Elements of successful NIH grant applications.

Is there a formula for a competitive NIH grant application? The Serenity Prayer may provide one: "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the ability to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." But how to tell the difference? In this Perspective, we provide an inclusive roadmap-elements of NIH funding. Collectively, we have over 30 y of peer review experience as NIH Scientific Review Officers in addition to over 30 y of program experience as NIH Program Officers. This article distills our NIH experience. We use Euclid's 13-book landmark, The Elements, as our template to humbly share what we learned. We have three specific aims: inform, guide, and motivate prospective applicants. We also address ways that support diversity and inclusion among applicants and young investigators in biomedical research. The elements we describe come from a wide range of sources. Some themes will be general. Some will be specific. All will be candid. The ultimate goal is a competitive application, serenity, and hopefully both.

Development and Validation of a Scoring Rubric for Editorial Evaluation of Peer-review Quality: A Pilot Study.

Introduction: Despite the importance of peer review to publications, there is no generally accepted approach for editorial evaluation of a peer review's value to a journal editor's decision-making. The graduate medical education editors of the Western Journal of Emergency Medicine Special Issue in Educational Research & Practice (Special Issue) developed and studied the holistic editor's scoring rubric (HESR) with the objective of assessing the quality of a review and an emphasis on the degree to which it informs a holistic appreciation for the submission under consideration. Methods: Using peer-review guidelines from several journals, the Special Issue's editors formulated the rubric as descriptions of peer reviews of varying degree of quality from the ideal to the unacceptable. Once a review was assessed by each editor using the rubric, the score was submitted to a third party for blinding purposes. We compared the performance of the new rubric to a previously used semantic differential scale instrument. Kane's validity framework guided the evaluation of the new scoring rubric around three basic assumptions: improved distribution of scores; relative consistency rather than absolute inter-rater reliability across editors; and statistical evidence that editors valued peer reviews that contributed most to their decision-making. Results: Ninety peer reviews were the subject of this study, all were assessed by two editors. Compared to the highly skewed distribution of the prior rating scale, the distribution of the new scoring rubric was bell shaped and demonstrated full use of the rubric scale. Absolute agreement between editors was low to moderate, while relative consistency between editor's rubric ratings was high. Finally, we showed that recommendations of higher rated peer reviews were more likely to concur with the editor's formal decision. Conclusion: Early evidence regarding the HESR supports the use of this instrument in determining the quality of peer reviews as well as its relative importance in informing editorial decision-making.

How do authors' perceptions of their papers compare with co-authors' perceptions and peer-review decisions?

How do author perceptions match up to the outcomes of the peer-review process and perceptions of others? In a top-tier computer science conference (NeurIPS 2021) with more than 23,000 submitting authors and 9,000 submitted papers, we surveyed the authors on three questions: (i) their predicted probability of acceptance for each of their papers, (ii) their perceived ranking of their own papers based on scientific contribution, and (iii) the change in their perception about their own papers after seeing the reviews. The salient results are: (1) Authors had roughly a three-fold overestimate of the acceptance probability of their papers: The median prediction was 70% for an approximately 25% acceptance rate. (2) Female authors exhibited a marginally higher (statistically significant) miscalibration than male authors; predictions of authors invited to serve as meta-reviewers or reviewers were similarly calibrated, but better than authors who were not invited to review. (3) Authors' relative ranking of scientific contribution of two submissions they made generally agreed with their predicted acceptance probabilities (93% agreement), but there was a notable 7% responses where authors predicted a worse outcome for their better paper. (4) The author-provided rankings disagreed with the peer-review decisions about a third of the time; when co-authors ranked their jointly authored papers, co-authors disagreed at a similar rate-about a third of the time. (5) At least 30% of respondents of both accepted and rejected papers said that their perception of their own paper improved after the review process. The stakeholders in peer review should take these findings into account in setting their expectations from peer review.

Conversion Rate of Abstracts Presented at Plastic Surgery The Meeting From 2010 to 2019: A 10-Year Analysis of Factors for Success.

BACKGROUND: Presentations are an important means of knowledge generation. Publication of these studies is important for dissemination of findings beyond meeting attendees. We analyzed a 10-year sample of presented abstracts at Plastic Surgery The Meeting and describe factors that improve rate and speed of conversion to peer-reviewed publication. METHODS: Abstracts presented between 2010 and 2019 at Plastic Surgery The Meeting were sourced from the American Society of Plastic Surgery Abstract Archive. A random sample of 100 abstracts from each year was evaluated. Abstract information and demographics were recorded. The title or author and keywords of each abstract were searched using a standardized workflow to find a corresponding published paper on PubMed, Google Scholar, and Google. Data were analyzed for trends and factors affecting conversion rate. RESULTS: A total of 983 presented abstracts were included. The conversion rate was 54.1%. Residents and fellows constituted the largest proportion of presenters (38.4%). There was a significant increase in medical student and research fellow presenters during the study period (P < 0.001). Conversion rate was not affected by the research rank of a presenter's affiliated institution (ß = 1.001, P = 0.89), geographic location (P = 0.60), or subspecialty tract (P = 0.73). US academics had a higher conversion rate (61.8%) than US nonacademics (32.7%) or international presenters (47.1%) (P < 0.001). Medical students had the highest conversion rate (65.6%); attendings had the lowest (45.0%). Research fellows had the lowest average time to publication (11.6 months, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Lower levels of training, factors associated with increased institution-level support, and research quality affect rate and time to publication. These findings highlight the success of current models featuring medical student and research fellow-led projects with strong resident and faculty mentorship.

Artificial intelligence tools for optimising recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: In recent years, the influence of artificial intelligence technology on clinical trials has been steadily increasing. It has brought about significant improvements in the efficiency and cost reduction of clinical trials. The objective of this scoping review is to systematically map, describe and summarise the current utilisation of artificial intelligence in recruitment and retention process of clinical trials that has been reported in research. Additionally, the review aims to identify benefits and drawbacks, as well as barriers and facilitators associated with the application of artificial intelligence in optimising recruitment and retention in clinical trials. The findings of this review will provide insights and recommendations for future development of artificial intelligence in the context of clinical trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review of relevant literature will follow the methodological framework for scoping studies provided by the Joanna Briggs Institute. A comprehensive electronic search will be conducted using the search strategy developed by the authors. Leading medical and computer science databases such as PubMed, Embase, Scopus, IEEE Xplore and Web of Science Core Collection will be searched. The search will encompass analytical observational studies, descriptive observational studies, experimental and quasi-experimental studies published in all languages, without any time limitations, which use artificial intelligence tools in the recruitment and retention process of clinical trials. The review team will screen the identified studies and import them into a dedicated electronic library specifically created for this review. Data extraction will be performed using a data charting table. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Secondary data will be attained in this scoping review; therefore, no ethical approval is required. The results of the final review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. It is expected that results will inform future artificial intelligence and clinical trials research.

Convolutions are competitive with transformers for protein sequence pretraining.

Pretrained protein sequence language models have been shown to improve the performance of many prediction tasks and are now routinely integrated into bioinformatics tools. However, these models largely rely on the transformer architecture, which scales quadratically with sequence length in both run-time and memory. Therefore, state-of-the-art models have limitations on sequence length. To address this limitation, we investigated whether convolutional neural network (CNN) architectures, which scale linearly with sequence length, could be as effective as transformers in protein language models. With masked language model pretraining, CNNs are competitive with, and occasionally superior to, transformers across downstream applications while maintaining strong performance on sequences longer than those allowed in the current state-of-the-art transformer models. Our work suggests that computational efficiency can be improved without sacrificing performance, simply by using a CNN architecture instead of a transformer, and emphasizes the importance of disentangling pretraining task and model architecture. A record of this paper's transparent peer review process is included in the supplemental information.

Journals must expand access to peer review data.

Empirical studies on peer review bias are primarily conducted by people from privileged groups and with affiliations with the journals studied. Data access is one major barrier to conducting peer review research. Accordingly, we propose pathways to broaden access to peer review data to people from more diverse backgrounds.

A Paradigm Shift for the Nursing Education Model: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: The Nursing Education Model (NEM) introduced a framework for education reform. This study examined the applications of NEM in education to determine whether modifications to NEM were warranted. METHOD: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews process for scoping reviews was used. Online databases and searches identified peer-reviewed articles published from 2010-to June 2023, and 71 articles were identified that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Six themes were derived from the findings: (1) learner-centered curricula; (2) instructional methods; (3) inclusive classrooms; (4) pedagogical creativity; (5) bridge theory-clinical divide; and (6) multiple units of analysis. CONCLUSION: The findings support the application of the NEM to promote a paradigm shift in instructional content, methods, and evaluation of outcomes. Based on use of the model identified in the literature, future modifications to NEM may be indicated, based on continued evidence. [J Nurs Educ. 2024;63(3):141-147.].

The Peer Review Process.

The purpose of peer review is to evaluate the scientific merit of the submitted work and to assess suitability for publication. This process is intended to provide an unbiased, independent critique to ensure publication of high-quality manuscripts that demonstrate validity and reliability. Reviewers are subject-matter experts who volunteer their time to participate in peer review. A proper review provides constructive and helpful feedback in a timely manner that authors can use to improve both current and future work. When given the opportunity to revise, authors should carefully consider all comments and adequately address all concerns. This paper provides guidance to clinicians for both aspects of the peer review process: participating as a reviewer and responding to reviewer feedback.

The unbearable burden of peer review?

The current situation of scientific manuscript peer review is discussed, both generally and as applied to Acta Crystallographica F - Biological Research Communications.

Strategies for treating acute pain in patients with opioid dependence: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: People who are dependent on opioids experience acute pain similar to other individuals. However, treating acute pain in these patients renders unique challenges such as opioid-induced hyperalgesia, opioid tolerance, withdrawal and stigma from healthcare providers. Thus, it is crucial to identify effective strategies for treating acute pain in this population and to highlight gaps in knowledge to create a high standard of care. The main objective of the proposed scoping review is to identify current strategies for treating the acute pain in individuals with opioid dependence or use disorder. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE via the PubMed interface, Embase and Cochrane Central, Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index and Google Scholar will be searched. Forward and backward citation searching of the final included studies will also be conducted. Two independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts of sources, review and assess relevant full-text studies and extract data. Data will be presented in a diagram and will contribute to a qualitative thematic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Data will be gathered from publicly accessible sources, so ethics approval is not necessary. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and reported at conferences related to addiction medicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 10.17605/OSF.IO/BG6SJ.