Public Comments - Submissions

Peer Review Process Comments

Name of person or organization submitting comments: Renaux

Please identify which stakeholder group you represent: Researcher

Registration at ClinicalTrials.gov, RoPR, or PROSPERO

The registrations process should be done but these sites need to be user friendly and streamlined as well as easy to maintain.

Production of a draft final report, scientific abstract, and standalone results table

PCORI peer review process of the draft final report

The suggestion to conduct peer review of a the final report of the project is burdensome to an already over-burdened system of peer-review process down for grant reviews as well as publication. The review should be conducted by qualified staff members of the funding organization.

PCORI should devote more of its effort and funds to funding projects - with the availability of funds there should be a much higher pay line than has been the case.

Providing a version of the results summary that will be useful and comprehensible for use by patients and the general public

A brief summary abstract would be reasonable - more than that is not indicated. Publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals should be the main thrust.
There needs to be a significant time period allowed for reporting because projects are usually underfunded in both time and money and therefore processing results takes time.

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

Public posting of full final reports on PCORI’s website PCORI should aim for abbreviated reports

Awardee institution notification to PCORI of submission to journals and subsequent publication of papers resulting from funded projects

Timeline of the proposed peer review and public release process

A reasonably long time period to respond to this (e.g. 1 year after completion) needs to be in place as noted above grants are underfunded in both time, money and personnel these days and digesting the data takes time.

Please rate how well the proposal meets PCORI’s obligations under its authorizing legislation Neither Well nor Poorly

Please add any comment about your rating:

PCORI should review their initial grant review process- Reviews should be blinded to give all a fair chance at an unbiased review.
The pay line should be higher for proposals. PCORI has had unspent money in cycles and seems to take pride in only funding 9% or applications. This is appalling- when funds are available MORE applications should be funded. I

Please rate how well the proposal provides a clear understanding of the peer review and public release process

Please add any comment about your rating:

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

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?

Please add any comment about your rating:

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

Upload a Document