Recommendations for Reviewers of Biomedical Imaging Grant Applications

Mark D. Pagel

doi:10.1007/s11307-018-1297-5

Recommendations for Reviewers of Biomedical Imaging Grant Applications

Mark D. Pagel

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › peer-review

Abstract

This commentary provides recommendations about how to interpret procedures and scoring criteria when reviewing grant applications and how to efficiently perform reviews. This guidance is especially designed for new grant reviewers and especially for reviewers of biomedical imaging grant applications. Recommendations are included about how to start the review process; how to review the Specific Aims page; how to consider Significance, Investigators, Innovation, Research Approach, and Environment; how to improve interactions at the review meeting; and other aspects of the review process. These recommendations are intended to improve the quality of the review process, which ultimately depends on the quality of the reviewers.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	612-619
Number of pages	8
Journal	Molecular Imaging and Biology
Volume	21
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-018-1297-5
State	Published - Aug 15 2019
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

Grant review process
Imaging grant applications
Reviewer training

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Oncology
Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
Cancer Research

Access to Document

10.1007/s11307-018-1297-5

Cite this

@article{490036ad880d4410a4bfd268d5b6c09e,

title = "Recommendations for Reviewers of Biomedical Imaging Grant Applications",

abstract = "This commentary provides recommendations about how to interpret procedures and scoring criteria when reviewing grant applications and how to efficiently perform reviews. This guidance is especially designed for new grant reviewers and especially for reviewers of biomedical imaging grant applications. Recommendations are included about how to start the review process; how to review the Specific Aims page; how to consider Significance, Investigators, Innovation, Research Approach, and Environment; how to improve interactions at the review meeting; and other aspects of the review process. These recommendations are intended to improve the quality of the review process, which ultimately depends on the quality of the reviewers.",

keywords = "Grant review process, Imaging grant applications, Reviewer training",

author = "Pagel, {Mark D.}",

note = "Funding Information: The subjective opinions in this commentary are entirely derived from the author. The author would like to thank Drs. Lee Rosen, Mehrdad Mohseni, and Eileen Bradley of the Center for Scientific Review for their objective guidance to all grant reviewers of biomedical imaging grant applications. This work is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Lee Rosen [31]. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2018, World Molecular Imaging Society.",

year = "2019",

month = aug,

day = "15",

doi = "10.1007/s11307-018-1297-5",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "21",

pages = "612--619",

journal = "Molecular Imaging and Biology",

issn = "1536-1632",

publisher = "Springer New York",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Recommendations for Reviewers of Biomedical Imaging Grant Applications

AU - Pagel, Mark D.

N1 - Funding Information: The subjective opinions in this commentary are entirely derived from the author. The author would like to thank Drs. Lee Rosen, Mehrdad Mohseni, and Eileen Bradley of the Center for Scientific Review for their objective guidance to all grant reviewers of biomedical imaging grant applications. This work is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Lee Rosen [31]. Publisher Copyright: © 2018, World Molecular Imaging Society.

PY - 2019/8/15

Y1 - 2019/8/15

N2 - This commentary provides recommendations about how to interpret procedures and scoring criteria when reviewing grant applications and how to efficiently perform reviews. This guidance is especially designed for new grant reviewers and especially for reviewers of biomedical imaging grant applications. Recommendations are included about how to start the review process; how to review the Specific Aims page; how to consider Significance, Investigators, Innovation, Research Approach, and Environment; how to improve interactions at the review meeting; and other aspects of the review process. These recommendations are intended to improve the quality of the review process, which ultimately depends on the quality of the reviewers.

AB - This commentary provides recommendations about how to interpret procedures and scoring criteria when reviewing grant applications and how to efficiently perform reviews. This guidance is especially designed for new grant reviewers and especially for reviewers of biomedical imaging grant applications. Recommendations are included about how to start the review process; how to review the Specific Aims page; how to consider Significance, Investigators, Innovation, Research Approach, and Environment; how to improve interactions at the review meeting; and other aspects of the review process. These recommendations are intended to improve the quality of the review process, which ultimately depends on the quality of the reviewers.

KW - Grant review process

KW - Imaging grant applications

KW - Reviewer training

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056848836&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85056848836&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11307-018-1297-5

DO - 10.1007/s11307-018-1297-5

M3 - Comment/debate

AN - SCOPUS:85056848836

SN - 1536-1632

VL - 21

SP - 612

EP - 619

JO - Molecular Imaging and Biology

JF - Molecular Imaging and Biology

IS - 4

ER -

Recommendations for Reviewers of Biomedical Imaging Grant Applications

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this