Resources: Peer Review of Faculty Grant Proposals
This document is divided into the following sections:
Benefits of Peer Review
Grants submitted to rigorous internal peer review are more likely to be successful when submitted to external agencies than those submitted without internal review. The process of preparing a large external grant demands that the investigator(s) invest considerable time and emotional and physical energy. Valuable human and other resources are expended on every grant submission, making it important to maximize the potential of each grant for funding. Both review sessions, with oral and written feedback, and written review without a session are viewed as beneficial. The type of peer review used may be based on the preference of the PI or on time constraints. Regardless of the exact process used, it is intended that peer review will facilitate the process of grant submission, and in no way impede it.
General Approach
This is a suggested process. No part of it should be viewed as mandatory. Investigators may wish to vary parts of the process in order that their own needs for peer review are met as fully as possible. For example, a PI may request permission to audiotape the session for later review. The timeline suggested should be about right for most NIH grants and other large external grants. This timeline can be adjusted as necessary for Graduate School grants or when responding to requests for applications (RFAs).
Scheduling Sessions
Faculty who are members of one of the School of Nursing Research Centers of Excellence: Review sessions will be scheduled according to the guidelines of that center.
Faculty and doctoral students who are not members of one of the School of Nursing Research Centers of Excellence: Research Resource Center personnel will assist with scheduling the review session or request that the appropriate division assistant take care of the scheduling. The PI will provide suggested dates, times free on those dates, and a list of selected reviewers and other people to be invited to the review session.
Process for Peer Review Sessions
Phase I - Idea and Strategy
6 to 9 months before due date
1 1/2 hours recommended
Participants strongly recommended:
- PI and co-investigator(s)
- 3 peer reviewers selected by PI; 4 to 5 may be selected in case all are not available
PIs who belong to one of the research centers of excellence will involve other center members in their peer review session. It is suggested that, whenever possible, at least one of the peer reviewers be from outside the School of Nursing.
PIs may consult with the Associate Dean for Research, Research Committee members, and School of Nursing funded PIs about appropriate peer reviewers.
Optional silent observers:
- all research team members and others as invited or permitted by PI
Information obtained from the U.S. schools of nursing ranking in the top 12 in terms of external funding suggests that it is important to keep the number of active participants relatively small. There is not sufficient time in a typical review session for a large number of people to discuss and give input. However, persons invited to the session in addition to the main reviewers might be asked to provide written feedback to PI.
Items to distribute in advance to peer reviewers (and any observers if desired):
- draft of specific aims page
- list of research team members, including degrees and job title, and role of each on project
- PI biographical sketch
- outline of preliminary studies or progress report (if competitive renewal) section of grant
- agenda for session
Sample agenda for session:
Critique
- reviewers' feedback about specific aims page in light of PI's past research experience as reflected by biographical sketch and preliminary work, 10 minutes each = 30 minutes
- summation of strengths and weaknesses, 5 to 10 minutes
Consultation and Discussion
- Investigator(s)' clarifications, comments, and questions related to strengths and weaknesses, 5 to 10 minutes
- strategies to address weaknesses, investigators, and reviewers, 45 minutes
Phase II - Grant Review Session
2 to 3 months before due date
1 1/2 to 2 hours recommended
Participants:
- same three reviewers as above if possible and desired
Optional silent observers:
Items to distribute in advance to peer reviewers (and any observers if desired):
- grant (as complete as possible); order of importance: research plan, key instuments, budget and justification, biographical sketches
- agenda
Sample agenda for session:
Critique
- reviewer feedback, 15 to 20 minutes each = 45 to 60 minutes
- summation of strengths and weaknesses, 5 to 10 minutes
Consultation and Discussion
- Investigator(s)' clarifications, comments, and questions related to strengths and weaknesses, 5 to 10 minutes
- strategies to address weaknesses, investigators and reviewers, 40 minutes
Phase III - Fine Tuning Session
50 to 80 minutes
Participants:
- same three reviewers as above if possible and desired
Optional silent observers:
Items to distribute in advance to peer reviewers (and any observers if desired):
- grant (as complete a grant as possible)
- agenda
Sample agenda for session:
Critique
- reviewer feedback specific to changes suggested at last session, 5 to 10 minutes each = 15 to 30 minutes
Consultation and Discussion
- Investigator(s)' clarifications, comments, and questions related to feedback, 5 to 10 minutes
- strategies to polish and complete grant on time, 30 to 40 minutes
- after the session, it is the responsibility of the investigators to integrate the comments and edits into a single document for further processing by Research Resource Center personnel.
Grant is submitted on time and in great shape!
"Pink Sheets" Come Back
- PI discusses the score, feedback, and likelihood of funding with same 3 peer reviewers
- If funding appears unlikely, convene session with PI, co-investigator(s) and 3 peer reviewers (the same ones or different ones) to go over "pink sheets" and plan revision strategy
PI receives final word regarding funding decision
- If not funded, continue with revision strategy and offer interpersonal support to PI and co-investigator(s)
Process for Written Peer Review
- 3 peer reviewers selected by PI; 4 to 5 may be selected in case all are not available
- PI specifies exact nature of review that is desired (e.g., content areas, issues, etc.)
- Provide due date by which reviewers must complete review
Development of This Document
The School of Nursing Research Committee conducted phone interviews (December, 1995 - February, 1996) with the Research Director or Research Associate Dean of U.S. schools of nursing ranked in the top 12 in terms of grant funding regarding their peer review processes. Following the phone survey process, this document was drafted by Laura Duckett, who was School of Nursing Research Committee member and Director of Research at the time. It was reviewed, discussed and modified by research committee members on February 16, 1996. The document has been revised periodically since that time. It was last updated August 22, 2005.
|
