Peer Review

The objective of peer review is to evaluate and rate the scientific and technical merit of research, career development, or research training grant applications and contract proposals.

Peer Review at NIH

Peer review of applications submitted to the NIH involves:

• Scientific Review Groups (SRGs) managed by Scientific Review Officers (SROs) at components of the NIH and NICHD provide the first level of review.
• The Center for Scientific Review (CSR) manages SRGs that evaluate most unsolicited investigator-initiated applications.
• The NICHD Scientific Review Branch (SRB) manages Institutional SRGs that evaluate applications submitted in response to special solicitations, such as RFAs, and for unique programs, including career development and training grant applications and contract proposals.
• Federal advisory committees, such as the National Advisory Child Health and Human Development (NACHHD) Council, composed of scientists from the extramural research community and public representatives, provide the second level of review. This level is legally mandated through the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

Resources

• An overview of the NIH peer review process
• NIH Grant Mechanism Locus of Review (PDF - 47 KB)
• NIH Peer Review Process
• Standard Due Dates for Competing Grant Applications
• Grant Application Submission Policies
• Policy on Unallowable Resubmission and Overlapping Applications
• NIH Peer-Review Policies & Practices
• Research Misconduct
• Electronic Research Administration (eRA) Guidance for Reviewers
• NIH-Wide Scientific Review Group (SRG) and Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) Roster Index

NICHD-Specific Information

• Scientific Review Branch (SRB)
  The SRB is responsible for a broad range of functions related to the review of grant applications for research, and training, and contract proposals for research.
  • Initial Review Group (IRG) Subcommittees
    • Descriptions
    • Schedules
    • Rosters
• Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) Meetings and Rosters
• NICHD Policy on Appeals of Initial Peer Review (PDF - 72 KB)