archived file
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Archived File

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 35

Archived File - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 89 Views
  • Uploaded on

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 The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.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. Changes in CSR Operations.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Archived File' - grace


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
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The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.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.

changes in csr operations
Changes in CSR Operations

An Integrated Vision for Peer Review

Toni Scarpa

Center for Scientific Review

National Institutes of Health

Department of Health and Human Services

NIH Peer Review Advisory Committee December 4, 2006

why has u s research been so successful
Why Has U.S. Research Been So Successful?
  • Evolution of unique dynamic partnerships -- through NIH -- between Government and academic/medical schools
  • 100% of NIH funds to universities and medical centers awarded through peer review (Only 4-10% in Europe)
major complaints about nih peer review
Major Complaints About NIH Peer Review
  • The process is too slow
  • There are not enough senior/experienced reviewers
  • The process favors predictable research instead of significant, innovative, or transformative research
  • Clinical research may not fare as well as other research
  • The time and effort required to write, submit, resubmit, review and re-review is a heavy burden on applicants and reviewers
slide6

Changes in CSR Operations

  • Increase Communication and Transparency
  • Increase Uniformity
  • Increase Efficiency

4. Improve Study Section Alignment and Performance

changes in csr operations1
Changes in CSR Operations

2. Increase Uniformity

Summary Statements

  • Post all within 1 month of meeting(97.3%)
  • Post new investigator summary statements within1 week

Appeal Committee

Best Practices Committee Assessments

slide8

Changes in CSR Operations

  • Increase Communication and Transparency
  • Increase Uniformity
  • Increase Efficiency
changes in csr operations2
Changes in CSR Operations

3. Increase Efficiency

Retooled for Electronic Submission

Text Fingerprinting, Artificial Intelligence Software

  • Assigning applications to Integrated Review Groups or Study Sections

Major pilot in October 2006

Implementation by June 2007

changes in csr operations3
Changes in CSR Operations

4. Improve Study Section Alignment and Performance

  • Biannual IRG Reviews
  • Six Open House Workshops
six open house workshops
Six Open House Workshops
  • Biomolecular (4):Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular Biophysics (BCMB); Bioengineering Sciences and Technologies (BST); Cell Biology (CB); Genes, Genomes and Genetics (GGG)
  • Integrated Biological (5):Immunology (IMM); Hematology (HEME); Cardiovascular Sciences (CVS); Respiratory Sciences (RES); Biology of Development and Aging (BDA)
  • Integrated Biological (4):Digestive Sciences (DIG); Musculoskeletal, Oral and Skin Sciences (MOSS); Renal and Urological Sciences (RUS) Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproductive Sciences (EMNR)
  • Disease-based (4):AIDS and Related Research (AARR); Infectious Diseases and Microbiology (IDM); Oncological Sciences (ONC);  Surgical Sciences, Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (SBIB)
  • Neurological (3):Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience (BDCN); Integrative, Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience (IFCN); Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Neuroscience (MDCN)
  • Behavioral/Social (3):Biobehavioral and Behavioral Processes (BBBP); Health of the Population (HOP); Risk Prevention and Health Behavior (RPHB)
travel
Travel

Purchase non-refundable (restricted) coach tickets

instead of unrestricted tickets

a vision for peer review
A Vision for Peer Review
  • Shorten the review cycle
  • Do more to recruit and retain more high-quality reviewers and decrease the burden on applicants and reviewers
  • Improve the identification of significant, innovative and high-impact research
a vision for peer review1
A Vision for Peer Review
  • Shorten the review cycle
shortening the nih review cycle initial steps
Shortening the NIH Review Cycle, Initial Steps

Pilot study with new investigators in 40 study sections who may revise and resubmit for the very next review cycle 4 months earlier than before (Started Feb 06)

short review cycle pilot of new investigator r01 applications
Short Review Cycle Pilot of New Investigator R01 Applications

* Not counting resubmissions from one Study Section (Due. Nov. 30.)

a vision for peer review2
A Vision for Peer Review
  • Shorten the review cycle
  • Do more to recruit and retain more high-quality reviewers and decrease the burden on applicants and reviewers
institutes and centers use r21s differently
Institutes and Centers Use R21s Differently
  • R21s fund ~14 types of efforts, such as—
    • Exploratory/developmental research
    • Junior investigators
    • Phase I/II clinical trials
    • International research planning
    • High-risk/payoff research
  • R21s have broad parameters—
    • Award period: 1-3 years
    • Funding allowed: $100K-$450K
    • Research Plan: 10-20 pages
reviewers current situation
Reviewers – Current Situation
  • Far too many reviewers on study sections
    • Broader science
    • Decrease in reviewer load
    • Unnecessary
  • Too many ad hoc reviewers
near term solutions for recruiting and retaining the best reviewers
Near-Term Solutions for Recruiting and Retaining the Best Reviewers
  • Require less travel by using electronic review modes
expanding peer review s platforms
Expanding Peer Review’s Platforms

Study Sections

Electronic Reviews

  • Telephone Enhanced Discussions
  • Video Enhanced Discussions
  • Asynchronous Electronic Discussions
expanding peer review s platforms1
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

Our Goal: 10% of all reviews to be electronic in 2007

near term solutions for recruiting and retaining the best reviewers1
Near-Term Solutions for Recruiting and Retaining the Best Reviewers
  • Require less travel by using electronic review modes
  • Have Shorter Meetings
  • Shorten Applications
goals trans nih committee to shorten the application
GoalsTrans-NIH Committee to Shorten the Application
  • Focus on the R01
  • Consider reducing the page limit
  • Align the application more closely with review criteria

Strong support by councils and scientific leadership,

PRAC, IC Directors Retreat

nih guide survey on shorter r01 applications
NIH Guide Survey on Shorter R01 Applications

Responses as of 11/22/2006. Survey will extend to January 2007

the advantages of shorter applications
The Advantages of Shorter Applications

Operational

  • Each reviewer can read more applications
  • Study sections can be smaller
  • Better reviewers can be recruited

Cultural

  • Reviews can be more focused on impact and innovation and less on approach and preliminary results
a vision for peer review3
A Vision for Peer Review
  • Shorten the review cycle
  • Do more to recruit and retain more high-quality reviewers and decrease the burden on applicants and reviewers
  • Improve the identification of innovative and high-impact research
ad