Update: The Chronicle of Higher Education has an article about NIH efforts to lure back senior reviewers, including an update on pilot peer review reform projects underway and a table at the end showing the percentage of assistant professors serving on CSR panels for 2002, 2005, and 2007. The numbers? 8%, 10%, 7%, respectively.
The Peer Review Advisory Committee (not to be confused with the Working Group of the Advisory Committee to the NIH Director on NIH Peer Review) met today, and the presentations seem to all be uploaded … except for the Great Zerhouni’s update on NIH Peer Review Enhancements. So, we have:
– Toni Scarpa on CSR Initiatives to Improve Peer Review (most bang for the buck re: content)
– Megan Columbus on Electronic Submission Update (transition to Adobe not until Dec 2008 – tentatively)
– Marion Mueller on Peer Review in Germany (leads with quote “Peer review is 50% garbage, 50% malice, and 10% good advice.”)
– Olivia Bartlett & Shamala Srinivas on Instantaneous Electronic Scoring of Multicomponent Applications (P01, P50, U19, U54)
Norka Ruiz Bravo has two slides comparing outcomes in women and men and new and established investigators. For 2006, it seems 11% of women and 9% of men scored within the top 10% in CSR study sections. According to the May 2008 council meetings (nice trick to provide these data on April 30th), 13% of new investigators and 18% of established investigators had Type 1 applications scoring within the 20th percentile. Interestingly, the May councils in 2001 and 2002 showed the distribution to be 15% and 17%, respectively, with the gap creeping up in May 2006 (14% vs 18%) and again in May 2007 (14% vs 19%).