Peer Review Meeting Procedure

Welcome

• Introductions/Thanks
  
  
• Brief Orientation from Committee Chairpersons
  
  • Ethics and Confidentiality Policies, Program Description and Peer Review Criteria 
  • Score Scale 
  • Meeting Process
    • Timing for presenting/discussing proposals
• Peer Review Manager explains use of ProposalCentral for the meeting

Discussion and Scoring of Proposals

• The Peer Review Manager will announce the proposal selected for discussion.

• Chairperson announces the proposal number, title, applicant name and institution.

• Members with conflicts of interest must leave the room; during remote meetings, they will be placed in a separate sub-conference without access to the discussion. Chairperson will state the three preliminary scores of the assigned reviewers.

• Chairperson will call on Reviewer 1 assigned to the proposal to start the discussion. Reviewer 1 (2–3 minutes) begins with a brief one-minute overview and then summarizes the strengths and weaknesses for each criterion during the remaining two minutes. Reviewer 2 (1 minute) will provide additional strengths and weaknesses not already presented by the 1st reviewer. It is ok if there are no additional comments. Reviewer 3 (1 minute) will provide additional strengths and weaknesses not already presented by the first 2 reviewers. It is ok if there are no additional comments.

• In meetings with Patient Representatives (lay reviewers), the Patient Representative presents their evaluation of the proposal’s potential impact on the Association’s mission after Reviewer 3.

• Full committee discusses the proposal; conflicting opinions are adequately discussed.

• All assigned reviewers will state their final single number score to the whole number (no decimal numbers) constructing the final scoring range.

• All members, prompted by the peer review manager, enter a numeric score in ProposalCentral.
  
  
• Anyone scoring outside 2+/- outside range will have the opportunity to concisely state their rationale.
  
  
• Policy Concerns will be identified after scoring and documented by Association staff. 
  
  
• All three Reviewers are responsible to update their critiques with new or significant points that were brought up during the discussion and were not reflected in the initial critique (i.e. notes taken during discussion)

All committee discussions and scores are confidential.

Reviewers are asked to destroy any printed or electronic peer review materials.

Triage Process

• Chairpersons will meet with Peer Review Managers prior to the meeting and triage proposals that fall in the bottom minimum 65% of preliminary scores.  
  
  
• Chairpersons will carefully review scores and critique feedback to determine whether any proposals with disparate scoring should be discussed.
  
  
• If Reviewers have valid and compelling concerns related to scoring, they should be brought to the Chairpersons and Peer Review Managers prior to receipt of the final discussion list.  
  
  
• A minimum of 65% of the proposals will be triaged and not discussed
  
  IMPORTANT: Reviewers will not have the ability to edit the critiques of triaged proposals. It is IMPERATIVE that the final critiques reflect the score given.  It is also crucial that you read the other reviewers’ critiques prior to the meeting.