Grant Application Review: the Case of Transparency

Overview

Journal PLoS Biol

Specialty Biology

Date 2014 Dec 3

PMID 25460001

Citations 5

Authors

David Gurwitz

Elena Milanesi

Thomas Koenig

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Citing Articles

Research funders should be more transparent: a plea for open applications.

Horbach S, Tijdink J, Bouter L R Soc Open Sci. 2022; 9(10):220750.

PMID: 36312565 PMC: 9554511. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.220750.

Grant Review Feedback: Appropriateness and Usefulness.

Gallo S, Schmaling K, Thompson L, Glisson S Sci Eng Ethics. 2021; 27(2):18.

PMID: 33733708 PMC: 7969534. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-021-00295-9.

'Are you siding with a personality or the grant proposal?': observations on how peer review panels function.

Coveney J, Herbert D, Hill K, Mow K, Graves N, Barnett A Res Integr Peer Rev. 2018; 2:19.

PMID: 29451548 PMC: 5803633. DOI: 10.1186/s41073-017-0043-x.

Using democracy to award research funding: an observational study.

Barnett A, Clarke P, Vaquette C, Graves N Res Integr Peer Rev. 2018; 2:16.

PMID: 29451532 PMC: 5803583. DOI: 10.1186/s41073-017-0040-0.

The transformative nature of transparency in research funding.

Mietchen D PLoS Biol. 2014; 12(12):e1002027.

PMID: 25549343 PMC: 4280101. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002027.

References

Demicheli V, Di Pietrantonj C . Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; (2):MR000003. PMC: 8973940. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000003.pub2. View

Ioannidis J . More time for research: fund people not projects. Nature. 2011; 477(7366):529-31. DOI: 10.1038/477529a. View

Merton R . The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science. 1968; 159(3810):56-63. View

Mietchen D . Peer reviews: make them public. Nature. 2011; 473(7348):452. DOI: 10.1038/473452b. View

Mervis J . Peering into peer review. Science. 2014; 343(6171):596-8. DOI: 10.1126/science.343.6171.596. View

Bhattacharjee Y . Science funding. NSF's 'Big Pitch' tests anonymized grant reviews. Science. 2012; 336(6084):969-70. DOI: 10.1126/science.336.6084.969. View

Schroter S, Groves T, Hojgaard L . Surveys of current status in biomedical science grant review: funding organisations' and grant reviewers' perspectives. BMC Med. 2010; 8:62. PMC: 2974654. DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-62. View

. Full disclosure. Nature. 2014; 507(7490):8. DOI: 10.1038/507008a. View

Masum H, Rao A, Good B, Todd M, Edwards A, Chan L . Ten simple rules for cultivating open science and collaborative R&D. PLoS Comput Biol. 2013; 9(9):e1003244. PMC: 3784487. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003244. View

10.

Shanahan D, Olsen B . Opening peer-review: the democracy of science. J Negat Results Biomed. 2014; 13:2. PMC: 3900934. DOI: 10.1186/1477-5751-13-2. View

11.

Abdoul H, Perrey C, Amiel P, Tubach F, Gottot S, Durand-Zaleski I . Peer review of grant applications: criteria used and qualitative study of reviewer practices. PLoS One. 2012; 7(9):e46054. PMC: 3460995. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046054. View

12.

Kumar A . Open review system: The new trend in scientific reviewing to improve transparency and overcome biasness. J Nat Sci Biol Med. 2014; 5(2):231-2. PMC: 4121888. DOI: 10.4103/0976-9668.136134. View

13.

Van Noorden R . Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature. 2014; 512(7513):126-9. DOI: 10.1038/512126a. View

14.

van Bekkum J, Hilton S . UK research funding bodies' views towards public participation in health-related research decisions: an exploratory study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014; 14:318. PMC: 4115156. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-318. View

15.

Marris C, Rose N . Open engagement: exploring public participation in the biosciences. PLoS Biol. 2010; 8(11):e1000549. PMC: 2994659. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000549. View

16.

Mutz R, Bornmann L, Daniel H . Heterogeneity of inter-rater reliabilities of grant peer reviews and its determinants: a general estimating equations approach. PLoS One. 2012; 7(10):e48509. PMC: 3485362. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048509. View

17.

Nowotny H, Exner P . Improving ERC ethical standards. Science. 2013; 341(6150):1043. DOI: 10.1126/science.1244098. View

18.

Herbert D, Barnett A, Clarke P, Graves N . On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers. BMJ Open. 2013; 3(5). PMC: 3664356. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002800. View