Commentary

New guidelines for nih peer review: Improving the system or undermining it?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) peer review system has been viewed as the best way to guarantee the scientific independence of biomedical research in the United States, and it has been emulated internationally. The system, however, is subject to a variety of stresses, and these have always been exacerbated at times of flat NIH funding, as in the past five years. To address several of these stresses, NIH first conducted a "diagnostic self-study" of the peer review system and then implemented a number of changes. Costello, in a Perspective in this issue of Academic Medicine, argues that two of these changes, special consideration for new investigators and emphasis of the criterion of "innovation," undermine the stated goal of funding the "best science by the best scientists." In this commentary on Costellos Perspective article, the author examines the issue of NIH funding of new investigators from a historical perspective, in the context of overall NIH priority setting in resource allocation. The related issue of innovation as a criterion in NIH peer review is also addressed, and the commentary concludes with an affirmation of the need to measure outcomes in assessing the impact of changes in the NIH peer review system.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)746-748
Number of pages3
JournalAcademic Medicine
Volume85
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2010

Fingerprint

Peer Review
National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
peer review
Guidelines
health
funding
Research Personnel
innovation
Health Priorities
self-study
Resource Allocation
Biomedical Research
guarantee
diagnostic
Medicine
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
medicine
science
resources

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Education

Cite this

Commentary : New guidelines for nih peer review: Improving the system or undermining it? / Spiegel, Allen M.

In: Academic Medicine, Vol. 85, No. 5, 05.2010, p. 746-748.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{b3d1140880a94722b1de0bc8e500b3e3,
title = "Commentary: New guidelines for nih peer review: Improving the system or undermining it?",
abstract = "The National Institutes of Health (NIH) peer review system has been viewed as the best way to guarantee the scientific independence of biomedical research in the United States, and it has been emulated internationally. The system, however, is subject to a variety of stresses, and these have always been exacerbated at times of flat NIH funding, as in the past five years. To address several of these stresses, NIH first conducted a {"}diagnostic self-study{"} of the peer review system and then implemented a number of changes. Costello, in a Perspective in this issue of Academic Medicine, argues that two of these changes, special consideration for new investigators and emphasis of the criterion of {"}innovation,{"} undermine the stated goal of funding the {"}best science by the best scientists.{"} In this commentary on Costellos Perspective article, the author examines the issue of NIH funding of new investigators from a historical perspective, in the context of overall NIH priority setting in resource allocation. The related issue of innovation as a criterion in NIH peer review is also addressed, and the commentary concludes with an affirmation of the need to measure outcomes in assessing the impact of changes in the NIH peer review system.",
author = "Spiegel, {Allen M.}",
year = "2010",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d7e130",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "85",
pages = "746--748",
journal = "Academic Medicine",
issn = "1040-2446",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Commentary

T2 - New guidelines for nih peer review: Improving the system or undermining it?

AU - Spiegel, Allen M.

PY - 2010/5

Y1 - 2010/5

N2 - The National Institutes of Health (NIH) peer review system has been viewed as the best way to guarantee the scientific independence of biomedical research in the United States, and it has been emulated internationally. The system, however, is subject to a variety of stresses, and these have always been exacerbated at times of flat NIH funding, as in the past five years. To address several of these stresses, NIH first conducted a "diagnostic self-study" of the peer review system and then implemented a number of changes. Costello, in a Perspective in this issue of Academic Medicine, argues that two of these changes, special consideration for new investigators and emphasis of the criterion of "innovation," undermine the stated goal of funding the "best science by the best scientists." In this commentary on Costellos Perspective article, the author examines the issue of NIH funding of new investigators from a historical perspective, in the context of overall NIH priority setting in resource allocation. The related issue of innovation as a criterion in NIH peer review is also addressed, and the commentary concludes with an affirmation of the need to measure outcomes in assessing the impact of changes in the NIH peer review system.

AB - The National Institutes of Health (NIH) peer review system has been viewed as the best way to guarantee the scientific independence of biomedical research in the United States, and it has been emulated internationally. The system, however, is subject to a variety of stresses, and these have always been exacerbated at times of flat NIH funding, as in the past five years. To address several of these stresses, NIH first conducted a "diagnostic self-study" of the peer review system and then implemented a number of changes. Costello, in a Perspective in this issue of Academic Medicine, argues that two of these changes, special consideration for new investigators and emphasis of the criterion of "innovation," undermine the stated goal of funding the "best science by the best scientists." In this commentary on Costellos Perspective article, the author examines the issue of NIH funding of new investigators from a historical perspective, in the context of overall NIH priority setting in resource allocation. The related issue of innovation as a criterion in NIH peer review is also addressed, and the commentary concludes with an affirmation of the need to measure outcomes in assessing the impact of changes in the NIH peer review system.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77953573547&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77953573547&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d7e130

DO - 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d7e130

M3 - Article

VL - 85

SP - 746

EP - 748

JO - Academic Medicine

JF - Academic Medicine

SN - 1040-2446

IS - 5

ER -