Peer Review Meeting Process


  • 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.

scientists discussing data received from microscope in a laboratory


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