Breaches of Peer Review Integrity

Sally Amero, Ph.D., NIH’s Review Policy Officer and Extramural Research Integrity Liaison Officer It is a priority to us to continue to engage with the community about what constitutes a breach of NIH peer review integrity – including, but not limited to: A reviewer sending grant applications to their postdocs to write their critiquesSomeone revealing that they reviewed a particular applicationA reviewer disclosing how another reviewer scored an applicationA principal investigator (PI) approaching a reviewer at a scientific conference to discuss her/his institution’s application in which s/he is designated as PI Yes, each of these constitutes a breach of NIH peer review integrity. The NIH defines a breach of review integrity as any violation of a core value of NIH peer review: In previous communications, we outlined NIH policy on confidentiality of the peer review process and the responsibility of all those involved to uphold integrity. We also outlined potential consequences of breaches of review integrity, such as terminating the review or Council member’s service in peer review, pursuing a referral for suspension or debarment, or other possibilities that could result in criminal penalties. Maintaining review integrity continues to be a matter of great concern, not only to the NIH but to the entire biomedical research community.  Our attention to peer review integrity has been heightened with our growing awareness of the ...
Source: NIH Extramural Nexus - Category: Research Authors: Tags: blog Open Mike Enhancing Peer Review Source Type: funding