03128nas a2200325   4500000000100000000000100001008003900002260001700041653002400058653003400082653001200116653001600128653002400144653002000168653002000188653003200208100001700240700002200257700001900279700002000298700001700318700002800335700002000363245009700383856007800480300001100558490000600569520221300575022001402788       0                             d  cSep 28, 201210aCareers in research10aDrug research and development10aFinance10apeer review10aQualitative studies10aResearch Design10aResearch grants10aResearch quality assessment1 aHendy Abdoul1 aChristophe Perrey1 aPhilippe Amiel1 aFlorence Tubach1 aSerge Gottot1 aIsabelle Durand-Zaleski1 aCorinne Alberti00aPeer Review of Grant Applications: Criteria Used and Qualitative Study of Reviewer Practices  uhttps://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0046054  ae460540 v73 aBackground Peer review of grant applications has been criticized as lacking reliability. Studies showing poor agreement among reviewers supported this possibility but usually focused on reviewers’ scores and failed to investigate reasons for disagreement. Here, our goal was to determine how reviewers rate applications, by investigating reviewer practices and grant assessment criteria. Methods and Findings We first collected and analyzed a convenience sample of French and international calls for proposals and assessment guidelines, from which we created an overall typology of assessment criteria comprising nine domains relevance to the call for proposals, usefulness, originality, innovativeness, methodology, feasibility, funding, ethical aspects, and writing of the grant application. We then performed a qualitative study of reviewer practices, particularly regarding the use of assessment criteria, among reviewers of the French Academic Hospital Research Grant Agencies (Programmes Hospitaliers de Recherche Clinique, PHRCs). Semi-structured interviews and observation sessions were conducted. Both the time spent assessing each grant application and the assessment methods varied across reviewers. The assessment criteria recommended by the PHRCs were listed by all reviewers as frequently evaluated and useful. However, use of the PHRC criteria was subjective and varied across reviewers. Some reviewers gave the same weight to each assessment criterion, whereas others considered originality to be the most important criterion (12/34), followed by methodology (10/34) and feasibility (4/34). Conceivably, this variability might adversely affect the reliability of the review process, and studies evaluating this hypothesis would be of interest. Conclusions Variability across reviewers may result in mistrust among grant applicants about the review process. Consequently, ensuring transparency is of the utmost importance. Consistency in the review process could also be improved by providing common definitions for each assessment criterion and uniform requirements for grant application submissions. Further research is needed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of these measures.  a1932-6203