Sample Size and Precision in NIH Peer Review

David Kaplan, Nicola Lacetera and Celia Kaplan

PLOS ONE, 2008, vol. 3, issue 7, 1-3

Abstract: The Working Group on Peer Review of the Advisory Committee to the Director of NIH has recommended that at least 4 reviewers should be used to assess each grant application. A sample size analysis of the number of reviewers needed to evaluate grant applications reveals that a substantially larger number of evaluators are required to provide the level of precision that is currently mandated. NIH should adjust their peer review system to account for the number of reviewers needed to provide adequate precision in their evaluations.

Date: 2008
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (9)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002761 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 02761&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0002761

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002761

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().