1 / 8

Archived File

Archived File. The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated. See the OER Public Archive Home Page for more details about archived files. Future Challenges That PRAC May Consider.

iola
Télécharger la présentation

Archived File

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated. See the OER Public Archive Home Page for more details about archived files.

  2. Future Challenges That PRAC May Consider Dr. Jeremy Berg Dr. Norka Ruiz Bravo Dr. Brent Stanfield

  3. Future Challenges That PRAC May Consider • Technology • How can technologies be integrated in the review process to both make it more efficient and effective? • Among the possibilities what should NIH’s priorities be? • NIH is now entering the realm of electronic receipt of applications: • What are the potential pitfalls for peer review and how can these be avoided? • What are the potential enhancements for peer review and how can these be achieved?

  4. Is Change Needed and at What Cost? • The pace of discovery in biomedical sciences, especially over the past decade has been remarkable. In contrast, the peer review process is very deliberate, but it has served NIH well over the past 50-years and is considered the cornerstone of the success of the NIH Extramural Program • Does the current process result in missed opportunities? • What is the tolerance for risk in changing a 50-year old process that is recognized world wide as a gold standard of peer review? • Are there aspects of peer review that require validating? How might this be done? • Is the current review system the best for all of the types of science that NIH funds, or should certain program/grant mechanisms/areas of science be reviewed in a different manner? • If change is indicated how should new approaches be piloted and assessed to ensure that the expected outcome is achieved? Can this be done in a way that ensures there is no disruption in NIH’s ability to identify the best science to consider for funding? Future Challenges That PRAC May Consider

  5. Future Challenges That PRAC May Consider • Increasing Participation • What can NIH do to ensure appropriate expertise on its review panels given the demands on researchers’ time? • What can be done to encourage service of researchers who have conflicting priorities such clinical responsibilities? • What can be done to minimize the time-demands of NIH reviewers?

  6. Future Challenges That PRAC May Consider • Locus of Review • Most investigator initiated R01 applications and SBIR/STTR applications are reviewed at CSR. There is however, considerable variation in the locus of review (e.g., CSR vs. Institute Review) of other mechanisms based on the institute where the application is referred. • Does the current system used to determine locus of review make sense?

  7. Future Challenges That PRAC May Consider • Resource Management • How can the NIH review system best manage increasing application numbers in the face of flat or declining resources? • What mechanisms “really” need time and resource intensive reviews modeled after reviews of R01 applications? • Fellowship applications? • Other smaller mechanisms like R03 and R21? • What are the possibilities for more streamlined reviews that might reduce time and effort on the part of both reviewers and NIH staff?

  8. Future Challenges That PRAC May Consider Discussion

More Related