The scientific peer review process benefits greatly when the study section reviewers bring not only strong scientific qualifications and expertise, but also a broad range of backgrounds and varying scientific perspectives. Bringing new viewpoints into the process replenishes and refreshes the study section, enhancing the quality of its output.
It is a priority to us to continue to engage with the community about what constitutes a breach of NIH peer review integrity. The NIH defines a breach of review integrity as any violation of a core value of NIH peer review.
Confidentiality is at the core of ensuring research ideas submitted in grant applications are protected. In this next installment of the NIH’s All About Grants podcast series, Sally Amero, Ph.D., NIH’s Review Policy Officer, discusses how NIH strives to maintain the highest levels of confidentiality and integrity in the peer review process.
My office devotes a lot of effort to evaluating its grants policies and practices. Since the introduction of the Enhancing Peer Review changes, NIH has sponsored an ongoing evaluation of peer review, involving formal surveys about the peer review process, as well as other types of analyses. We are keenly interested in your responses to our surveys, so if you receive an invitation to take a peer review survey, I hope you can find the time to respond. The importance of participating in these surveys is nicely illustrated ….
A critical component in assuring the efficacy of NIH’s peer review system is the continuous assessment of peer review activities, to be sure that the practices and policies uphold the core values of peer review. In fact, this continual assessment was a key component of the 2008 NIH Enhancing Peer Review Initiative. ….