The American Journal of Medicine
Volume 121, Issue 7 , Pages 637-641 , July 2008

Why Are Peer Review Outcomes Less Favorable for Clinical Science than for Basic Science Grant Applications?

  • Michael R. Martin, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md
    • ,
  • Teresa Lindquist, MS

      Affiliations

    • Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md
    • ,
  • Theodore A. Kotchen, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
    • Corresponding Author InformationRequests for reprints should be addressed to Theodore A. Kotchen, MD, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Rd., Milwaukee, WI 53226.

  • Image Result

    Cumulative percents of clinical and nonclinical R01 grant applications scoring within the 30th percentile.

    Cumulative percents of clinical and nonclinical R01 grant applications scoring within the 30th percentile.

  • Image Result

    Cumulative percents of clinical R01 grant applications with and without human subject concerns scoring within the 30th percentile.

    Cumulative percents of clinical R01 grant applications with and without human subject concerns scoring within the 30th percentile.

  • Image Result

    Cumulative percents of R01 grant applications by type (Type 1 [new] vs Type 2 [competitive renewal], clinical [HS+]* vs nonclinical [HS]) and by principal investigator status (new vs experienced) scor

    Cumulative percents of R01 grant applications by type (Type 1 [new] vs Type 2 [competitive renewal], clinical [HS+]* vs nonclinical [HS]) and by principal investigator status (new vs experienced) scoring within the 30th percentile. *HS+=involving human subjects; HS−=not involving human subjects.

PII: S0002-9343(08)00313-6

doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.03.031

The American Journal of Medicine
Volume 121, Issue 7 , Pages 637-641 , July 2008

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution