What Do Grant Reviewers Really Want, Anyway?

Abstract

Abstract Review panels determine the success or failure of most proposals, and writers are well advised to polish their prose in a manner that will win their approval. Indeed, many successful proposal writers count their service on review panels among the most powerful learning experiences in their own research careers. Information on how review panels work is abundant, but little has been written on the personal perspectives of reviewers-the critical factors that lead to their support or rejection of any given proposal, how they view the strengths and weaknesses of the peer review system and whether serving on panels has shaped their own proposal writing strategies. This paper presents the findings of interviews with sixteen senior Virginia Tech faculty with extensive experience on review panels. Most participants strongly endorsed the peer review system, though reservations were expressed concerning its administrative complexities and the difficulties in assigning proposals to reviewers with appropriate expertise. The paper concludes with reviewers' recommendations to improve the overall system. Background It can be argued that most research administrators owe their jobs to a key power group in academe: grant reviewers. These folks are the gatekeepers who decide who will get money to fund research, and it is quite a bit of money, as universities now consume about $40 billion in RD Smith, 1997; Wessely, 1998). To be funded, grant proposals must receive very high marks from reviewers. NSF reports that just half of proposals rated Very Good to Excellent by reviewers were funded in 2003 (NSF, 2004). At NIH, the streamlining procedure can eliminate up to half of the proposals submitted from full discussion by the panel; these are returned to the PI's with no score. For the rest, the numerical panel scores are ranked from top to bottom, often with very small differentials before the payline is reached and the money runs out (NIH, 2003). Overall success ratios range from 20 to 30 percent at most agencies, but these figures include a significant percentage of resubmissions, and many grant programs fund as few as 10 to 15 per cent. With budgets in sponsor agencies flattening and universities ramping up their research goals, competition can only intensify, adding to the need for a better understanding of the people who serve on these vitally important bodies. Much has been published about the review process, especially the established practices of major federal agencies such as NSF and NIH. Relatively little has been written about the experience of being a reviewer. An exception is biologist Pam Member, who has written a strong personal affirmation of the review process as a valuable learning experience that has particular impact on one's proposal writing skills (Member, 2003). …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 27 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.