Peer Review Practices for Evaluating Biomedical Research Grants: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association
Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine; UMass Metabolic Network
Cardiology | Scholarly Communication | Scholarly Publishing
The biomedical research enterprise depends on the fair and objective peer review of research grants, leading to the distribution of resources through efficient and robust competitive methods. In the United States, federal funding agencies and foundations collectively distribute billions of dollars annually to support biomedical research. For the American Heart Association, a Peer Review Subcommittee is charged with establishing the highest standards for peer review. This scientific statement reviews the current literature on peer review practices, describes the current American Heart Association peer review process and those of other agencies, analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of American Heart Association peer review practices, and recommends best practices for the future.
Rights and Permissions
Citation: Liaw L, Freedman JE, Becker LB, Mehta NN, Liscum L; Peer Review Subcommittee of the American Heart Association National Research Committee; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia; Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Functional Genomics and Translational Biology; Council on Hypertension; Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research; and Stroke Council. Peer Review Practices for Evaluating Biomedical Research Grants: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circ Res. 2017 Aug 4;121(4):e9-e19. doi: 10.1161/RES.0000000000000158. Epub 2017 Jul 6. Review. PubMed PMID: 28684631. Link to article on publisher's site
Liaw, Lucy; Freedman, Jane E.; Becker, Lance B.; Mehta, Nehal N.; and Liscum, Laura, "Peer Review Practices for Evaluating Biomedical Research Grants: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association" (2017). UMass Metabolic Network Publications. 128.