Abstract
Peer review is an integral part of decision-making processes to effectively allocate funding. However, concerns are consistently being raised about the bias, burden and reliability of peer review. In response, the NIHR Push the Pace-II interview project was conducted in 2016, to increase knowledge about the peer review process from perspectives of applicants, peer reviewers, funding committee members and NIHR staff. Although three themes associated with strengths, challenges and improvements to peer review were presented, further insights from this data could be elicited by using an alternative approach to the analysis.
This study will use an inductive (data-driven) thematic analysis approach to re-analyse anonymised interview data collected as part of the Push the Pace-II work to generate new themes and knowledge about peer review processes from the perspective of all key stakeholders who would be affected by any changes to decision-making practices (e.g. What are the motivations to peer review grant proposals? What are the expectations of reviewers when conducting peer reviews?). Understanding stakeholder expectation about the peer review process will provide essential information about the consequences of modifying and changing the peer review processes, for example impacts to reviewer recruitment and retention, or how peer review is implemented within the decision-making practice.
Aim
I. What are applicants, peer reviewers, funding committee members for NIHR and NIHR staff responsible for managing NIHR peer review process expectations about peer review processes?
II. What, if any, are the key differences in stakeholder expectations about peer review processes within the NIHR?
Intended Impact of the Study
This study will provide in-depth information on key stakeholders’ expectations of the peer review process and how these expectations are managed. This different interpretation of an existing dataset, using a data-driven approach, will provide critical information that is needed in order to fully understand the current landscape of decision-making practices in the NIHR and the potential impact of any changes to peer review processes, which will then be transferable to other disciplines using peer review for funding allocation or accessing scientific quality.
Project Lead
Project Collaborators
Katie Meadmore
Alejandra Recio-Saucedo
Simon Fraser
Amanda Blatch-Jones
Keywords
Research Area(s)
Study Design(s)
Data Collection Method(s)
Participant(s)
Status
Expected completion date: June 30, 2021