Limits...
A retrospective analysis of the effect of discussion in teleconference and face-to-face scientific peer-review panels.

Carpenter AS, Sullivan JH, Deshmukh A, Glisson SR, Gallo SA - BMJ Open (2015)

Bottom Line: The effect of discussion was found to be small, on average, in both settings.Small differences were uncovered relating to the effect of discussion between settings, including a decrease in the magnitude of the effect in the teleconference panels as compared to face-to-face.Additionally, panel discussion was found to often result in a poorer score (as opposed to an improvement) when compared to reviewer premeeting scores.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Scientific Peer Advisory & Review Services, American Institute of Biological Sciences, Reston, Virginia, USA.

No MeSH data available.


(A) Relationship between common /ΔPS/ and average /ΔA/ for face-to-face reviews in 2009 and 2010. (B). Relationship between common /ΔPS/ and average /ΔA/ for teleconference reviews in 2011 and 2012.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4563222&req=5

BMJOPEN2015009138F2: (A) Relationship between common /ΔPS/ and average /ΔA/ for face-to-face reviews in 2009 and 2010. (B). Relationship between common /ΔPS/ and average /ΔA/ for teleconference reviews in 2011 and 2012.

Mentions: To examine reviewer contentiousness and its relationship to the magnitude of the EOD, we plotted common /ΔPS/ versus average /ΔA/, which revealed that there was a moderate correlation for the face-to-face setting (R2=0.35; p=0.002). For the teleconference setting, there was a strong correlation (R2=0.73; p<0.001) (figures 2A, B). These data demonstrate that, in general, the more contentious applications premeeting (large ΔPS) resulted in larger score shifts following discussion, compared to those applications that were less contentious premeeting.


A retrospective analysis of the effect of discussion in teleconference and face-to-face scientific peer-review panels.

Carpenter AS, Sullivan JH, Deshmukh A, Glisson SR, Gallo SA - BMJ Open (2015)

(A) Relationship between common /ΔPS/ and average /ΔA/ for face-to-face reviews in 2009 and 2010. (B). Relationship between common /ΔPS/ and average /ΔA/ for teleconference reviews in 2011 and 2012.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4563222&req=5

BMJOPEN2015009138F2: (A) Relationship between common /ΔPS/ and average /ΔA/ for face-to-face reviews in 2009 and 2010. (B). Relationship between common /ΔPS/ and average /ΔA/ for teleconference reviews in 2011 and 2012.
Mentions: To examine reviewer contentiousness and its relationship to the magnitude of the EOD, we plotted common /ΔPS/ versus average /ΔA/, which revealed that there was a moderate correlation for the face-to-face setting (R2=0.35; p=0.002). For the teleconference setting, there was a strong correlation (R2=0.73; p<0.001) (figures 2A, B). These data demonstrate that, in general, the more contentious applications premeeting (large ΔPS) resulted in larger score shifts following discussion, compared to those applications that were less contentious premeeting.

Bottom Line: The effect of discussion was found to be small, on average, in both settings.Small differences were uncovered relating to the effect of discussion between settings, including a decrease in the magnitude of the effect in the teleconference panels as compared to face-to-face.Additionally, panel discussion was found to often result in a poorer score (as opposed to an improvement) when compared to reviewer premeeting scores.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Scientific Peer Advisory & Review Services, American Institute of Biological Sciences, Reston, Virginia, USA.

No MeSH data available.