Panel peer review is widely used to decide which research proposals receive funding. Through this exploratory observational study at two large biomedical and health research funders in the Netherlands, we gain insight into how scientific quality and societal relevance are discussed in panel meetings. We explore, in ten review panel meetings of biomedical and health funding programmes, how panel composition and formal assessment criteria affect the arguments used. We observe that more scientific arguments are used than arguments related to societal relevance and expected impact. Also, more diverse panels result in a wider range of arguments, largely for the benefit of arguments related to societal relevance and impact. We discuss how funders can contribute to the quality of peer review by creating a shared conceptual framework that better defines research quality and societal relevance. We also contribute to a further understanding of the role of diverse peer review panels.

中文翻译：

---

同行评审小组对研究提案的评估：更广泛的评估小组？

小组同行评审被广泛用于决定哪些研究计划获得资助。通过在荷兰的两个大型生物医学和健康研究资助者进行的这项探索性观察研究，我们深入了解了小组会议如何讨论科学质量和社会相关性。我们在生物医学和健康资助计划的十次审查小组会议上探讨了小组组成和正式评估标准如何影响所使用的论点。我们观察到，与社会相关性和预期影响相关的论据相比，使用了更多的科学论据。此外，更多样化的小组会产生更广泛的争论，主要是为了与社会相关性和影响相关的争论。我们讨论了资助者如何通过创建一个更好地定义研究质量和社会相关性的共享概念框架来提高同行评审的质量。我们还有助于进一步了解不同同行评审小组的作用。