A new publication in Research Integrity and Peer Review from researchers at the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) and University of Washington highlights problems related to proposal rating in grant review and proposes a protocol to ameliorate them.

According to a review of studies by researchers from Washington State University and the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS), women researchers received less grant money on average than men. The study found that women's average grant award was about $342,000, while men's average grant award was $659,000.

The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) and Washington State University have published the results from an experiment of grant peer reviewers’ evaluations that suggest proposal risk dominates project assessment.

While numerous studies have described the funding discrepancies faced by scientists at minority-serving institutions (MSIs), there is a relative paucity of information available about MSI-based scientists’ participation in grant review, the process used by research funders to allocate their budgets.

AIBS cares about accessible computing and inclusivity. Users of SCORES who need more accessibility can now more reliably navigate the applications with a screen reader, or using only a keyboard.

AIBS published a study on research funding applicant perceptions of the effectiveness and appropriateness of peer review feedback. The results suggested that only 56–60% of applicants determined the feedback to be appropriate and less than 40% of applicants found the feedback to be very useful in improving future submissions. Some of these perceptions were dependent on race and gender, independent of funding success.

AIBS, in collaboration with the NET ESolutions Corporation, published findings from an analysis of citations of scientific articles which introduced a meta-method for large-scale discovery of scientific communities of practice.

AIBS has been awarded a Standard Grant from the National Science Foundation on the science of peer review entitled: “Reliability, Risk Aversion, and Bias in Grant Peer Review”.

Often in the peer review of research grant proposals, panel discussion is used as a way to take advantage of a broader set of expertise and perspectives for making funding decisions. The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) has published findings exploring reviewer experiences with panel discussion and examining their perceived quality and effectiveness as well as their influence on scoring.

AIBS published findings from an analysis of scientist participation levels in the grant peer review process, as well as their motivations to do so. These results, generated from a survey sent to over 13,000 scientists, show that while 76% of respondents participated in the peer review of research applications, an uneven distribution of participation was found across this sample, with a sub-set of reviewers shouldering higher review loads (the top 10% reviewing 3 times the amount of the bottom 40% of respondents). This sub-set was estimated to be close to maximum capacity in terms of review availability, highlighting concerns about the sustainability of the peer review system. However, most reviewer respondents indicated that participating in peer review has positively affected their careers, and that giving back to the scientific community is the most important motivation for reviewing.