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 in requests for subsidy]

F G Jennekens, H F Busch

    Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Geneeskunde
    |March 29, 1997
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Scientific journal peer review is thorough, unlike fund granting peer review which often lacks transparency. The study suggests adopting journal peer review standards for grant applications and establishing an ombudsperson to handle complaints, improving fairness in 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

    B-50/GAP-43 in neuronal development and repair.

    Restorative neurology and neuroscience·2011
    Same author

    Upregulation of B-50/GAP-43 in Schwann cells at denervated motor endplates and in motoneurons after rat facial nerve crush.

    Restorative neurology and neuroscience·2011
    Same author

    No evidence for enhancement of recovery from a crush lesion of a motor nerve in rats by Org2766.

    Restorative neurology and neuroscience·2011
    Same author

    [Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: mechanical ventilation--or not right?].

    Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde·2004
    Same author

    [The symptomatic treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis].

    Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde·2004
    Same author

    Diagnostic and classification criteria for the Guillain-Barré syndrome.

    European neurology·2001

    Area of Science:

    • Scientific communication
    • Research funding
    • Peer review processes

    Context:

    • Peer review is critical in both scientific publishing and research funding.
    • Current grant peer review processes can lack transparency and fairness, leaving applicants uncertain.
    • Journal peer review is generally perceived as more thorough and informative.

    Purpose:

    • To evaluate and compare the peer review processes in scientific journals and fund granting institutions.
    • To propose improvements for the fairness and transparency of grant peer review.
    • To advocate for the adoption of journal peer review standards in grant funding.

    Summary:

    • Scientific journals employ thorough peer review, providing authors with clear feedback.
    • Fund granting institutions' peer review often lacks transparency, causing applicant dissatisfaction.

    Related Experiment Videos

  • Recommendations include aligning grant peer review with journal standards and establishing an ombudsperson for complaints.

    • Impact:

    • Enhancing the fairness and transparency of research funding allocation.
    • Improving the applicant experience in the grant funding process.
    • Strengthening the integrity and credibility of scientific research funding mechanisms.