IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0002761.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sample Size and Precision in NIH Peer Review

Author

Listed:
  • David Kaplan
  • Nicola Lacetera
  • Celia Kaplan

Abstract

The Working Group on Peer Review of the Advisory Committee to the Director of NIH has recommended that at least 4 reviewers should be used to assess each grant application. A sample size analysis of the number of reviewers needed to evaluate grant applications reveals that a substantially larger number of evaluators are required to provide the level of precision that is currently mandated. NIH should adjust their peer review system to account for the number of reviewers needed to provide adequate precision in their evaluations.

Suggested Citation

  • David Kaplan & Nicola Lacetera & Celia Kaplan, 2008. "Sample Size and Precision in NIH Peer Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(7), pages 1-3, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0002761
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002761
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002761
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002761&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0002761?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniele Rotolo & Michael Hopkins & Nicola Grassano, 2023. "Do funding sources complement or substitute? Examining the impact of cancer research publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 50-66, January.
    2. Wang, Jian & Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P., 2018. "Funding model and creativity in science: Competitive versus block funding and status contingency effects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1070-1083.
    3. Richard R Snell, 2015. "Menage a Quoi? Optimal Number of Peer Reviewers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    4. Gregoire Mariethoz & Frédéric Herman & Amelie Dreiss, 2021. "Reply to the comment by Heyard et al. titled “Imaginary carrot or effective fertiliser? A rejoinder on funding and productivity”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 9339-9342, November.
    5. Chiara Franzoni & Paula Stephan & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2022. "Funding Risky Research," Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 103-133.
    6. Eric Libby & Leon Glass, 2010. "The Calculus of Committee Composition," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(9), pages 1-8, September.
    7. Michael R Martin & Andrea Kopstein & Joy M Janice, 2010. "An Analysis of Preliminary and Post-Discussion Priority Scores for Grant Applications Peer Reviewed by the Center for Scientific Review at the NIH," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(11), pages 1-6, November.
    8. Katie Meadmore & Kathryn Fackrell & Alejandra Recio-Saucedo & Abby Bull & Simon D S Fraser & Amanda Blatch-Jones, 2020. "Decision-making approaches used by UK and international health funding organisations for allocating research funds: A survey of current practice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-17, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0002761. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.