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.

ProposalCentral
ProposalCentral is a web-based system for application preparation, submission, peer review, and awards management.