Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 11, 2026

Involving Individuals with Developmental Language Disorder and Their Parents/Carers in Research Priority Setting
Published on: June 6, 2020
Inappropriate and appropriate selection of 'peers' in grant review
1Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco 94143-0124.
Objective:
To assess the members of the California Tobacco Related Diseases Research Program Behavioral and Public Health Research on Tobacco Study Section and those of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) Dissemination Study Section as "peers" to review tobacco policy research. Both study sections reviewed a similar grant application on tobacco policy research written by one of us (S.A.G.).
Design:
Search of MEDLINE for 1989 through 1993 with the keyword tobacco for Tobacco Related Diseases Research Program and AHCPR reviewers. As a control, the National Institutes of Health Cardiovascular Study Section, which reviewed a ventricular function grant submitted by the same author with the keyword heart, was analyzed.
Setting:
Not applicable.
Patients Or Other Participants:
Study section members.
Interventions:
None.
Main Outcome Measures:
Publications by study section members in areas germane to the proposal being reviewed.
Results:
Six (33%) of 18 Tobacco Related Diseases Research Program reviewers had no "tobacco" publications (median, two publications; interquartile range, zero to four). The members' "tobacco" publications concentrated on well-controlled experimental interventions on smoking cessation and prevention strategies, not tobacco policy. Only one member had primary expertise in tobacco policy research. None of the AHCPR reviewers had "tobacco" publications. All 31 (100%) of the National Institutes of Health reviewers had "heart" publications (median, nine publications; interquartile range, seven to 19). Five members had a primary interest in the subject of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute application.
Conclusions:
Study section members' professional interests play a critical role in the level of interest and enthusiasm they will have for a proposal, which affects the priority score. In contrast to the study section that reviewed the heart grant, the study sections that reviewed the tobacco control grant were not "peers." The membership of these review committees has effectively precluded research on tobacco control policy.
More Related Videos
08:24The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies
Published on: August 25, 2023
10:39Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning
Published on: August 29, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Types of Selection
Frequency-dependent Selection
Group Design
Quantifying and Rejecting Outliers: The Grubbs Test
Influence of Parents and Peers on Identity
Parental Influence on Identity Development
Parents serve as primary guides and managers in an adolescent's life, offering support instrumental in decision-making and personal growth. This guiding role...
Social Foundations of Self II: The Generalized Other