Three years of quality assurance data assessing the performance of over 4000 grant peer review contributions to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Project Grant Competition

IF 2.9 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES Facets Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1139/facets-2022-0175
C. Ardern, Nadia Martino, Sammy Nag, R. Tamblyn, D. Moher, Adrian Mota, Karim M. Khan
{"title":"Three years of quality assurance data assessing the performance of over 4000 grant peer review contributions to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Project Grant Competition","authors":"C. Ardern, Nadia Martino, Sammy Nag, R. Tamblyn, D. Moher, Adrian Mota, Karim M. Khan","doi":"10.1139/facets-2022-0175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) commenced a Quality Assurance Program in 2019 to monitor the quality of peer review in its Project Grant Competition Peer Review Committees. Our primary aim was to describe the performance of CIHR grant peer reviewers, based on the assessments made by CIHR peer review leaders during the first 3 years of the Research Quality Assurance Program. All Peer Review Committee Chairs and (or) Scientific Officers who led peer review for CIHR in 2019, 2020, and 2021 completed Reviewer Quality Feedback forms immediately following Peer Review Committee meetings. The form assessed Performance, Future potential, Review quality, Participation, and Responsiveness. We summarised and descriptively synthesised data from assessments conducted after each of the four grant competitions. The performance of peer reviewers on 4438 occasions was rated by Chairs and Scientific Officers. Approximately one in three peer reviewers submitted outstanding reviews or discussed additional applications and one in 10 demonstrated potential as a future Peer Review Committee leader. At most, one in 20 peer reviewers was considered to have not performed adequately with respect to review quality, participation, or responsiveness. There is a need for more research on the processes involved in allocating research grant funding.","PeriodicalId":48511,"journal":{"name":"Facets","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Facets","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2022-0175","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) commenced a Quality Assurance Program in 2019 to monitor the quality of peer review in its Project Grant Competition Peer Review Committees. Our primary aim was to describe the performance of CIHR grant peer reviewers, based on the assessments made by CIHR peer review leaders during the first 3 years of the Research Quality Assurance Program. All Peer Review Committee Chairs and (or) Scientific Officers who led peer review for CIHR in 2019, 2020, and 2021 completed Reviewer Quality Feedback forms immediately following Peer Review Committee meetings. The form assessed Performance, Future potential, Review quality, Participation, and Responsiveness. We summarised and descriptively synthesised data from assessments conducted after each of the four grant competitions. The performance of peer reviewers on 4438 occasions was rated by Chairs and Scientific Officers. Approximately one in three peer reviewers submitted outstanding reviews or discussed additional applications and one in 10 demonstrated potential as a future Peer Review Committee leader. At most, one in 20 peer reviewers was considered to have not performed adequately with respect to review quality, participation, or responsiveness. There is a need for more research on the processes involved in allocating research grant funding.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
3年的质量保证数据,评估向加拿大卫生研究机构项目资助竞赛提供的4000多份同行评审赠款的绩效
加拿大卫生研究院(CIHR)于2019年启动了一项质量保证计划,以监测其项目拨款竞争同行评审委员会的同行评审质量。我们的主要目的是根据CIHR同行评审负责人在前3年的评估,描述CIHR赠款同行评审的表现 多年的研究质量保证计划。在2019年、2020年和2021年领导CIHR同行评审的所有同行评审委员会主席和(或)科学官员在同行评审委员会会议后立即填写了评审员质量反馈表。该表格评估了绩效、未来潜力、审查质量、参与度和响应能力。我们总结并描述性地综合了四次拨款竞赛后进行的评估数据。主席和科学干事对同行评审员4438次的表现进行了评级。大约三分之一的同行评审员提交了未完成的评审或讨论了其他申请,十分之一的同行审查员表现出了成为未来同行审查委员会领导人的潜力。最多,每20名同行评审员中就有一人被认为在评审质量、参与度或响应性方面表现不佳。需要对研究拨款的分配过程进行更多的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Facets
Facets MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES-
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
6.50%
发文量
48
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊最新文献
Conducting community-led research using trail cameras to develop baseline wandering domestic cat local abundance estimates Laws matter: a foundational approach to biodiversity conservation in Canada British Columbia freshwater salmon hatcheries demonstrate minimal contribution to piscine orthoreovirus (PRV) regional occurrence with no evidence for nonendemic strain introductions Using Holocene paleo-fire records to estimate carbon stock vulnerabilities in Hudson Bay Lowlands peatlands Strengthening health care in Canada post-COVID-19 pandemic
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1