Academic Psychiatry

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 5–10 | Cite as

Using Peer Review to Improve Research and Promote Collaboration

  • David J. Kupfer
  • Anneliese N. Murphree
  • Paul A. Pilkonis
  • Judy L. Cameron
  • Rosary T. Giang
  • Nathan E. Dodds
  • Kasey A. Godard
  • David A. Lewis
Empirical Report

Abstract

Objective

The declining success rate of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant applications highlights the need for interdisciplinary work within a large, diverse department to improve chances of federal funding success. The authors demonstrate how systematic peer review promotes two goals: enhancing the quality of research proposals and cultivating a collaborative departmental culture.

Methods

Changes to the Research Review Committee (RRC) in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh were instituted to accommodate the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of grant applications, integrate revisions to NIH grant application processes, and incorporate advances in computer technology.

Results

The internal peer review process is associated with success in obtaining research support and with significant levels of collaborative scientific work reflected in both grant applications and peer-reviewed publications.

Conclusions

A rich collaborative environment promoted through a rigorous internal peer review system has many benefits for both the quality of scholarly work and the collegiality of the research environment.

Keywords

Peer review Collaboration Research Grant applications 

References

  1. 1.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Office of Research Information Systems (ORIS)/Office of Statistical Analysis and Reporting (OSAR), (2012). Research Project Grants (RPGs) and Other Mechanisms: Fiscal year 2012. (NIH RePORT Table No. 205-A). Retrieved from http://report.nih.gov/UploadDocs/T205%20abc%202012_1.xls
  2. 2.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Office of Research Information Systems (ORIS) / Office of Statistical Analysis and Reporting (OSAR). (2012). NIH Research Project and R01 Equivalent Grants: Fiscal Years 2003–2012. (NIH RePORT Table No. 209). Retrieved from http://report.nih.gov/UploadDocs/T209%202012%20Succ%20Rates%20ALL%20RPG%20and%20R01%20Eq%20by%20Num%20of%20Amends_1.xls
  3. 3.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review. (2011, September 29). NIH Peer Review Process Revealed. Retrieved from http://public.csr.nih.gov/Pages/default.aspx
  4. 4.
    Kearney MH, Baggs J, Broome M, et al. Experience, time investment, and motivators of nursing journal peer reviewers. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2008;40(4):395–400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lipworth WL, Kerridge IH, Carter S, et al. Journal peer review in context: a qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(7):1056–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academic Psychiatry 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • David J. Kupfer
    • 1
  • Anneliese N. Murphree
    • 1
  • Paul A. Pilkonis
    • 1
  • Judy L. Cameron
    • 1
  • Rosary T. Giang
    • 1
  • Nathan E. Dodds
    • 1
  • Kasey A. Godard
    • 1
  • David A. Lewis
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Pittsburgh School of MedicinePittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations