-
Tytuł:
-
Grant Review Feedback: Appropriateness and Usefulness.
-
Autorzy:
-
Gallo SA; Scientific Peer Advisory and Review Services, American Institute of Biological Sciences, Herndon, VA, USA. .
Schmaling KB; Washington State University, Psychology, Vancouver, WA, USA.
Thompson LA; Scientific Peer Advisory and Review Services, American Institute of Biological Sciences, Herndon, VA, USA.
Glisson SR; Scientific Peer Advisory and Review Services, American Institute of Biological Sciences, Herndon, VA, USA.
-
Źródło:
-
Science and engineering ethics [Sci Eng Ethics] 2021 Mar 17; Vol. 27 (2), pp. 18. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Mar 17.
-
Typ publikacji:
-
Journal Article
-
Język:
-
English
-
Imprint Name(s):
-
Original Publication: Guildford, Surrey, UK : Opragen Publications, c1995-
-
MeSH Terms:
-
Financing, Organized*
Peer Review*
Bias ; Feedback ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Peer Review, Research ; Reproducibility of Results
-
References:
-
Acad Med. 2016 Apr;91(4):556-62. (PMID: 26650674)
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020 May 15;5:7. (PMID: 32467777)
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Jul 31;115(31):7943-7948. (PMID: 30012615)
PLoS One. 2018 Sep 12;13(9):e0199648. (PMID: 30208016)
PLoS Biol. 2014 Dec 02;12(12):e1002010. (PMID: 25460001)
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2020 Jan;46(1):140-154. (PMID: 31088206)
Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Apr;26(2):761-782. (PMID: 31359327)
Science. 2011 Aug 19;333(6045):1015-9. (PMID: 21852498)
Res Eval. 2017 Jan;26(1):1-14. (PMID: 28458466)
Sci Adv. 2020 Jun 03;6(23):eaaz4868. (PMID: 32537494)
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Apr 28;117(17):9284-9291. (PMID: 32291335)
CMAJ. 2018 Apr 23;190(16):E489-E499. (PMID: 29685909)
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Jan 13;112(2):313-8. (PMID: 25561560)
Acad Med. 2016 Aug;91(8):1098-107. (PMID: 27306969)
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Mar 20;115(12):2952-2957. (PMID: 29507248)
-
Contributed Indexing:
-
Keywords: Bias; Feedback; Gender; Grant funding; Peer review; Race; Resubmission
-
Entry Date(s):
-
Date Created: 20210318 Date Completed: 20210818 Latest Revision: 20210818
-
Update Code:
-
20240105
-
PubMed Central ID:
-
PMC7969534
-
DOI:
-
10.1007/s11948-021-00295-9
-
PMID:
-
33733708
-
The primary goal of the peer review of research grant proposals is to evaluate their quality for the funding agency. An important secondary goal is to provide constructive feedback to applicants for their resubmissions. However, little is known about whether review feedback achieves this goal. In this paper, we present a multi-methods analysis of responses from grant applicants regarding their perceptions of the effectiveness and appropriateness of peer review feedback they received from grant submissions. Overall, 56-60% of applicants determined the feedback to be appropriate (fair, well-written, and well-informed), although their judgments were more favorable if their recent application was funded. Importantly, independent of funding success, women found the feedback better written than men, and more white applicants found the feedback to be fair than non-white applicants. Also, perceptions of a variety of biases were specifically reported in respondents' feedback. Less than 40% of applicants found the feedback to be very useful in informing their research and improving grantsmanship and future submissions. Further, negative perceptions of the appropriateness of review feedback were positively correlated with more negative perceptions of feedback usefulness. Importantly, respondents suggested that highly competitive funding pay-lines and poor inter-panel reliability limited the usefulness of review feedback. Overall, these results suggest that more effort is needed to ensure that appropriate and useful feedback is provided to all applicants, bolstering the equity of the review process and likely improving the quality of resubmitted proposals.
