Facilitating all aspects of peer review for proposed research, ongoing research, and retrospective research analysis — online, via teleconference, in-person, or any combination.
Providing all necessary support to facilitate research programs — including developing and implementing funding competitions, or supporting the activities of leadership groups that oversee such programs.
Our IT staff work with clients throughout a project’s life cycle — developing and managing technology, and receiving and tracking information submitted via state-of-the-art tools.
Here are some examples of recent publications on the science of peer review.
Stephen A. Gallo, Michael LeMaster, Scott R. Glisson “Frequency and Type of Conflicts of Interest in the Peer Review of Basic Biomedical Research Funding Applications: Self-Reporting Versus Manual Detection” Science and Engineering Ethics. 4 February, 2015.
Stephen A. Gallo et al. "The Validation of Peer Review through Research Impact Measures and the Implications for Funding Strategies" PLOS ONE. 3 September, 2014.
Stephen A. Gallo, Afton S. Carpenter, Scott R. Glisson. "Teleconference versus Face-to-Face Scientific Peer Review of Grant Application: Effects on Review Outcomes" PLOS ONE. 7 August, 2013.
"The review system is great. In my opinion the single most critical factor is the selection of good reviewers and chairs. In my panel the chair was outstanding and the reviewers were very good."
"The Program Staff have told me this was the best panel they had ever seen. I agree. I want to thank all of you for your hard work and intelligent, comprehensive discussions. A genuine pleasure to work with you."
"Let me say that I really miss the AIBS reviews - you guys do such a great job and it is something that comes into sharp focus when I am reviewing grants for other agencies."
"I think your online review system is pretty optimal. Others should learn from your system for online scoring."