This document provides an overview of the NIH peer review process for grant applications. It describes how applications are received and referred to Institutes and scientific review groups. Applications are reviewed for scientific merit by these groups. Successful applications are then evaluated by Institutes for relevance before funding decisions are made. The review process considers the applicant's career stage and scores applications based on criteria like significance, approach, and environment. Reviewers look for impact, clarity, and feasibility in applications.

1. Strategies for NIH Grant Success:
Overview of the NIH Peer Review Process
Cheryl Kitt, Ph.D.
Deputy Director, CSR
Women's Health 2012: The 20th Annual Congress
National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services March 15, 2012

2. National Institutes of Health
Office of the Director
National Institute Eunice Kennedy
National Institute National Institute
National Institute of Arthritis and National Cancer Shriver National Institute
on Alcohol Abuse of Allergy and
on Aging Musculoskeletal Institute of Child Health and
and Alcoholism Infectious Diseases
and Skin Diseases Human Development
National Institute on National Institute National Institute
National Institute
Deafness and Other of Dental and of Diabetes and National Institute National Eye
of Environmental
Communication Craniofacial Digestive and on Drug Abuse Institute
Health Sciences
Disorders Research Kidney Diseases
National Institute
National Institute National Heart, National Human
National Institute of Neurological National Institute
of General Lung, and Blood Genome Research
of Mental Health Disorders and of Nursing Research
Medical Sciences Institute Institute
Stroke
National Center
National Institute of John E. Fogarty National Center National Center on
for Complementary National Library
Biomedical Imaging International for Research Minority Health and
and Alternative of Medicine
and Bioengineering Center Resources Health Disparities
Medicine
Center for
Center for
Clinical Center Information
Technology Scientific Review

3. Preparing an Application
Electronic Application Process
Prepare to Apply & Find Opportunity* Prepare Submit, Track &
Register Application View
• Register with • Submit in • Follow • Submit via your
Grants.gov & eRA response to Application organizational
Commons FOA Guide & representative
Instructions • Use error correction
window
• Use eRA Commons
to track
*Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA)

4. Review Process for a Research Grant
National Institutes of Health
Center for Scientific Review
Assigns to IC & IRG/Study Section
Initiates Study Section
Research Idea Submits Application
Reviews for Scientific Merit
Institute
Evaluates for Relevance
Allocates Funds
Advisory Councils and Boards
Conducts
Recommends Action
Research
Institute Director
Takes Final Action

5. All Applications Go Through
Center for Scientific Review (CSR)
Focal Point for Initial Review at NIH
• Receives all NIH
applications
• Refers them to NIH
Institutes/Centers and to
scientific review groups
• Reviews grant applications
for scientific merit
• ICs review RFAs, P’s, T’s,
K’s

6. CSR Divisions and Integrated Review Groups

7. Help Your Application Get to the Right Study Section

8. Your Career Stage Is Considered
• If you submit an R01 grant application:
If you are a New Investigator (PD/PI who has not yet competed
successfully for a substantial NIH research grant; for multiple PD/PI R01s-all
PD/PIs must meet requirements for NI status
or Early Stage Investigator (PD/PI who qualifies as a New Investigator
AND is within 10 years of completing the terminal research degree or is within
10 years of completing medical residency (or equivalent)
• Clustered for review in the study section

9. CSR Study Sections
• Each CSR standing study
section has about 23-40
members
• CSR standing study
sections convene face-to-
face, or virtual (electronic)
meetings
• As many as 60-100
applications are reviewed
by each study section
• Scientific Review Officer-
Designated Federal
Official with overall
responsibility for the
review process

10. What Reviewers Look for In Applications
Impact
Make It Exciting
Be Very Clear
Realistic Aims & Timelines – Not Overly
Ambitious
Be Brief With Things That Everybody Knows
Note the Study Limitations
Proofread the Application

11. Scoring
Overall Impact/Priority Score*:
• Reflects the reviewers’ assessment of the likelihood
for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on
the research field(s) involved
Core Criteria*:
Significance
Investigator(s)
Innovation
Approach
Environment
*each scored from 1-9

12. Scoring
Applications scored on five review criteria and overall
impact using a scale of 1-9.
o Discussed applications receive an overall impact score
from each eligible (i.e., without conflicts of interest) panel
member and these scores are averaged to one decimal
place, and multiplied by 10.
All applications receive scores:
o Not Discussed applications receive only initial criterion
scores from the three assigned reviewers

13. Scoring Descriptions
Impact Score
Additional Guidance on Strengths/Weaknesses
Descriptor
1 Exceptional Exceptionally strong with essentially no weaknesses
High
2 Outstanding Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses
Impact
3 Excellent Very strong with only some minor weaknesses
4 Very Good Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses
Moderate
5 Good Strong but with at least one moderate weakness
Impact
6 Satisfactory Some strengths but also some moderate weaknesses
7 Fair Some strengths but with at least one major weakness
Low
8 Marginal A few strengths and a few major weaknesses
Impact
9 Poor Very few strengths and numerous major weaknesses

14. Fellowship Reviews
Overall Impact/Merit. Likelihood fellowship will enhance candidate's
potential for, and commitment to, a productive independent
scientific research
•Applicant
•Sponsors, Collaborators, and Consultants
•Research Training Plan
•Training Potential
•Institutional Environment & Commitment to Training

15. Career Awards (K)
Overall Impact. Reviewers should provide their assessment of the
likelihood for the candidate to maintain a strong research program,
taking into consideration the criteria below in determining the
overall impact/priority score.
•Candidate
•Career Development Plan/Career Goals & Objectives/Plan to
Provide Mentoring
•Research Plan
•Mentor(s), Co-mentor(s), Consultant(s), Collaborator(s)
•Environment and Institutional Commitment to the Candidate

16. Investigators
• Personal Statement:
• Why your experience and qualifications makes you particularly
well-suited for your role(s) in the project
• Publications:
• Recommended: no more than 15---up to five of the best; up to five
of the most relevant to the proposed research; up to five of the most
recent
• If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, do you have
Investigators
appropriate experience and training?
• If Established, have you demonstrated ongoing record of
accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)?

17. Innovation
• Does application challenge/seek to shift current research
or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical
concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation,
or interventions?
• Concepts, approaches or methodologies,
instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of
research or novel in a broad sense?
• Refinement, improvement, or new application of
theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies,
instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

18. Approach
• Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-
reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims
of the project?
• Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and
benchmarks for success presented?
• If the project is in the early stages of development, will the
strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky
aspects be managed?

19. Environment
• Will the scientific environment in which the work will be
done contribute to the probability of success?
• Are the institutional support, equipment and other
physical resources available to the investigators
adequate for the project proposed?
• Will the project benefit from unique features of the
scientific environment, subject populations, or
collaborative arrangements?

20. Other Issues Reviewers Consider Before
Final Scoring
• Protections of human subjects
• Inclusions of women, children and minorities
• Appropriate use of vertebrate animal
• Management of hazardous conditions

21. Critiques (Summary Statements)
Discussed applications receive a resume and summary of
the panel’s discussion at the meeting.
•ALL applications are scored and receive critiques
Not discussed applications receive criterion scores only
Overall Impact Paragraph
• Each assigned reviewer writes a paragraph summarizing
the factors that informed his/her Overall Impact score

22. After the Review
• NIH Program Officer = Point of Contact
• Wait for summary statement
• Read summary statement carefully
before calling!

23. http://www.csr.nih.gov/video/video.asp
What Happens to Your NIH Grant Application Video
http://www.csr.nih.gov/video/2010/FinalCaptioned_Edited_PeerReviewPr
kittc@csr.nih.gov
301-435-8403

24. CSR Early Career Reviewer Program
National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

25. Purpose of the ECR Program
• To train and educate qualified scientists without
significant prior review experience so that they may
develop into critical and well trained reviewers
• To benefit faculty scientific careers by exposing them to
an experience that will make them more competitive
as applicants
• To enrich the existing pool of NIH reviewers by
recruiting scientists from less research-intensive
institutions
25

26. Definition of ECR:
• Has not reviewed for CSR beyond 1 mail review and
has not been to a face-to-face meeting (except ARRA
face-face-meetings)
• Has a faculty appointment or equivalent
• Has an active research program and is publishing in
high-impact journals
• Does not necessarily have NIH or equivalent funding
26

27. Responsibilities of ECR
• Attends study section meeting (face-to-face meetings
but no Fellowship panels)
• Is assigned no more than 2 applications as 3rd reviewer
• Writes a full critique of each application
• Participates in no more than one study section per year
and no more than twice total
27

28. Progress of ECR Program
• The administrators of 343 less research-intensive
institutions (AREA eligible) were emailed a request for
suggestions of faculty who would be candidates for the
ECR program
• There are currently over 500 names in the database
• Over 300 additional researchers have applied for the
program and once vetted they will be added to the
database
ECRs Included in 2012/01 Council Round:
127 ECRs participated across over 240 eligible
study sections
o ~50% women
28

29. CSR Web Site: http://www.csr.nih.gov
CSREarlyCareerReviewer@mail.nih.gov