Sims Gould Joanie, Lasinsky Anne M, Mota Adrian, Khan Karim M, Ardern Clare L
Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
BMJ Open. 2025 Feb 20;15(2):e091666. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-091666.
Peer review is ubiquitous in evaluating scientific research. While peer review of manuscripts submitted to journals has been widely studied, there has been relatively less attention paid to peer review of grant applications (despite how crucial peer review is to researchers having the means and capacity to conduct research). There is spirited debate in academic community forums (including on social media) about the perceived benefits and limitations of grant peer review. The aim of our study was to understand the experiences and challenges faced by grant peer reviewers.
Therefore, we conducted qualitative interviews with 18 members of grant review panels-the Chairs, peer reviewers and Scientific Officers of a national funding agency-that highlight threats to the integrity of grant peer review.
We identified three threats: (1) lack of training and limited opportunities to learn, (2) challenges in differentiating and rating applications of similar strength, and (3) reviewers weighting reputations and relationships in the review process to differentiate grant applications of a similar strength. These threats were compounded by reviewers' stretched resources or lack of time. Our data also highlighted the essential role of the Chair in ensuring transparency and rigorous grant peer review.
As researchers continue to evaluate the threats to grant peer review, the reality of stretched resources and time must be considered. We call on funders and academic institutions to implement practices that reduce reviewer burden.
同行评审在评估科学研究中无处不在。虽然提交给期刊的稿件同行评审已得到广泛研究，但对科研基金申请同行评审的关注相对较少（尽管同行评审对研究人员开展研究的资金和能力至关重要）。在学术社区论坛（包括社交媒体）上，关于科研基金同行评审的 perceived 益处和局限性存在激烈辩论。我们研究的目的是了解科研基金同行评审员所面临的经历和挑战。
因此，我们对一个国家资助机构的科研基金评审小组的 18 名成员——主席、同行评审员和科学官员进行了定性访谈，这些访谈突出了科研基金同行评审诚信面临的威胁。
我们识别出三种威胁：（1）缺乏培训且学习机会有限；（2）区分和评定相似实力申请的挑战；（3）评审员在评审过程中权衡声誉和关系以区分相似实力的科研基金申请。这些威胁因评审员资源紧张或时间不足而加剧。我们的数据还突出了主席在确保科研基金同行评审透明和严格方面的关键作用。
随着研究人员继续评估科研基金同行评审面临的威胁，必须考虑资源紧张和时间有限的现实情况。我们呼吁资助者和学术机构实施减轻评审员负担的做法。
