NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity
Peer review is widely used to assess grant applications so that the highest ranked applications can be funded. A number of studies have questioned the ability of peer review panels to predict the productivity of applications, but a recent analysis of grants funded by the National Institutes of Healt...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
eLife Sciences Publications Ltd
2016-02-01
|
| Series: | eLife |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://elifesciences.org/articles/13323 |
| _version_ | 1818018594432221184 |
|---|---|
| author | Ferric C Fang Anthony Bowen Arturo Casadevall |
| author_facet | Ferric C Fang Anthony Bowen Arturo Casadevall |
| author_sort | Ferric C Fang |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Peer review is widely used to assess grant applications so that the highest ranked applications can be funded. A number of studies have questioned the ability of peer review panels to predict the productivity of applications, but a recent analysis of grants funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the US found that the percentile scores awarded by peer review panels correlated with productivity as measured by citations of grant-supported publications. Here, based on a re-analysis of these data for the 102,740 funded grants with percentile scores of 20 or better, we report that these percentile scores are a poor discriminator of productivity. This underscores the limitations of peer review as a means of assessing grant applications in an era when typical success rates are often as low as about 10%. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-14T07:41:43Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-c50eb5e86971437480e0f471ef5afbb3 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2050-084X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-14T07:41:43Z |
| publishDate | 2016-02-01 |
| publisher | eLife Sciences Publications Ltd |
| record_format | Article |
| series | eLife |
| spelling | doaj.art-c50eb5e86971437480e0f471ef5afbb32022-12-22T02:05:28ZengeLife Sciences Publications LtdeLife2050-084X2016-02-01510.7554/eLife.13323NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivityFerric C Fang0Anthony Bowen1https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1064-8372Arturo Casadevall2Departments of Laboratory Medicine and Microbiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, United StatesDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, United StatesDepartment of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, United StatesPeer review is widely used to assess grant applications so that the highest ranked applications can be funded. A number of studies have questioned the ability of peer review panels to predict the productivity of applications, but a recent analysis of grants funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the US found that the percentile scores awarded by peer review panels correlated with productivity as measured by citations of grant-supported publications. Here, based on a re-analysis of these data for the 102,740 funded grants with percentile scores of 20 or better, we report that these percentile scores are a poor discriminator of productivity. This underscores the limitations of peer review as a means of assessing grant applications in an era when typical success rates are often as low as about 10%.https://elifesciences.org/articles/13323peer reviewresearch fundingpolicynational institute of healthgrants |
| spellingShingle | Ferric C Fang Anthony Bowen Arturo Casadevall NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity eLife peer review research funding policy national institute of health grants |
| title | NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity |
| title_full | NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity |
| title_fullStr | NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity |
| title_full_unstemmed | NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity |
| title_short | NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity |
| title_sort | nih peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity |
| topic | peer review research funding policy national institute of health grants |
| url | https://elifesciences.org/articles/13323 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ferriccfang nihpeerreviewpercentilescoresarepoorlypredictiveofgrantproductivity AT anthonybowen nihpeerreviewpercentilescoresarepoorlypredictiveofgrantproductivity AT arturocasadevall nihpeerreviewpercentilescoresarepoorlypredictiveofgrantproductivity |