| Title |
Sample Size and Precision in NIH Peer Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, July 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0002761 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Kaplan, Nicola Lacetera, Celia Kaplan |
| Abstract |
The Working Group on Peer Review of the Advisory Committee to the Director of NIH has recommended that at least 4 reviewers should be used to assess each grant application. A sample size analysis of the number of reviewers needed to evaluate grant applications reveals that a substantially larger number of evaluators are required to provide the level of precision that is currently mandated. NIH should adjust their peer review system to account for the number of reviewers needed to provide adequate precision in their evaluations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 8% |
| Germany | 2 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 41 | 82% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 20% |
| Researcher | 9 | 18% |
| Professor | 8 | 16% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Physics and Astronomy | 8 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 10% |
| Psychology | 4 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 30% |
| Unknown | 10 | 20% |