The following is a summary of the video transcript:
1. Preparing for review panel discussions:
- Read all reviews carefully
- Develop talking points
- Anticipate discussion flow
- Reconsider scores if necessary
2. Review panel protocol:
- 15 minutes per application
- Primary reviewers present preliminary impact scores
- Aim for clarity, not necessarily consensus
3. Reviewer roles:
- Primary: Summarize application, present review for each criterion
- Secondary/Tertiary: Add new points, explain scoring differences
- All: Participate in discussion, provide final scores
4. Effective reviewer behaviors:
- Complete reviews on time
- Provide thoughtfully motivated scores
- Consider other reviewers’ comments
- Listen and focus on all reviews
- Ask questions about unassigned proposals when relevant
5. Problematic reviewer behaviors:
- Superficially motivated scores
- Lack of objectivity
- Failing to consider others’ opinions
- Inappropriate remarks or nonverbal expressions
- Discussing own work instead of the application
- “Drive-by” reviews from unassigned reviewers
6. Handling conflicts of interest:
- Never discuss grants outside the panel
- Declare conflicts immediately
- Avoid comparisons between grants
7. Multidisciplinary considerations:
- Represent your discipline well
- Understand and respect different disciplinary values
- Balance support and critique for your own field
8. Addressing bias:
- Recognize personal biases
- Self-evaluate and avoid judgments based on personal knowledge
- Maintain flexibility and listen to other reviewers
9. Impact of reviews:
- Influences scientific careers and research directions
- Affects panel member scores and perceptions
10. Key advice:
- Be prepared, professional, and respectful
- Focus on the application as written
- Provide clear justification for scores
- Balance thoroughness with conciseness
The presentation emphasizes the importance of fair, thorough, and professional review practices to ensure the best scientific work is funded and advanced.
Produced by Claude 3.5 Sonnet
