Search

The article focuses on a statistical technology used in a peer review of research proposals conducted by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. A complementary peer review system that addresses sample sizes, scoring precision and arithmetic mean is proposed. It mentions that the long-term deficiency at the NIH is the identification of innovation.

The author reflects on his proposal that controversy characterizes innovation. He emphasizes that the creation of a direct comparison between the currently dominant consensus approach employed at the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH) and the statistically robust structure he proposed is what innovative experiment would be. He suggests that a complementary system of peer review be recognized with the idea that alternative structure of peer review may assist in the identification of innovative proposals.