Applicants sometimes ask us if grant reviewers can really determine which grant applications are the very best. When only a small proportion of applications can be funded, can the NIH scientific peer review process identify the very highest quality applications in a large group of high quality applications?
Dr. Robin Barr, director of NIA's Division of Extramural Activities, has a new blog post with funding data indicating that it can. He explains, "On average, reviewers are meaningfully discriminating even among applications at the very top of the range on the Approach and Significance criteria. Their assessment is not random within this set."
Read the full blog post: Are impact ratings random?
The NIA blog publishes weekly with information on grants and funding policy, research priorities, scientific meetings, and topics of interest to researchers and others in the scientific community. Subscribe to get it in your email inbox, or grab the RSS feed.