Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process (2016) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 Participants in the Review Process
3 Participants in the Review Process
Pages 43-64
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 43... ...
, overseeing the electronic application database, and preparing meeting documentation. Each research program has at least one peer review panel and a programmatic panel.
|
From page 44... ...
Program managers are also responsible for evaluating potential COIs between reviewers and applicants, preparing background materials for vision setting, and liaison and outreach activities with other federal government organizations and nongovernmental organizations. They may interact with the grants officer representative and the science officers.
|
From page 45... ...
Although the programmatic contractor recruits consumer representatives for programmatic panels, it does not have a consumer review administrator as the peer review contractor does (Salzer, 2016d)
|
From page 46... ...
Prior to each review cycle, SROs attend an orientation webinar at which the scientific review manager, in conjunction with the CDMRP program manager, provides information on the program announcements and peer review panels. REVIEW PANELS Peer review and programmatic panels have many similar attributes, such as the use of scientist and consumer reviewers, their criteria for defining COIs, and reviewer compensation.
|
From page 47... ...
All programmatic and peer review panel members are recruited by the respective contractors and approved by the CDMRP program manager. Programmatic and peer review panels are composed of scientist and consumer reviewers, all panels have a chair, and both panels may also include ad hoc and specialty reviewers, depending on the number and types of applications to be reviewed.
|
From page 48... ...
Gulf War Illness 9 0 2 2 1 2 0 2 (1) Joint Warfighter Medical 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 Lung Cancer 13 1 0 2 1 4 1 4 (4)
|
From page 49... ...
Psychological Health/ 19 2 3 14 0 0 0 0 Traumatic Brain Injury Spinal Cord Injury 13 1 2 6 0 0 2 2 (2) Tuberous Sclerosis Complex 9 1 0 0 0 5 1 2 (1)
|
From page 50... ...
plus consumer reviewers representing organizations or groups that are focused on the health condition. As with programmatic panels, representation on peer review panels spans government organizations, academia, industry, and consumer organizations, with most reviewers for research programs that lack a heavy focus on military health being
|
From page 51... ...
. Scientist Reviewers CDMRP reports that in the 2015 review cycle more than 2,300 scientists and clinicians served as peer reviewers and nearly 300 served as programmatic reviewers (CDMRP, 2015a)
|
From page 52... ...
Gulf War Illness 34 0 3 0 0 20 5 6 (4) Joint Warfighter Medical 92 1 3 6 1 66 15 0 Lung Cancer 127 0 0 1 0 77 24 25 (7)
|
From page 53... ...
b This list does not include four programs that were administered by CDMRP on behalf of others. c The first number is the number of consumer advocates who served as peer reviewers for a program, and the number in parenthesis is the number of different advocacy groups that are represented.
|
From page 54... ...
Consumer Reviewers Consumer reviewers are an integral component of the vision setting, peer review, and programmatic review steps in the CDMRP process. Since 1993, more than 2,000 consumers have served as peer and programmatic reviewers (Salzer, 2016a)
|
From page 55... ...
Consumer reviewers for programmatic panels may also be recruited from among those who have served previously as peer reviewers. The programmatic contractor states that it "selects wellknown, well-established advocates for their disease" and that consumer representatives constitute 20–25% of programmatic panel membership (Salzer, 2016d)
|
From page 56... ...
The committee was not informed how the CDMRP program managers and the contractors determine which consumer organizations will be represented on either the programmatic or peer review panels. CDMRP reports that the "contractor and the program manager strive to have different points of view on the programmatic panels" (Salzer, 2016a)
|
From page 57... ...
The decision to use specialty reviewers is made by the CDMRP program manager on the basis of the criteria for the award mechanism and communicated to the contractor science review manager via the task order assumptions. Programmatic panels rarely use specialty reviewers (Salzer, 2016d)
|
From page 58... ...
CDMRP states that ad hoc reviewers' names are published online (Salzer, 2016b) , but as of July 2016 the committee was able to identify only four programs that listed ad hoc programmatic reviewers (breast cancer, tuberous sclerosis, prostate cancer, and multiple sclerosis)
|
From page 59... ...
Nevertheless, while the committee finds that the turnover in scientist reviewers is reasonable, it also finds that the overall turnover of consumer reviewers is low. Thus, the committee encourages CDMRP and its contractor to strive to recruit more consumer reviewers from new or existing organizations to improve turnover and expand participation on the programmatic panels.
|
From page 60... ...
The committee finds that this level of continuity encourages the development of a group culture in the peer review process, while at the same time allowing for an influx of new ideas and opinions to improve discussions of an application's scientific merit and impact. Training As noted in Chapter 1, the training of peer reviewers and programmatic reviewers is the responsibility of the respective contractors.
|
From page 61... ...
The webinars include an overview of the history of the research program; award mechanisms, corresponding program announcements, and peer review criteria to be used; and the logistics of the peer review panel meeting. The contractor science review manager coordinates online training and webinar orientations for the scientist reviewers.
|
From page 62... ...
Conflict of Interest There are two areas of potential COI that are addressed in the CDMRP review process: COIs for principal investigators and their institutions who submit applications to CDMRP, and COIs for programmatic and peer reviewers. COI criteria for applicants are referred to in all program announcements and general application instructions, available on the CDMRP website.
|
From page 63... ...
gain from the outcomes of the application; • currently employed at or negotiating prospective employment with the applicant's institution; • long-standing scientific differences with the investigator; or • perceived to be or unable to provide an objective review of the application. CDMRP reports that peer reviewers identify COIs after they read the abstracts and lists of personnel for all applications to be reviewed by their assigned panel.
|
From page 64... ...
Compensation is intended to cover the time that reviewers spend on pre-meeting activities -- e.g., attending webinars and reading training materials; reviewing program announcements, applications, and critiques from other reviewers (for peer reviewers) or summary statements (for programmatic reviewers)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.