 |
NBER: Fwd: Comments on NIH Peer Review Report, including a new proposal requiring investigators to devote at least 20% of their effort to each grant?
Fwd: Comments on NIH Peer Review Report, including a new proposal requiring investigators to devote at least 20% of their effort to each grant?
>Dear researchers:
>
> Comments are invited through March 13 on the report "Enhancing
> Peer Review", which contains a number of recommendations for changes to
> the current NIH system of reviewing applications. Please see the link
> below, as well as the text of a Science article outlining some of the
> changes. Note that one of the recommendations is that PIs be required to
> devote at least 20% effort to each grant; potentially a problem for
> people who have multiple awards plus teaching responsibilities.
>
>Sincerely, --Joan Stillwell
>>
>>Big Changes Coming in NIH Peer Review - comments invited on Final Draft
>>on "Enhancing Peer Review" due March 13th
>>
>>The report will be posted on the peer review website:
>>http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/ and there will be a two-week
>>period for public comment via a secure mailbox. Here is what Science had
>>to say:
>>
>>Science 29 February 2008:
>>Vol. 319. no. 5867, p. 1169
>>DOI: 10.1126/science.319.5867.1169
>>
>>News of the Week
>>
>>PEER REVIEW:
>>NIH Urged to Focus on New Ideas, New Applicants
>>
>>Jocelyn Kaiser
>>
>>Advisers to the U.S. National Institutes of Health in Bethesda,
>>Maryland, outlined a near-final plan to rescue the overburdened NIH
>>peer-review system last week. They want NIH to go for a sweeping
>>overhaul--one that would speed reviews, make the system more inviting,
>>and nudge it to favor new ideas. One way to do this, they say, is to
>>streamline a process that now encourages scientists to keep revising
>>grant applications until they wear down resistance. Researchers seem to
>>like the proposed changes, although some say NIH ought to test them
>>first.
>>
>>This analysis began last summer when NIH Director Elias Zerhouni asked
>>for ideas to help NIH cope with system overload and reviewer burnout.
>>The agency is receiving a record number of applications--about 80,000
>>are expected in 2008--at a time when its budget is stagnant. Zerhouni
>>formed two advisory committees, one internal at NIH and the other
>>external, and asked them to figure out how to fund "the best science ...
>>with the least administrative burden," he said last week at a
>>teleconference meeting of his Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD).
>>Many of the ideas adopted by the two groups were described in a
>>preliminary report last year (Science, 14 December 2007, p. 1708
>><http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/318/5857/1708b> ).
>>
>>One of the combined panel's fundamental recommendations is to avoid
>>having proposals routinely revised and resubmitted as many as two times.
>>These "amended applications" tend to be put in the queue in front of new
>>applications, and there is a sense that "last chance" applications may
>>be favored, the panel found. "It's a system that awards persistence over
>>brilliance sometimes," Zerhouni said. "We really want to change that."
>>
>>Instead, the panel says study sections should stamp some applications
>>"not recommended for resubmission" during the first review. These quick
>>rejections might run about 20%, external group co-chair Keith Yamamoto
>>of the University of California, San Francisco, told Science. Proposals
>>that make it past this first barrier but are not ranked among the best
>>could also face tougher scrutiny. The panel would do away with the
>>category of "amended" applications and have all submissions considered
>>as "new." A study section now devoted to rebuttals of reviews would be
>>eliminated; instead, the grant writer would simply incorporate any
>>responses into a fresh application.
>>
>>In addition, the panel recommends specific tweaks of review criteria and
>>procedures. NIH should shorten its 25-page application, the advisers
>>say, and focus more on impact and innovation and de-emphasize methods
>>and preliminary data. Study sections should rate all proposals, even
>>rejected ones, on five criteria such as impact so that people will know
>>where they stand. The panel also suggests another way to reduce
>>ambiguity: In addition to giving scores, study sections should rank all
>>applications from first to last. For better quality, the number of
>>reviewers for each proposal should be doubled from two to four or more.
>>
>> <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/319/5867/1169/F1> New
>>order. Two working groups proposed changes that would streamline NIH
>>peer review.
>>
>>SOURCE: NIH
>>
>>The panel's charges included helping NIH spend its money more
>>effectively. Noting that a small fraction of investigators hold multiple
>>grants, the panel says NIH should "ensure optimal use of NIH resources"
>>by requiring investigators to devote at least 20% of their effort to
>>each grant. This might limit most researchers to three or four grants.
>>
>>Zerhouni has said that a top objective is to give more help to new
>>investigators. The panel suggests that NIH consider putting first-timers
>>on a separate track, using generalists rather than specialists to review
>>their proposals. To encourage more high-risk science, the panel suggests
>>that NIH devote at least 1% of its basic investigator research grants to
>>mechanisms such as the Pioneer Award, which is based on an
>>investigator's track record rather than a specific research project.
>>That could mean 300 to 400 awards per year for these risk takers, more
>>than five times the current number, Yamamoto says.
>>
>>Some ideas did not make it into the final report, such as whether to set
>>a maximum length for applications. This was "hotly discussed and
>>debated," said Lawrence Tabak, director of the National Institute of
>>Dental and Craniofacial Research, who co-chaired both the internal and
>>external working groups; the panel decided to let NIH figure it out. The
>>panel also scrapped some ideas for motivating reviewers, such as
>>extending the length of their grants, which could have led to a
>>"stampede," Yamamoto says. Instead, the aim is to attract reviewers by
>>"making the process better."
>>
>>These ideas drew mostly positive reactions from the full ACD during last
>>week's telephone call, although panel member Mary Beckerle of the
>>University of Utah, Salt Lake City, cautioned that NIH needs to try some
>>experiments first. The panel has "come up with lots and lots of good
>>ideas," agrees Yale University cell biologist Thomas Pollard, who was
>>not part of the meeting. "The question is which will work in practice."
>>The panel planned to submit its final report this week, and Zerhouni
>>says he will form an NIH implementation team within 4 to 6 weeks.
>
>Joan P. Stillwell
>Program Administrator
>Economics of Aging, NBER
>617-588-0363
Joan P. Stillwell
Program Administrator
Economics of Aging, NBER
617-588-0363
Received on Tue Mar 04 2008 - 13:17:45 EST
|
