I think most study section members prefer to bury their heads in the sand and pretend like everything is fine. "Errrm this is a resubmission of a grant that scored 3%, but a few moderate to minor experimental details dampened my enthusiasm. I'm staying at a 4 to set the range" That kind of shit
And I think the rules that are typically obeyed in SS actually facilitate this shit. You can't talk about this, you can't mention that, you can't say you reviewed this app as an A0. Even having fully remote meetings prevents any informal side chats about these issues.
If most study section members just “bury their heads in the sand,” as you say, what do you think they should be doing instead?
At a minimum I would expect every reviewer to understand the reality of the current landscape. Bare minimum. Review your pile of grants accordingly.
What does “review accordingly” actually mean in practice—and how would that differ from the way grants are typically reviewed?
What do you think it means?
Honestly, I’m not sure. That’s why I asked. I’d really like to hear what you think reviewers should actually be doing.
Few examples: 1) understand where the payline is and what score compression looks like. I suspect a 1 will be required. Maybe 1 or 2 apps will be funded per SS. 2) be kind to ESI/NI and other discriminated groups 3) maybe drop the whole "this is an A1 but I'm going to pretend it's not" approach.
In my experience, reviewers are already acutely aware of paylines and score thresholds, and most do take ESI/NI status into account. I’m less sure about point 3. Even with that awareness and the best intentions, this will be terrible all around, for applicants and reviewers alike.
If most reviewers take ESI status into account then why do we have quota based top down affirmative action ESI payline relaxation, a policy that has remained unchanged from 2007 to the present?
And therein lies the rub.
Like reviewers responded to the “landscape” after Ginther? Or after Hoppe?Or after Covid? Or after 2007 when the official stance was “be kind to ESI”?