4 found
Order:
  1.  15
    The Participation and Motivations of Grant Peer Reviewers: A Comprehensive Survey.Stephen A. Gallo, Lisa A. Thompson, Karen B. Schmaling & Scott R. Glisson - 2020 - Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (2):761-782.
    Scientific peer reviewers play an integral role in the grant selection process, yet very little has been reported on the levels of participation or the motivations of scientists to take part in peer review. The American Institute of Biological Sciences developed a comprehensive peer review survey that examined the motivations and levels of participation of grant reviewers. The survey was disseminated to 13,091 scientists in AIBS’s proprietary database. Of the 874 respondents, 76% indicated they had reviewed grant applications in the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  2.  3
    Grant Reviewer Perceptions of the Quality, Effectiveness, and Influence of Panel Discussion.Scott R. Glisson, Lisa A. Thompson, Karen B. Schmaling & Stephen A. Gallo - 2020 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 5 (1).
    BackgroundFunding agencies have long used panel discussion in the peer review of research grant proposals as a way to utilize a set of expertise and perspectives in making funding decisions. Little research has examined the quality of panel discussions and how effectively they are facilitated.MethodsHere, we present a mixed-method analysis of data from a survey of reviewers focused on their perceptions of the quality, effectiveness, and influence of panel discussion from their last peer review experience.ResultsReviewers indicated that panel discussions were (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3.  23
    Frequency and Type of Conflicts of Interest in the Peer Review of Basic Biomedical Research Funding Applications: Self-Reporting Versus Manual Detection.Stephen A. Gallo, Michael Lemaster & Scott R. Glisson - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (1):189-197.
    Despite the presumed frequency of conflicts of interest in scientific peer review, there is a paucity of data in the literature reporting on the frequency and type of conflicts that occur, particularly with regard to the peer review of basic science applications. To address this gap, the American Institute of Biological Sciences conducted a retrospective analysis of conflict of interest data from the peer review of 282 biomedical research applications via several onsite review panels. The overall conflicted-ness of these panels (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  4.  4
    Grant Review Feedback: Appropriateness and Usefulness.Stephen A. Gallo, Karen B. Schmaling, Lisa A. Thompson & Scott R. Glisson - 2021 - Science and Engineering Ethics 27 (2):1-20.
    The primary goal of the peer review of research grant proposals is to evaluate their quality for the funding agency. An important secondary goal is to provide constructive feedback to applicants for their resubmissions. However, little is known about whether review feedback achieves this goal. In this paper, we present a multi-methods analysis of responses from grant applicants regarding their perceptions of the effectiveness and appropriateness of peer review feedback they received from grant submissions. Overall, 56–60% of applicants determined the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark