Literature DB >> 30460624

Recommendations for Reviewers of Biomedical Imaging Grant Applications.

Mark D Pagel1.   

Abstract

This commentary provides recommendations about how to interpret procedures and scoring criteria when reviewing grant applications and how to efficiently perform reviews. This guidance is especially designed for new grant reviewers and especially for reviewers of biomedical imaging grant applications. Recommendations are included about how to start the review process; how to review the Specific Aims page; how to consider Significance, Investigators, Innovation, Research Approach, and Environment; how to improve interactions at the review meeting; and other aspects of the review process. These recommendations are intended to improve the quality of the review process, which ultimately depends on the quality of the reviewers.

Keywords:  Grant review process; Imaging grant applications; Reviewer training

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30460624     DOI: 10.1007/s11307-018-1297-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol        ISSN: 1536-1632            Impact factor:   3.488


  19 in total

1.  NIH peer review reform--change we need, or lipstick on a pig?

Authors:  Ferric C Fang; Arturo Casadevall
Journal:  Infect Immun       Date:  2009-01-21       Impact factor: 3.441

2.  An efficient system to fund science: from proposal review to peer-to-peer distributions.

Authors:  Johan Bollen; David Crandall; Damion Junk; Ying Ding; Katy Börner
Journal:  Scientometrics       Date:  2016-09-03       Impact factor: 3.238

3.  Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability.

Authors:  Herbert W Marsh; Upali W Jayasinghe; Nigel W Bond
Journal:  Am Psychol       Date:  2008-04

4.  Lee Rosen, PhD: SRO, Advocate, and Friend.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2016-02-09       Impact factor: 3.173

5.  Race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards.

Authors:  Donna K Ginther; Walter T Schaffer; Joshua Schnell; Beth Masimore; Faye Liu; Laurel L Haak; Raynard Kington
Journal:  Science       Date:  2011-08-19       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Sample size and precision in NIH peer review.

Authors:  David Kaplan; Nicola Lacetera; Celia Kaplan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2008-07-23       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  NIH Peer Review: Scored Review Criteria and Overall Impact.

Authors:  Mark D Lindner; Adrian Vancea; Mei-Ching Chen; George Chacko
Journal:  Am J Eval       Date:  2015-04-29

8.  The Influence of Peer Reviewer Expertise on the Evaluation of Research Funding Applications.

Authors:  Stephen A Gallo; Joanne H Sullivan; Scott R Glisson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity.

Authors:  Ferric C Fang; Anthony Bowen; Arturo Casadevall
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 8.140

10.  How much would each researcher receive if competitive government research funding were distributed equally among researchers?

Authors:  Krist Vaesen; Joel Katzav
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-09-08       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.