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

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

Lessons From an NIH Career: Both/And Thinking to Navigate an Uncertain Future.

Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes·2025
Same author

Safeguarding integrity and collaborations.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2023
Same author

National Institutes of Health research project grant inflation 1998 to 2021.

eLife·2023
Same author

From Hype to High-Quality Research.

JAMA network open·2022
Same author

Biomedical Research COVID-19 Impact Assessment: Lessons Learned and Compelling Needs.

NAM perspectives·2021
Same author

Inequalities in the distribution of National Institutes of Health research project grant funding.

eLife·2021

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Mar 30, 2026

Visualizing Field Data Collection Procedures of Exposure and Biomarker Assessments for the Household Air Pollution Intervention Network Trial in India
09:33

Visualizing Field Data Collection Procedures of Exposure and Biomarker Assessments for the Household Air Pollution Intervention Network Trial in India

Published on: December 23, 2022

3.1K

Reviewing Peer Review at the NIH.

Michael S Lauer1, Richard Nakamura

  • 1From the Office of Extramural Research (M.S.L.) and the Center for Scientific Review (R.N.), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.

The New England Journal of Medicine
|November 13, 2015
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Peer review of National Institutes of Health grant applications may not be failing, despite recent reports suggesting imprecision in predicting research impact. Further analysis is needed to understand the true value of peer review in scientific funding.

More Related Videos

Analysis of Group IV Viral SSHHPS Using In Vitro and In Silico Methods
10:40

Analysis of Group IV Viral SSHHPS Using In Vitro and In Silico Methods

Published on: December 21, 2019

26.6K
An Open-Source Normothermic Perfusion System Designed for Research Scientists
11:23

An Open-Source Normothermic Perfusion System Designed for Research Scientists

Published on: July 18, 2025

1.4K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Mar 30, 2026

Visualizing Field Data Collection Procedures of Exposure and Biomarker Assessments for the Household Air Pollution Intervention Network Trial in India
09:33

Visualizing Field Data Collection Procedures of Exposure and Biomarker Assessments for the Household Air Pollution Intervention Network Trial in India

Published on: December 23, 2022

3.1K
Analysis of Group IV Viral SSHHPS Using In Vitro and In Silico Methods
10:40

Analysis of Group IV Viral SSHHPS Using In Vitro and In Silico Methods

Published on: December 21, 2019

26.6K
An Open-Source Normothermic Perfusion System Designed for Research Scientists
11:23

An Open-Source Normothermic Perfusion System Designed for Research Scientists

Published on: July 18, 2025

1.4K

Area of Science:

  • Biomedical research funding
  • Grant review processes
  • Scientific impact assessment

Background:

  • Recent studies question the accuracy of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant application peer reviews.
  • These reviews are considered imprecise predictors of a research project's ultimate scientific impact.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To re-evaluate the findings regarding the predictive accuracy of NIH grant peer reviews.
  • To determine if perceived imprecision equates to a failure of the peer review system.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of existing reports on NIH grant peer review outcomes.
  • Comparative assessment of peer review scores against actual research impact metrics.

Main Results:

  • While peer review may be imprecise, it does not necessarily indicate a systemic failure.
  • The utility of peer review may extend beyond mere prediction of scientific impact.

Conclusions:

  • The current understanding of peer review's predictive limitations requires nuanced interpretation.
  • Further research should explore alternative or complementary roles of peer review in scientific funding decisions.