peer-review · May 03, 2023
peer-review · Aug 29, 2022
peer-review · Jan 10, 2022
While numerous studies have described the funding discrepancies faced by scientists at minority-serving institutions (MSIs), there is a relative paucity of information available about MSI-based scientists’ participation in grant review, the process used by research funders to allocate their budgets.
peer-review · Oct 15, 2021
Get the AIBS Newsletter
Our newsletter provides you with the very latest announcements & research from the world of biology, and updates automatically to reflect your personal interests. We also include news and events from AIBS & our 107 member societies. [Read about our data privacy.]
peer-review · Mar 18, 2021
peer-review · Dec 15, 2020
awards, peer-review · Jun 16, 2020
AIBS has been awarded a Standard Grant from the National Science Foundation on the science of peer review entitled: “Reliability, Risk Aversion, and Bias in Grant Peer Review”.
peer-review · May 19, 2020
Often in the peer review of research grant proposals, panel discussion is used as a way to take advantage of a broader set of expertise and perspectives for making funding decisions. The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) has published findings exploring reviewer experiences with panel discussion and examining their perceived quality and effectiveness as well as their influence on scoring.
peer-review · Aug 01, 2019
AIBS published findings from an analysis of scientist participation levels in the grant peer review process, as well as their motivations to do so. These results, generated from a survey sent to over 13,000 scientists, show that while 76% of respondents participated in the peer review of research applications, an uneven distribution of participation was found across this sample, with a sub-set of reviewers shouldering higher review loads (the top 10% reviewing 3 times the amount of the bottom 40% of respondents). This sub-set was estimated to be close to maximum capacity in terms of review availability, highlighting concerns about the sustainability of the peer review system. However, most reviewer respondents indicated that participating in peer review has positively affected their careers, and that giving back to the scientific community is the most important motivation for reviewing.