Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
An experiment in which 150 proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation were evaluated independently by a new set of reviewers indicates that getting a research grant depends to a significant extent on chance. The degree of disagreement within the population of eligible reviewers is such that whether or not a proposal is funded depends in a large proportion of cases upon which reviewers happen to be selected for it. No evidence of systematic bias in the selection of NSF reviewers was found.
Cole et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: