You are here

NIH peer-review under scrutiny

“Peer Review is the less imperfect method to assess the prospective impact of funded research.”

To those of you holding this sentence as an unshakable truth, we suggest reading an article (Peering Into Peer Review, by Jeffrey Mervis) recently published in Science, which in fact casts on the matter a less reassuring light.

The three-page article hinges on the outcomes of a study published last january on Circulation Research, that seriously questions the power of the National Institutes of Health's peer-review system to predict the future impact of research proposals — in the words of the authors, “ ... we were unable to find a monotonic association between better percentile ranking [value of peer-review priority scores] and higher scientific impact as assessed by citation metrics.”

Thursday, 20 March, 2014