Sample Size and Precision in NIH Peer Review

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 num...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kaplan, David, Lacetera, Nicola, Kaplan, Celia
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2008
Materias:
Research Article
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2447157/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18648494
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002761
_version_ 1782156873014706176
author Kaplan, David
Lacetera, Nicola
Kaplan, Celia
author_facet Kaplan, David
Lacetera, Nicola
Kaplan, Celia
author_sort Kaplan, David
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Text
id pubmed-2447157
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2008
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-24471572008-07-23 Sample Size and Precision in NIH Peer Review Kaplan, David Lacetera, Nicola Kaplan, Celia PLoS One Research Article 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. Public Library of Science 2008-07-23 /pmc/articles/PMC2447157/ /pubmed/18648494 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002761 Text en Kaplan et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Kaplan, David
Lacetera, Nicola
Kaplan, Celia
Sample Size and Precision in NIH Peer Review
title Sample Size and Precision in NIH Peer Review
title_full Sample Size and Precision in NIH Peer Review
title_fullStr Sample Size and Precision in NIH Peer Review
title_full_unstemmed Sample Size and Precision in NIH Peer Review
title_short Sample Size and Precision in NIH Peer Review
title_sort sample size and precision in nih peer review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2447157/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18648494
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002761
work_keys_str_mv AT kaplandavid samplesizeandprecisioninnihpeerreview
AT laceteranicola samplesizeandprecisioninnihpeerreview
AT kaplancelia samplesizeandprecisioninnihpeerreview

Ejemplares similares