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 2019 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.
Three Decades of Peer Review Congresses is an editorial in JAMA, January, 2018, that discusses the problems, improvements, innovations, and future direction of the peer review process in biomedicine.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) Guide Notice NOT-OD-18-115: Maintaining Integrity in NIH Peer Review: Responsibilities and Consequences (December 22, 2017), outlines the possible consequences that may ensue and actions that the NIH (in coordination with other offices) may take in response to a breach of integrity in peer review.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) Guide Notice NOT-OD-15-106: Applicant Responsibilities for Maintaining the Integrity of NIH Peer Review (June 18, 2015), emphasizes open and fair competition in the competitive grant environment, stressing that “all participants in the peer review process, including investigators named on an NIH grant application, and officials of institutions applying for NIH support, are expected to respect the integrity of NIH peer review. This Guide Notice states the NIH position concerning the responsibilities of these participants in maintaining the integrity of the NIH peer review process, as well as potential consequences for any inappropriate or unethical attempt to influence the outcome of the NIH peer review process.” For example, it is not okay to ask a peer to refrain from submitting or to request withdrawing a grant application that is competitive with your own grant submission..
Promote Scientific Integrity Via Journal Peer Review Data in Science , July, 2017, discusses strategies publishers can implement to evaluate the effectiveness of their own peer review practices.
How to Review a Paper? in Science Careers, September, 2016, shares insights and advice on how to review papers from researchers across the spectrum.
Let’s Make Peer Review Scientific in Nature Comment, July, 2016, reviews the history and offers suggestions for future of the peer review process.
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.
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.
Explore the Peer Review topic on this site.
