Feature
Inside the NIH grant review process
An interview with Eleni Liapi, MD, NIH scientific review officer
leni Liapi, MD, is a scientific review officer (SRO) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Center for
Scientific Review (CSR). In her role, Dr. Liapi ensures that applications for funding submitted to the NIH receive fair, independent, expert and timely scientific reviews, free from inappropriate influences.
Dr. Liapi spoke with IR Quarterly regarding her work at the NIH, the grant application review process and how researchers should best present their applications.
Tell us about your role. Eleni Liapi, MD: I’m an SRO and manage the Clinical and Translational Imaging Science (CTIS) scientific review groups (commonly referred to as study sections). CTIS is one of about 175 chartered scientific review groups of CSR that meets three times a year to review grant applications. CSR’s study sections span the full range of science funded by NIH. As an SRO, I’m responsible for generating a fair, expert and unbiased scientific and technical review of applications submitted to the study section. This is the initial level of NIH peer review and is independent of funding decisions.
Many applicants would think that, with such an integral role in the NIH peer review process, I would be the person to contact for feedback and specific comments on their application. However, this is not the case. As an SRO, I must remain objective and fair to all applicants and, therefore, I do not offer any scientific opinion on submitted applications. I’m the NIH point of contact before the study
Eleni Liapi, MD
section meeting and can answer questions related to procedures prior to the review meeting or questions related to study section description and guidelines. Program officials (or program officers) may be contacted after the review meeting, for specific feedback, guidance and discussion of the review outcome with applicants.
Overall, I see my role as an SRO to be an interactive mix of administrative, leadership and scientific duties, all supporting the NIH mission, aiming to improve human health and the lives of all Americans.
How do you generate an unbiased review process? EL: I start by conducting an administrative review of submitted applications, as well as a scientific assessment of the expertise needed for the review. Then I recruit members of the scientific community who will review specific applications. In order to
best identify the highest impact science, diverse perspectives are critical, so I aim to assemble a panel with the expertise needed to review the applications in hand as well as a panel that is diverse on multiple dimensions, such as career stage, geographic distribution and demographics. It is also my responsibility to train the reviewers in the NIH peer review procedures, ensure policy compliance and implementation, as well as adherence to the NIH peer review guidelines.
During the review meeting, which is conducted in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), I’m the designated federal official who manages the study section meeting and guides the reviewers to ensure that NIH policies are implemented. I also work in partnership with the chair of the study section, who oversees the discussion, to ensure fair review of each application.
After the review meeting, I release priority scores and generate summary statements for both discussed and nondiscussed applications. For discussed applications, I compose the resume and summary of discussion. The top section of the summary statement, which includes a high-level overview of the discussion, is based on my notes and reflects the basis for the priority scores assigned.
Can you walk us through the review process? EL: From the applicants’ perspective, the NIH review process starts with the submission of their application to NIH via the
grants.gov website. We highly recommend that applicants submit early—at least 2 days before the due date, providing enough time to address potential errors. There is a 2-day viewing window after submission during which errors may be fixed, but the 2-day window does not extend the deadline. If no errors are found, applications enter the eRA system for further processing at NIH. There, the first stop is at the Division of Receipt and Referral (DRR), which is within the Center for Scientific Review (CSR). Applications are screened
irq.sirweb.org | 19
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40
