Who is eligible to apply for an NIH grant?

NIDCR supports scientists at various stages in ​their careers, from pre-doctoral stud​ents to investigators with extensive experience who run large research centers. Applicants are invited to work with their institution to develop an application for support. While the principal investigator (PI) conceives and writes the application, NIH recognizes the applicant institution as the grantee for most grant types.

Each type of NIH grant program has its own set of eligibility requirements, found in section III of every Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA):

Example:

PA-14-358

• Participating Organizations
• National Institutes of Health (NIH)
• Components of Participating Organizations
• National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
• National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB)
• Funding Opportunity Title: Biology of the Temporomandibular Joint in Health and Disease (R01)

 Section III. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants
   • A. Eligible Organizations
   • B. Foreign Institutions
   • C. Required Registrations
   • D. Eligible Institutions
   • E. Eligible Individuals
2. Cost Sharing or Matching
3. Additional Information on Eligibility
4. Other-Special Eligibility Criteria

 There are two avenues for submitting a grant application:

• You can submit an application in response to a Funding Opportunity Announcement (also known as a “Program Announcement” or a “Request for Applications”) for a specific program:
  • See all NIH Funding Opportunity Announcements
  • See NIDCR’s Funding Opportunity Announcements

OR:

• You can submit an unsolicited application (also known as an “investigator-initiated parent grant application”) using a mechanism called a “Parent Announcement.”

What should I do before I write an application?

Start planning well before the application submission date.

• Assess the state of your field of research to determine if your ideas represent an area that needs additional research effort
  • Examine the published literature (such as PubMed)
  • Look at grants currently funded by NIH (Search NIH RePORTER)
• If you are interested in responding to a specific Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), call the Program Director listed in the announcement.*
• If you are submitting an unsolicited (investigator-initiated) application, call the Program Director at NIDCR who handles applications in your topic area:*
  *Program Directors can provide important advice and feedback regarding the relevance of your ideas to NIDCR’s mission or to the objectives of a particular FOA.
• Determine what resources and support are available at your own organization and what additional support you may need, such as collaborators or consultants.

What should I consider when writing my application?

Develop a focused and testable hypothesis. Outline specific methods that will accomplish your aims within the time and budget requested. Be sure to acknowledge potential pitfalls and alternative approaches to the proposed experiments. Be realistic about the scope of the research proposed and avoid proposing more work than can be done within the grant period. Establish feasibility (from published literature or preliminary data).

Visit the OER website for detailed application preparation instructions.

How do I submit an application?

All applications must be submitted in response to a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), which includes Request for Applications, Program Announcements, or Parent FOAs (“unsolicited” or investigator-initiated applications).

Electronic Submission

Most competing grant programs at NIH require electronic submission. Since 2005 NIH has been receiving "simple" (aka "single project") applications electronically (e.g R01, R03, etc.). Applicant organizations submit single project applications to Grants.gov, and must track their application as it moves from Grants.gov to the eRA Commons, NIH's system for grants administration, to complete the submission process.

In 2013 NIH has started to accept "multi-project" (aka "complex") applications electronically (e.g. P50, P01, etc.), see transition timeline for more information). A new electronic system, ASSIST is used to submit these multi-project applications. Each funding opportunity will clearly state whether electronic submission is required and will link you to the appropriate submission method.

Register

Prior to submitting a grant application online through Grants.gov to NIH, an applicant organization must complete registrations for all of the following:

• Sam.gov
• Grants.gov
• NIH eRA Commons

Having an active registration with SAM (which must be renewed yearly), is required before registering with Grants.gov. or submitting an application.

Principal Investigators are not required to register at Grants.gov but must register in eRA Commons. 

What happens after submission?

All applications go to the NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR). CSR then determines whether an application will remain there for review or whether it will be forwarded to a specific NIH Institute (such as NIDCR) for review.

In general, CSR conducts peer review of:

• investigator-initiated (unsolicited) applications
• applications submitted in response to program announcements (PAs)

NIDCR reviews applications that address Institute-specific programs such as: 

• centers
• program projects
• institutional training grants
• fellowships
• career development awards
• multi-site clinical trials
• applications responding to requests for applications (RFAs)

For those applications remaining at CSR for review, CSR also determines which Institute is the most appropriate to potentially fund that application.

How do I find out where my application will be reviewed?

You should receive an assignment notification in your eRA Commons account within 2 weeks of your application's submission due date. You can also login to the NIH eRA Commons to find your review and institute assignments. If you are not satisfied with these assignments, you can request a change by contacting the Scientific Review Officer (SRO) at CSR who is handling your application.

How is my application peer reviewed?

First Level of Review
All applications reviewed at CSR go through a two-stage process. Initially they are assigned to an Integrated Review Group (IRG), which assesses the scientific and technical merit of the application. Applications are then assigned to specific scientific review groups (SRGs)--also known as study sections--based on the topic of the research, or to Special Emphasis Panels (SEPs).

• Study sections typically include 20 or more scientists from the community of researchers. Some SRGs are regular standing study sections. Members typically serve four-year terms and temporary members also are used for specific expertise.
• SEPs are review groups formed on an ad hoc basis to review applications requiring special expertise.
• For unsolicited applications, you are encouraged to suggest the most appropriate scientific review group for review of your application. However, suggesting specific reviewers is not appropriate.

If an application will be reviewed at NIDCR, the Scientific Review Branch decides whether it will be reviewed by its standing committee, called the Special Grants Review Committee, (which in general reviews training awards, career development awards, and certain small research grants), or by a Special Emphasis Panel convened by the Institute.

Review Criteria
Whether your application is reviewed by CSR or NIDCR, the Scientific Review Officer in charge of your application assigns primary, secondary, and tertiary reviewers to review your application. They read the application thoroughly and write a critique, based on specific review criteria, before the meeting.

• The standard review criteria for investigator-initiated applications are significance, approach, innovation, investigator, and environment
• RFAs may have additional specific review criteria to meet the needs of the initiative
• NIDCR also has review criteria for specific Program Announcements

How are applications scored?

At the review meeting, applications are discussed and each reviewer assigns a priority score. Priority scores range from 1.0 to 9.0, with 1.0 being the best score and 9.0 the lowest. Reviewers assess the scientific merit of the applications but do not make funding decisions. Following the meeting, the Scientific Review Officer compiles the scores and the average score is multiplied by 10 to arrive at a final priority score.

Not Discussed (formerly unscored) Applications

Some applications will be subjected to streamlined review and will not be discussed. These applications fall roughly in the lower half of the distribution for applications reviewed at a meeting.  This designation requires unanimous consent from the reviewers and results in the application not receiving a score and not being discussed in detail at the meeting. The investigator will still receive the written critiques prepared by the reviewers. However, these applications will not move forward for further review.

Scoring of Unsolicited Applications

For unsolicited applications that are reviewed by CSR, priority scores are converted to percentiles. The percentile ranks your application relative to the other applications that have been reviewed by the same study section for its last three meetings. Percentiles range from 0.1 (best) to 99.5 (lowest).

Scoring of NIDCR-Reviewed Applications

For all applications reviewed by NIDCR, the Institute uses priority scores to help rank applications for possible funding.

How will I be notified of the initial review outcome?

After the study section or Special Emphasis Panel reviews your application, scores are made available to applicants in their personal eRA Commons account. Scores are usually available within several working days after the review meeting. If your score has not appeared within two weeks after the review meeting, call your Scientific Review Officer.

Summary statements containing the reviewer’s critiques and the Scientific Review Officer’s overall summary of the review are also available in the eRA Commons, usually by one month following the review meeting.

If you are not happy with the outcome of the review, you should contact your Program Director to discuss your options. In most cases, it is recommended that you consider the comments made by the reviewers and use them to guide you in revising and resubmitting the application.

If you feel that the review was technically flawed, you can appeal the outcome of the review. Appeals must be based on procedural flaws in the review process including:

• bias in the review
• conflict of interest
• lack of appropriate expertise
• factual errors in the review

The appeals process is not intended to deal with differences in scientific opinion between or among the applicant and reviewers. Appeals are rarely successful and generally result in a significant loss of time during which an investigator could have improved and resubmitted the application. See more information on the appeals process.

Second level of review

The second level of review is conducted by the National Advisory Dental and Craniofacial Research Council (NADCRC). Council must concur with the findings of the Integrated Review Group and approve all applications that may potentially be funded. Most investigator-initiated applications are voted en bloc (as a group, rather than individually), while applications requiring special action may be considered individually. Beginning in September 2012, Council members receive a list of competing applications that will be considered for funding from PD/PIs that meet the threshold for Special Council Review. These are investigators who currently receive $1 million or more in direct costs of NIH funding to support Research Project Grants (see NOT-OD-12-140). Council members will be asked to recommend consideration of funding for applications that afford a unique opportunity to advance research which is both highly promising and distinct from the other funded projects from the PD/PI. This does not represent a cap to NIH funding.

How are grants awarded?

The NIDCR Grants Management Official (GMO) is responsible for making awards. The GMO may request additional information prior to making an award. For example, the GMO may ask for clarification about the budget, the protection of human subjects and animals, and other support. The award is made via a Notice of Grant Award that is usually sent electronically to the Principal Investigator and the institution’s business official within six weeks of the Council meeting. You should contact your assigned Program Director to get an idea of whether or not your application is likely to be funded. 

How long does the whole process take?

In general, applying for a grant is a lengthy process with several factors affecting the overall time. It typically takes about four months from submission until you get your score from the initial review, and then another three to five months before an award is made. This time frame can vary depending upon the Funding Opportunity Announcement. See NIH's Grants Process At-a-Glance Chart.

What should I do if my application is not funded?

It is strongly recommended that you contact your assigned Program Director to discuss how to proceed. He/she can help you assess the outcome of the review and advise you on how to address the issues. Revising and resubmitting are the next logical steps. Following an unsuccessful resubmission (A1) application, applicants may submit the same idea as a new (A0) application for the next appropriate due date, as per NOT-OD-14-074.

In 2014, the success rate for new applications was 21.5%.​​​