“We are today in the midst of another interval of environmental uncertainty. We have recognized the reality of global warming, but we have not invested sufficiently in possible technical solutions. It seems reasonable to expect that global warming will prove to be at least as frightening to leaders and populations as food shortages—the more so since, among other consequences, it can lead to food shortages. Continue reading
Grant applications that are ranked more highly by peer reviewers go on to yield more patents and highly cited papers, an analysis of more than 130,000 funded grants finds… the connection holds even when controlling for other factors that might explain the link, such as whether highly rated applicants were already big names in their field. This suggests that peer reviewers do not just rate well-known scientists more highly…, but also ‘add value’ by giving higher scores to better ideas. Continue reading
Study: Peer Review Predicts Success
Scientists who evaluate National Institutes of Health grant applications often identify the projects that will have the biggest scientific impact, according to an analysis. “[As] it turns out,” he added, “the NIH is doing a pretty good job.”
Overall, applicants with the highest-scoring grants published the most papers, garnered the most citations, and earned the most patents, researchers have found.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) peer-review scoring system, which is used to select grant proposals for funding, is an accurate predictor of how impactful proposed research will ultimately become…Overall, applicants with the highest-scoring grants published the most papers, garnered the most citations, and earned the most patents, researchers have found.