厉害：NIH SRO到系统里改reviewers打得分 (转载)# Biology - 生物学
b*d
1 楼
【 以下文字转载自 Faculty 讨论区 】
发信人: brihand (brihand), 信区: Faculty
标 题: 厉害：NIH SRO到系统里改reviewers打得分
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Apr 2 13:38:05 2018, 美东)
Nakamura also described the types of violations of confidentiality NIH has
detected. They included “reciprocal favors,” he said, using a term that is
generally understood to mean a favor offered by a grant applicant to a
reviewer in exchange for a favorable evaluation of their proposal.
Applicants also learned the “initial scores” they received on a proposal,
Nakamura said, and the names of the reviewers who had been assigned to their
proposal before a review meeting took place. In one case, Nakamura said, a
scientific review officer—an NIH staff member who helps run a review panel
—inappropriately changed the score that peer reviewers had given a proposal.
All of those actions are at least potential violations of NIH’s rules.
Applicants are not allowed to see scores prepared by reviewers, for example,
and although NIH assigns a primary and secondary reviewer to read each
application, the agency does not publicly identify the reviewers to reduce
the potential for inappropriate influence.
As for disciplining those involved, Nakamura said, “We try to do something
that’s fairly graded in this process.” NIH rules suggest possible
sanctions that could include suspending or barring violators from obtaining
federal research funds.
发信人: brihand (brihand), 信区: Faculty
标 题: 厉害：NIH SRO到系统里改reviewers打得分
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Apr 2 13:38:05 2018, 美东)
Nakamura also described the types of violations of confidentiality NIH has
detected. They included “reciprocal favors,” he said, using a term that is
generally understood to mean a favor offered by a grant applicant to a
reviewer in exchange for a favorable evaluation of their proposal.
Applicants also learned the “initial scores” they received on a proposal,
Nakamura said, and the names of the reviewers who had been assigned to their
proposal before a review meeting took place. In one case, Nakamura said, a
scientific review officer—an NIH staff member who helps run a review panel
—inappropriately changed the score that peer reviewers had given a proposal.
All of those actions are at least potential violations of NIH’s rules.
Applicants are not allowed to see scores prepared by reviewers, for example,
and although NIH assigns a primary and secondary reviewer to read each
application, the agency does not publicly identify the reviewers to reduce
the potential for inappropriate influence.
As for disciplining those involved, Nakamura said, “We try to do something
that’s fairly graded in this process.” NIH rules suggest possible
sanctions that could include suspending or barring violators from obtaining
federal research funds.