CSR Scientific Publications

• Richard K Nakamura, Lee S Mann, Mark D Lindner, Jeremy Braithwaite, Mei-Ching Chen, Adrian Vancea, Noni Byrnes, Valerie Durrant, Bruce Reed (2021) An experimental test of the effects of redacting grant applicant identifiers on peer review outcomes. eLife 2021;10:e71368. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.71368
• Erosheva EA, Grant S, Chen M, Linder MD, Nakamura RK, Lee CJ (2020) NIH peer review: Criterion scores completely account for racial disparities in overall impact scores. Science Advances 6(23): eaaz4868. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aaz4868
• Lindner MD, Nakamura RK (2015) Examining the Predictive Validity of NIH Peer Review Scores. PLoS ONE 10(6): e0126938. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0126938
• Lindner MD, Vancea A, Chen M-C, Chacko G (2015) NIH Peer Review: Scored Review Criteria and Overall Impact, American Journal of Evaluation online first, 2015
• Boyack KW, Chen M-C, Chacko G (2014 Characterization of the Peer Review Network at the Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health. PLoS ONE 9(8): e104244. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104244
• Martin MR, Kopstein A, Janice JM (2010) An Analysis of Preliminary and Post-Discussion Priority Scores for Grant Applications Peer Reviewed by the Center for Scientific Review at the NIH, PLoS ONE 5(11): e13526
• Martin MR, Lindquist T, Kotchen TA (2008) Why are peer review outcomes less favorable for clinical science than basic science applications? Amer J Med 121:637–641
• TA Kotchen, T. Lindquist, A. Miller Sostek, et al. (2006) Why are peer review outcomes less favorable for clinical science than basic science applications? J Invest Med, 54 (1):13–19
• TA Kotchen, T. Lindquist, K. Malik, E. Ehrenfeld (2004) NIH peer review of grant applications for clinical research, JAMA, 291 (7):836–843