Internal and External Peer Review Focused Group Discussion PAASE 06/15/2011

Attendees Neil Irvin F. Cabello Giselle P. Concepcion Onofre de Jesus Pedro A. Jose Amelia Gueverra Evelyn Mae Tecsin Mendoza Leah Tolosa Helen I. Yap Clairecynth C. Yu

Introduction: Define the problem or context of the Focused Group Discussion External Review Not enough reviewers with appropriate expertise Scoring system is not quantified Review criteria are not well defined Review is slow and not transparent Conflict of interest not taken seriously Questions on confidentiality Questions on intellectual property Culture of volunteerism

Introduction: Define the problem or context of the Focused Group Discussion Internal Review No institutional grant preparation mentoring Same as those listed for external review

History or detailed nature of the problem or condition including previous attempts to solve the problem Still trying!

What are the solutions for each of these problems? Emulate what has been done by others or other countries. Who are the stakeholders? See attached document from Toni Scarpa, PhD – Director, Center for Scientific Review, NIH, USA.

What are the solutions for each of these problems? Emulate what has been done by others or other countries. Who are the stakeholders? See attached document from Toni Scarpa, PhD – Director, Center for Scientific Review, NIH, USA.

What are the solutions for each of these problems? External Review Not enough reviewers with appropriate expertise – establish a pool of reviewers to include PAASE volunteers Scoring system is not quantified – consider adopting the 1 to 9 scoring system of NIH, USA. Review criteria are not well defined - consider adopting the criteria used by developed countries (e.g., NIH, USA). The NIH uses five graded criteria – significance, innovation, investigator, approach, environment. The overall impact determines the final score.

What are the solutions for each of these problems? External Review Review is slow and not transparent – streamline the evaluation process, improve the feedback mechanism (e.g., post in the appropriate web-site the scores within two weeks and review summaries within a month after the actual review) Conflict of interest not taken seriously – Please take it seriously. It should be strengthened by assigning four reviewers for each grant proposal. Follow the NIH (USA) review format. Questions on confidentiality – Sign a non-disclosure agreement Questions on intellectual property –(vide supra)

What are the solutions for each of these problems? External Review Culture of volunteerism – incentivize service in the review committees without compensation (e.g., to be considered in promotions and awards) PAASE members should take the initiative in developing the culture of volunteerism in the peer-review process in the Philippines.

What are the opportunities and pitfalls – ensure funding of the best science form the best investigators. What are the resources needed for such an implementation? – DOST and universities should raise the funds needed to establish and implement an efficient and fair peer-review system. What could be a timeline for fixing the problems? ASAP but could be within one year.