untitled

Either way, how this discussion is conduct-

ed is crucial to the success of the study sec-

tion. It is the preamble to a confidential

vote—a number attached to the proposal by

each member (it would take another article to

do justice to the voting process) which is the

basis for the priority score. Each member

votes on each proposal regardless of expert-

ise. Different study sections—and in fact dif-

ferent chairs, who are responsible for the pace

of the meeting—have different ideas about

how these discussions should be regulated,

ranging from the Stopwatch School to the

Socratic School. The essential point is that a

complete explication of the issues and con-

cerns provides a more informed, better justi-

fied basis for voting.

The Reviewer’s Work Load

A study section with twenty members and

eighty proposals will require that each of

its members writes an average of eight full

reviews and serves as reader on four other

proposals—a “light” to “average” load, in

most people’s experience. Reading twelve

grants carefully is not trivial: each proposal

is twenty-five single-spaced pages of usu-

ally dense scientific prose. But the impor-

tance of the job requires reviewers to read

every word and to try to understand every

thought. For beginners, it may take six to

eight hours to read a proposal, but that

time goes down with experience. Writing a

thoughtful review takes another couple of

hours. On top of all this work, reviewers

frequently read proposals that are not their

primary responsibility, for example

because they’re interested in the field.

Effective Service

Becoming an effective and valuable member

of a study section is an acquired skill. Some of

the same qualities that help us in our work

pertain: the ability to analyze complex situa-

tions, to identify important questions, to

design well-controlled experiments, and so

on. But peer review of grants also calls upon

other qualities from reviewers:

• Generositywith respect to time and atten-
  tion demanded from already busy lives, to
  be sure, but also in allowing for science
  that is substantially different from what the
  reviewer practices.


• Listeningto one’s co-reviewer on a partic-
  ular proposal, or to the disagreeing
  reviewers discussing a proposal that is dis-
  tant from one’s own field. Some people
  make a point of listening for what they
  consider to be crucial determinants. For
  example, how will this proposal, if fund-
  ed, advance the field?


• Fairness:the ability of study sections to
  assess all proposals in an even-handed
  manner, so that differences in scores are
  meaningful, depends absolutely upon the

200 CAREER ADVICE FOR LIFE SCIENTISTS II

Chairs, who are responsible for

the pace of the meeting, have

different ideas about how these

discussions should be regulated,

ranging from the Stopwatch

School to the Socratic School.

The importance of the job

requires reviewers to read

every word and to try to

understand every thought.