Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

Participation and Motivations of Grant Peer Reviewers: A Comprehensive Survey of the Biomedical Research Community

View ORCID ProfileStephen A Gallo, Lisa A Thompson, Karen B Schmaling, Scott R Glisson
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/479816
Stephen A Gallo
American Institute of Biological Sciences;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Stephen A Gallo
  • For correspondence: sgallo@aibs.org
Lisa A Thompson
American Institute of Biological Sciences;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karen B Schmaling
Washington State University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Scott R Glisson
American Institute of Biological Sciences;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

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 AIBS's proprietary database. Of the 874 respondents, 76% indicated they had reviewed grant applications in the last 3 years; however, the number of reviews was unevenly distributed across this sample. Higher review loads were associated with respondents who had submitted more grant proposals over this time period, some of whom were likely to be study section members for large funding agencies. The most prevalent reason to participate in a review was to give back to the scientific community (especially among frequent grant submitters) and the most common reason to decline an invitation to review was lack of time. Interestingly, few suggested that expectation from the funding agency was a motivation to review. Most felt that review participation positively influenced their careers through improving grantsmanship and exposure to new scientific ideas. Of those who reviewed, respondents reported dedicating 2-5% of their total annual work time to grant review and, based on their self-reported maximum review loads, we estimate they are participating at 56%-89% of their capacity, which may have important implications regarding the sustainability of the system.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted November 28, 2018.
Download PDF
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Participation and Motivations of Grant Peer Reviewers: A Comprehensive Survey of the Biomedical Research Community
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
Share
Participation and Motivations of Grant Peer Reviewers: A Comprehensive Survey of the Biomedical Research Community
Stephen A Gallo, Lisa A Thompson, Karen B Schmaling, Scott R Glisson
bioRxiv 479816; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/479816
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Participation and Motivations of Grant Peer Reviewers: A Comprehensive Survey of the Biomedical Research Community
Stephen A Gallo, Lisa A Thompson, Karen B Schmaling, Scott R Glisson
bioRxiv 479816; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/479816

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Scientific Communication and Education
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (998)
  • Biochemistry (1490)
  • Bioengineering (944)
  • Bioinformatics (6829)
  • Biophysics (2422)
  • Cancer Biology (1787)
  • Cell Biology (2529)
  • Clinical Trials (106)
  • Developmental Biology (1698)
  • Ecology (2568)
  • Epidemiology (1494)
  • Evolutionary Biology (5026)
  • Genetics (3617)
  • Genomics (4627)
  • Immunology (1169)
  • Microbiology (4250)
  • Molecular Biology (1623)
  • Neuroscience (10792)
  • Paleontology (82)
  • Pathology (239)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (409)
  • Physiology (555)
  • Plant Biology (1456)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (412)
  • Synthetic Biology (542)
  • Systems Biology (1873)
  • Zoology (260)