The Participation and Motivations of Grant Peer Reviewers: A Comprehensive Survey
- 8 Downloads
Scientific peer reviewers play an integral role in the grant selection process, yet very little has been reported on the levels of participation or the motivations of scientists to take part in peer review. The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) developed a comprehensive peer review survey that examined the motivations and levels of participation of grant reviewers. The survey was disseminated to 13,091 scientists in AIBS’s proprietary database. Of the 874 respondents, 76% indicated they had reviewed grant applications in the last 3 years; however, the number of reviews was unevenly distributed across this sample. Higher review loads were associated with respondents who had submitted more grant proposals over this time period, some of whom were likely to be study section members for large funding agencies. The most prevalent reason to participate in a review was to give back to the scientific community (especially among frequent grant submitters) and the most common reason to decline an invitation to review was lack of time. Interestingly, few suggested that expectation from the funding agency was a motivation to review. Most felt that review participation positively influenced their careers through improving grantsmanship and exposure to new scientific ideas. Of those who reviewed, respondents reported dedicating 2–5% of their total annual work time to grant review and, based on their self-reported maximum review loads, it is estimated they are participating at 56–87% of their capacity, which may have important implications regarding the sustainability of the system. Overall, it is clear that participation in peer review is uneven and in some cases near capacity, and more needs to be done to create new motivations and incentives to increase the future pool of reviewers.
KeywordsPeer review Participation Sustainability Research funding Grant applications Motivation Survey
- Amero, S. A. (2015). Enhancing peer review: Expectation for service on NIH peer review and advisory groups. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-089.html. Accessed November 2018.
- CDMRP. (2018). CDMRP’s two-tiered review process. http://cdmrp.army.mil/about/2tierRevProcess. Accessed November 2018.
- DataUSA. (2016). Biochemistry, biophysics and molecular biology: Diversity. https://datausa.io/profile/cip/26/?compare=2602. Accessed November 2018.
- Gallo, S., Thompson, L., Schmaling, K., & Glisson, S. (2019). Grant reviewer perceptions of panel discussion in face-to-face and virtual formats: Lessons from team science? BioRxiv, 586685.Google Scholar
- Herbert, D., Barnett, A., Clarke, P., & Graves, N. (2013). On the time spent preparing grant proposals: An observational study of Australian researchers. British Medical Journal Open, 3(5), e002800.Google Scholar
- Irwin, D., Gallo, S., & Glisson, S. (2013). Opinion: Learning from peer review. The Scientist. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/35608/title/Opinion–Learning-from-Peer-Review/. Accessed November 2018.
- Lauer, M. (2018). FY2017 by the numbers. https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2018/03/07/fy-2017-by-the-numbers/. Accessed November 2018.
- National Institutes of Health. (2008). 2007–2008 Peer review self-study final draft. http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/meetings/nihpeerreviewreportfinaldraft.pdf. Accessed November 2018.
- National Institute of Health. (2012). Enhancing Peer review survey results report_2012. https://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/docs/Enhancing_Peer_Review_Report_2012.pdf. Accessed November 2018.
- National Institute of Health. (2018). Become a reviewer: Benefits. https://public.csr.nih.gov/ForReviewers/BecomeAReviewer/ECR/Benefits. Accessed November 2018.
- National Science Foundation. (2015). Women, minorities and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17310/digest/occupation/women.cfm. Accessed November 2018.
- National Science Foundation. (2018). Funding rate by state and organization. https://dellweb.bfa.nsf.gov/awdfr3/default.asp. Accessed November 2018.
- Rockey, S. (2015). Understanding the capacity of NIH’s peer review system. https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2015/07/30/understanding-capacity-peer-review/. Accessed November 2018.
- Sense About Science. (2009). Peer review survey. http://archive.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peer-review-survey-2009.html. Accessed November 2018.
- Ware, M. (2008). Peer review: Benefits, perceptions and alternatives. London: Publishing Research Consortium.Google Scholar
- Ware, M., & Monkman, M. (2008). Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community—An international study. London: Publishing Research Consortium.Google Scholar