How your NIH grant application is
evaluated and scored
Larry Gerace, Ph.D.
June 1, 2011
Tips for writing your first R01 application
 Read successful grant applications and summary
statements from other PIs
 Follow the criteria stated in PHS-398 for the content
of Specific Aims, Significance, Innovation, Approach
 Use models and/or data in “Background” and
“Approach” to boost clarity and reviewers’ confidence
 Keep text from being too crowded; e.g., use spaces
between sections
 Get feedback on your application from others before
submitting (start early!)
Scored review criteria for NIH grants
Six criteria scored, each with a value of 1-9:
• Overall Impact (“score”):
Assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a
sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s)
involved
• Five Core Criteria (basis for “score”):
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
3
Significance
Investigator(s)
Innovation
Approach
Environment
Instructions to NIH grant reviewers for scoring:
Score Descriptor Additional Guidance on Strengths/Weaknesses
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Exceptional
Outstanding
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Satisfactory
Fair
Marginal
Poor
Exceptionally strong with essentially no weaknesses
Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses
Very strong with only some minor weaknesses
Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses
Strong but with at least one moderate weakness
Some strengths but also some moderate weaknesses
Some strengths but with at least one major weakness
A few strengths and a few major weaknesses
Very few strengths and numerous major weaknesses
Percentiles associated with scores and descriptors
Impact
High Impact
Moderate Impact
Low Impact
Score
Descriptor
Strengths/Weaknesses
1
Exceptional
Strengths
2
Outstanding
3
Excellent
4
Very Good
5
Good
6
Satisfactory
7
Fair
8
Marginal
9
Poor
Weaknesses
often ~15th percentile
Portion of bullet point NIH review template
Scoring in the core criteria
1) Significance
• Is the application of major importance for advancing
basic science and human health?
• Is the work novel and does it have impact on both
specific area and broader range of research topics?
• Does the work address the question in a
multidimensional manner; e.g. using multiple and/or
interdisciplinary approaches?
Scoring in the core criteria
2) Investigator(s)
• Does the PI present a cogent Personal Statement in
Biosketch on background and skills?
• Is the PI’s track record indicative of success?
• Is the impact of the work increased with
collaborations that enhance depth?
Scoring in the core criteria
3) Innovation
• Does the work provide methodological advances or
refinements and are these applicable to broader areas?
• Does the work promise significant conceptual advances
(changing general thinking about the problem)?
• Does the work identify new pathways, mechanisms, etc.
that “open up” major new research avenues?
Scoring in the core criteria
4) Approach
• Is the problem focused and go into sufficient depth to
allow significant advances on key problems? (~3 Aims)
• Can the work realistically be accomplished in 4/5 years?
• Is rationale for each Aim provided? (introductory
paragraph)
• Are predicted outcomes and alternative approaches for
sub-aims presented? (end of each sub-aim)
• Is there preliminary data to justify feasibility of project?
Scoring in the core criteria
5) Environment
• Does the “local intellectual environment”, institution
and neighboring institutions support a successful
outcome?
• Is the needed equipment available and accessible?