1 / 28

NIH Peer Review: Continuity and Change

NIH Peer Review: Continuity and Change. Toni Scarpa. Center for Scientific Review National Institutes of Health Department of Health and Human Services. NIDA Council Bethesda, Feb 8, 2006. Peer Review: An N.I.H. “Conception”. Is the heart and soul of NIH

vevina
Download Presentation

NIH Peer Review: Continuity and Change

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. NIH Peer Review: Continuity and Change Toni Scarpa Center for Scientific Review National Institutes of Health Department of Health and Human Services NIDA Council Bethesda, Feb 8, 2006

  2. Peer Review: An N.I.H. “Conception” • Is the heart and soul of NIH • Has produced an effective partnership between the federal government and research institutions • Has created the best academic medical centers, the best biomedical/behavioral research and biotechnology • Has made possible the best cures and the best prevention • Has been admired and imitated here and abroad • Has protected NIH against outside influence

  3. Center for Scientific Review

  4. This Is Not Amazon.com This is CSR

  5. Applications Received for all of NIH and Applications Referred for CSR Review, FY 1998 - 2005 NIH Applications Applications for CSR Review

  6. CSR Mission Statement To see that NIH grant applications receive fair, independent, expert, and timely reviews -- free from inappropriate influences -- so NIH can fund the most promising research.

  7. NIDA Applications Reviewed by CSR in FY 2002 and 2005 Fiscal Year of Review

  8. Review Outcomes for NIDA Applications in 2002 and 2005 R01 Applications Only * FY comparison, p < .001

  9. Necessary Changes in CSR Peer Review Operations CSR Operations Current Systems New Systems? Complexity and Impact Time

  10. Changes in CSR Operations • Increase communications between CSR, the ICs, our reviewers and applicants • Increase uniformity • Increase efficiency • Facilitate work of IC program staff

  11. Changes in CSR Operations 1 Increased Communication and Transparency • Within CSR • With NIH and other Agencies • With the Scientific Community

  12. Changes in CSR Operations 2 Increase uniformity Slate Nomination Summary Statements • Posting all within one month of Study Section meetings • Posting Summary Statements of new investigators within one week • Producing more complete and structured resumes Unscoring • Common practice • Unscoring 50%

  13. Changes in CSR Operations 3 Increase Efficiency • Electronic Submission • Text Fingerprinting, Artificial Intelligence Software

  14. Potential of Knowledge Management Tools for Peer Review Collexis Software or Others • Knowledge management solutions • Fingerprinting and text retrieving • Disease coding Benefits for Peer Review • Assigning applications to Integrated Review Groups or Study Sections • Selecting reviewers (one application, multiple applications) Nine pilots are underway to begin to assess these benefits

  15. Possible Changes in CSR Operations • Facilitate work of IC program staff

  16. Study Section Realignment • Review of one IRG every month • Total review every 2 years

  17. Required Changes in Current Systems • Shorten the review cycle

  18. This is Not an Ford Assembly Line Evaluate Scientific Merit of Applications Receipt Refer EnterpriseArchitecture@mail.nih.gov

  19. Shortening the NIH Review Cycle, Initial Steps For most research grants, we are posting summary statements within one month after the study section meeting instead of two to three months after the meeting (effective Oct 05) We are conducting a pilot study to speed the review process for new investigators so they may revise and resubmit for the very next review cycle 4 months earlier than before (effective Feb 06)

  20. Possible Changes in Current Systems • Shorten the review cycle • Address concern that clinical research is not properly evaluated • Improve the assessment of innovative, high- risk/high-reward research • Do more to recruit and retain more high-quality reviewers

  21. Expanding Peer Review’s Platforms Study Sections Electronic Reviews • Telephone Enhanced Discussions • Video Enhanced Discussions • Asynchronous Electronic Discussions Necessity ●Clinical reviewers Preference● Physicists, computational biologists New Opportunities●Fogarty, International Reviewers

  22. Applications Received for All of NIH FY 1998-2004 80,000 60,000 Number of applications 40,000 20,000 0 1998 2000 2002 2004 Fiscal year

  23. Number of Research Grant Applications/Applicant

  24. CSR Applications Reviewed, Regular and SEP May Council Only

  25. Study Section Application/Reviewer RatioOctober Council Only

  26. CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC REVIEW FY 2004-2006 Non-Discretionary vs. Discretionary Spending FY 2006 FY 2004 FY 2005 ■ Non-Discretionary ■ Discretionary

  27. Possible New Systems If we didn’t have any peer-review system and we had to design one from scratch, what would it look like?

  28. This is CSR

More Related