ArticleResearch Evaluation2017
'Your comments are meaner than your score': score calibration talk influences intra- and inter-panel variability during scientific grant peer review.
Article in Research Evaluation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- A randomized controlled trial on anonymizing reviewers to each other in peer review discussions.PloS one · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Article
- Threats to grant peer review: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Alternative models of funding curiosity-driven research.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Biomedical research grant resubmission: rates and factors related to success - a scoping review.BMJ open · 2024Article
- How do authors' perceptions of their papers compare with co-authors' perceptions and peer-review decisions?PloS one · 2024Article
- A new approach to grant review assessments: score, then rank.Research integrity and peer review · 2023Article
- The role of author identities in peer review.PloS one · 2023Article
- Community review: a robust and scalable selection system for resource allocation within open science and innovation communities.F1000Research · 2022Article
- Grant Review Feedback: Appropriateness and Usefulness.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Perspective commentary from the Society for Pediatric Research: supporting early-stage pediatric physician-scientist success.Pediatric research · 2020Article
- Article
- Grant reviewer perceptions of the quality, effectiveness, and influence of panel discussion.Research integrity and peer review · 2020Article
- What makes an effective grants peer reviewer? An exploratory study of the necessary skills.PloS one · 2020Article
- Recommendations for Reviewers of Biomedical Imaging Grant Applications.Molecular imaging and biology · 2019Article
- Laughter and the Chair: Social Pressures Influencing Scoring During Grant Peer Review Meetings.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Article
- Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2018Article
- Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In scientific grant peer review, groups of expert scientists meet to engage in the collaborative decision-making task of evaluating and scoring grant applications. Prior research on grant peer review has established that inter-reviewer reliability is typically poor. In the current study, experienced reviewers for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were recruited to participate in one of four constructed peer review panel meetings. Each panel discussed and scored the same pool of recently reviewed NIH grant applications. We examined the degree of intra-panel variability in panels' scores of the applications before versus after collaborative discussion, and the degree of inter-panel variability. We also analyzed videotapes of reviewers' interactions for instances of one particular form of discourse-
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.