Peer review research papers

The Internet has been having particularly profound effects on peer review with regard to computer software. Most significantly, it has made possible the development of free software (also known as open source software) as a viable alternative to proprietary software (., commercial software). Proprietary software is usually given relatively little independent peer review because its source code is a tightly guarded secret and is generally reviewed only by programmers, or a subset thereof, within the company developing it. Without source code, which is the form that software is originally written in by humans using a programming language, it is much more difficult for programmers to detect errors, security vulnerabilities and other weaknesses in software.

Some of the ICs publish paylines as part of their funding strategies to guide applicants on their likelihood of receiving funding.  Application scores can only be compared against the payline for the fiscal year when the application will be considered for funding, which is not necessarily the year when it was submitted.  There may be a delay of several months to determine paylines at the beginning of fiscal years.   If the application is assigned to an IC that does not announce a payline, the program official listed at the top of the summary statement may be able to provide guidance on the likelihood of funding. After the Advisory Council meeting, if an application results in an award, the applicant will be working closely with the program official of the funding Institute or Center on scientific and programmatic matters and a Grants Management Officer on budgetary or administrative issues. The Grants Management Specialist will contact the applicant to collect information needed to prepare the award. 
How to Volunteer to Be a Reviewer
For those interested in volunteering on NIH review panels, please see:

Peer review research papers

peer review research papers


peer review research paperspeer review research paperspeer review research paperspeer review research papers