Enhancing NIH grant peer review: a broader perspective

Over the next couple of years, NIH will be revising its process of reviewing grant applications. The planned changes will make the NIH system more similar in some ways to those of European funding agencies, while retaining many unique features.     

Malice's wonderland: Research funding and peer review

The players all played at once, without waiting for turns, quarreling all the while and fighting for the hedgehogs; and in a very short time the queen was in a furious passion and went stamping about, and shouting “off with his head” or “off with her head,” about once a minute. Alice began to feel very uneasy: to be sure she had not as yet had any dispute with the queen, but she knew that it might happen any minute, “and then” thought she, “what would become of me? They're dreadfully fond of beheading people here: the great wonder is, that there's any one left alive”.     

Child social ethology and peer relations: a developmental review of methodology and findings

During the last three decades, developmental research has increasingly emphasized the relevance of peer relations in children’s socialization. However, most studies of child development still focus upon individual differences in social status, tacitly neglecting relational constraints inherent in the ecology of the peer group. In contrast, socioethological approaches have stressed that natural groups provide a variety of distinct social roles that may have a differential impact upon individual growth and development. However, ethological analyses have often been limited to aggressive relations and group dominance structures. Comparable studies of affiliative organization have been hampered by the paucity of models for the study of cohesive social structure, only recently having begun to overcome this obstacle. A potential third dimension of preschool peer group ethology, object use, has been relatively neglected in studies of peer relations. However, recent research suggests that object use is a salient and important component of the social world of the young child. This article reviews methodology and recent findings in the area of peer relations and discusses the developmental implications of this work. Received: 8 December 1998 / Received in revised form: 26 March 1999 / Accepted: 31 March 1999     

Effect of antenatal peer support on breastfeeding initiation: a systematic review

Background

Our objective was to examine the effect of antenatal peer support on rates of breastfeeding initiation.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized trials and cohort studies with concurrent controls. We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the National Research Register and the British Nursing Index from inception or from 1980 to 2009. We carried out study selection, data abstraction and quality assessment independently and in duplicate. We defined high-quality studies as those that minimized the risk of at least three of the following types of bias: selection, performance, measurement and attrition bias. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for individual studies and undertook separate meta-analyses for high-quality trials of universal peer support and targeted peer support. We did not include low-quality studies.

Results

We selected 11 studies, which involved 5445 women in total. Seven of these studies (involving 4416 women in total) evaluated universal peer support, and four studies (involving 1029 women in total) targeted antenatal peer support. In the three high-quality studies of universal peer support, all involving low-income women, the relative risk for not initiating breastfeeding was 0.96 (95% CI 0.76–1.22). In the three high-quality studies of antenatal peer support that targeted women considering breastfeeding, the relative risk for not initiating breastfeeding was 0.64 (95% CI 0.41 – 0.99).

Interpretation

Universal antenatal peer support does not appear to improve rates of breastfeeding initiation, but targeted antenatal peer support may be beneficial. This effect may be related to context, however, so any new peer-support program should undergo concurrent high-quality evaluation.Breastfeeding confers numerous benefits for mother and infant,^1–3 yet many women still do not initiate breastfeeding.⁴ The World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding to six months,⁵ and national governments have implemented initiatives to increase initiation rates.^6,7 Peer support has been examined as one intervention to increase breastfeeding rates, but there have been few high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining initiation. One systematic review⁸ (published in 2000) concluded, based only on two nonrandomized studies, that antenatal peer support had a positive effect on breastfeeding initiation. Another⁹ (published in 2005 and updated in 2007) included only RCTs but excluded those whose primary purpose was to affect duration. Based only on one RCT, that review concluded that peer support is likely to result in improvements in initiation of breastfeeding among low-income women where baseline breastfeeding rates are low. These weaknesses in the available evidence make recommendations uncertain. Despite this uncertainty, antenatal peer support for breastfeeding is being incorporated into routine maternity care in some parts of the world.¹⁰Antenatal peer support can be provided as a universal service or targeted to women who are considering breastfeeding. Although trials have made this distinction, previous reviews have not. New evidence has become available, and it appears appropriate to re-examine antenatal peer support through a systematic review. The purpose of our review was to assess the effectiveness of antenatal peer support, as either a universal or a targeted service, including all studies that examined breastfeeding initiation using concurrent controls.     

New biotechnologies: spin-off on health and society

New biotechnologies and the new biology deriving from them are having a revolutionary impact on economy and society and are consequently transforming the role of researchers, which is changing continually to meet the competence required. The advances in human genetics on the other hand make it necessary to look for different approaches and new rules in bioethics. Comprehensive views and careful considerations are therefore needed in order that this new biology may have a positive impact on health, being respectful of the social and ethical principles of human beings.     

The ups and downs of peer review

This article traces the history of peer review of scientific publications, plotting the development of the process from its inception to its present-day application. We discuss the merits of peer review and its weaknesses, both perceived and real, as well as the practicalities of several major proposed changes to the system. It is our hope that readers will gain a better appreciation of the complexities of the process and, when serving as reviewers themselves, will do so in a manner that will enhance the utility of the exercise. We also propose the development of an international on-line training program for accreditation of potential referees.