HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kaplan, D. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Kaplan, D. Related Collections Related Articles

RIPOSTE: Statistical analysis of NIH peer review—identifying innovation

Case School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

¹ Correspondence: Case School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, 2103 Cornell Rd., Cleveland, OH 44106-7288, USA.. E-mail: david.kaplan{at}case.edu

I HAVE PROPOSED that innovation is characterized by controversy. I believe this hypothesis is itself innovative, and it is clear from the comments of the reviewer that it is also controversial. Although I am not suggesting that Dr. Pederson’s response to my essay proves my point, it is satisfyingly ironic.

In my essay, I have argued that innovation is associated with controversy as reflected in the dispersion of scores in a statistically robust system of review. Dr. Pederson suggests that controversy simply reflects different opinions about the quality or importance of the proposal and that this characteristic is not necessarily correlated with innovation.

In my eyes, an innovative experiment would be to make a direct comparison between the currently dominant consensus approach employed at NIH and the statistically robust structure I have proposed. An independent assessment of innovation among proposals, probably by a consensus procedure, could be used to determine whether any statistical measures correlate. In other words, I think it would best to approach this problem, as any scientist would, by experimentation. Moreover, I think it is worthwhile pursuing this investigation because of the intrinsic value of the exploration of innovative ideas.

It should be emphasized that I do not believe that the current NIH peer review system should be abandoned. Instead, I am suggesting that a complementary system of peer review be considered with the idea that this alternative structure of peer review may help in the identification of innovative proposals.

Finally, Dr. Pederson has appropriately mentioned the investigations of Oswald Avery and Barbara McClintock as excellent examples of innovation. I believe these examples strengthen my argument that controversy and novelty are associated, and I greatly appreciate his consideration of these great scientists in view of my hypothesis.

	FOOTNOTES

 
The opinions expressed in editorials, essays, letters to the editor, and other articles comprising the Up Front section are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of FASEB or its constituent societies. The FASEB Journal welcomes all points of view and many voices. We look forward to hearing these in the form of op-ed pieces and/or letters from its readers addressed to journals{at}faseb.org

Related Articles

POINT: Statistical analysis in NIH peer review—identifying innovation

David Kaplan
FASEB J 2007 21: 305-308. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kaplan, D. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Kaplan, D. Related Collections Related Articles