A Chairman's Perspective on the CDC Peer Review Process

Daniel J. Pallin, MD

Daniel J. Pallin, MD, BWH director of research, Department of Emergency Medicine and chairman of the BWH Clinical Investigation Committee, has chaired peer review panels in influenza and immunization for the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Extramural Research Program Office (ERPO) over the past three years. These panels have evaluated over 60 applications in response to nine funding opportunity announcements, or FOAs.

The ERPO peer review is a two-step process that includes an initial review of the scientific and technical merit of the applications by external subject-matter experts and a secondary review by CDC senior scientists not affiliated with the funding divisions. Pallin shares his perspective on leading the CDC peer review process.

As a research scientist and clinician, what are your thoughts on peer review?

Peer review is critical for funding and publication decisions. A panel of peers is best suited to judge the value of a project, without bias. Like jurors, peer reviewers represent the interests of society, in helping to determine what should be funded and what should be published.

Without peer review, it would be difficult to achieve broad-minded and unbiased decisions about what should be funded. The discussion and debate that take place ensure that a wide range of opinions is considered.

The process ensures fairness and transparency, and is inherently democratic. Through peer review, CDC leverages the expertise of the wider scientific community. If it relied only upon its own experts, CDC-funded research would become inbred and stifled.

What qualities are important in a good chair?

A good chair understands the ethical and procedural underpinnings of a successful panel. The chair's effectiveness also depends on his or her ability to balance the drawing-out of controversy, against the need to maintain order. The chair leads the group in resolving diverse opinions into cogent judgment.

What role does the chairperson play in the peer review process?

Peer review has two ingredients: the reviewers and the process. The chair's role is to catalyze interaction of the two. The chair is a little bit like a symphony conductor who serves the musicians by taking responsibility for the big picture.

Without someone to protect the process, music is replaced by noise. The chair also serves as a bridge from CDC to the reviewers, providing peer-level leadership that further protects the objectivity and fairness of the process.

How do you prepare for the chair role of a panel?

I prepare by studying three things: the review procedure, the FOA(s) and the proposals. Without consistent procedures, panels cannot be fair and transparent-this holds true across all panels.

For an individual panel, the key is to understand the FOA(s). Proposals cannot be evaluated in a vacuum, and the panel's work in judging proposals can only be meaningful if it uses the FOA as the yardstick.

Finally, while it is the primary, secondary and tertiary reviewers who take the lead in presenting and analyzing the content of individual proposals, my familiarity with the proposals' content strengthens my ability to guide the discussion.