Quantitative evaluation of peer review of program project and center applications in allergy and immunology

Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency

OBJECTIVE

To investigate methods and processes for timely, efficient and good quality peer review of research funding proposals in health.

METHODS

A two-stage evidence synthesis: (1) a systematic map to describe the key characteristics of the evidence base, followed by (2) a systematic review of the studies stakeholders prioritised as relevant from the map on the effectiveness and efficiency of peer review 'innovations'. Standard processes included literature searching, duplicate inclusion criteria screening, study keyword coding, data extraction, critical appraisal and study synthesis.

RESULTS

A total of 83 studies from 15 countries were included in the systematic map. The evidence base is diverse, investigating many aspects of the systems for, and processes of, peer review. The systematic review included eight studies from Australia, Canada, and the USA, evaluating a broad range of peer review innovations. These studies showed that simplifying the process by shortening proposal forms, using smaller reviewer panels, or expediting processes can speed up the review process and reduce costs, but this might come at the expense of peer review quality, a key aspect that has not been assessed. Virtual peer review using videoconferencing or teleconferencing appears promising for reducing costs by avoiding the need for reviewers to travel, but again any consequences for quality have not been adequately assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

There is increasing international research activity into the peer review of health research funding. The studies reviewed had methodological limitations and variable generalisability to research funders. Given these limitations it is not currently possible to recommend immediate implementation of these innovations. However, many appear promising based on existing evidence, and could be adapted as necessary by funders and evaluated. Where feasible, experimental evaluation, including randomised controlled trials, should be conducted, evaluating impact on effectiveness, efficiency and quality.

Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications

BACKGROUND

Grant giving relies heavily on peer review for the assessment of the quality of proposals but the evidence of effects of these procedures is scarce.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effect of grant giving peer review processes on importance, relevance, usefulness, soundness of methods, soundness of ethics, completeness and accuracy of funded research.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic database searches and citation searches; researchers in the field were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Prospective or retrospective comparative studies with two or more comparison groups assessing different interventions or one intervention against doing nothing. Interventions may regard different ways of screening, assigning or masking submissions, different ways of eliciting opinions or different decision making procedures. Only original research proposals and quality outcome measures were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were read, classified and described according to their design and study question. No quantitative analysis was performed.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies were included. Two studies assessed the effect of different ways of screening submissions, one study compared open versus blinded peer review and three studies assessed the effect of different decision making procedures. Four studies considered agreement of the results of peer review processes as the outcome measure. Screening procedures appear to have little effect on the result of the peer review process. Open peer reviewers behave differently from blinded ones. Studies on decision-making procedures gave conflicting results. Agreement among reviewers and between different ways of assigning proposals or eliciting opinions was usually high.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little empirical evidence on the effects of grant giving peer review. No studies assessing the impact of peer review on the quality of funded research are presently available. Experimental studies assessing the effects of grant giving peer review on importance, relevance, usefulness, soundness of methods, soundness of ethics, completeness and accuracy of funded research are urgently needed. Practices aimed to control and evaluate the potentially negative effects of peer review should be implemented meanwhile.