A critical look at peer review

Grant reviews by colleagues, i.e., peer-review, is a solid foundation of the science-making process. While this appears at first sight to be an immutable dogma, several criticisms have been increasingly voiced by the scientific community, indicating that the ideal peer-review process is far from established. One of the major criticisms has been a perceived lack of objectivity and expertise. In this context, a group of investigators from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, Bethesda, USA, led by Michael Lauer, performed a follow-up study of NIH RO1 grant (the equivalent of a “regular project”) impact and asked whether such impact could be predicted by the score grant level at the

Read More...