Print

Print
There is no evidence that peer review of grant applications makes any difference so why not assign them randomly? Even better would be comparing random assignment vs the current process in a defined setting. The underlying problem is that no one has yet defined what the objectives of peer review are and following on from that what the meaningful outcomes of the process would be.

Best,

Tom.

Dr Tom Jefferson
Senior Associate Tutor, University of Oxford
Researcher, Nordic Cochrane Centre
Visiting Professor, Newcastle University

** Announcing the RIAT Support Center: free support & $150,000 grant competition **
** Details at https://restoringtrials.org/ **


On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 at 13:46, Sandall, Jane <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I think it’s a promising experiment that should be tested. 


Please text me for urgent contact 07713743150
Sent from my iPhone
Professor Jane Sandall
King’s College, London
[log in to unmask]


On 31 Jan 2020, at 12:26, Jeremy Howick <[log in to unmask]> wrote:



Dave Sackett famously said that experts should retire when they become experts (see his ‘Sins of Expertness paper here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10797065).

 

One of the sins is that experts introduce bias to grant reviewing bodies.

 

As they do in so many other domains, New Zealand has a way of reducing such bias, namely by awarding some grants using a random process: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03572-7

 

What do people think?

 

 

 


To unsubscribe from the EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH&A=1


To unsubscribe from the EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH&A=1


To unsubscribe from the EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH&A=1