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

Chance and consensus in peer review

S Cole, J R Cole, G A Simon

    Science (New York, N.Y.)
    |November 20, 1981
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Research grant funding significantly relies on chance due to reviewer variability. Proposal outcomes often depend on the specific reviewers assigned, not systematic bias.

    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

    Beyond congenital anomalies, the impact of sodium valproate exposure in utero on long-term health and well-being: A contribution from the ConcePTION project.

    Epilepsia·2026
    Same author

    Neonatal Outcomes Following Antenatal Identification of Twin-To-Twin Transfusion Syndrome.

    Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992)·2026
    Same author

    Clinical Features, Treatment and Outcomes of Dogs With Psoriasiform Lichenoid Dermatosis Associated With Calcineurin Inhibitor Therapy.

    Veterinary dermatology·2025
    Same author

    Activity outcomes after hip arthroplasty: an information tool based on patients' experience captured in a hospital registry.

    BMC musculoskeletal disorders·2025
    Same author

    Neural and Behavioral Correlates of Individual Variability in Rat Helping Behavior: A Role for Social Affiliation and Oxytocin Receptors.

    The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience·2025
    Same author

    Neurodevelopmental outcomes in children and adults with Fetal Valproate Spectrum Disorder: A contribution from the ConcePTION project.

    Neurotoxicology and teratology·2023
    Same journal

    Erratum for the Research Article "Detecting supramolecular organic nanoparticles during heat wave".

    Science (New York, N.Y.)·2026
    Same journal

    Local signals, systemic decline.

    Science (New York, N.Y.)·2026
    Same journal

    The mechanics of liver regeneration.

    Science (New York, N.Y.)·2026
    Same journal

    Computing in a memory with physics.

    Science (New York, N.Y.)·2026
    Same journal

    Retraction.

    Science (New York, N.Y.)·2026
    Same journal

    Making time.

    Science (New York, N.Y.)·2026
    See all related articles

    Area of Science:

    • Scientific funding processes
    • Peer review in research

    Background:

    • Grant funding is crucial for scientific advancement.
    • Evaluating research proposals involves subjective reviewer assessments.
    • The National Science Foundation (NSF) manages significant research funding.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To investigate the role of chance in research grant allocation.
    • To quantify the impact of reviewer selection on funding decisions.
    • To assess potential systematic biases in National Science Foundation (NSF) reviewer selection.

    Main Methods:

    • An experiment involving 150 proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation (NSF).
    • Independent evaluation of proposals by a distinct set of reviewers.
    • Analysis of reviewer disagreement and its effect on funding outcomes.

    Related Experiment Videos

    Main Results:

    • A significant influence of chance on research grant awards was identified.
    • High levels of reviewer disagreement were observed.
    • Funding decisions were found to be highly dependent on the specific reviewers selected for a proposal.
    • No evidence indicated systematic bias in the NSF reviewer selection process.

    Conclusions:

    • The current peer review system for research grants introduces a substantial element of randomness.
    • Variability in reviewer judgment significantly impacts the equitable distribution of research funding.
    • While bias was not detected, the reliance on chance warrants further examination of the grant review process.