Review Process
The review process involves the assessment of applications by NIH staff and outside scientific experts. Descriptions of the two levels of review are given below.
First level of review:
- Receipt of the application by the Center for Scientific Review (CSR);
- Assignment and referral of the application by CSR to the review cluster as well as a review committee;
- Peer review and scoring of the application by the review committee at CSR or NIMH.
NIMH maintains its own review branch that convenes review committees to review some specialized types of applications. Your program officer can tell you where your application is likely to be reviewed. You may also send an inquiry to NIMHReviewAssign. Generally, the following applies:
- Applications for mental health clinical intervention research and services research are reviewed by NIMH Peer Review Committees;
- Applications in response to RFAs, for institutional training, and for center mechanisms are reviewed by NIMH Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) Review Committees;
- Other applications, based on topic may also be assigned to SEP Review Committees.
Use of Public Reviewers
Of note NIMH review committees involve public participants as reviewers on applications that involve the use of human subjects. NIMH has used public reviewers as full voting members on committees reviewing interventions and services applications for the past nine years. The Institute has found that input provided by public reviewers adds important perspective and sensitivity to the review process and helps to ensure the public health relevance of funded grants.
What Do Public Reviewers Do?
Public reviewers read and provide written critiques (usually 1-3 paragraphs) of grant applications. Their critiques focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the application’s public health significance and/or innovation; on the feasibility of plans for recruitment, retention, and follow-up of subjects; on outreach efforts to special and historically disadvantaged populations; and on issues pertaining to the protection of human subjects. At review meetings, public reviewers join the discussion of applications with scientific reviewers and vote on the merit of each application discussed. Review meetings are typically held in the Washington, DC area or by telephone conference call.
Who Are Public Reviewers?
Individuals selected to serve as public reviewers typically have had some involvement with mental health care as consumers, family members, mental health professionals, members of advocacy groups, educators, etc.
Public reviewers will typically meet one of more of the following criteria:
- experience with mental disorders, e.g., as a person with a mental disorder, a family member, caregiver, or supporter of such a person
- experience with mental disorders as a mental health care practitioner, payer or policy maker
- experience as a research participant in studies of mental disorders
- community service involving representation of the interests and perspectives of people with mental disorders, e.g., service on mental health boards or committees, relevant publications, or presentations
An individual need not meet all four criteria to be selected. NIMH staff conducts full day trainings of public reviewers approximately every two years. Staff selects nominees to attend the training, based on mental health interests and experience and consideration of demographic and geographic factors. The Institute seeks a demographically and geographically diverse pool of public participant reviewers, and nominations of individuals from traditionally under-represented groups are welcome.
Characteristics Sought in Public Reviewers
- past participation in decision making bodies at a national, state, or local level
- experience with clinical trials or the protection of human participants
- an understanding of the need to include gender and geographic diversity, underrepresented ethnic and racial groups, and individuals from socially, culturally, economically, or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds in any study that involves human participants
- gender, geographic, racial and ethnic diversity among reviewers
- evidence of oral and written expression skills
- availability to participate in review meetings
- comfort and skill in using the internet and email
- service, advocacy, policy setting, or other first hand experience with the mental health care system
Second level of review:
- Review by the NIMH Advisory Council;
- The NIMH Advisory Council concurs with or does not concur with recommendations by the first level of review; and
- The NIMH Advisory Council may make additional recommendations, particularly with regard to program priority based on the relevance of the application to the public health mission of the NIMH.
