Some items appearing in FWIW are taken from other sources and provided as an information source, and sometimes a non-traditional commentary, for those interested in obtaining support for their research. Others are our opinions about topics of relevance to attaining excellence in research. Unless explicitly stated. it should not be assumed that BBMC or it's employees support, endorse or disagree with positions taken in items appearing in this section.
Simply click on the PDF icon below the title to access the article.
Feedback is appreciated and encouraged by our readers. Please use the "Contact Us" button on the bottom of column of buttons on the left.
Reviewing The Reviewers
By Jim Austin
from Science, 5 September 2014: Volume 345 No. 6201, p. 1206
In On My Mind: Grantsmanship and The Key Role of Reviewers (below) I concluded with the following note: "No amount of grantsmanship will turn a a bad idea into a fundable one...but there are many outstanding ideas that are masked by poor grantsmanship." The article by Jim Austin adds yet another dimension to the assessment of grant applications...gender....and in so doing adds another potential factor to the peer review of NIH applications.
The Future of Biomedical Research In the US: Keeping It Viable
An opinion article by Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD
Guiding Investments in Research: Using Data To Develop Science Funding Programs and Policies
On My Mind: Overall Impact Of Research...How Reviewers Score It (3/28/11)
On My Mind: Grantsmanship and The Key Role of Reviewers (12/14/10)
On My Mind: Enhancing Peer Review at NIH...What Users Think About The Changes (1/10/11)