Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Sample size and precision in NIH peer review.

David Kaplan1, Nicola Lacetera, Celia Kaplan

  • 1Department of Pathology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America. david.kaplan@case.edu

Plos One
|July 24, 2008
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Data processing pipeline for managing enteric methane emissions from sniffer: Application on dairy farming systems.

JDS communications·2026
Same author

Human Herpesvirus-6A and -6B (HHV-6A and HHV-6B): The Role of Roseoloviruses in Neurological Dysfunction and the Mechanisms of Viral-Induced Epileptogenesis.

Viruses·2026
Same author

Real-time milk traits and wearable sensor-derived rumination and feeding behaviors for assessing heat stress effects in dairy cattle.

Journal of dairy science·2026
Same author

Integrating climate scenarios and thermal welfare thresholds to project future heat stress risk in beef cattle.

International journal of biometeorology·2026
Same author

Nonlinear Bivariate Associations and Mononuclear Cell-Type-Specific Expression Level Differences in the STING Signalling Pathway.

Journal of cellular and molecular medicine·2026
Same author

Differential survival benefit of curative versus non-curative intent treatment in a real-world cohort with early and intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma.

Hepatology communications·2026
Same journal

Invaders taking over-Mollusc faunal change in volcanic barrier lakes of the Albertine Rift biodiversity hotspot.

PloS one·2026
Same journal

AI-driven molecular diversification and ligand-based optimization of macitentan derivatives targeting VEGFR1 and endothelin signaling pathways.

PloS one·2026
Same journal

Performance patterns and records in the world aquatics masters championships: Where do the most frequently represented nations among the top-ten masters swimmers come from?

PloS one·2026
Same journal

Modeling diurnal Temperature-Rainfall relationships under multicollinearity using PLS-SEM: A case study of Ghana.

PloS one·2026
Same journal

Organizational culture, social capital, and emergency capacity in primary healthcare institutions: A cross-sectional structural equation modeling study comparing ordinary and older communities.

PloS one·2026
Same journal

Impact of kidney function on the metabolome in the general population.

PloS one·2026
See all related articles

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) peer review system needs more reviewers. Current recommendations lack the precision required for accurate grant application evaluation, necessitating system adjustments.

Area of Science:

  • Biomedical research funding
  • Grant review processes
  • Scientific evaluation methodologies

Background:

  • The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Advisory Committee to the Director's Working Group on Peer Review recommended a minimum of four reviewers per grant application.
  • Existing peer review practices may not meet the precision standards required for robust scientific evaluation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To analyze the sample size of reviewers needed for grant applications.
  • To determine if the current number of reviewers provides adequate precision in evaluations.
  • To recommend adjustments to the NIH peer review system.

Main Methods:

  • Conducted a sample size analysis focused on the number of evaluators for grant applications.
  • Assessed the precision levels achieved with different numbers of reviewers.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Compared required precision levels with those currently mandated by NIH.

    • Main Results:

    • A substantially larger number of evaluators than currently recommended are necessary to achieve mandated precision.
    • The current peer review system may not provide sufficient precision in grant application assessments.
    • The analysis highlights a discrepancy between recommended and required reviewer numbers for adequate precision.

    Conclusions:

    • The NIH peer review system requires adjustment to incorporate a larger number of reviewers.
    • Implementing a revised reviewer allocation is crucial for ensuring adequate precision in grant evaluations.
    • Enhancing the precision of grant assessments is vital for scientific funding allocation.