science journalist | good physics, bad physics, and sometimes ugly physics
Signal: dgaristo.72
Email: [email protected]
Dan Garisto
Loading...
“It’s already difficult to find good people to fill the panels, and now it might become nearly impossible in some circumstances.” — @mbkplus.bsky.social
A few outcomes seem likely, staff say:
-less expert advice from top institutions which submit many proposals (and no rotators either)
-splitting up panels (more work for agency staff)
-more reliance on ad-hoc reviews (also more work for agency staff)
For example, if a panel with 10 people has to review 100 proposals from, say, 50 schools (Cornell, UCLA, UW, OSU, Stanford, etc.)—none of the 10 reviewers can have submitted proposals themselves or be from any of the 50 institutions.
The change could make life difficult, especially for fields with concentration in top institutions. Current rules note that: “If individuals from [major institutions] are excluded from serving” on the panel, “it will reduce the quality and diversity of the merit review process."
Existing rules varied across the agency, but in general reviewers (and staff) could participate in panels and recuse themselves from proposals with which they had an institutional COI, by simply walking out of the room/virtual room.
