Why grant application peer review needs you – and vice versa

To be sure we fund important research questions, high-quality research and well-designed studies we need to ask for the opinions of people who best understand that research area. It is a long, difficult and sometimes imperfect process but it is the only way to ensure we allocate finite funds to the very best projects. Peer review at the Medical Research Council Sometimes the office has to approach as many as 15 people to receive only three or four reviews. The Medical Research Council (MRC) peer review process relies on receiving a sufficient number of reviewer comments. The office approaches the best, most relevant experts first, but if they don’t respond, the net has to be widened. Sometimes the office has to approach as many as 15 people to receive only three or four reviews. That situation is not ideal – it’s a huge amount of work, and it could mean that the application is not reviewed by the most appropriate people. Committees, boards and panels bring together people with a wealth of expertise. But no board can comprise experts on all topics. So we need to be absolutely sure that those difficult decisions are based on the best possible evidence, and that’s where peer review comes in. The video below explains the MRC peer review process specifically: Peer reviewer expectations As a peer reviewer, you’re not expected to spend huge amounts of time digging into the literature and checking everything the applicant says they’re going to do. You’re being asked fo...
Source: BioMed Central Blog - Category: Journals (General) Authors: Tags: Medicine Publishing peer review Source Type: blogs