What ails the NIH peer review study sections and how to fix the review process of the grant applications

被引:2
作者
Marian, Ali J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas Hlth Sci Ctr, Inst Mol Med, Ctr Cardiovasc Genet, Dept Med, 6770 Bertner St,Suite C900A, Houston, TX 77030 USA
来源
JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR AGING | 2023年 / 3卷 / 01期
关键词
Peer review; NIH; Study section; Grant application;
D O I
10.20517/jca.2023.3
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
The concern has been on my mind for a while, but I had procrastinated putting it down on paper till now. It was the recent announcement by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Center for Scientific Review on the proposed changes to the review criteria of the grant applications submitted to the NIH study sections that provided the impetus to write this opinion article. The Christmas holidays provided the time needed to write it. Accordingly, "NIH proposes to reorganize the (current) five review criteria into three factors" as follows:
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 9
页数:9
相关论文
共 3 条
[1]   Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences [J].
Azoulay, Pierre ;
Zivin, Joshua S. Graff ;
Manso, Gustavo .
RAND JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 2011, 42 (03) :527-554
[2]   Why animal model studies are lost in translation [J].
Frangogiannis, Nikolaos G. .
JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR AGING, 2022, 2 (02)
[3]   An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output [J].
Hirsch, JE .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2005, 102 (46) :16569-16572