01868nas a2200217   4500000000100000008004100001260001500042100002200057700001800079700001500097700001800112700001700130700002300147700002000170245015700190856004300347300000900390490000700399520123000406022001401636       2017                            d  c2017-01-011 aElizabeth L. Pier1 aJoshua Raclaw1 aAnna Kaatz1 aMarkus Brauer1 aMolly Carnes1 aMitchell J. Nathan1 aCecilia E. Ford00a‘Your comments are meaner than your score’: score calibration talk influences intra- and inter-panel variability during scientific grant peer review  uhttps://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvw025  a1-140 v263 aIn scientific grant peer review, groups of expert scientists meet to engage in the collaborative decision-making task of evaluating and scoring grant applications. Prior research on grant peer review has established that inter-reviewer reliability is typically poor. In the current study, experienced reviewers for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were recruited to participate in one of four constructed peer review panel meetings. Each panel discussed and scored the same pool of recently reviewed NIH grant applications. We examined the degree of intra-panel variability in panels' scores of the applications before versus after collaborative discussion, and the degree of inter-panel variability. We also analyzed videotapes of reviewers’ interactions for instances of one particular form of discourse—Score Calibration Talk—as one factor influencing the variability we observe. Results suggest that although reviewers within a single panel agree more following collaborative discussion, different panels agree less after discussion, and Score Calibration Talk plays a pivotal role in scoring variability during peer review. We discuss implications of this variability for the scientific peer review process.  a0958-2029