1 / 35

Archived File

Archived File. The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated. See the OER Public Archive Home Page for more details about archived files. Changes in CSR Operations.

grace
Download Presentation

Archived File

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated. See the OER Public Archive Home Page for more details about archived files.

  2. Changes in CSR Operations An Integrated Vision for Peer Review Toni Scarpa Center for Scientific Review National Institutes of Health Department of Health and Human Services NIH Peer Review Advisory Committee December 4, 2006

  3. Why Has U.S. Research Been So Successful? • Evolution of unique dynamic partnerships -- through NIH -- between Government and academic/medical schools • 100% of NIH funds to universities and medical centers awarded through peer review (Only 4-10% in Europe)

  4. Major Complaints About NIH Peer Review • The process is too slow • There are not enough senior/experienced reviewers • The process favors predictable research instead of significant, innovative, or transformative research • Clinical research may not fare as well as other research • The time and effort required to write, submit, resubmit, review and re-review is a heavy burden on applicants and reviewers

  5. The Last NIH Study Section2006 The First NIH Study Section1946

  6. Changes in CSR Operations • Increase Communication and Transparency • Increase Uniformity • Increase Efficiency 4. Improve Study Section Alignment and Performance

  7. Changes in CSR Operations 2. Increase Uniformity Summary Statements • Post all within 1 month of meeting(97.3%) • Post new investigator summary statements within1 week Appeal Committee Best Practices Committee Assessments

  8. Changes in CSR Operations • Increase Communication and Transparency • Increase Uniformity • Increase Efficiency

  9. Changes in CSR Operations 3. Increase Efficiency Retooled for Electronic Submission Text Fingerprinting, Artificial Intelligence Software • Assigning applications to Integrated Review Groups or Study Sections Major pilot in October 2006 Implementation by June 2007

  10. Changes in CSR Operations 4. Improve Study Section Alignment and Performance • Biannual IRG Reviews • Six Open House Workshops

  11. Biannual IRG Review Schedule

  12. Six Open House Workshops • Biomolecular (4):Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular Biophysics (BCMB); Bioengineering Sciences and Technologies (BST); Cell Biology (CB); Genes, Genomes and Genetics (GGG) • Integrated Biological (5):Immunology (IMM); Hematology (HEME); Cardiovascular Sciences (CVS); Respiratory Sciences (RES); Biology of Development and Aging (BDA) • Integrated Biological (4):Digestive Sciences (DIG); Musculoskeletal, Oral and Skin Sciences (MOSS); Renal and Urological Sciences (RUS) Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproductive Sciences (EMNR) • Disease-based (4):AIDS and Related Research (AARR); Infectious Diseases and Microbiology (IDM); Oncological Sciences (ONC);  Surgical Sciences, Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (SBIB) • Neurological (3):Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience (BDCN); Integrative, Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience (IFCN); Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Neuroscience (MDCN) • Behavioral/Social (3):Biobehavioral and Behavioral Processes (BBBP); Health of the Population (HOP); Risk Prevention and Health Behavior (RPHB)

  13. Travel Purchase non-refundable (restricted) coach tickets instead of unrestricted tickets

  14. A Vision for Peer Review • Shorten the review cycle • Do more to recruit and retain more high-quality reviewers and decrease the burden on applicants and reviewers • Improve the identification of significant, innovative and high-impact research

  15. A Vision for Peer Review • Shorten the review cycle

  16. Shortening the NIH Review Cycle, Initial Steps Pilot study with new investigators in 40 study sections who may revise and resubmit for the very next review cycle 4 months earlier than before (Started Feb 06)

  17. Short Review Cycle Pilot of New Investigator R01 Applications * Not counting resubmissions from one Study Section (Due. Nov. 30.)

  18. Shortening the NIH Review Cycle, Next Steps

  19. A Vision for Peer Review • Shorten the review cycle • Do more to recruit and retain more high-quality reviewers and decrease the burden on applicants and reviewers

  20. Growth of R01 Applications Reviewed at CSR vs. Other ICs

  21. Growth of R21 Applications Reviewed at CSR vs. Other ICs

  22. Institutes and Centers Use R21s Differently • R21s fund ~14 types of efforts, such as— • Exploratory/developmental research • Junior investigators • Phase I/II clinical trials • International research planning • High-risk/payoff research • R21s have broad parameters— • Award period: 1-3 years • Funding allowed: $100K-$450K • Research Plan: 10-20 pages

  23. Reviewers – Current Situation • Far too many reviewers on study sections • Broader science • Decrease in reviewer load • Unnecessary • Too many ad hoc reviewers

  24. CSR’s Growing Need for Reviewers

  25. Near-Term Solutions for Recruiting and Retaining the Best Reviewers • Require less travel by using electronic review modes

  26. Expanding Peer Review’s Platforms Study Sections Electronic Reviews • Telephone Enhanced Discussions • Video Enhanced Discussions • Asynchronous Electronic Discussions

  27. What It Looks Like: Video Enhanced Discussions

  28. What It Looks Like: Asynchronous Electronic Discussions

  29. Expanding Peer Review’s Platforms Study Sections Electronic Reviews • Telephone Enhanced Discussions • Video Enhanced Discussions • Asynchronous Electronic Discussions Necessity ● Clinical reviewers Preference● Physicists, computational biologists New Opportunities●Fogarty, International Reviewers Our Goal: 10% of all reviews to be electronic in 2007

  30. Near-Term Solutions for Recruiting and Retaining the Best Reviewers • Require less travel by using electronic review modes • Have Shorter Meetings • Shorten Applications

  31. GoalsTrans-NIH Committee to Shorten the Application • Focus on the R01 • Consider reducing the page limit • Align the application more closely with review criteria Strong support by councils and scientific leadership, PRAC, IC Directors Retreat

  32. NIH Guide Survey on Shorter R01 Applications Responses as of 11/22/2006. Survey will extend to January 2007

  33. The Advantages of Shorter Applications Operational • Each reviewer can read more applications • Study sections can be smaller • Better reviewers can be recruited Cultural • Reviews can be more focused on impact and innovation and less on approach and preliminary results

  34. A Vision for Peer Review • Shorten the review cycle • Do more to recruit and retain more high-quality reviewers and decrease the burden on applicants and reviewers • Improve the identification of innovative and high-impact research

  35. This is CSR

More Related