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 Concept Videos

The Scientific Method01:32

The Scientific Method

275.4K
The scientific method is a detailed, empirical problem-solving process used by biologists and other scientists. This iterative approach involves formulating a question based on observation, developing a testable potential explanation for the observation (called a hypothesis), making and testing predictions based on the hypothesis, and using the findings to create new hypotheses and predictions.
Generally, predictions are tested using carefully-designed experiments. Based on the outcome of these...
275.4K
Proofreading01:43

Proofreading

62.3K
Overview
62.3K
Feedback Inhibition00:46

Feedback Inhibition

58.8K
Biochemical reactions are occurring constantly in cells, converting starting substances to different products, usually with the help of enzymes that speed the reactions. Without enzymes, it would take far too long for most reactions to occur to be useful to the cell!
58.8K
Feedback Loops01:01

Feedback Loops

67.9K
In most cases, excessive hormone production is prevented by negative feedback—a loop that starts with a stimulus inducing the release of a particular substance, like a hormone, to maintain a certain level before triggering a signal that results in a decrease in further release of the hormone.
67.9K
Ethics in Research01:56

Ethics in Research

26.2K
Today, scientists agree that good research is ethical in nature and is guided by a basic respect for human dignity and safety. However, this has not always been the case. Modern researchers must demonstrate that the research they perform is ethically sound.
26.2K
Altruism01:03

Altruism

49.3K
Altruistic behaviors are “unselfish” behaviors—those that help another individual at the expense of the individual carrying out the behavior. Despite the negative consequences for the altruistic animal, these behaviors are thought to have evolved for several reasons.
49.3K

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

Evidence of unreliable data and poor data provenance in clinical prediction model research and clinical practice.

BMC medicine·2026
Same author

A simulation study of a long-term neurodevelopmental care pathway for children with congenital heart disease.

Pediatric research·2026
Same author

Machine learning based screening of potential paper mill publications in cancer research: methodological and cross sectional study.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2026
Same author

A cost-consequence analysis of a nudge intervention to improve hospital care of older people at the end of life: results from a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial.

Age and ageing·2025
Same author

Mandatory research projects during medical specialist training in Australia and New Zealand: a survey of trainees' experiences and reports.

The Medical journal of Australia·2025
Same author

The research literature is an unsafe workplace.

Accountability in research·2024

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Apr 7, 2026

Establishing an Octopus Ecosystem for Biomedical and Bioengineering Research
09:10

Establishing an Octopus Ecosystem for Biomedical and Bioengineering Research

Published on: September 22, 2021

3.3K

Using simplified peer review processes to fund research: a prospective study.

Danielle L Herbert1, Nicholas Graves1, Philip Clarke2

  • 1School of Public Health, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

BMJ Open
|July 4, 2015
PubMed
Summary

Simplified grant peer review processes showed good agreement with the official method, saving significant time and money. Streamlining applications can reallocate funds to research, benefiting scientific advancement.

Keywords:
HEALTH ECONOMICSPUBLIC HEALTH

More Related Videos

Drug Repurposing Hypothesis Generation Using the "RE:fine Drugs" System
05:10

Drug Repurposing Hypothesis Generation Using the "RE:fine Drugs" System

Published on: December 11, 2016

10.3K
Scalable Biomanufacturing Workflow to Produce and Isolate Natural Killer Cell-Derived Extracellular Vesicle-Based Cancer Biotherapeutics
08:50

Scalable Biomanufacturing Workflow to Produce and Isolate Natural Killer Cell-Derived Extracellular Vesicle-Based Cancer Biotherapeutics

Published on: August 16, 2024

1.5K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Apr 7, 2026

Establishing an Octopus Ecosystem for Biomedical and Bioengineering Research
09:10

Establishing an Octopus Ecosystem for Biomedical and Bioengineering Research

Published on: September 22, 2021

3.3K
Drug Repurposing Hypothesis Generation Using the "RE:fine Drugs" System
05:10

Drug Repurposing Hypothesis Generation Using the "RE:fine Drugs" System

Published on: December 11, 2016

10.3K
Scalable Biomanufacturing Workflow to Produce and Isolate Natural Killer Cell-Derived Extracellular Vesicle-Based Cancer Biotherapeutics
08:50

Scalable Biomanufacturing Workflow to Produce and Isolate Natural Killer Cell-Derived Extracellular Vesicle-Based Cancer Biotherapeutics

Published on: August 16, 2024

1.5K

Area of Science:

  • Health Services Research
  • Grant Peer Review
  • Research Funding

Background:

  • The traditional grant peer review process is often lengthy and costly.
  • Exploring simplified peer review methods is crucial for efficient research funding allocation.
  • The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia's official process involves extensive review of long proposals.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To prospectively evaluate two simplified peer review processes for grant proposals.
  • To estimate the agreement in funding outcomes between simplified and official peer review methods.
  • To compare the costs associated with simplified versus the official peer review processes.

Main Methods:

  • A prospective parallel study compared funding outcomes of 72 Project Grant proposals.
  • Two simplified processes were tested: a 7-reviewer panel (simplified panel) and a 2-reviewer independent panel (journal panel).
  • These were compared against the official NHMRC process using longer proposals and 12 reviewers.

Main Results:

  • Agreement between simplified/journal panels and the official process was 72% and 74%, respectively, slightly below the 75% threshold.
  • Simplified peer review processes demonstrated potential annual cost savings of $A2.1-$A4.9 million.
  • The study utilized proposals in Public Health and Basic Science disciplines.

Conclusions:

  • Simplified grant application and peer review processes show reasonable agreement with the official, more complex system.
  • Streamlining peer review saves valuable time and financial resources, allowing reallocation to direct research activities.
  • Funding agencies are encouraged to consider adopting more streamlined application and review procedures.