Number of NIH Reviewers Needed for Grant Applications
Author Information
Author(s): David Kaplan, Nicola Lacetera, Celia Kaplan
Primary Institution: Case Western Reserve University
Hypothesis
How many reviewers are needed to evaluate NIH grant applications with adequate precision?
Conclusion
The study concludes that NIH needs to increase the number of reviewers for grant applications to ensure reliable evaluations.
Supporting Evidence
- The study found that four reviewers are insufficient for reliable evaluations.
- An unrealistically high number of reviewers is needed for precise scoring.
- The current NIH peer review system lacks statistical rigor.
Takeaway
The NIH should have more people review grant applications to make better decisions about funding.
Methodology
Statistical analysis of the number of reviewers needed for reliable evaluations of grant applications.
Potential Biases
The reviewers used in the study were not independent, which could affect the precision of evaluations.
Limitations
The study relied on a model system of peer review rather than actual biomedical research proposals.
Participant Demographics
Undergraduate students evaluated movie proposals.
Statistical Information
Confidence Interval
95%
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website