Examination of the scientific review process: Ten best practice suggestions for an improved process
AI-generated Key Points
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.
- Ilana Harrus aims to provide best practices for reviewing research grant proposals
- Emphasizes the role of the federal government in supporting basic research with taxpayer dollars
- Outlines general requirements for a review process and identifies key issues at each step
- Offers tips specifically tailored to the scientific community
- Goals of the paper:
- 1) Demystify the review process for all stakeholders, including policy makers
- 2) Stimulate discussions within the scientific community about reviews
- 3) Inform scientists about their role in this process
- 4) Suggest a path towards a more efficient, fairer, and transparent review process
- Presents recommendations at the beginning for quick access or well-versed readers in proposal reviews
- Provides context and rationale for each proposed recommendation
Authors: Ilana Harrus
Abstract: In this article we wish to provide a common set of best practice approaches that should be considered for all effective research grant proposal reviews. The federal government performs a critical role in American competitiveness and security by supporting basic research funded with taxpayer dollars. Effectively managing their allocation to scientists and researchers is a noble and crucial mission for advancing fundamental knowledge and deserves a heightened attention. Ensuring that proposals submitted are treated fairly and transparently is essential to both the health of any research program and also a duty to the public who ultimately funds the research. The paper describes the general requirements of a review process and at each step underlines the issues and suggests potential improvements and some fundamental requirements that should be included in any scientific review. We also included a series of tips geared to the scientific community. Our goals in this paper are 1) to demystify the process for everyone including policy makers who are sometimes flummoxed by the results of some scientific reviews, 2) to trigger some discussions about reviews and review process in the scientific community, 3) to inform scientists whose careers are directly impacted by review results about their own role in this process and 4) to suggest a road to more efficient, fairer and overall more transparent process. For experts in proposal reviews or for busy or impatient readers, the entire list of our recommendations is presented at the beginning. We describe in each section the context and rational of each recommendation.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Score: 0
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.