1 / 18

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 The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.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. Asynchronous Electronic Discussion.

fancy
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 Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.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. Asynchronous Electronic Discussion Joseph Rudolph and Ross Shonat August 27, 2007 National Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Health and Human Services

  3. Asynchronous Electronic Discussion(AED): What is it? • Secure Web Based Review method. • Threaded Discussion Board. • Separate server environment from IMPAC II and IAR, however data is mined from both IMPAC II and IAR. • Both AED and IAR are utilized.

  4. Intended Purpose of AED • AED is NOT intended to replace the traditional large face to face meetings. • AED is intended to provide an additional review platform to SRAs and Reviewers which would fill the niche between phone and face to face meetings. • Attract senior and experienced reviewers who are not able to travel. • AED is flexible enough to adapt to the requirements of the individual SRA.

  5. Advantages of AED • Greater flexibility for scheduling and running peer review meetings. • Expand potential reviewer base, by eliminating travel and time constraints. • Allows for more thoughtful and thorough discussion. • Efficient mechanism for streamlining. • Simplifies participation of program staff. • Improved management of conflicts. • Website is straightforward for reviewers and requires little training.

  6. Initial Challenges for AED • Format is new for both Reviewers, SRAs, and Program and will require a familiarization period. • Requires active participation on the part of SRA, Chair and reviewers.

  7. How Does it Work? • Reviewers are recruited and grant materials sent out. • Reviewers submit initial scores and critiques to IAR. • AED web site link is given to SRA and meeting data is entered. • All meeting data is pulled from IMPAC II and IAR.

  8. How Does it Work (2)? • The meeting occurs on the website and is comprised of 3 phases: • Streamline phase • Discussion phase • Final scoring phase. • Following meeting reviewers revise critiques in IAR. • The threaded discussion is not archived. Once the meeting is over, the website is deleted including backups.

  9. What Does It look Like?

  10. Review Page

  11. Challenges of AED • Developing a culture of usage and acceptance from SRAs, Reviewers and Program Officers. • Training – both for SRAs, Reviewers and Program. • Technical challenges, integration and usability.

  12. Growth of AED – Number of Applications

  13. Growth of AED – Number of Meetings

  14. Increased Efficiency of AED Meetings

  15. Increased Usage Among SRAs

  16. A Study Section Chair Talks About Asynchronous Electronic Discussions “Finally, in spite of my initial skepticism regarding this “blog-like” review mechanism, all . . . [reviewers] produced comments, critiques, posed questions in a fashion that I would judge to be the BEST I’ve seen in ~30 years of chairing various review groups.” Craig M. Jackson, Ph.D. President and Principal Scientist Hemosaga Diagnostics Corp.

  17. Future Directions • Scaling • Number of review panels (100 per round by 2008). • Number of applications. • Involvement of other ICs. • NIGMS, NIMH, NIA, NIDA, NHLBI, NCI, NIDDK • Improvements to Interface (Version 3.0 to be released 11/2007). • Improvements to hardware. • Synchronize reviewer authentication with NIH Commons. • Wider adoption and acceptance.

  18. Acknowledgements • Project Management Team • Rich McKay, Jim Blagaich, Richard Panniers, RV Srinivas, George Chacko, Ross Shonat. • Developers • Leo Wu, Sara Wu, Dipak Bhattacharyya, Harish Vajja, and Yulia Shifrin. • AED Support • Bella Kazantseva and Carlton Williams. • Executive Sponsors • Toni Scarpa and Cheryl Kitt

More Related