NIH Review Procedures

Betsy Myers

Hospital for Special Surgery

General Process for Proposal Review

• Applicant has idea

• Forms are submitted

• Proposal is reviewed for scientific merit

• Summary statement is prepared

• Funding Institute or Center gives information to applicant

www.csr.nih.govwww.csr.nih.gov

Receipt and Review Process at NIH

• >10,000 applications arrive at given deadline!

• Receipt/review process organized in 3 cycles per year

• Assignment based on Abstract, Specific Aims, more if needed

• Each application assigned to funding Institute(s)/Center(s)

• Application also assigned to Integrated Review Group (IRG) within Center for Scientific Review (CSR) or to Institute/Center (IC) review group

Assignment Process at NIH

• CSR:

–R01s, R03s, R21s, Small business, Fellowships

–Reviews for >1 Institute

• IC Review:

–Program projects, Training grants, Career development awards, Responses to Requests for Applications

–Specific to Institute

Assignment Process at NIH

• Application then assigned to Study Section

• NIH officials will consider requests for these assignments

–Cover letter

Assignment Process at NIH

Process at NIH

Scientific Review Administrator (SRA) of Study Section decides on reviewers from within members of Study Section or from ad hoc members

Appointment of Reviewers to Study Section

• SRA recruits members of Study Section

• Qualifications

–Expert with training and experience in relevant scientific field

• Level of formal education

• Quantity and quality of relevant research

–PI on research project comparable to those being reviewed

Appointment of Reviewers to Study Section

SRA also needs to address

–Diversity in gender, race, ethnicity and geographic distribution

–Fairness and evenhandedness in review

–Willingness to do the work required

–Ability to write and present clearly

Types of appointments to study section

–Regular: Typically several years

–Temporary: One time on standing study section, may lead to regular appointment

–Special emphasis panel: One time only

Appointment of Reviewers to Study Section

Roster of Study Section Available Online

Meeting Roster - ZRG1    MOSS-A 91 (4/6/2005 - 4/6/2005)

CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC REVIEWSPECIAL EMPHASIS PANEL

ZRG1 MOSSA4/6/2005-4/6/2005

MEETING ROSTER

CHAIRPERSON--------------------------------------MYERS,  ELIZABETH  R. , PHDASSOCIATE PROFESSORWEILL MEDICAL COLLEGE OF CORNELL UNIVERSITYASSOCIATE SCIENTIST, HOSPITAL FOR SPECIAL SURGERYNEW YORK,  NY 10021

MEMBERS----------------ADAMS,  JOHN   S. ,  MDPROFESSORDEPARTMENT OF MEDICINECEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTERLOS ANGELES,  CA 90048

AHLGREN,  SARA   C. ,  PHD…

http://www.csr.nih.gov/Committees/rosterindex.asphttp://www.csr.nih.gov/Committees/rosterindex.asp

• SRA matches grant applications to specific reviewers

• Tries to ensure–Appropriate expertise

–Diverse scientific viewpoints

• Tries to avoid–Overload of particular reviewer

–Potential conflict of interest

Assignment of Applications to Reviewers

2 reviewers and 1 discussant (typically) are assigned to each proposal

–Primary reviewer

–Secondary reviewer

–Reader (does not need to prepare written review prior to meeting of study section)

Could be more – Tertiary, more Readers

Assignment of Applications to Reviewers

NIH Review Criteria

NIH review criteria for unsolicited research project grant applications (R01, R03, R21)

• Significance

–Important problem

–Advancement of scientific knowledge or clinical practice

–Influence on methods that drive the field

NIH Review Criteria

• Approach

–Adequate development and integration of design, methods, analyses

–Acknowledgment of potential problems, alternatives

• Innovation

–Challenge to existing paradigms

–Novel concepts, approaches, methods

NIH Criteria

• Investigator

–Appropriate training, experience

–Complementary and integrated team

• Environment

–Conducive to probability of success

–Unique features of scientific environment

–Institutional support

NIH Criteria

• Other criteria

–Gender/minority/children inclusion

–Budget

–Protection of humans, animals, and environment

• Overall rating

–Numerical score that reflects overall impact

REVIEW CRITERIA: “K” Awards

• Candidate

• Career Development Plan

• Research Plan

• Mentor/Co-Mentor(s)

• Environment & Institutional Commitment

NIH Numerical Rating

Priority score: Single, global score for proposal

5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0

HighestPriority

Strong in all categories

Averageapplication

WORST BEST

LowestPriority

Guide to Calibrating Score

Score Descriptors

1.0 – 1.5 Outstanding, Close to flawless

1.6 – 2.0 Highly significant, Few weaknesses

2.1 – 2.5 Weaknesses need to be addressed

2.6 – 3.0 Weaknesses balance strengths

>3.0 Weaknesses outweigh strengths

Submitting Critique Before Meeting

Electronic submission of reviews

• Several days before meeting, reviewers upload score and written critique

• Once uploaded, can then read other reviewers’ scores and reviews

• Once uploaded, reviewer cannot make changes to scores or critiques until after meeting

Study Section Meeting

Streamlined Applications

• Definition:

–Not in upper half

–Priority score higher than 3

• Does not apply to career awards, fellowships (R13, R18, F06, F32/33)

5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0

Study Section MeetingStreamlining

Streamlining Procedure

• Reviewers asked ahead of time to recommend applications not in upper half (“unscored” or “streamlined”)

• SRA compiles list

• List discussed at beginning of meeting

• Any member may ask for proposal to be discussed

Benefits and rationale

• Gives time for in-depth discussion of better applications

• Saves costs if meeting is shortened

• Reduces work of scientific review administrators

Less than 25% of applications will be funded

Study Section MeetingStreamlining

• If application is streamlined, applicant receives unaltered written critiques

• Fate of unscored applications?

Study Section MeetingStreamlining

Study Section MeetingReview Procedures

Review procedure for proposals to be scored

–Chair introduces application

–Each reviewer gives preliminary numerical score or range

–Primary reviewer covers description and comments

–Other assigned reviewers add comments

Review procedure, continued

–Discussion ensues

–Consensus is not necessary

–Chair calls for priority rating

–Every members scores

Study Section MeetingReview Procedures

Resume

Summary Statement is prepared

–SRA asks reviewers to modify critiques to reflect discussion

–SRA writes resume and summary of discussion in front

–Summary Statement (“Pink Sheets”) sent to applicant

Final Score

• Average of all scores multiplied by 100

• Example:

–Average of raw scores from review panel = 1.88

–Final score = 188

Percentiles

• Percentiles indicate your rank relative to other applications reviewed by group

• 0.1 (best) to 99.5 (worst) percentage of proposals receiving

better score during last year

• Example: Score: 188, Percentile: 11

Applications Used in Percentile Conversion

• R01 reviewed at standing study section

–Percentile of score relative to all scores from current round plus last two rounds (1 year)

• R01 reviewed at special emphasis panel

–May be percentiled against distribution of all CSR scores

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/charts/flowchart_funding.htmhttp://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/charts/flowchart_funding.htm

FundingDecisionFlowchart

FundingDecisionFlowchart

Thank you