Democratising assessment of researchers’ track records: a simple proposal

Simon Chapman, Gemma E Derrick, Abby S Haynes and Wayne D Hall
Med J Aust 2011; 195 (3): . || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2011.tb03243.x
Published online: 1 August 2011

How to ensure a better match between grant applicant and reviewer expertise

All researchers have experienced dismay at the failings of peer review.1,2 These include cursory or ill informed reviews from those apparently unschooled in applicants’ disciplines and with superficial understanding of the quality and significance of proposals, publications and achievements being described by aspiring applicants.

  • Simon Chapman1
  • Gemma E Derrick1
  • Abby S Haynes1
  • Wayne D Hall2

  • 1 Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.
  • 2 School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD.



Our project was supported by National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant No. 570870.

Competing interests:

None relevant to this article declared (ICMJE disclosure forms completed).


remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.