ArticleBMJ open2025
Threats to grant peer review: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesPeer review is ubiquitous in evaluating scientific research. While peer review of manuscripts submitted to journals has been widely studied, there has been relatively less attention paid to peer review of grant applications (despite how crucial peer review is to researchers having the means and capacity to conduct research). There is spirited debate in academic community forums (including on social media) about the perceived benefits and limitations of grant peer review. The aim of our study was to understand the experiences and challenges faced by grant peer reviewers.
methodsTherefore, we conducted qualitative interviews with 18 members of grant review panels-the Chairs, peer reviewers and Scientific Officers of a national funding agency-that highlight threats to the integrity of grant peer review.
resultsWe identified three threats: (1) lack of training and limited opportunities to learn, (2) challenges in differentiating and rating applications of similar strength, and (3) reviewers weighting reputations and relationships in the review process to differentiate grant applications of a similar strength. These threats were compounded by reviewers' stretched resources or lack of time. Our data also highlighted the essential role of the Chair in ensuring transparency and rigorous grant peer review.
conclusionsAs researchers continue to evaluate the threats to grant peer review, the reality of stretched resources and time must be considered. We call on funders and academic institutions to implement practices that reduce reviewer burden.
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.