1 / 6

Archived File

Archived File. The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated. See the OER Public Archive Home Page for more details about archived files.

amos
Download Presentation

Archived File

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated. See the OER Public Archive Home Page for more details about archived files.

  2. CORE VALUES FOR PEER REVIEW IN THE DETERMINATION OF SCIENTIFIC MERIT FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATIONS Peer Review Advisory Committee May 16, 2005 Faye Calhoun

  3. Definitions • Product to be reviewed—a research grant application is a document describing a plan of performance and supporting evidence of the likelihood of success and the worth of that plan. • Purpose of the grant application is to gain support for a plan to contribute new knowledge to a program of research that will improve the health of the American people

  4. Definitions (con’t) • Context of the Peer Review—(as different from journal review or hospital peer review, etc.) applications determined to be of the highest quality and with program relevance/need will be funded by the federal government with taxpayer money. • Initial Group Peer Review —A rigorous interactive process of peers reviewing the contributions of peers in determining the merit of applications as evaluated against established criteria.

  5. Core Values/Objectives n      To assure the transparency of the process that leads to funding judgments and decisions. n      To maintain and support the credibility of and confidence in publicly funded biomedical research and the products from it (agency reputation). n      To improve the quality of research through the discussions that occur and the feedback provided to the applicant investigator

  6. Core Values/Objectives (con’t) n      To gain unprejudiced, evidence-based decisions from independent reviewers without conflicts with the applicant investigator n      To enhance the breadth and depth of knowledge of the peer reviewers n      To maintain an efficient and effective process

More Related