Limits...
Using simplified peer review processes to fund research: a prospective study.

Herbert DL, Graves N, Clarke P, Barnett AG - BMJ Open (2015)

Bottom Line: The official funding outcomes were compared with two simplified processes using proposals in Public Health and Basic Science.We compared the funding outcomes of 72 proposals that were peer reviewed by the simplified and official processes.Funding agencies should consider streamlining their application processes.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Public Health, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

No MeSH data available.


Study design for shortened proposals and simplified peer review processes. The official funding process (shown in grey) was independent of this study.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4499682&req=5

BMJOPEN2015008380F1: Study design for shortened proposals and simplified peer review processes. The official funding process (shown in grey) was independent of this study.

Mentions: This study uses data from simplified and journal peer review panels organised by the research team (figure 1), and the official NHMRC panels for Project Grant proposals.


Using simplified peer review processes to fund research: a prospective study.

Herbert DL, Graves N, Clarke P, Barnett AG - BMJ Open (2015)

Study design for shortened proposals and simplified peer review processes. The official funding process (shown in grey) was independent of this study.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4499682&req=5

BMJOPEN2015008380F1: Study design for shortened proposals and simplified peer review processes. The official funding process (shown in grey) was independent of this study.
Mentions: This study uses data from simplified and journal peer review panels organised by the research team (figure 1), and the official NHMRC panels for Project Grant proposals.

Bottom Line: The official funding outcomes were compared with two simplified processes using proposals in Public Health and Basic Science.We compared the funding outcomes of 72 proposals that were peer reviewed by the simplified and official processes.Funding agencies should consider streamlining their application processes.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Public Health, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

No MeSH data available.