Public Comments - Submissions

Peer Review Process Comments

Name of person or organization submitting comments: Wendy Demark

Please identify which stakeholder group you represent: Researcher

Registration at ClinicalTrials.gov, RoPR, or PROSPERO OK - no comments

Production of a draft final report, scientific abstract, and standalone results table OK - no comments

PCORI peer review process of the draft final report

I was very disappointed in the review. Few experts and mismatched experts to review the science. Seems that if so much money is being allocated, the opinions of experts should be sought.

Providing a version of the results summary that will be useful and comprehensible for use by patients and the general public ok - no comments

Submission of results table to ClinicalTrials.gov and/or other sites as appropriate, with a link to the abstract and standalone results table on PCORI’s website cannot comment

Public posting of full final reports on PCORI’s website cannot comment

Awardee institution notification to PCORI of submission to journals and subsequent publication of papers resulting from funded projects cannot comment

Timeline of the proposed peer review and public release process adequate

Please rate how well the proposal meets PCORI’s obligations under its authorizing legislation Very Poorly

Please add any comment about your rating:

I really had high hopes for this initiative, instead I find that it is overly proscriptive and bureaucratic and it does not seek the input of experts. It is the "no child left behind" of the grant world. Why all the resources were put into this organization instead of just putting them into the NIH and creating an institute for comparative effectiveness is beyond me. As a researcher who has served on both sides of the table, as a submitter and a reviewer, as well as a tax payer, I am gravely disappointed.

Please rate how well the proposal provides a clear understanding of the peer review and public release process Neither Clear nor Unclear

Please add any comment about your rating: see above

Please comment on the proposal’s feasibility given any competing obligations that awardee institutions funded by PCORI, or their investigators, may face. This is a minor concern

The law requires that PCORI both conduct peer review of our funded primary research and make it available publicly within a specific timeframe. We propose to conduct peer review first, then post the results, so they can benefit from the review process. Do you agree or disagree with the sequencing of this process? Strongly Agree

Please add any comment about your rating: Of course - this is a stupid question

Please provide any additional comments that you have not already provided about any aspect of this proposal.

Again, please see comments above - the fact that the redundancy of PCORI exists in an age where NIH is nothing less than criminal. As a researcher who is trying to make strides in this era of such austerity, it is a shame that so many resources have been wasted in bringing to bear a mechanism that shifts in its requirements continually, that makes documents and requirements so proscriptive as to be absurd and which then calls reviewers to review the science who have little expertise in the area is criminal. Obviously, I have strong opinions. I will not waste my time in either submitting or reviewing another PCORI grant unless things change drastically.

Upload a Document