Date created: | Last Updated:

Category: Uncategorized

Description: The National Institutes of Health uses small groups of scientists to judge the quality of the grant proposals that they receive, and these quality judgments form the basis of its funding decisions. In order for this system to fund the best science, the subject experts must, at a minimum, agree as to what counts as a “quality” proposal. We investigated the degree of agreement by leveraging data from a recent experiment with 412 scientist reviewers, each of whom reviewed 3 proposals, and 48 NIH R01 proposals (half funded and half unfunded), each of which was reviewed by between 21 and 30 reviewers. Across all dimensions of NIH’s official rubric, we find low agreement among reviewers in their judgments of scientific merit. For judgments of Overall Impact, which has the greatest weight in funding decisions, we estimate that three reviewers yield a reliability .2, and 12 reviewers would be required to bring this reliability up to .5. Supplemental analyses found that reviewers are even less reliable in the language they use to describe proposals.