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

Catch 22 in the NIH peer review system

E Rosenberg

    Medical Hypotheses
    |January 1, 1976
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    The US National Institutes of Health peer review system for research proposals has issues. Scientists lack control over review committees, and some reviewers may not be active scientists, undermining the peer review process.

    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

    Probing non-equilibrium topological order on a quantum processor.

    Nature·2025
    Same author

    Visualizing dynamics of charges and strings in (2 + 1)D lattice gauge theories.

    Nature·2025
    Same author

    Scaling and logic in the colour code on a superconducting quantum processor.

    Nature·2025
    Same author

    Thermalization and criticality on an analogue-digital quantum simulator.

    Nature·2025
    Same author

    Phase transitions in random circuit sampling.

    Nature·2024
    Same author

    Dynamics of magnetization at infinite temperature in a Heisenberg spin chain.

    Science (New York, N.Y.)·2024
    Same journal

    Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide-Induced Central Sensitization: A Hypothesis for Long COVID Symptoms.

    Medical hypotheses·2026
    Same journal

    Subclinical mastitis during lactation: a modifiable risk factor for breast cancer?

    Medical hypotheses·2025
    Same journal

    The Role of Hemispheric Sensory Shifts: Impacts on Stretch Reflex and Motor Plasticity Post-Stroke.

    Medical hypotheses·2025
    Same journal

    Neuron-Targeted Exosome Therapy: A Novel Approach for Treating Cardiogenic Dementia via RyR2 Inhibition.

    Medical hypotheses·2025
    Same journal

    How the Somatosensory System Adapts to the Motor Change in Stroke: A Hemispheric Shift?

    Medical hypotheses·2024
    Same journal

    Unstable Plaque is a Treatable Cause of Cognitive Decline.

    Medical hypotheses·2024
    See all related articles

    Area of Science:

    • Biomedical research funding
    • Scientific grant review processes

    Background:

    • The peer review system is crucial for assessing research proposals.
    • The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) utilizes a peer review system for grant applications.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To identify and analyze operational problems within the NIH peer review system.
    • To evaluate the effectiveness and fairness of the current NIH grant review process.

    Main Methods:

    • Analysis of the NIH peer review system's operational procedures.
    • Examination of the composition of review committees to assess reviewer qualifications.

    Main Results:

    • Scientists have no control over which committee reviews their research proposals.

    Related Experiment Videos

  • Some NIH review committees include members who are not active scientists, questioning their 'peer' status.

    • Conclusions:

    • The NIH peer review system faces challenges regarding reviewer assignment and committee composition.
    • Potential improvements are needed to ensure appropriate and qualified peer review for all research proposals.