Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Kudos to Reviewers for the JGP: You Make Our Science Better

Kudos to Reviewers for the JGP: You Make Our Science Better Kudos to Reviewers for the JGP : You Make Our Science Better Edward N. Pugh Jr. , Editor The Journal of General Physiology As the Journal of General Physiology embarks on the new year and I look back on the last six months, I thought that it would be healthy to take stock of the values that underlie the JGP 's reviewing practices. In this effort, I found that a useful comparison can be made with a recent self-evaluation by the National Institutes of Health of the grant application review process. Next Section Core Values of Peer Review In its establishment of the Peer Review Advisory Committee (for the history and minutes of meetings of the NIH Peer Review Advisory Committee, see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/peer/prac/index.htm ), the NIH undertook a review of the core values of peer review. A broad consensus was reached by the committee, consistent with an historical analysis by Alan Willard, chief of the Scientific Review Branch of NINDS (for the historical review and analysis by Alan Willard, see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/peer/prac/prac_may_2005/prac_20050516_meeting.htm and http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/peer/prac/prac_sep_2005/prac_20050926_meeting.htm ). Not surprisingly, the committee concluded that every grant review should be Scientifically and technically competent. Fair and objective, and untainted by conflict of interest. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Journal of General Physiology Rockefeller University Press

Kudos to Reviewers for the JGP: You Make Our Science Better

The Journal of General Physiology , Volume 133 (2): 129 – Feb 1, 2009

Loading next page...
 
/lp/rockefeller-university-press/kudos-to-reviewers-for-the-jgp-you-make-our-science-better-HU1TGs3xTH

References (2)

Publisher
Rockefeller University Press
Copyright
Copyright © 2009
ISSN
0022-1295
eISSN
1540-7748
DOI
10.1085/jgp.200910193
pmid
19171768
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Kudos to Reviewers for the JGP : You Make Our Science Better Edward N. Pugh Jr. , Editor The Journal of General Physiology As the Journal of General Physiology embarks on the new year and I look back on the last six months, I thought that it would be healthy to take stock of the values that underlie the JGP 's reviewing practices. In this effort, I found that a useful comparison can be made with a recent self-evaluation by the National Institutes of Health of the grant application review process. Next Section Core Values of Peer Review In its establishment of the Peer Review Advisory Committee (for the history and minutes of meetings of the NIH Peer Review Advisory Committee, see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/peer/prac/index.htm ), the NIH undertook a review of the core values of peer review. A broad consensus was reached by the committee, consistent with an historical analysis by Alan Willard, chief of the Scientific Review Branch of NINDS (for the historical review and analysis by Alan Willard, see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/peer/prac/prac_may_2005/prac_20050516_meeting.htm and http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/peer/prac/prac_sep_2005/prac_20050926_meeting.htm ). Not surprisingly, the committee concluded that every grant review should be Scientifically and technically competent. Fair and objective, and untainted by conflict of interest.

Journal

The Journal of General PhysiologyRockefeller University Press

Published: Feb 1, 2009

There are no references for this article.