1 / 62

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 The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.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. Update on NIH Peer Review Enhancements.

brianna-kirby
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 Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.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. Update on NIH Peer Review Enhancements Elias Zerhouni, MD Director, National Institutes of Health Peer Review Advisory Committee Meeting April 30, 2008

  3. Reality: First-rate peer review is a cornerstone of NIH Emerging Reality: Increasing breadth, complexity, interdisciplinary nature of biomedical science are creating new challenges for peer review Funding trends aggravate the stress on peer-review NIH Response: Reviewing – and enhancing – peer review Reviewing Peer Review The Continuing Charge: “Fund the best science, by the best scientists, with the least administrative burden…” And the Added Challenge:… but recognize that “best” is dependent on many factors, including scientific quality; public health impact; mission of Institute or Center; existing NIH portfolio

  4. Design Implementation Plan Evaluate Actions DevelopNew NIHPolicies Diagnostic Begin Phased Implementation of Selected Actions Jul 07 - Feb 08 Mar 08 - April 08 June 08 Reviewing Peer Review:Project Phases

  5. DRAFT Report of Challenges & Recommended Actions • Reducing Administrative Burden of Applicants, Reviewers and NIH Staff • Enhancing the Rating System • Enhancing Review & Reviewer Quality • Optimizing Support at Different Career Stages • Optimizing Support for Different Types and Approaches of Science • Reducing Stress on the Support System of Science • Meeting the Need for Continuous Review of Peer Review • http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/ 5

  6. Reviewing Peer Review:Project Phases Design Implementation Plan Evaluate Actions DevelopNew NIHPolicies Diagnostic Begin Phased Implementation of Selected Actions Jul 07 - Feb 08 Mar 08 - April 08 June 08

  7. Develop Draft Implementation Plan • Release Draft Report • Formal public comment period • Outreach to professional organizations and other stakeholders • SCWG  SC Peer Review Implementation Groups • 3 Working Groups • Cluster 1: Applications, review and ratings • Cluster 2: Quality of peer reviews • Cluster 3: Support of different career stages • Position papers from EPMC, RPC, GMAC, PLC, TAC and eRA • Broad input from NIH staff • Town meeting with Scientific Review Officers and Program Staff • Cross-cutting committee: provide integrated recommendations to NIH Director 7

  8. Granularity of the Discussion:We need to tackle the big challenges Sand Rocks Pebbles Guided by several principles: Do no harm Continue to maximize the freedom of scientists to explore Focus on the changes that are most likely to add significant value at a reasonable cost/benefit ratio

  9. Core Theme: Excellence of Reviewers • The excellence of peer review is directly correlated to our ability to recruit, retain and motivate the most accomplished, broad minded and creative scientists to serve on study section • Reduce burden of review • Flexibility • Training strategy • Recognize and Reward distinguished service 9

  10. Core Theme: The Fairness and Clarity of Peer Review • Consistently identify application’s relative merit, potential for scientific and/or public health impact, and feasibility • Applicants and NIH program officers deserve clear and purposeful review feedback, including informative summary statements and a rating system comparable across study sections and fields of science • Summary statement structure aligned with specific criteria • Pilot ranking strategies • Pilot and implement shorter applications 10

  11. Core Theme: Support Scientists at Different Stages of Their Careers • Peer review should fairly evaluate proposals from all scientists, regardless of their career stage or discipline, and avoid bias towards more conservative and proven approaches at the expense of innovation and originality • Early stage investigators – reduce bias (number of fully discussed proposals, cluster discussion of ESI within panel, percentile separately) • Reduce need for multiple applications • Established investigators retrospective and prospective

  12. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 1980 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  13. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 1981 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  14. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 1982 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  15. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 1983 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  16. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 1984 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  17. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 1985 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  18. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 1986 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  19. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 1987 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  20. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 1988 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  21. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 1989 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  22. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 1990 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  23. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 1991 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  24. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 1992 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  25. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 1993 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  26. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 1994 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  27. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 1995 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  28. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 1996 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  29. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 1997 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  30. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 1998 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  31. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 1999 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  32. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 2000 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  33. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 2001 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  34. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 2002 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  35. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 2003 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  36. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 2004 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  37. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 2005 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  38. Comparison of the Age of NIH PIs and Medical School Faculty 2006 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  39. Aging of Both NIH Grantees and Medical School Faculty Cohorts Since 1980 2006 1980 Sources: IMPAC II Current and History Files and AAMC Faculty Roster System Age Distribution of NIH RPG Investigators and Medical School Faculty

  40. Age Distribution of PIs2007 (Projection)

  41. Age Distribution of PIs2008

  42. Age Distribution of PIs2009

  43. Age Distribution of PIs2010

  44. Age Distribution of PIs2011

  45. Age Distribution of PIs2012

  46. Age Distribution of PIs2013

  47. Age Distribution of PIs2014

  48. Age Distribution of PIs2015

  49. Age Distribution of PIs2016

  50. Age Distribution of PIs2017

More Related