same review cycle. If CSR disagrees, the normal avenue for appeals remains available to the investigator.
The summary statement is then considered in the second level of review. At this stage, the advisory council of the funding institute will consider the study section’s recommendations and determine the relevance of the proposed research to the institute’s priorities and public health needs and make a recommendation to the director of the funding institute/center.
for administrative completeness, fit to a specific NIH institute or center’s interests and mission, and subsequently assigned to a study section with the expertise to evaluate the scientific and technical merit of the application.
Applicants may suggest a specific study section assignment on the Public Health Service (PHS) Assignment Request Form, and these suggestions are considered, but the assignment is the prerogative of CSR and follows published study section guidelines. Assignments are a multistep process that also involves institutes and centers, scientific review officers and review branch chiefs, who take into account applicant requests, published guidelines and other factors such as reviewers’ conflicts.
Once an application reaches a specific study section, the SRO first performs an administrative review to determine expertise needed and recruit and assign reviewers. Each application receives critiques from three assigned reviewers, regardless of whether it is discussed or not, based on specific NIH guidelines and review criteria. Approximately the top 50% of applications are discussed. At the study section meeting, assigned reviewers present each application and their reviews and discuss aspects such as consideration of the importance of the proposed research, rigor of
20 IRQ | SUMMER 2023
scientific methods and how the proposed research would improve scientific knowledge and how the field will change, should the proposed aims be achieved. Following discussion of each application, all reviewers enter a score for overall impact, based on the NIH scoring guidance. As mentioned earlier, this is the first level of NIH peer review. At this stage, the funding of applications is not discussed. Funding decisions are made at the second level of review by the director of the funding institute/center.
Within 30 days after the study section meeting, applicants receive summary statements with written critiques from assigned reviewers and, if discussed, with the SRO’s resume and summary of discussion and administrative notes of special consideration. This is when program officers can be contacted for discussion and interpretation of the review results and potential guidance. Even though program officers are the best point of contact after the summary statement is released, if anyone (applicant, review staff, program staff) has a concern about the review being unfair or biased, they may contact Dr. Gabriel Fosu, CSR’s Associate Director of Diversity and Workforce Development at
g.fosu_assocdir@
csr.nih.gov. CSR will investigate and, if we agree, the application will be rereviewed in the
What are the common mistakes applicants make when it comes to the submission process? EL: In addition to noncompliance, the number one reason for withdrawal of an application by the NIH is that a funding institute or center will not accept assignment of an application. Applicants can avoid this problem by taking the following precautions:
1. Carefully read the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO, previously referred to as a FOA). This contains information on the review criteria, deadlines, program and review contacts and specifically lists all participating institutes and centers. If the institute or center that they are targeting is not listed, their grant application cannot be assigned to that institute and, therefore, the application will be withdrawn.
2. Talk to program officials who administer research portfolios relevant to the applicants’ research, in advance. Program officials may advise applicants, attend study sections, make funding recommendations and monitor awarded grants.
3. Submit early, as mentioned above. There is a 2-day “viewing” window, but this does not extend the deadline.
4. Subscribe to the guide notices. This is the most important communication vehicle for the NIH. All policy changes are announced in advance through the guide, and this is a relatively effortless method to stay current with policy. The extramural NEXUS, of the Office of Extramural Research (OER), is a great source for news on grants, policies, processes and more. The OER listservs and feeds are also a must.
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
