Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35246264›Full record

ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2022

What works for peer review and decision-making in research funding: a realist synthesis.

Alejandra Recio-Saucedo, Ksenia Crane, Katie Meadmore, Kathryn Fackrell, Hazel Church, Simon Fraser, Amanda Blatch-Jones

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alejandra Recio-Saucedo *Wessex Institute, National Institute of Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK. a.recio-saucedo@soton.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2823-4573
Ksenia Crane *Wessex Institute, National Institute of Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK.
Katie MeadmoreWessex Institute, National Institute of Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK.
Kathryn FackrellWessex Institute, National Institute of Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK.
Hazel ChurchWessex Institute, National Institute of Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK.
Simon FraserWessex Institute, National Institute of Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK.
Amanda Blatch-JonesWessex Institute, National Institute of Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK.
NIHR Evaluation Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre · GB

Funding

National Institute for Health Research Research on Research programme
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAllocation of research funds relies on peer review to support funding decisions, and these processes can be susceptible to biases and inefficiencies. The aim of this work was to determine which past interventions to peer review and decision-making have worked to improve research funding practices, how they worked, and for whom.

methodsRealist synthesis of peer-review publications and grey literature reporting interventions in peer review for research funding.

resultsWe analysed 96 publications and 36 website sources. Sixty publications enabled us to extract stakeholder-specific context-mechanism-outcomes configurations (CMOCs) for 50 interventions, which formed the basis of our synthesis. Shorter applications, reviewer and applicant training, virtual funding panels, enhanced decision models, institutional submission quotas, applicant training in peer review and grant-writing reduced interrater variability, increased relevance of funded research, reduced time taken to write and review applications, promoted increased investment into innovation, and lowered cost of panels.

conclusionsReports of 50 interventions in different areas of peer review provide useful guidance on ways of solving common issues with the peer review process. Evidence of the broader impact of these interventions on the research ecosystem is still needed, and future research should aim to identify processes that consistently work to improve peer review across funders and research contexts.

Indexed as

Decision-making in research fundingGrant allocationHealth researchPeer reviewRealist synthesisResearch on research

Identifiers

PMID35246264
PMCPMC8894828
OpenAlexW4214823042

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.