):238-249. doi: 10.1177/1098214015582049. Epub 2015 Apr 29.
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.
美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)是全球生物医学研究最大的资金来源。资金分配决策主要基于同行评审过程的结果,该过程旨在对研究的质量、科学价值和潜在影响进行公平、公正、及时且无偏见的评审。人们一直对评审人员所使用的标准存在担忧,而NIH近期评审程序的变化使得对评审人员如何评估资金申请进行分析成为可能。本研究考察了指定评审人员为R01资助申请记录的标准和总体影响分数。结果表明,所有评分的评审标准,包括创新性,都与总体影响分数相关。此外,为了获得较高的总体影响分数,所有五个评分的评审标准都需要取得好成绩,而不仅仅是研究方法学的分数。