Welcome to The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Research Institute Responsible Conduct of Research Site!
This site provides a wide range of educational resources on scientific integrity for The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) research community - useful and applicable whether you are new to research or have many years of experience. As a central component of the CHOP Research Institute's Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) program the site is designed to:
- Convey and clarify role-specific RCR training requirements
- Facilitate access to RCR educational materials and resources
- Serve as a faculty resource for delivering RCR instruction
- Increase understanding of RCR-related federal regulations and CHOP policies
- Introduce institutional experts to answer questions and offer guidance
February 2016 Feature: Peer Review
Peer review is a systematic process for evaluating the quality of research grant applications and scientific manuscripts. How does the peer review process establish credibility in scientific research? Are you ready to be a reviewer? Do you know what is expected of you?
Check out these selected resources to learn more about peer review and the ethical issues that can arise when deciding to become a reviewer, during the review process, and even after submitting a review.
Research Funding. Big Names or Big Ideas: Do Peer-Review Panels Select the Best Science Proposals? in Science, April 24, 2015, examines the success of peer-review panels in predicting the future quality of proposed research.
Reviewing Post-Publication Peer Review (PPPR) in Trends in Genetics, May 2015, discusses the evolution, impact and challenges of PPPR.
Content Collection: Interactive Peer Review in Science Careers, May 21, 2013, discusses open methods of peer review.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) Guide Notice NOT-OD-15-106: Applicant Responsibilities in Maintaining the Integrity of NIH Peer Review (June 18, 2015), states the NIH position regarding the responsibilities of investigators and institutional officials in maintaining the integrity of the NIH review process, including consequences for inappropriate or unethical behaviors.
NIH Guidance for Reviewers provides policy notes, guidelines, step-by-step instructions, videos and critique templates.
Inside the NIH Grant Review Process - Applicant Resources includes print resources and a series of videos produced by the Center for Scientific Review (CSR) - NIH Peer Review Process Revealed, Tips for Applicants, and What Happens to Your NIH Grant Application.
PubMed Commons enables authors to share opinions and information about scientific publications in PubMed.
Peer Review Resources by Yale University includes a guide for manuscript review, PowerPoint presentation, and case studies with discussion materials.
Council on Science Editors (CSE) White Paper - Section 2.3 Reviewer Responsibilities outlines effective practices and reviewer responsibilities for promoting integrity in scientific journal publishing.