Examination of the scientific review process: Ten best practice suggestions for an improved process

TL;DR

This paper provides ten best practice suggestions to improve the fairness, transparency, and efficiency of the scientific review process for research grant proposals, aiming to benefit policymakers, scientists, and the public.

Contribution

It offers a comprehensive set of practical recommendations and fundamental requirements to enhance the scientific review process, which are applicable across various review contexts.

Findings

Proposes ten best practice suggestions for review improvements

Highlights the importance of fairness and transparency in reviews

Aims to demystify and improve the review process for all stakeholders

Abstract

In this article we wish to provide a common set of best practice approaches that should be considered for all effective research grant proposal reviews. The federal government performs a critical role in American competitiveness and security by supporting basic research funded with taxpayer dollars. Effectively managing their allocation to scientists and researchers is a noble and crucial mission for advancing fundamental knowledge and deserves a heightened attention. Ensuring that proposals submitted are treated fairly and transparently is essential to both the health of any research program and also a duty to the public who ultimately funds the research. The paper describes the general requirements of a review process and at each step underlines the issues and suggests potential improvements and some fundamental requirements that should be included in any scientific review. We also included a series of tips geared to the scientific community. Our goals in this paper are 1) to demystify the process for everyone including policy makers who are sometimes flummoxed by the results of some scientific reviews, 2) to trigger some discussions about reviews and review process in the scientific community, 3) to inform scientists whose careers are directly impacted by review results about their own role in this process and 4) to suggest a road to more efficient, fairer and overall more transparent process. For experts in proposal reviews or for busy or impatient readers, the entire list of our recommendations is presented at the beginning. We describe in each section the context and rational of each recommendation.