Match!
Scott R. Glisson
American Institute of Biological Sciences
TeleconferencePeer reviewPsychologyMedicineApplied psychology
14Publications
6H-index
92Citations
What is this?
Publications 14
Newest
#1Stephen A. GalloH-Index: 20
#2Karen B. Schmaling (Washington State University Vancouver)H-Index: 35
Last. Scott R. GlissonH-Index: 6
view all 4 authors...
Funding agencies have long used panel discussion in the peer review of research grant proposals as a way to utilize a set of expertise and perspectives in making funding decisions. Little research has examined the quality of panel discussions and how effectively they are facilitated. Here, we present a mixed-method analysis of data from a survey of reviewers focused on their perceptions of the quality, effectiveness, and influence of panel discussion from their last peer review experience. Revie...
Source
#1Stephen A. Gallo (Washington State University Vancouver)H-Index: 20
#2Lisa A. ThompsonH-Index: 3
Last. Scott R. GlissonH-Index: 6
view all 4 authors...
Scientific peer reviewers play an integral role in the grant selection process, yet very little has been reported on the levels of participation or the motivations of scientists to take part in peer review. The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) developed a comprehensive peer review survey that examined the motivations and levels of participation of grant reviewers. The survey was disseminated to 13,091 scientists in AIBS’s proprietary database. Of the 874 respondents, 76% indicate...
2 CitationsSource
#1Stephen A. GalloH-Index: 20
#2Karen B. Schmaling (WSU: Washington State University)H-Index: 35
Last. Scott R. GlissonH-Index: 6
view all 4 authors...
In efforts to increase efficiency and convenience and reduce administrative cost, some granting agencies have been exploring the use of alternate review formats, particularly virtual panels utilizing teleconference-based (Tcon) or Web based (Wb) technologies. However, few studies have compared these formats to standard face-to-face (FTF) reviews; and those that have compared formats have observed subtle differences in scoring patterns and discussion time, as well as perceptions of a decrease in ...
1 CitationsSource
#1Stephen A. GalloH-Index: 20
#2Lisa A. ThompsonH-Index: 3
Last. Scott R. GlissonH-Index: 6
view all 4 authors...
Scientific peer reviewers play an integral role in the grant selection process, yet very little has been reported on the levels of participation or the motivations of scientists to take part in peer review. The American Institute of Biological Sciences developed a comprehensive peer review survey that examined the motivations and levels of participation of grant reviewers. The survey was disseminated to 13,091 scientists in AIBS9s proprietary database. Of the 874 respondents, 76% indicated they ...
1 CitationsSource
Peer review is used commonly across science as a tool to evaluate the merit and potential impact of research projects and make funding recommendations. While potential impact is likely difficult to assess ex-ante, there have been relatively few attempts made to get a sense of the predictive accuracy of review decisions using impact measures of the results of the completed projects. Although many outputs, and thus potential measures of impact, exist for research projects, the overwhelming majorit...
Source
#1Adrian G. Barnett (QUT: Queensland University of Technology)H-Index: 55
#2Scott R. GlissonH-Index: 6
Last. Stephen A. GalloH-Index: 20
view all 3 authors...
Background : Decisions about which applications to fund are generally based on the mean scores of a panel of peer reviewers. As well as the mean, a large disagreement between peer reviewers may also be worth considering, as it may indicate a high-risk application with a high return. Methods : We examined the peer reviewers' scores for 227 funded applications submitted to the American Institute of Biological Sciences between 1999 and 2006. We examined the mean score and two measures of reviewer d...
Source
The process of peer review is used to identify the most scientifically meritorious research projects for funding. Impact and innovation are among the criteria used to determine overall merit. A criticism of peer review has been the perception that reviewers are biased against innovation, such as one study that found reviewers to systematically assign poorer scores to highly novel work. Moreover, reviewers’ definitions for excellent research and paradigm-shifting research are different; innovativ...
5 CitationsSource
#1Robert E. GroppH-Index: 4
#2Scott R. GlissonH-Index: 6
Last. Lisa A. ThompsonH-Index: 3
view all 4 authors...
8 CitationsSource
#1Stephen A. GalloH-Index: 20
#2Joanne H. SullivanH-Index: 2
Last. Scott R. GlissonH-Index: 6
view all 3 authors...
Although the scientific peer review process is crucial to distributing research investments, little has been reported about the decision-making processes used by reviewers. One key attribute likely to be important for decision-making is reviewer expertise. Recent data from an experimental blinded review utilizing a direct measure of expertise has found that closer intellectual distances between applicant and reviewer lead to harsher evaluations, possibly suggesting that information is differenti...
17 CitationsSource
Despite the presumed frequency of conflicts of interest in scientific peer review, there is a paucity of data in the literature reporting on the frequency and type of conflicts that occur, particularly with regard to the peer review of basic science applications. To address this gap, the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) conducted a retrospective analysis of conflict of interest data from the peer review of 282 biomedical research applications via several onsite review panels. The...
2 CitationsSource
12