Peer Review Meeting Process

Welcome

• Introductions/Thanks
• Review AHA Policies
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Statement on Inclusiveness
  • Ethics Policy
  • Guiding Values
  • Research Enterprise Essential Elements
• Timeframe (meals, breaks, projected ending time)
• Use of the full range of scores - Initial Scores Histogram
• Method used for percentile ranking
• Timing for presenting/discussing applications, using peer review criteria specific to each program
• AHA staff explains use of ProposalCentral for the meeting

Streamlining Process

• Members view in ProposalCentral a list of applications that received at least one reviewer’s recommendation to streamline. Only scientific reviewers may recommend streamlining as a preliminary score; lay reviewers do not have this option.
  • Streamlining information is confidential and is not to be discussed outside of the committee meeting.
  • Members in conflict with an application slated for streamlining must abstain from commenting on the application.
  • The committee chair reads the title and application number of one application at a time, and ask if any scientific member wishes to "save" an application for full discussion. A vocal indication or a raised hand is sufficient.
  • Saved applications will be automatically moved by ProposalCentral to the review list for discussion during the meeting. A lay reviewer may not remove an application from the streamline list.
  • A reason for moving an application from the streamlining list is not discussed at this time.
• Review, Critique and Score Applications
  • Staff person reviews program description and peer review criteria for each program prior to reviewing applications for that category.
  • Chairperson announces the application number, title, applicant name and institution.
  • Members with conflicts of interest must leave the room; on teleconference meetings, members with conflicts of interest are placed in a sub-conference where they cannot hear discussion.
  • The assigned reviewers, reader are announced, and each states his/her recommended score range.
  • The primary reviewer presents a full summary of the proposal and his/her critique of the application.
  • The secondary reviewer presents points that were not covered by the primary reviewer.
  • The reader gives his her opinion of the primary and secondary reviewers' analyses.
  • The lay reviewer evaluates the potential impact of the application on the mission of the AHA.
  • Full committee discusses the proposal; conflicting opinions are adequately discussed.
  • Primary and secondary reviewers and reader state their final individual priority score.
  • The secondary reviewer is responsible for recording discussion points that are not included in the reviewers’ critiques, and adds it to his/her critique in ProposalCentral.
  • All members, prompted by the meeting coordinator, enter a numeric score in ProposalCentral.
  • Revote: If a variance of 2.0 or more exists between the high and low scores, a revote is required and discussion is reopened. After discussion, the second vote is entered at the prompting of the meeting coordinator. This vote is final regardless of any variance.
• Concerns
  • The primary and secondary reviewers comment on any budgetary or policy concerns that should be raised for discussion.
  • The meeting coordinator enters concerns into ProposalCentral.
  • A majority vote is required to flag an application, and a note is entered by the meeting coordinator in the ProposalCentral.
  • Following discussion, applications are considered approved, unless there is a unanimous vote of those present for disapproval.

All committee discussions and scores are confidential.
Reviewers are asked to destroy any printed or electronic peer review materials.