National Institutes of Health Peer Review: Challenges and Avenues for Reform

Pierre Azoulay, Joshua Graff Zivin and Gustavo Manso

Innovation Policy and the Economy, 2013, vol. 13, issue 1, 1 - 22

Abstract: Executive SummaryThe National Institute of Health (NIH), through its extramural grant program, is the primary public funder of health-related research in the United States. Peer review at NIH is organized around the twin principles of investigator initiation and rigorous peer review, and this combination has long been a model that science funding agencies throughout the world seek to emulate. However, lean budgets and the rapidly changing ecosystem within which scientific inquiry takes place have led many to ask whether the peer-review practices inherited from the immediate postwar era are still well suited to 21st-century realities. In this essay, we examine two salient issues: (1) the aging of the scientist population supported by NIH and (2) the innovativeness of the research supported by the institutes. We identify potential avenues for reform as well as a means for implementing and evaluating them.

Date: 2013
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/668237 (application/pdf)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/668237 (text/html)
Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

Related works:
Chapter: National Institutes of Health Peer Review: Challenges and Avenues for Reform (2012)
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:ucp:ipolec:doi:10.1086/668237

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Innovation Policy and the Economy from University of Chicago Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Journals Division ().