Staff view for Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency

cdi_plos_journals_2037485761

Document Data

	--- !ruby/object:Document::ArticleItem::General
data:
  pnx:
    sort:
      creationdate:
      - '20180511'
      author:
      - Shepherd, Jonathan ; Frampton, Geoff K ; Pickett, Karen ; Wyatt, Jeremy C
      title:
      - 'Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic
        review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency'
    control:
      iscdi:
      - 'true'
      sourceid:
      - gale_plos_
      recordid:
      - cdi_plos_journals_2037485761
      sourcerecordid:
      - A538194994
      originalsourceid:
      - FETCH-LOGICAL-c658t-8dc351ea00f96c9cf91a850522d4986a8e259deae8bc0ebee60eec43beb46d13
      recordtype:
      - article
      addsrcrecordid:
      - eNptk99u0zAUxiMEYmPwBggiISG4aLGT2LG5QKom_lSaNC4mbi3HPm49JXaxk0LfgMfGbbPRoCkXib78zmefo-9k2UuM5ris8YdbPwQn2_nGO5gjzCnH1aPsHPOymNEClY9Pvs-yZzHeIkRKRunT7KzgNUEM1efZn-8AIQ-wtfAr9yZfg2z7dRIiyKDWuRmctm6Vb4Lf-Cjb-DFf5HEXe-hkb1XeyU0unT6V_plZ5_w2ad7F3PiQgzGgersFBzEeypJilQWnds-zJybZw4vxfZHdfPl8c_ltdnX9dXm5uJopSlg_Y1qVBINEyHCquDIcS0YQKQpdcUYlg4JwDRJYoxA0ABQBqKpsoKmoxuVF9vpou2l9FOMMo0gzqitGaronlkdCe3krNsF2MuyEl1YcBB9WQobUZwtC07JkuNGKN2XFDUiKGCaaQQm8ahhNXp_G04amA63A9UG2E9PpH2fXYuW3gvCqZrxOBu9Gg-B_DhB70dmooG2lAz8c7s2KmnDCE_rmP_Th7kZqJVMD1hmfzlV7U7FI6cC84rxK1PwBKj0aOqtS4IxN-qTg_aQgMT387ldyiFEsr39M2bcn7DFw0bfDISdTsDqCKvgYA5j7wWEk9jtw16HY74AYdyCVvTod-n3RXejLv6h0Bgc
      sourcetype:
      - Open Website
      sourceformat:
      - XML
      sourcesystem:
      - Other
      pqid:
      - '2037485761'
      galeid:
      - A538194994
      score:
      - '0.0026427954'
    addata:
      orcidid:
      - https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1682-4330
      issn:
      - 1932-6203
      addtitle:
      - PLoS One
      abstract:
      - |-
        To investigate methods and processes for timely, efficient and good quality peer review of research funding proposals in health.
        A two-stage evidence synthesis: (1) a systematic map to describe the key characteristics of the evidence base, followed by (2) a systematic review of the studies stakeholders prioritised as relevant from the map on the effectiveness and efficiency of peer review 'innovations'. Standard processes included literature searching, duplicate inclusion criteria screening, study keyword coding, data extraction, critical appraisal and study synthesis.
        A total of 83 studies from 15 countries were included in the systematic map. The evidence base is diverse, investigating many aspects of the systems for, and processes of, peer review. The systematic review included eight studies from Australia, Canada, and the USA, evaluating a broad range of peer review innovations. These studies showed that simplifying the process by shortening proposal forms, using smaller reviewer panels, or expediting processes can speed up the review process and reduce costs, but this might come at the expense of peer review quality, a key aspect that has not been assessed. Virtual peer review using videoconferencing or teleconferencing appears promising for reducing costs by avoiding the need for reviewers to travel, but again any consequences for quality have not been adequately assessed.
        There is increasing international research activity into the peer review of health research funding. The studies reviewed had methodological limitations and variable generalisability to research funders. Given these limitations it is not currently possible to recommend immediate implementation of these innovations. However, many appear promising based on existing evidence, and could be adapted as necessary by funders and evaluated. Where feasible, experimental evaluation, including randomised controlled trials, should be conducted, evaluating impact on effectiveness, efficiency and quality.
      jtitle:
      - PloS one
      genre:
      - article
      au:
      - Shepherd, Jonathan
      - Frampton, Geoff K
      - Pickett, Karen
      - Wyatt, Jeremy C
      atitle:
      - 'Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic
        review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency'
      date:
      - '2018-05-11'
      risdate:
      - '2018'
      volume:
      - '13'
      issue:
      - '5'
      spage:
      - e0196914
      epage:
      - e0196914
      pages:
      - e0196914-e0196914
      eissn:
      - 1932-6203
      ristype:
      - JOUR
      notes:
      - ObjectType-Article-2
      - SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
      - ObjectType-Feature-3
      - content type line 23
      - ObjectType-Review-1
      - ObjectType-Undefined-4
      - 'Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests
        exist.'
      cop:
      - United States
      pub:
      - Public Library of Science
      doi:
      - 10.1371/journal.pone.0196914
      pmid:
      - '29750807'
      tpages:
      - e0196914
      oa:
      - free_for_read
      format:
      - journal
    links:
      openurl:
      - "$$Topenurl_article"
      openurlfulltext:
      - "$$Topenurlfull_article"
      backlink:
      - "$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29750807$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read"
      thumbnail:
      - "$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl"
      linktopdf:
      - "$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2037485761/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read"
      linktohtml:
      - "$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2037485761?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read"
    search:
      creationdate:
      - '2018'
      title:
      - 'Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic
        review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency'
      - PloS one
      orcidid:
      - https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1682-4330
      creatorcontrib:
      - Shepherd, Jonathan
      - Frampton, Geoff K
      - Pickett, Karen
      - Wyatt, Jeremy C
      creator:
      - Shepherd, Jonathan
      - Frampton, Geoff K
      - Pickett, Karen
      - Wyatt, Jeremy C
      contributor:
      - Derrick, Gemma Elizabeth
      subject:
      - Bias
      - Collaboration
      - Councils
      - Efficiency
      - Engineering and Technology
      - Feasibility studies
      - Funding
      - Innovations
      - Medical research
      - Medicine
      - Medicine and Health Sciences
      - Medicine, Experimental
      - Methods
      - Peer review
      - Peer review of research grant proposals
      - Proposals
      - Public health
      - Quality
      - Quality management
      - R&D
      - Research & development
      - Research and Analysis Methods
      - Research funding
      - Reviews
      - Science Policy
      - Scientometrics
      - Stakeholders
      - Synthesis
      - Systematic review
      - Teleconferencing
      - Videoconferencing
      issn:
      - 1932-6203
      - 1932-6203
      fulltext:
      - 'true'
      addtitle:
      - PLoS One
      general:
      - Public Library of Science
      - Public Library of Science (PLoS)
      rsrctype:
      - article
      startdate:
      - '20180511'
      enddate:
      - '20180511'
      scope:
      - NPM
      - AAYXX
      - CITATION
      - 3V.
      - 7QG
      - 7QL
      - 7QO
      - 7RV
      - 7SN
      - 7SS
      - 7T5
      - 7TG
      - 7TM
      - 7U9
      - 7X2
      - 7X7
      - 7XB
      - 88E
      - 8AO
      - 8C1
      - 8FD
      - 8FE
      - 8FG
      - 8FH
      - 8FI
      - 8FJ
      - 8FK
      - ABJCF
      - ABUWG
      - AFKRA
      - ARAPS
      - ATCPS
      - AZQEC
      - BBNVY
      - BENPR
      - BGLVJ
      - BHPHI
      - C1K
      - D1I
      - DWQXO
      - FR3
      - FYUFA
      - GHDGH
      - GNUQQ
      - H94
      - HCIFZ
      - K9.
      - KB.
      - KB0
      - KL.
      - L6V
      - LK8
      - M0K
      - M0S
      - M1P
      - M7N
      - M7P
      - M7S
      - NAPCQ
      - P5Z
      - P62
      - P64
      - PATMY
      - PDBOC
      - PIMPY
      - PQEST
      - PQQKQ
      - PQUKI
      - PTHSS
      - PYCSY
      - RC3
      - 7X8
      - 5PM
      - DOA
      sourceid:
      - ATCPS
      - BGLVJ
      - DOA
      recordid:
      - eNptk99u0zAUxiMEYmPwBggiISG4aLGT2LG5QKom_lSaNC4mbi3HPm49JXaxk0LfgMfGbbPRoCkXib78zmefo-9k2UuM5ris8YdbPwQn2_nGO5gjzCnH1aPsHPOymNEClY9Pvs-yZzHeIkRKRunT7KzgNUEM1efZn-8AIQ-wtfAr9yZfg2z7dRIiyKDWuRmctm6Vb4Lf-Cjb-DFf5HEXe-hkb1XeyU0unT6V_plZ5_w2ad7F3PiQgzGgersFBzEeypJilQWnds-zJybZw4vxfZHdfPl8c_ltdnX9dXm5uJopSlg_Y1qVBINEyHCquDIcS0YQKQpdcUYlg4JwDRJYoxA0ABQBqKpsoKmoxuVF9vpou2l9FOMMo0gzqitGaronlkdCe3krNsF2MuyEl1YcBB9WQobUZwtC07JkuNGKN2XFDUiKGCaaQQm8ahhNXp_G04amA63A9UG2E9PpH2fXYuW3gvCqZrxOBu9Gg-B_DhB70dmooG2lAz8c7s2KmnDCE_rmP_Th7kZqJVMD1hmfzlV7U7FI6cC84rxK1PwBKj0aOqtS4IxN-qTg_aQgMT387ldyiFEsr39M2bcn7DFw0bfDISdTsDqCKvgYA5j7wWEk9jtw16HY74AYdyCVvTod-n3RXejLv6h0Bgc
      recordtype:
      - article
      description:
      - |-
        To investigate methods and processes for timely, efficient and good quality peer review of research funding proposals in health.
        A two-stage evidence synthesis: (1) a systematic map to describe the key characteristics of the evidence base, followed by (2) a systematic review of the studies stakeholders prioritised as relevant from the map on the effectiveness and efficiency of peer review 'innovations'. Standard processes included literature searching, duplicate inclusion criteria screening, study keyword coding, data extraction, critical appraisal and study synthesis.
        A total of 83 studies from 15 countries were included in the systematic map. The evidence base is diverse, investigating many aspects of the systems for, and processes of, peer review. The systematic review included eight studies from Australia, Canada, and the USA, evaluating a broad range of peer review innovations. These studies showed that simplifying the process by shortening proposal forms, using smaller reviewer panels, or expediting processes can speed up the review process and reduce costs, but this might come at the expense of peer review quality, a key aspect that has not been assessed. Virtual peer review using videoconferencing or teleconferencing appears promising for reducing costs by avoiding the need for reviewers to travel, but again any consequences for quality have not been adequately assessed.
        There is increasing international research activity into the peer review of health research funding. The studies reviewed had methodological limitations and variable generalisability to research funders. Given these limitations it is not currently possible to recommend immediate implementation of these innovations. However, many appear promising based on existing evidence, and could be adapted as necessary by funders and evaluated. Where feasible, experimental evaluation, including randomised controlled trials, should be conducted, evaluating impact on effectiveness, efficiency and quality.
    delivery:
      fulltext:
      - fulltext
      delcategory:
      - Remote Search Resource
    display:
      title:
      - 'Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic
        review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency'
      creator:
      - Shepherd, Jonathan ; Frampton, Geoff K ; Pickett, Karen ; Wyatt, Jeremy C
      contributor:
      - Derrick, Gemma Elizabeth
      subject:
      - Bias ; Collaboration ; Councils ; Efficiency ; Engineering and Technology
        ; Feasibility studies ; Funding ; Innovations ; Medical research ; Medicine
        ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Medicine, Experimental ; Methods ; Peer review
        ; Peer review of research grant proposals ; Proposals ; Public health ; Quality
        ; Quality management ; R&D ; Research & development ; Research and Analysis
        Methods ; Research funding ; Reviews ; Science Policy ; Scientometrics ; Stakeholders
        ; Synthesis ; Systematic review ; Teleconferencing ; Videoconferencing
      language:
      - eng
      type:
      - article
      source:
      - DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
      - ProQuest Agricultural & Environmental Science
      - Technology Collection
      - PubMed (Medline)
      - PLoS (Open access)
      - EBSCOhost Academic Search Premier
      publisher:
      - 'United States: Public Library of Science'
      ispartof:
      - PloS one, 2018-05, Vol.13 (5), p.e0196914-e0196914
      identifier:
      - 'ISSN: 1932-6203'
      - 'EISSN: 1932-6203'
      - 'DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196914'
      - 'PMID: 29750807'
      rights:
      - COPYRIGHT 2018 Public Library of Science
      - COPYRIGHT 2018 Public Library of Science
      - '2018 Shepherd et al. This is an open access article distributed under the
        terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
        (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction
        in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding
        the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance
        with the terms of the License.'
      - 2018 Shepherd et al 2018 Shepherd et al
      oa:
      - free_for_read
      lds50:
      - peer_reviewed
      description:
      - |-
        To investigate methods and processes for timely, efficient and good quality peer review of research funding proposals in health.
        A two-stage evidence synthesis: (1) a systematic map to describe the key characteristics of the evidence base, followed by (2) a systematic review of the studies stakeholders prioritised as relevant from the map on the effectiveness and efficiency of peer review 'innovations'. Standard processes included literature searching, duplicate inclusion criteria screening, study keyword coding, data extraction, critical appraisal and study synthesis.
        A total of 83 studies from 15 countries were included in the systematic map. The evidence base is diverse, investigating many aspects of the systems for, and processes of, peer review. The systematic review included eight studies from Australia, Canada, and the USA, evaluating a broad range of peer review innovations. These studies showed that simplifying the process by shortening proposal forms, using smaller reviewer panels, or expediting processes can speed up the review process and reduce costs, but this might come at the expense of peer review quality, a key aspect that has not been assessed. Virtual peer review using videoconferencing or teleconferencing appears promising for reducing costs by avoiding the need for reviewers to travel, but again any consequences for quality have not been adequately assessed.
        There is increasing international research activity into the peer review of health research funding. The studies reviewed had methodological limitations and variable generalisability to research funders. Given these limitations it is not currently possible to recommend immediate implementation of these innovations. However, many appear promising based on existing evidence, and could be adapted as necessary by funders and evaluated. Where feasible, experimental evaluation, including randomised controlled trials, should be conducted, evaluating impact on effectiveness, efficiency and quality.
    facets:
      creationdate:
      - '2018'
      creatorcontrib:
      - Shepherd, Jonathan
      - Frampton, Geoff K
      - Pickett, Karen
      - Wyatt, Jeremy C
      rsrctype:
      - articles
      language:
      - eng
      topic:
      - Bias
      - Collaboration
      - Councils
      - Efficiency
      - Engineering and Technology
      - Feasibility studies
      - Funding
      - Innovations
      - Medical research
      - Medicine
      - Medicine and Health Sciences
      - Medicine, Experimental
      - Methods
      - Peer review
      - Peer review of research grant proposals
      - Proposals
      - Public health
      - Quality
      - Quality management
      - R&D
      - Research & development
      - Research and Analysis Methods
      - Research funding
      - Reviews
      - Science Policy
      - Scientometrics
      - Stakeholders
      - Synthesis
      - Systematic review
      - Teleconferencing
      - Videoconferencing
      prefilter:
      - articles
      collection:
      - PubMed
      - CrossRef
      - ProQuest Central (Corporate)
      - Animal Behavior Abstracts
      - Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)
      - Biotechnology Research Abstracts
      - Nursing & Allied Health Database
      - Ecology Abstracts
      - Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)
      - Immunology Abstracts
      - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts
      - Nucleic Acids Abstracts
      - Virology and AIDS Abstracts
      - Agricultural Science Collection
      - ProQuest - Health & Medical Complete保健、医学与药学数据库
      - ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)
      - Medical Database (Alumni Edition)
      - ProQuest Pharma Collection
      - ProQuest Public Health Database
      - Technology Research Database
      - ProQuest SciTech Collection
      - ProQuest Technology Collection
      - ProQuest Natural Science Collection
      - Hospital Premium Collection
      - Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)
      - ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)
      - Materials Science & Engineering Collection
      - ProQuest Central (Alumni)
      - ProQuest Central
      - Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database‎ (1962 - current)
      - ProQuest Agricultural & Environmental Science
      - ProQuest Central Essentials
      - Biological Science Collection
      - ProQuest Central
      - Technology Collection
      - ProQuest Natural Science Collection
      - Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management
      - ProQuest Materials Science Collection
      - ProQuest Central
      - Engineering Research Database
      - Health Research Premium Collection
      - Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)
      - ProQuest Central Student
      - AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts
      - SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)
      - ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)
      - Materials Science Database
      - Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)
      - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic
      - ProQuest Engineering Collection
      - Biological Sciences
      - Agriculture Science Database
      - Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)
      - PML(ProQuest Medical Library)
      - Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)
      - Biological Science Database
      - Engineering Database
      - Nursing & Allied Health Premium
      - ProQuest advanced technologies & aerospace journals
      - ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection
      - Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts
      - Environmental Science Database
      - Materials Science Collection
      - ProQuest - Publicly Available Content Database
      - ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)
      - ProQuest One Academic
      - ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition
      - Engineering collection
      - Environmental Science Collection
      - Genetics Abstracts
      - MEDLINE - Academic
      - PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)
      - DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
      toplevel:
      - peer_reviewed
      - online_resources
      frbrgroupid:
      - cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c658t-8dc351ea00f96c9cf91a850522d4986a8e259deae8bc0ebee60eec43beb46d13
      frbrtype:
      - '5'
      jtitle:
      - PloS one
  delivery:
    link: []
    deliveryCategory:
    - Remote Search Resource
    availability:
    - fulltext
    displayLocation: false
    additionalLocations: false
    physicalItemTextCodes: ''
    feDisplayOtherLocations: false
    displayedAvailability: 'true'
    holding: []
    almaOpenurl: https://na02.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/uresolver/01UWI_MAD/openurl?ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_id=10_1&ctx_tim=2024-06-05
      07:44:44&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Peer+review+of+health+research+funding+proposals%3A+A+systematic+map+and+systematic+review+of+innovations+for+effectiveness+and+efficiency&rft.jtitle=PloS+one&rft.au=Shepherd%2C+Jonathan&rft.date=2018-05-11&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=e0196914&rft.epage=e0196914&rft.pages=e0196914-e0196914&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0196914&rft.pub=Public+Library+of+Science&rft.place=United+States&rft_id=info:pmid/29750807&rft_dat=<gale_plos_>A538194994</gale_plos_>&svc_dat=viewit&rft_galeid=A538194994&rft_pqid=2037485761
  context: PC
  adaptor: Primo Central
  extras:
    citationTrails:
      citing:
      - FETCH-LOGICAL-c658t-8dc351ea00f96c9cf91a850522d4986a8e259deae8bc0ebee60eec43beb46d13
      citedby:
      - FETCH-LOGICAL-c658t-8dc351ea00f96c9cf91a850522d4986a8e259deae8bc0ebee60eec43beb46d13
    timesCited: {}
  "@id": https://na02.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/primaws/rest/pub/pnxs/PC/cdi_plos_journals_2037485761

	

Electronic Resources

Full text is available

Resource is "open" so no proxy will be added

This document needs electronic context lookup (uresolver)

		---
- :service_type: getFullTxt
  :collection_name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
  :coverage_statement: Available from 2006.
  :public_note: Coverage dates vary. Some content is freely available.<br/>
  :from_nz: false
  :filtered: false
  :filter_reason: ''
  :direct_link: https://wisconsin-madison.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/action/uresolver.do?operation=resolveService&package_service_id=49626697590002122&institutionId=2122&customerId=2120
- :service_type: getFullTxt
  :collection_name: EBSCOhost Academic Search Premier
  :coverage_statement: Available from 01/01/2008.
  :public_note: ''
  :from_nz: false
  :filtered: false
  :filter_reason: ''
  :direct_link: https://wisconsin-madison.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/action/uresolver.do?operation=resolveService&package_service_id=49626697600002122&institutionId=2122&customerId=2120
- :service_type: getFullTxt
  :collection_name: PubMed Central
  :coverage_statement: 'Available from 2006 volume: 1.'
  :public_note: May have limited fulltext access to some recent content<br/>
  :from_nz: false
  :filtered: false
  :filter_reason: ''
  :direct_link: https://wisconsin-madison.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/action/uresolver.do?operation=resolveService&package_service_id=49626697580002122&institutionId=2122&customerId=2120
- :service_type: getFullTxt
  :collection_name: Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access
  :coverage_statement: 'Available from 2006 volume: 1 issue: 1.'
  :public_note: ''
  :from_nz: false
  :filtered: false
  :filter_reason: ''
  :direct_link: https://wisconsin-madison.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/action/uresolver.do?operation=resolveService&package_service_id=49626697560002122&institutionId=2122&customerId=2120
- :service_type: getFullTxt
  :collection_name: Technology collection
  :coverage_statement: Available from 2006.
  :public_note: ''
  :from_nz: false
  :filtered: false
  :filter_reason: ''
  :direct_link: https://wisconsin-madison.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/action/uresolver.do?operation=resolveService&package_service_id=49626697570002122&institutionId=2122&customerId=2120