Appeals of Scientific Review of Grant Applications

Purpose

To enable applicants to dispute the results of an initial peer review based on an error in the review process such as reviewer bias, factual error, or reviewer conflict of interest but not a difference of scientific opinion.

Procedure

Program officers, either alone or with scientific review officers (SROs), usually resolve issues with applicants before reaching the formal appeal stage.

For applications reviewed at NIAID or the Center for Scientific Review, the Institute's Council determines if there is a basis for an appeal if the program officer, SRO, and PI cannot agree.

NIAID's Council considers all formal appeals. Council members rarely overturn initial peer review results; in most cases, they recommend that investigators resubmit their applications.

If either Council or program officers and SROs recommend re-review, one of the following groups will evaluate the original application, not a revised version:

• Same scientific review group (SRG) -- reviewers will have access to the summary statement, applicant’s appeal letter, and any relevant comments from reviewers or the SRO.
• Different SRG -- reviewers will not have access to the summary statement or the applicant’s appeal letter.

NIAID staff place applicant’s original correspondence and copies of NIH-originated correspondence in the official electronic grant file. They will also provide appeal-related materials to Council.

Applicants

• Before initiating a formal appeal, discuss your concerns with your program officer. Keep in mind that most appeals result in revising and resubmitting an application. For advice, read Should You Appeal? in the NIH Grant Cycle: Application to Renewal.
  • If your program officer advises you to submit a new or resubmission application and you agree, submit the application by the appropriate receipt date.
  • If, after talking with your program officer, you would like to pursue a formal appeal, send him or her a formal letter of appeal.
• You can submit a formal appeal at any point in the peer review process from before the initial peer review until after the Council meeting (second-level review); however, it's best to submit an appeal as soon as possible.

Program Officers

Potential Appeals

• After learning of a potential appeal, notify the appeals officer, and contact your program division coordinator about policies and procedures.
• Work with the applicant and SRO to resolve issues before they reach the formal appeal stage. Emphasize that even if an appeal succeeds, the likely result is resubmitting the application.
• If you cannot resolve matters, the appeals officer will take the appeal to Council..

Formal Appeals

• If an applicant sends you an appeal letter, reply in an Acknowledgement Letter of Peer Review Appeal -- not an email -- within 10 working days.
  • Your response must indicate the following:
    • The appeal will be presented to Council.
    • The applicant will receive a final decision within 30 working days after either the Council meeting or the date the appeal letter was received, whichever is later.
    • Council's decision will be final and there are no further options for recourse.
• If you receive a letter from an applicant withdrawing an appeal, forward a copy to the appeals officer.
• If you and the SRO agree that an application should be deferred for re-review, notify the applicant and appeals officer.
• If you and review staff cannot agree on a resolution or if you disagree with the investigator, send the following to your division coordinator:
1. Written appeal.
2. Summary statement.
3. Your recommendations.
4. All related correspondence, e.g., emails between you, the SRO, and reviewers.
• The division coordinator will forward a copy to the appeals officer.
• The appeals officer will provide Council members with the appeal letter along with the Institute’s recommendation and any written comments from the SRO or SRG.
• You present the case to Council.
• Council can take any of the following actions:
  • Concur with the SRG, thereby denying the appeal.
  • Recommend the application be deferred for re-review by the same or different SRG.
• After Council, notify program division coordinator of outcome.
• The executive secretary of Council will notify the PI in writing of the outcome and send a copy to you and the division coordinator.

Program Division Coordinators

• The program officer will send you a written appeal, summary statement, the PO's recommendations, and all related correspondence.
• Forward a copy of the material provided by the PO to the appeals officer.

Scientific Review Officers

• Notify your supervisor upon learning of a potential appeal.
• Gather all pertinent information remaining in your files, such as the summary statement.
• Work with the program officer to resolve appeal requests.
• Discuss with reviewers, if appropriate, and provide the appeals officer with their comments and yours.
• Attend Council meeting for cases that proceed for Council consideration, and be prepared to address review issues related to the appeal.

Appeals Officer

• Provide guidance to NIAID staff to help resolve issues.
• Review cases, oversee preparation of documentation, and forward appeals for Council consideration.
• As executive secretary of Council, send a Post-Council Appeal Disposition Letter to advise the PI of the appeal outcome. Send a copy to the program officer and the division coordinator.

Contacts

Investigators with questions should Contact Staff for Help.

Contact for NIAID Staff -- NIAID appeals officer

Contact for NIAID Staff -- Executive secretary of Council

Contact for NIAID Staff -- DART team leader

Contact for NIAID Staff -- Committee management officer

Program Division Coordinators

Contact for NIAID Staff -- DAIDS

Contact for NIAID Staff -- DAIT

If you have knowledge to share or want more information on this topic, email deaweb@niaid.nih.gov with the title of this page or its URL and your question or comment. Thanks for helping us clarify and expand our knowledge base.

Links

NIH Policy Manual Chapter 4204-204B -- Peer Review Process, July 12, 2006