Evaluating Grant Peer Review in the Health Sciences

A review of the literature

by Sharif Ismail, Alice Farrands, Steven Wooding

View related products

Download eBook for Free

Full Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.3 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 7.0 or higher for the best experience.

Summary Only

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.1 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 7.0 or higher for the best experience.

Abstract

More than 95% of the £2 billion of public funding for medical research each year in the UK is allocated by peer review. Long viewed as a respected process of quality assurance for research, grant peer review has lately been criticised by a growing number of people within the scientific community and without. Detractors highlight its perceived inefficiency, and structural flaws that compromise its effectiveness in allocating funding. This report presents the findings of a wide-ranging literature review to evaluate these criticisms. It concludes with a short discussion of simple modifications to the peer review process that might help to address some of them. The research for the report was conducted with funding support from RAND Europe's Health R&D Policy Research Unit with the Department of Health (England). It is available in English only.

Table of Contents

  • Chapter One

    Introduction

  • Chapter Two

    Grant Peer Review: the context

  • Chapter Three

    Systems of Grant Peer Review

  • Chapter Four

    Evaluating Grant Peer Review: what do we know?

  • Chapter Five

    Modifying Grant Peer Review: some options

  • Chapter Six

    Conclusions

Research conducted by

The research described in this report was prepared as part of RAND Europe's Health Research System Observatory report series, with funding support from the English Department of Health.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation technical report series. RAND technical reports may include research findings on a specific topic that is limited in scope or intended for a narrow audience; present discussions of the methodology employed in research; provide literature reviews, survey instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and supporting documentation; or deliver preliminary findings. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet high standards for research quality and objectivity.

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.