NIH has a formal process to resolve disagreements between applicants and NIH review committees and/or NIH staff concerning the referral (assignment) and review of applications. Note that disagreements are not necessarily grounds for appeal. The NIH appeals policy and process is described in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. Of particular note is that while procedural aspects of technical merit review are subject to appeal, differences in scientific opinions, such as often occur between applicants and reviewers, may not be contested through the NIH appeals process.
Before beginning the appeals process, the applicant is strongly advised to speak with the NIGMS program director responsible for the application. The program director can explain the options and their consequences and is often in a position to help the applicant understand the study section's recommendation. In most cases, issues can be resolved at this stage.
For those cases that cannot be resolved by discussion, the first step in the appeals process is the submission of an appeal letter.
An appeal letter submitted after study section review should be sent to the program director in NIGMS. Program and review staff will try to resolve the issues and take the appropriate action. If the issues cannot be resolved by staff, the appeal letter and all relevant information are made available to the National Advisory General Medical Sciences Council (NAGMSC), which conducts the second level of review for research applications. Appeals are due 3 weeks before the applicable NAGMSC meeting (http://www.nigms.nih.gov/About/Council/AdvisoryCouncilMeetingDates.htm).
The NAGMSC may agree with either the study section or the applicant. If the NAGMSC agrees with the applicant, it recommends the appropriate action to resolve the matter. If re-review is recommended, it entails review of the same application, not a revised version. If the NAGMSC agrees with the study section, the applicant may decide that submission of a revised application is the best option. The program director can often give valuable advice about options.
The second level of review for fellowship applications is conducted by the NIGMS Fellowship Oversight Group (FOG), but the policies and processes are the same as those used by the NAGMSC.
In order for either second-level review body to make an informed decision about the issues raised in an appeal letter, it needs a certain amount of background material about the application and its review. This material must be assembled and delivered to the NAGMSC or FOG before the meeting, which takes time. Consequently, applicants should ask their program directors for the deadline dates for receipt of appeal information.
An appeal submitted before study section review of the application should be sent to the appropriate staff in the Center for Scientific Review or the NIGMS Office of Scientific Review if the review is to be conducted by an NIGMS review committee. Referral/review staff will respond to the letter. The applicant may appeal this decision, following the process outlined above, if the response is not satisfactory.
