The NIH has a double post on grant applications, the GAO report explains. The first level of review occurs in committees with members who have expertise within the subject of the application. A lot more than 40,000 applications are submitted towards the NIH each year, and each committee (there are about 100, with 18 to 20 members per committee) reviews up to 100 applications. The agency usually follows the recommendations associated with the committee in approving grant applications. Then there’s a second amount of review, by an advisory council, composed of external scientists and lay people in most people, including patient-group advocates plus the clergy. Peer breakdown of continuing grants occur in the time that is same new projects.
National Science Foundation peer summary of grants
The National Science Foundation uses the idea of merit included in its peer review process, the GAO report says. Experts in the field review grant applications submitted to NSF and figure out in the event that proposals meet certain criteria, including the intellectual merit of the proposed activity, such as for instance its importance in advancing knowledge; the qualifications of the proposing scientist; together with extent to which the project is creative and original. The criteria also inquire about the broader impacts of this proposal, including how it advances discovery while promoting teaching, and just how it benefits society. How scientists fared in prior NSF grants are included in the evaluation. Proposals received by the NSF are reviewed by an NSF program officer and usually three to 10 outside NSF specialists in the world of the proposal. Authors can suggest names of reviewers. Program officers obtain comment by mail, panels or visits that are site. Program officer recommendations are further reviewed by senior staff at NSF. A division director then decides whether an award is approved. Another decision is manufactured during the division level after which at a higher level. Continue reading
