Перегляд вихідного коду сторінки Great Guidelines For Untroubled PF-01367338 Understanding

Compared with the official panels, our panels had more women and more members from Group of Eight universities, but were similar in terms of academic level. Table?2 Summary statistics on the characteristics of 14 members of the simplified panel, 16 members of the journal panel and 2013 NHMRC panel members (where available) Agreement [http://www.selleckchem.com/products/AG-014699.html PF 01367338] between the simplified and official  processes The mean agreement between the simplified and official panels (72%, 95% CI 61% to 82%), and the journal and official panels (74%, 62% to 83%) was just below the acceptable threshold of 75% (table 3). The agreement about which proposals to fund was lower than the agreement about which proposals not to fund. This is partly because many more proposals were not funded  than funded. The agreement between the simplified and official processes was slightly lower for Basic Science than for Public Health. The mean agreement between the two simplified panels (79%, 68% to 89%) was above the 75% threshold (table 4). Table?3 Comparison of proposals funded by the simplified or journal panels, with the official funding agency (National Health And Medical Research Council of Australia, NHMRC) Table?4 Comparison of proposals funded by the simplified panels and journal panels Time spent on simplified peer review Twice the amount of time was spent reviewing a Basic Science proposal compared with a Public Health proposal (table 5), possibly due to the technical nature of Basic Science proposals. Similar amounts of time were spent preparing a spokesperson report for the simplified  panel or a journal panel review. The simplified panel peer review cost $A1109 per proposal, including the costs to attend a face-to-face meeting. The peer review cost for the journal panel dropped to $A359 per proposal because of the smaller number of reviewers, and absence of travel and accommodation costs. The majority of these costs come from the reviewers�� time. Table?5 Time spent on peer review and cost per proposal, by research area We previously estimated the costs of peer review for the 2009 official funding round to be $A4.44 million for 2983 proposals.23 Based on these figures, the cost per proposal in 2013 was $A1649 (adjusted for inflation). Hence, the estimated cost of the official peer review process in 2013 for 3821 proposals is $A6.3 million. In comparison, the estimated cost of reviewing the same number of proposals using the simplified panels is $A4.2 million and the journal panels is $A1.4 million. This gives estimated savings of $A2.1�C$A4.9 million per year from using our simplified review processes. Discussion Using shortened proposals and simplified peer review processes gave a close to adequate agreement with the official NHMRC panels. The NHMRC streamlined the application process for the 2014 round and removed many sections (table 1). Our results indicate that this streamlining would not have greatly altered funding outcomes.