Fuhrer M J, Grabois M
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1985 May;66(5):318-21.
A mail survey was conducted to document the experience, critical comments, and recommendations of a sample of applicants and peer reviewers who participated in the 1983 grantee selection process conducted by the National Institute of Handicapped Research. Questionnaires were sent to 46 applicants and 36 peer reviewers who participated in seven priority areas involving competition for either a research and training center or a rehabilitation engineering center. Questionnaires were returned by 37 (80%) of the applicants and 27 (75%) of the reviewers. The peer reviewers were generally more satisfied with their experience. Their negative criticism was concerned largely with the excessiveness of the work load. The reviewers were unanimous in stating that federal personnel made no effort to influence their judgments. The majority of applicants agreed that the criteria for evaluating proposals were stated clearly, but they disagreed with how some of the criteria were weighted. The applicants' strongest dissatisfaction was with the time allowed to prepare applications and with the selection of peer reviewers. Analysis of the collective publication record of successful applicants and of the peer reviewers indicated that the reviewers had contributed significantly less to the literature of the relevant priority area.
开展了一项邮件调查，以记录参与1983年由国家残疾研究所在拨款接受者选拔过程中的申请人样本和同行评审人员的经历、批评意见及建议。问卷被发送给46名申请人和36名同行评审人员，他们参与了涉及研究与培训中心或康复工程中心竞争的七个优先领域。37名（80%）申请人和27名（75%）评审人员返还了问卷。同行评审人员总体上对他们的经历更满意。他们的负面批评主要涉及工作量过大。评审人员一致表示联邦工作人员没有试图影响他们的判断。大多数申请人同意评估提案的标准表述清晰，但他们不同意某些标准的权重设置方式。申请人最强烈的不满在于准备申请的时间以及同行评审人员的挑选。对成功申请人和同行评审人员的集体发表记录分析表明，评审人员对相关优先领域文献的贡献要少得多。
