Your application's most significant test is initial peer review. Your peers -- successful scientists in your field and related ones -- use the information in your application to assess the merit of the science you've proposed and your ability to get the work done. A peer review results in numerical value indicating the reviewers' judgment of scientific and technical merit. That number is the most important factor in determining your application's success. The next section details NIH initial peer review. (For a broad overview, read Perspective on Peer Review in our New Investigator Guide to NIH Funding.) Find more information online:
Who Peer Reviews Your Application?
NIH peer reviewers are scientists, mostly from academia, who come to NIH three times a year for several days to review applications.
|
|
Your scientific review officer does an initial check of your application to make sure the key parts are there.
If you're responding to a request for applications, NIAID program staff check to ensure it is responsive to the request for applications.
Before sending your application to reviewers, SROs look at the application more thoroughly to make sure it's complete and may contact you if anything is missing. If this happens, send in the information quickly so reviewers receive it well before the review.
SROs assign primary, secondary, and tertiary reviewers.
Four to six weeks before the meeting. SROs send each committee member a copy of all applications to be reviewed. For both paper and electronic applications, CSR and NIAID follow roughly the following procedure:
For example: for a review of 100 applications, a reviewer may receive 95 on CD (five not sent because of conflicts) and paper copies of 15 of the 95 to which he or she is assigned.
|
NIH uses a process called streamlining so reviewers can focus on applications that have a chance of being funded.
Review committees don't review any application the group unanimously feels is roughly in the bottom half of applications being reviewed at the meeting (that percentage varies by grant type as well as by study section).
Since no institute has a 50 percentile payline, these applications are simply not competitive.
Here is how streamlining works:
We describe this in more detail below.
Find more information online:
![]() |
If you already have your review results, was your application streamlined?
|
|
CSR review committees gather three times a year for a one- to three-day meeting.
Initial peer review meetings take place four to five months after the NIH receipt date for applications other than AIDS, one to two months later for AIDS applications.
At the meeting, the scientific review officers make sure the group adheres to policy and procedure. The group's chairperson, a committee member, facilitates the discussions. To experience a peer review meeting, watch CSR's video of a mock study section Video on Peer Review at NIH.
Though they do not participate, institute program staff may attend the meeting and can become a source of additional insight into the discussion.
After the SRO opens the meeting, the primary reviewer presents your application to the group. (Peer reviewers with a conflict of interest leave the room beforehand.)
|
Generally, only assigned reviewers will read your application before the review. Other reviewers mostly read just your Abstract, Background and Significance, and Specific Aims.
Reviewers receive dozens of applications for each meeting, totaling thousands of pieces of paper to read in a few weeks -- and they have full-time jobs! They couldn't possibly read all applications in depth.
Keep in mind that about twenty people will score your application even though only a few will have read it in depth. This is the reason you write and organize your Specific Aims for both audiences (we discussed this topic in Plan and Organize Effectively, and Part 5. Research Plan).
You must make a strong case for your research so the primary reviewer can readily read, understand, and explain your project to the group. In Part 4. Target Your Audience and Part 5. Research Plan, we told you how to turn your assigned reviewers into your advocates.
If you're sending in an application you revised based on reviewers' comments from the last review, the reviewers will evaluate your response. For details, see How to Revise and Resubmit.
|
Reflecting the reviewers' judgment of the technical and scientific merit of your application, the overall impact/priority score is an essential review outcome.
For more information on funding decisions, see How NIAID Determines Which Applications to Fund.
Impact |
Impact/Priority Score |
Descriptor |
Additional Guidance on Strengths/Weaknesses |
Strengths/Weaknesses |
---|---|---|---|---|
High |
1 |
Exceptional |
Exceptionally strong with essentially no weaknesses |
|
2 |
Outstanding |
Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses |
||
3 |
Excellent |
Very strong with only some minor weaknesses |
||
Moderate |
4 |
Very Good |
Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses |
|
5 |
Good |
Strong but with at least one moderate weakness |
||
6 |
Satisfactory |
Some strengths but also some moderate weaknesses |
||
Low |
7 |
Fair |
Some strengths but with at least one major weakness |
|
8 |
Marginal |
A few strengths and a few major weaknesses |
||
9 |
Poor |
Very few strengths and numerous major weaknesses |
Definitions | |
Minor: easily addressable weakness that does not substantially lessen the impact of the project. Moderate: weakness that lessens the impact of the project. Major: weakness that severely limits the impact of the project. |
|
When assessing the scientific and technical merit of an application, all NIH review committees use the same initial peer review criteria -- see the Review Criteria SOP.
If you're responding to a request for applications, check the RFA for any special review criteria.
Role of Review Criteria
Peer reviewers don't score applications strictly by the review criteria. Rather, the criteria are gauges for assessing merit and feasibility.
Your assigned reviewers give your application a score for each criterion as well as the whole application; other reviewers score just the whole application.
Keep in mind that the criteria are unweighted and unrelated to the final overall impact/priority score, which reflects the reviewers' judgment of your application as a whole.
It's important to understand how review criteria relate to your score:
Your reviewers will consider other items besides the review criteria.
|
Three types of applications are unscored -- they do not receive a full review, overall impact/priority score, or summary statement.
It's important to keep in mind that unscored applications can still be high quality and possibly fundable. To learn more about this now, read below starting at If Your Application Scores Above the Payline or Is Unscored.
Keep in mind the length of time it may take from the time you reapply to the time an award may be received. See R01 Application to Award Timeline for Initial Submission and Resubmission and Timeline by Review Cycle.
1. Streamlined review. Applications that peer reviewers unanimously judge to be roughly in the bottom half of applications being reviewed at the meeting (though the percentage varies by grant type as well as by study section) get a streamlined review.
Streamlined applications are not discussed at the meeting and do not receive an actual overall impact/priority score. Instead, principal investigators get scores for the individual review criteria and critiques from assigned reviewers.
For more information, see Noncompetitive Applications Get a Streamlined Review above and If Your Application Scores Above the Payline or Is Unscored below.
2. Not recommended for further consideration. NRFC is used for applications that lack significant and substantial scientific merit or have serious hazards or ethical issues. Such applications do not warrant a review and are generally not eligible for funding.
3. Deferred. A scientific review group can postpone the review of an application if unable to determine its scientific merit because information is missing. The group may contact the applicant right away or request another review at a later review date.
![]() |
Do you already know how your application fared in review?
|
![]() |
Was your application unscored or NRFC?
|
![]() |
Is your application foreign?
|
The table below highlights the differences between both approaches.
Comparison of NIH's Old and New Peer Review Processes |
||
Function |
Old |
New |
---|---|---|
Assignment of overall impact/priority scores | Scores reflect reviewer judgment of a whole application: peer review criteria are unweighted and unrelated to the overall impact/priority score. | Unchanged, except assigned reviewers also score each criterion; those scores are also unrelated to the overall score. |
Each reviewer scores to one decimal place: 1.0 is best, 5.0 worst. | Each reviewer scores in whole numbers: 1 is best, 9 worst. | |
Determination of overall impact/priority scores | To create a raw score, reviewer scores are averaged and rounded mathematically to two decimal places, e.g., 1.34. The result is multiplied by 100 to give an overall impact/priority score, e.g., 134. The possible scores range from 100 to 500. |
To create a raw score, reviewer scores are averaged and rounded mathematically to one decimal place, e.g., a 1.34 average yields 1.3. The result is multiplied by 10 to give an overall impact/priority score, e.g., 13. The possible scores range from 10 to 90. |
Streamlined applications | Principal investigators get critiques from assigned reviewers. | Principal investigators get initial scores for individual criteria and critiques from assigned reviewers. |
Determination of percentiles | Percentiles range from 0.1 (best) to 99.5 (worst). Read How Percentiles Are Determined. | Percentiles range from 1 to 99 in whole numbers. Rounding is always up, e.g., 12.1 percentile becomes 13. |
With almost 1,000 possible percentile rankings, few applications are ranked the same. | With 99 possible percentile rankings, some applications are ranked the same, making funding decisions more challenging. For tie scores, funding decisions will be based on other important factors such as mission relevance and portfolio balance. |
|
Percentile base | NIH calculates percentiles using applications submitted for three review cycles. | Unchanged, except for the first year of the transition to the new review processes: |
Summary statements |
See a sample: Annotated Summary Statement (PDF). | Assigned reviewers provide feedback through scores for each criterion and critiques in a structured summary statement. |
Review Criteria |
Five one-word criteria plus descriptive information. | One-word criteria unchanged; descriptions modified. See Review Criteria SOP. |
|
NIH awards grants to foreign applicants if either the expertise or resources are not available here -- for example, access to a unique study population.
Find more information online:
|
Bias is extremely rare.
For details on this subject, see the Conflict of Interest in Peer Review SOP and the Privacy, Conduct, Conflict of Interest, and Clinical Research Ethics questions and answers.
|
After peer review, all reviewed applications receive an overall impact/priority scoreĀ and summary statement.
NIH releases summary statements to you and your program officer roughly six to eight weeks after the review meeting, earlier for new investigators. You can retrieve this information from the Commons:
At that time, it's a good idea to call your program officer if you haven't done so already.
Ask whether your application is likely to be funded or whether he or she can give you more feedback from the review if funding is not on the horizon.
Go to R01 Application to Award Timeline for Initial Submission and Resubmission and Timeline by Review Cycle.
If your application missed the payline or is unscored and its faults are fixable, start revising as soon as you can since you may not have much time to revise after you get the summary statement. See R01 Application to Award Timeline for Initial Submission and Resubmission and Timeline by Review Cycle.
First, determine whether the problems are fixable -- read Part 11b. Not Funded, Reapply.
![]() |
Are you thinking of appealing the review?
|
|
Scientific review officers prepare summary statements for applications considered to be competitive for funding -- i.e., those given a full review and an overall impact/priority score by the review committee.
![]() |
Should you revise?
|
![]() |
Are you thinking of appealing the review?
|
|
Just-in-time means you send information to NIAID when we request it. To see how we ask you for this information, go to our Sample Just-in-Time Email and How and when will I find out if I need to send information just-in-time? in the Just-in-Time questions and answers.
We request this information if your application scored roughly within the top 20 percent. Though you may not get funded, you should prepare your just-in-time information anyway. See If I receive a JIT notification, does that mean I'll get an award? in the Just-in-Time questions and answers.
Other support information is always just-in-time. We also request any of the following documentation relevant to your research that you did not include in your application:
End-of-year warning. We may skip over your application if it comes up for funding at the very end of the fiscal year and your just-in-time submission is not ready. While we're waiting for you, we may fund other applications, and you could lose your chance of funding if we run out of money or time.
When it's due. Your institution's business official should submit other support and human subjects training information within two weeks of receiving a just-in-time notice. You don't need to sign this information because you have a signature assurance on file with your institution.
Since institutional review board and institutional animal care and use committee certifications may take more than two weeks, your business official may submit these approvals at the earliest date possible. Whether you send the certifications with your application or just-in-time, they should be sent together, not separately.
NIH prefers that your institution submit the documentation through the Commons. If you wish, you may fax it to your grants management specialist.
Read the next sections for details on the bullets above.
Find more information online:
![]() |
Will you conduct human subjects or animal research?
|
|
If you're conducting human subjects research, your institution's business official needs to submit the following documents.
Wait until you get a just-in-time request if you didn't send this with your application. NIH prefers that your institution submit the documentation through the Commons. If you wish, you may fax it to your grants management specialist.
Human Subjects Assurance
Your institution needs to file a human subjects assurance with the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). Typically, it takes the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) two weeks or less to approve your FWA application. However, if OHRP spots a problem with your FWA application, it will probably take longer.
You can Search the OHRP Database, or ask your institution to see if it already has an approved assurance. Make sure the new assurance number is on file if it has changed since you submitted your application.
If you have a subaward agreement, check that the subaward organization has a human subjects assurance and IRB approval.
IRB Certification
You also need to obtain and send certification of your institutional review board's approval of your Research Plan. Unlike the assurance, this certification needs to be re-approved every year of your project.
Training Certification
If you haven't submitted it with your application, send us your certification of human subjects education letter stating that each person identified under key personnel has completed an educational program in the protection of human subjects.
Once your grant is under way, you'll need to send the training letter only for new key personnel. Use our Sample Letter to Document Training in the Protection of Human Subjects, and get detailed information on NIH's FAQ.
Find more information online:
|
If you're working with research animals, your institution's business official needs to submit the following documents.
If you didn't send this with your application, wait until you get a just-in-time request.
Your institution needs to file an animal welfare assurance with the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW).
If you have a subaward agreement, make sure that the subaward organization has an animal welfare assurance and IACUC approval. If the subaward organization has an assurance but your institution doesn't, get an inter-institutional assurance. See Is Your Institution Assured by OLAW? for details.
Your institution can submit the documentation through the Commons or email the signed assurance to olawdoa@mail.nih.gov as a PDF.
You will provide certification of your institutional animal care and use committee approval and get re-approved at least every three years. For more information about getting certification of IACUC approval, go to Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.
NIH prefers that your institution submit the certification date through the Commons. If you wish, you may fax the documentation of approval to your grants management specialist.
Find more information online:
|
Just-in-time, you will send NIAID a list of other support -- existing support you have and support you may gain from the current application.
If you have no other support, we will need a letter stating that fact from your institution's business office.
Our Advice: Get
Other
Support Information Ready Well Before We Make the Award
Your other support information shows the following:
Find more information online:
If you have consortium or contractual agreements, send through the Commons just-in-time.
![]() |
|
The next part of the NIH Grant Cycle: Application to Renewal is Part 9. Second-Level Review. |
Help us improve our outreach to you by emailing deaweb@niaid.nih.gov.
Look It Up
See the Glossary for more terms. |
Last Updated July 22, 2009 |
Home | Help | Site Index | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Links & Policies | FOIA | Contact Us |