University Peer Review Posted on December 3, 2007 At his university, the peer review process is based on sub-specialties, Michael E. Thase (bio) explains.

The Department of Psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh is organized around sub-specialty areas. So for example, mood disorders, substance abuse disorders, schizophrenia and the related chronic and persistent mental illnesses, late life disorders, and so forth. And within each of these areas of expertise, there are both clinical service and research components.

And one of the missions of the research teams, or clusters, within each specialty area or division is peer review, and the ability to help a colleague well before the application is submitted to NIMH for review in terms of looking at the proposed project, looking both at how well it’s written as well as the soundness of the ideas, and also looking for ways that the application might be enhanced or improved.

So our overall research committee is then subdivided into clusters. The clusters are typically led by the most seasoned researcher within each of the divisions. So when a colleague within that cluster is planning a submission, he or she needs to have a nearly finished draft, or what they think is a nearly finished draft, ready for this review at least a month before the grant is submitted to the federal government.

And then two or three other colleagues within that cluster will provide a peer review at a level of sophistication comparable to that of that NIMH IRG. And then you have typically three weeks following the return of that review to remedy the application according to the reviewer’s comments and suggestions and so forth.

When I talk to investigators at other places, they usually envy this approach. Now, it’s true that investigators, regardless what their overall political beliefs are, are somewhat libertarian when it comes to their own research, and don’t want to be told what to do, and particularly don’t want to be told, “You can’t submit this application."

That rankles against some kind of fundamental rights of academic freedom. That seldom happens, and instead of being told what to do in our review process, you’re getting an NIMH IRG-level review for free that doesn’t count against your chances of funding and an opportunity to improve your project before it gets reviewed in the competitive arena.

So almost everyone, despite the occasional bruise of being told sternly, “This does not look like a very good project,” almost everyone benefits from this system, and people from outside of our system at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center usually wish their department had the wherewithal to implement such a system.

« Back to Article