1 / 24

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 The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.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. CSR: New Challenges and Opportunities. Toni Scarpa.

xander-powers
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 Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.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. CSR: New Challenges and Opportunities Toni Scarpa Center for Scientific Review National Institutes of Health Department of Health and Human Services PRAC, January 23, 2006

  3. CSR Progress Report • Changes that have Occurred • Changes in Progress • Changes under Discussion • Challenges: Present and Futures

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

  5. Changes in CSR Operations 2 Increase uniformity Slate Nomination Summary Statements Posting all within one months of Study Section Posting Summary Statements of new investigators within one week More complete and structured resumes Unscoring Common practice Unscoring 50%

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

  7. 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

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

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

  10. Desirable Changes in CSR Review • Shorten the review cycle

  11. 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). Dr. Bradley, next talk.

  12. Desirable Changes in CSR Review • Shorten the review cycle • Address concern that clinical research is not properly evaluated • Improve the assessment of innovative, high- risk/high-reward research

  13. “The judging of grants has become a charade.” The American Society for Cell Biology “The judging of grants has become a charade. To be funded, the experimental plan has become a litany of experiments already accomplished so that everything is feasible. When grants come back with unfundable scores, new investigators may not have sufficient resources to do the experiments that “show feasibility.” Zena Werb President, ASCB Newsletter August 2005

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. Applications received for all of NIH and applications referred for CSR review, FY 1998-2004 80,000 60,000 Number of applications 40,000 20,000 0 1998 2000 2002 2004 Fiscal year Applications received for all of NIH Applications assigned for review by CSR

  17. 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

  18. Number of Research Grant Applications/Applicant

  19. Study Section Application/Reviewer RatioOctober Council Only

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

  21. Challenges and Opportunities Peer Review

  22. Possible Short Term Approaches for Increasing Efficiency for Reviewers and CSR • Shifting Additional Grant Review to Institutes • Replace Many SEPs with Smaller Parallel Study Sections • Enlarge Study Section Membership and Decrease Frequency of Participation • Pre Meeting Streamlining • Various Review Platforms • Hybrid Review Platforms • Staggering Application Deadlines • 2 instead of 3 reviews • Shorten Applications • More Structured Applications and Reviews

  23. 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

  24. This is CSR

More Related