Literature DB >> 28684631

Peer Review Practices for Evaluating Biomedical Research Grants: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Lucy Liaw, Jane E Freedman, Lance B Becker, Nehal N Mehta, Laura Liscum.   

Abstract

The biomedical research enterprise depends on the fair and objective peer review of research grants, leading to the distribution of resources through efficient and robust competitive methods. In the United States, federal funding agencies and foundations collectively distribute billions of dollars annually to support biomedical research. For the American Heart Association, a Peer Review Subcommittee is charged with establishing the highest standards for peer review. This scientific statement reviews the current literature on peer review practices, describes the current American Heart Association peer review process and those of other agencies, analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of American Heart Association peer review practices, and recommends best practices for the future.
© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.

Keywords:  AHA Scientific Statements; American Heart Association; National Institutes of Health; biomedical research; financing, organized; foundations; peer review

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28684631     DOI: 10.1161/RES.0000000000000158

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circ Res        ISSN: 0009-7330            Impact factor:   17.367


  2 in total

1.  What makes an effective grants peer reviewer? An exploratory study of the necessary skills.

Authors:  Miriam L E Steiner Davis; Tiffani R Conner; Kate Miller-Bains; Leslie Shapard
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-05-13       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Grant reviewer perceptions of the quality, effectiveness, and influence of panel discussion.

Authors:  Stephen A Gallo; Karen B Schmaling; Lisa A Thompson; Scott R Glisson
Journal:  Res Integr Peer Rev       Date:  2020-05-15
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.