Abstract
AbstractThe primary goal of the peer review of research grant proposals is to evaluate their quality for the funding agency. An important secondary goal is to provide constructive feedback to applicants for their resubmissions. However, little is known about whether review feedback achieves this goal. In this paper, we present a mixed methods analysis of responses from grant applicants regarding their perceptions of the effectiveness and appropriateness of peer review feedback they received from grant submissions. Overall, 56%-60% of applicants determined the feedback to be appropriate (fair, well-written, and well-informed), although their judgments were more favorable if their recent application was funded. Importantly, independent of funding success, women found the feedback better written than men, and more white applicants found the feedback to be fair than non-white applicants. Also, perceptions of a variety of biases were specifically reported in respondents’ feedback. Less than 40% of applicants found the feedback to be very useful in informing their research and improving grantsmanship and future submissions. Further, negative perceptions of the appropriateness of review feedback were positively correlated with more negative perceptions of feedback usefulness. Importantly, respondents suggested that highly competitive funding pay-lines and poor inter-panel reliability limited the usefulness of review feedback. Overall, these results suggest that more effort is needed to ensure that appropriate and useful feedback is provided to all applicants, bolstering the equity of the review process and likely improving the quality of resubmitted proposals.
Publisher
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Reference40 articles.
1. Gender differences in self-perception and negative recall biases;Sex Roles: A Journal of Research,1998
2. Gender, Race, and Grant Reviews: Translating and Responding to Research Feedback;Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,2020
3. Boss J. M. & Eckert S.H. (2003). Academic Scientists at Work: I Can’t Believe They Didn’t Like It!: Part II--Grant Proposals https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2003/12/academic-scientists-work-i-cant-believe-they-didnt-it-part-ii-grant-proposals (last accessed April 2020).
4. Towards Independence: Resubmission Rate of Unfunded National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute R01 Research Grant Applications among Early Stage Investigators;Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges,2016
5. A generation at risk: Young investigators and the future of the biomedical workforce