The NIH has a double overview of grant applications, the GAO report explains. The first amount of review occurs in committees with members who have expertise into the subject regarding the application. Significantly more than 40,000 applications are submitted to your NIH each and each committee (there are about 100, with 18 to 20 members per committee) reviews up to 100 applications year. The agency usually follows the recommendations for the committee in approving grant applications. Then there is a secondary level of review, by an advisory council, composed of external scientists and lay members of most people, including patient-group advocates together with clergy. Peer report about continuing grants occur during the time that is same new projects.
National Science Foundation peer report about grants
The National Science Foundation uses the concept of merit included in its peer review process, the GAO report says. Experts in the field review grant applications submitted to NSF and figure out in the event that proposals meet certain criteria, like the merit that is intellectual of proposed activity, such as for example its importance in advancing knowledge; the qualifications of this proposing scientist; and also the extent to which the project is creative and original. The criteria also enquire about the broader impacts of the proposal, including how it advances discovery while promoting teaching, and just how it benefits society. How scientists fared in prior NSF grants are part of the evaluation. Proposals received by the NSF are reviewed by an NSF program officer and often three to 10 outside NSF experts in the world of the proposal. Authors can suggest names of reviewers. Program officers obtain comment by mail, panels or site visits. Program officer recommendations are further reviewed by senior staff at NSF. A division director then decides whether an award is approved. Continue reading The National Institutes of Health peer overview of grants