Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications.

ABSTRACT: Obtaining grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is increasingly competitive, as funding success rates have declined over the past decade. To allocate relatively scarce funds, scientific peer reviewers must differentiate the very best applications from comparatively weaker ones. Despite the importance of this determination, little research has explored how reviewers assign ratings to the applications they review and whether there is consistency in the reviewers' evaluation of the same application. Replicating all aspects of the NIH peer-review process, we examined 43 individual reviewers' ratings and written critiques of the same group of 25 NIH grant applications. Results showed no agreement among reviewers regarding the quality of the applications in either their qual

SUBMITTER: Pier EL 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5866547 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature