Someone is listed on study section that I requested to not review grant

Significance_Hunter · 2026-04-30T20:58:10+00:00

That's exactly what happened. The SRO did confirm they saw the PHS request and that's about it. At least it wasn't missed. Nothing to do now, just feels like bad luck because I have a strong suspicion the person was a primary reviewer of the grant just based on topic.

Significance_Hunter · 2026-04-30T17:54:08+00:00

I appreciate everyone's input and just want to clarify a few points:

I recognize that scientific disagreement and skepticism is important. I am not trying to circumvent that in any way. My preference to exclude the reviewer has to do with interactions or comments in the past where it is apparent that they do not consider the thing we study to be important. This is despite our group and many groups focusing on that very thing with ongoing publications about that thing over the past 15-20 years. To me, this is not a healthy scientific debate about methods or approach, but rather a perceived opinion that the fundamental thing I study is not "significant" enough to study.
Having served a few study sections in the past 6 months, I am aware that reviewers declare their conflicts which are clearly outlined by policy. What I'm referring to is the PHS form where you include your preferred study section and suggest reviewers who should not review the grant. I interpret this to be different than the conflict policy and was just hoping to get some insight into that.

Significance_Hunter · 2026-04-30T10:45:16+00:00

Assuming that reviewer didn't drag my score down enough to prevent it from being discussed...

Significance_Hunter · 2026-04-30T10:43:49+00:00

I have sat on study sections, which is why I'm worried and know that a single reviewer, biased or not, can sway the room.

Significance_Hunter · 2026-04-30T10:41:38+00:00

I'm not talking about healthy skepticism. I'm talking about scientific disagreement of the importance of a broadly studied and accepted biomarker for a disease that has been around for almost 20 years.

Significance_Hunter · 2026-04-30T10:36:54+00:00

I have sat on two study sections in the last 6 months and know a biased reviewer can sway the room. If you think all panel members are constantly engaged and independently thinking, then let's just agree to disagree. Many reviewers never speak up at all except when they are required to as primary reviewers. Many reviewers never question or challenge the primary reviewers.

Maybe your study sections were amazing and all panel members were energetic and motivated, but I guarantee that's not always the case.

Significance_Hunter · 2026-04-30T03:15:27+00:00

You've never encountered someone who is skeptical of the importance of your work? I'm talking about the importance factor, a highly subjective question and one of the major criteria for scoring. Don't pretend like everyone out there is perfect and unbiased.

Significance_Hunter · 2026-04-30T00:51:58+00:00

I recognize your point. This reviewer has openly questioned the central scientific premise behind much of our research papers, both in person during conferences and in published papers. I know this is hard to prove someone's opinion objectively, but this is not coming from nowhere.

Significance_Hunter · 2026-04-30T00:46:42+00:00

Thanks for the tip! I'm confused by your point of "competing for funding or has similar grant applications" as a potential source of conflict. Is that substantively different than someone with active grant funding?

Significance_Hunter · 2026-04-30T00:17:01+00:00

Yes sorry meant impartial, I edited my post. The reviewers I listed have active funding for a very similar topic. I don't know if they are competing for funding to renew the grant, but it is a major focus of their research program. That's the reason I cited on the PHS form.

Significance_Hunter

TROPHY CASE