While much science funding is determined by the peer review process, reviewer mindset is understudied. A recently published mixed methods study from Washington State University and the American Institute of Biological Sciences examined how reviewer sentiment about peer review related to evaluation of theoretical grant applications. In an experiment, unstructured comments from experienced peer reviewers were provided after they scored theoretical grant applications based on mock overall evaluations written by the primary reviewer. The most frequent comments were related to negative experiences with peer review, and reviewers who provided negative comments gave poorer scores than reviewers who did not. The results suggest reviewer perceptions of peer review may affect how they score applications, although further study is required. This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (1951132 and 1951251).
