Phases of Process

In March 2008, Dr. Zerhouni established the Steering Committee Peer Review Implementation Group to draft implementation plans for each recommended action. The committee convened subgroups led by Drs. Berg, Tabak and Story Landis, Director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). Subgroup membership consisted of NIH program and review officers, planning and evaluation experts and statisticians. Feedback was solicited from both NIH internal and external communities. This feedback, together with careful consideration of the pros and cons of both individual and combined recommendations, informed decisions on enhancements to the peer review system.   

On June 6th, 2008, Dr. Zerhouni announced the Peer Review Enhancements and Implementation Plan (see the Press Release) and Dr. Tabak presented the Implementation Plan to the Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD). For detailed information on the Implementation Plan please see Slides (PDF - 534 KB). 

The Implementation Plan is organized into the following priority areas:

• Priority 1 – Engage the Best Reviewers - The excellence of peer review is directly correlated with the ability to recruit and retain the most accomplished, broad-thinking, and creative scientists to serve on NIH study sections.
• Priority 2 – Quality & Transparency of Review - The peer review process must strive for maximum clarity, fairness, and consistency and help applicants determine a best course of action once reviewed. The process of review should focus on the potential impact, originality, and feasibility of the proposed research.
• Priority 3 – Provide Balanced and Fair Reviews Across Scientific Fields and Career Stages - Peer review should fairly evaluate proposals from all scientists, regardless of their career stage or discipline, and avoid bias towards more conservative and proven approaches at the expense of innovation and originality.
• Priority 4 – Continuous Review of Peer Review - The last priority is to develop a permanent process for continuous review of peer review. Peer review should continuously adapt itself to the evolution of science. The NIH peer review process will commit to a continuous quality control and improvement process based on a rigorous and independent prospective evaluation that favors innovative approaches to review and program management.