The CTSA External Reviewer Exchange Consortium (CEREC): Engagement and efficacy
Open Access
- 1 June 2019
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
- Vol. 3 (6), 325-331
- https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2019.411
Abstract
Introduction:Many institutions evaluate applications for local seed funding by recruiting peer reviewers from their own institutional community. Smaller institutions, however, often face difficulty locating qualified local reviewers who are not in conflict with the proposal. As a larger pool of reviewers may be accessed through a cross-institutional collaborative process, nine Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs formed a consortium in 2016 to facilitate reviewer exchanges. Data were collected to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of the consortium.Methods:The CTSA External Reviewer Exchange Consortium (CEREC) has been supported by a custom-built web-based application that facilitates the process and tracks the efficiency and productivity of the exchange.Results:All nine of the original CEREC members remain actively engaged in the exchange. Between January 2017 and May 2019, CEREC supported the review process for 23 individual calls for proposals. Out of the 412 reviews requested, 368 were received, for a fulfillment ratio of 89.3%. The yield on reviewer invitations has remained consistently high, with approximately one-third of invitations being accepted, and of the reviewers who agreed to provide a review, 88.3% submitted a complete review. Surveys of reviewers and pilot program administrators indicate high satisfaction with the process.Conclusions:These data indicate that a reviewer exchange consortium is feasible, adds value to participating partners, and is sustainable over time.Keywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- Influence of external peer reviewer scores for funding applications on funding board decisions: a retrospective analysis of 1561 reviewsBMJ Open, 2018
- Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiencyPLOS ONE, 2018
- Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in CanadaCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2018
- ‘Are you siding with a personality or the grant proposal?’: observations on how peer review panels functionResearch Integrity and Peer Review, 2017
- What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?F1000Research, 2017
- Research Funding: the Case for a Modified LotterymBio, 2016
- NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivityeLife, 2016
- Bias in peer reviewJournal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2012
- Peer Review of Grant Applications: Criteria Used and Qualitative Study of Reviewer PracticesPLOS ONE, 2012
- Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics supportJournal of Biomedical Informatics, 2008