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.
It gives me enormous pleasure to extend my warm congratulations to a friend and colleague, Noni H. Byrnes, Ph.D., for her recent selection as the new Director for the NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR).
Curious about how NIH grant applications are reviewed? Get a front row seat to the peer review process in this video created by the NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR). Investigators will get insights into how applications are reviewed so they can better enhance and advance their applications in the NIH peer review process.
In part D of the F-RPPR (participants), should we report time worked for the final budget period or time worked for the final budget period + the no cost extension period?
In the Final RPPR you should report on the individuals that worked on the project during the last budget period minus any approved no-cost extensions. You can find this and more in the RPPR FAQs.
Looking for a grant award you heard about? Go here! Perhaps how many trainees NIH supported? You got it! Research spending on a certain disease? Done! Comparing NIH to another federal funder? Look no further! As you can see, NIH shares a quite diverse array of data associated with our funded grants in a transparent way. But, that does not mean we share everything.
Do you have a vision for the future of improving scientific reviews? Are you a first-rate Scientific Leader seeking a career at the Center for supporting the most preeminent biomedical research institutes in the nation and the world? If so, the NIH has the perfect opportunity for you!
In March 2017, we wrote about federal funders’ policies on interim research products, including preprints. We encouraged applicants and awardees include citations to preprints in their grant applications and progress reports. Some of your feedback pointed to the potential impact of this new policy on the peer review process.
Eight months ago, CSR Director Dr. Richard Nakamura and I posted a blog on “A Reminder of Your Roles as Applicants and Reviewers in Maintaining the Confidentiality of Peer Review.” We asked you to imagine a scenario: you are a reviewer for an upcoming panel meeting, and shortly before the meeting an investigator associated with an application communicates with you, asking for a favorable review in exchange for an academic favor. We asked what you would do – accept the offer, ignore it, or report it?
We used the blog as an opportunity to remind all of us how important it is that we all do our utmost to assure the integrity of peer review. ….
Continuing Steps to Ensuring Credibility of NIH Research: Selecting Journals with Credible Practices
The scientific community is paying increasing attention to the quality practices of journals and publishers. NIH recently released a Guide notice (NOT-OD-18-011) to encourage authors to publish in journals that do not undermine the credibility, impact, and accuracy of their research findings. This notice aims to raise awareness about practices like changing publication fees without notice, lacking transparency in publication procedures, misrepresenting editorial boards, and/or using suspicious peer review.