Cover: Innovation in the Research Funding Process

Innovation in the Research Funding Process

Peer Review Alternatives and Adaptations

Published in: Academy Health (November 2019)

Posted on Nov 21, 2019

by Susan Guthrie

Like many fields, health services research relies on peer review to assure rigor and relevance. However, evidence demonstrates that the current approach is time-consuming for both researchers and reviewers, has limited power to predict research outcomes, and is subject to conservatism, inconsistent results, and potential bias. Lotteries, self-review, open peer review, innovation prizes, and other approaches have emerged as potential alternatives, but each of these options comes with its own advantages and disadvantages.

Research conducted by

This report is part of the RAND external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

RAND 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.