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

Peer review: a simplified approach.

A S Russell, B D Thorn, M Grace

    The Journal of Rheumatology
    |June 1, 1983
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Initial grant application reviews showed that detailed expert reports had minimal influence on the original ratings. This suggests a potential bias in the early stages of scientific funding decisions.

    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

    Correction to: PANLAR consensus statement on biosimilars.

    Clinical rheumatology·2019
    Same author

    PANLAR consensus statement on biosimilars.

    Clinical rheumatology·2019
    Same author

    Hot joints: myth or reality? A thermographic joint assessment of inflammatory arthritis patients.

    Clinical rheumatology·2018
    Same author

    Critical impact of patient knowledge and bone density testing on starting osteoporosis treatment after fragility fracture: secondary analyses from two controlled trials.

    Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA·2014
    Same author

    Cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve quality of osteoporosis care after wrist fracture.

    Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA·2010
    Same author

    SPINAL ANAESTHESIA IN ACUTE OBSTRUCTION.

    British medical journal·2010
    Same journal

    Clinical Features and Outcome Measures Across Still Disease (Systemic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis and Adult-Onset Still Disease) Cohorts Worldwide: A Systematic Literature Review.

    The Journal of rheumatology·2026
    Same journal

    Concurrent Calcium Pyrophosphate Deposition Disease and Gout of the Cervical Spine Presenting With Subacute Neck Pain and Radiculopathy.

    The Journal of rheumatology·2026
    Same journal

    The Need for Weight Communication Guidelines in Pediatric Rheumatology.

    The Journal of rheumatology·2026
    Same journal

    Bimekizumab Improves Health Status and Work Productivity, With Reduced Productivity Costs, to 3 Years in Axial Spondyloarthritis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

    The Journal of rheumatology·2026
    Same journal

    Qualitative Analysis of Physical Activity Engagement in Women with Self-Reported SLE: The Role of Symptoms, Healthcare Providers, and the Environment.

    The Journal of rheumatology·2026
    Same journal

    Tumoral Calcinosis-like Calcification of the Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Mimicking Rheumatoid Arthritis Flare.

    The Journal of rheumatology·2026
    See all related articles

    Area of Science:

    • Grant funding processes
    • Scientific review panels
    • Research administration

    Background:

    • Grant applications undergo multi-stage reviews.
    • Expert opinions are crucial in funding allocation.
    • Assessing the impact of review stages is important for process improvement.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To evaluate the influence of detailed expert reviews on initial grant application ratings.
    • To understand the decision-making process in scientific grant allocation.

    Main Methods:

    • One hundred thirteen grant applications were initially reviewed based on brief outlines.
    • Applications were subsequently reviewed in detail with expert referee reports.
    • The impact of detailed reviews on initial ratings was statistically analyzed.

    Related Experiment Videos

    Main Results:

    • Initial ratings of grant applications showed little change after detailed review and expert input.
    • The detailed discussion and referees' reports had a negligible effect on the preliminary assessments.

    Conclusions:

    • Early-stage assessments in grant applications may be resistant to later detailed evaluations.
    • The findings suggest potential biases or established opinions influencing initial grant reviews.
    • Further research is needed to optimize the grant review process for objectivity.