Sally A. Amero, Ph.D.
NIH Review Policy Officer
Office of Extramural Research
2010 NIH Regional Seminars

2
The NIH Peer Review Process
• Primary Federal agency in the US for conducting and supporting biomedical research
• 27 Institutes & Centers (ICs)
 Extramural and intramural programs
 24 ICs have funding authority
2

3
The NIH Peer Review Process
• Two-tiered process:
–
Initial peer review
• Scientific Review Groups (SRGs)
• “Study Sections”
– I/C Advisory Council or Board (Council)
• Per year:
–
Nearly 80,000 applications
– Over 18,000 reviewers
3

The NIH Peer Review Process
4
Application received
Initial peer review
Assignments made
 
Funding considerations
SRG; study section
IC or CSR*
Institutes or Centers (ICs)
Duals possible
Scientific Review Officer

Program Officer

Second level of review  Funding decisions
Council or Board (IC) IC Director

Award!
*CSR = NIH Center for Scientific Review
4

The NIH Peer Review Process
• Check for completeness
• Determine area of research
• Assign an identification number
• Assign a grant number
• Assign to NIH IC for possible funding
• Assign to a Scientific Review Group
5
CSR = Central receiving point for all competing applications submitted to the NIH
5

The NIH Peer Review Process
CSR Review
• Most R01s, fellowships, and small business applications
• Some Program
Announcements (PAs,
PARs)
• Some Requests for
Applications (RFAs)
Institute/Center Review
• IC-specific features
• Program projects
• Training grants
• Career development awards
• RFAs
6
Review locus is stated in Funding Opportunity Announcement
6

7
The NIH Peer Review Process
Cover letter of application
– Application title
– FOA # and title
– Request:
– Assignment to particular SRG or study section
– Assignment to particular IC for funding consideration
– Disciplines involved, if multidisciplinary
– Explanation for late application
Not all requests can be honored.
7

8
The NIH Peer Review Process
Instructions
– List one request per line
– Place SRG & IC review requests on separate lines
– Place positive & negative requests on separate lines
– Include name of IC or SRG, followed by a dash and acronym
– Explain each request in a separate paragraph
8

The NIH Peer Review Process
9
•
• Email notifications
– eSubmissions: Grants.gov and NIH
– Paper submissions: Email to confirm assignment eRA Commons
( http://era.nih.gov/commons/index.cfm
)
– Grant application number
– SRG assignment
– SRO contact information
– Funding IC(s) assignment(s)
– New Investigator or Early Stage Investigator status
– Council round
– Multi-PD/PI status
9

The NIH Peer Review Process
• Center for Scientific Review: http://cms.csr.nih.gov/PeerReviewMeetings/CSRIRGDescription/ http://www.csr.nih.gov/committees/rosterindex.asp
• Institutes and Centers: http://era.nih.gov/roster/index.cfm
• Areas of IC interest: http://www.nih.gov/icd/index.html
10 10

The NIH Peer Review Process
First level of peer review
– Designated Federal Official
– Extramural scientist administrator
– Identifies and recruits reviewers
– Manages conflicts of interest
– Oversees arrangements for review meetings
– Presides at review committee meetings
– Prepares and releases summary statements
11 11

The NIH Peer Review Process
12
Recruitment
– Expertise
– Stature in field
– Mature judgment
SRG rosters are posted 30 days before the SRG meeting!
http://era.nih.gov/roster/index.cfm
– Impartiality
– Managed conflicts of interest
– Balanced representation
• Gender
• Geography
• Diversity
• Seniority
– Availability
12

The NIH Peer Review Process
• “Chartered” SRGs
– Multiyear terms
– Formal appointment process
– May include temporary members for special expertise
• Special Emphasis Panels (SEP)
– Ad hoc membership
– Often meet only once
13 13

The NIH Peer Review Process
• Regular reviewers
– Written critiques, criterion scores, preliminary impact/priority scores
– Final impact/priority scores
• Other Contributing Reviewers
– Written critiques, criterion scores, preliminary impact/priority scores
– Cannot submit final impact/priority scores
14 14

The NIH Peer Review Process
• ≥ Three qualified reviewers (2 + 1)
• Based on scientific content of application
• Expertise of reviewer
• Suggestions from PI on types of expertise – not names!
• Suggestions from Program staff
• Suggestions from SRG members
• Managing conflicts of interest
• Balancing workload
15 15

The NIH Peer Review Process
COI between a reviewer and an application:
–
Financial
– Employment
– Personal
– Professional
– SRG membership
– Other interests
16
Two COI vouchers are submitted by each SRG member.
• Pre-meeting and Post-meeting
16

The NIH Peer Review Process
17
Make recommendations, not funding decisions!
– Scientific and technical merit
– Budget and project duration
– Bars to award – human subjects, vertebrate animals, biohazards
– Resource Sharing Plans
– Other administrative factors
 Impact/priority scores
 Criterion scores
 Written critiques
17

The NIH Peer Review Process
Confidentiality
– All materials, discussions, documents retrieved or
– destroyed (except those in the public domain)
– Reviewers sent guidance with applications
– Application information secure
– All questions must be referred to SRO
– Meetings closed to the public
– Program staff may observe
18 18

The NIH Peer Review Process
Reflects the reviewers’ assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved
• Five (or more) scored criteria
• Additional review criteria
• Additional review considerations
19 19

The NIH Peer Review Process
Overall Impact
– Scored criteria:
• Significance*
• Investigator(s)*
• Innovation*
• Approach*
* Receive individual criterion scores
• Environment*
– Additional review criteria
See Side-by-side comparison
( http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer_review_process.htm
)
– Additional review considerations
20 20

The NIH Peer Review Process
Overall Impact
Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the (following) five core review criteria, and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
21 21

The NIH Peer Review Process
Significance
– Does the project address an important problem or critical barrier to progress in the field?
– If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved?
– How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
22 22

The NIH Peer Review Process
Overall Impact
– Not a sixth review criterion
– Not necessarily the arithmetic mean of the criterion scores
– Is the synthesis/integration of the scored and additional criteria
– Reviewer(s) assess the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved
– Likelihood (i.e., probability) is primarily derived from the investigator(s), approach and environment criteria.
– Sustained powerful influence is primarily derived from the significance and innovation criteria.
23 23

The NIH Peer Review Process
Significance
– Is evaluated and scored independently of other criteria
– Evaluation assumes that the “aims of the project are achieved” and/or will be “successfully completed.”
– Reviewers should evaluate within the context of a
(research) field(s).
– Research field(s) may vary widely, so it would be helpful if reviewers identify in their reviews the research field(s) within which the project addresses an important problem or critical barrier to progress.
24 24

The NIH Peer Review Process
(http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/reviewer_guidelines.htm)
• Additional Review Criteria
– Are factored into overall impact/priority score
– Not assigned individual scores
• Additional, specific criteria for mechanism, or FOA
• Protections for Human Subjects from Research Risks
• Inclusion of Women, Minorities & Children
• Vertebrate Animals
• Biohazards
• Resubmissions
• Renewals
• Revisions
25 25

The NIH Peer Review Process
(http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/reviewer_guidelines.htm)
Additional Review Considerations
– Not factored into overall impact/priority score
– Not assigned individual scores
• Additional, specific considerations
• Applications from Foreign Organizations
• Select Agents Research
• Resource Sharing Plans
• Budget & Period of Support
26 26

The NIH Peer Review Process
Overall Impact/Merit
– Scored criteria
• Fellowship Applicant
• Sponsors, Collaborators, and Consultants
• Research Training Plan
• Training Potential
• Institutional Environment & Commitment to Training
27 27

The NIH Peer Review Process
Overall Impact/Merit
–Additional Review Criteria
• Protections for Human Subjects from Research Risks
• Inclusion of Women, Minorities, & Children
• Vertebrate Animals
• Biohazards
• Resubmissions
• Renewals
– Additional Review Considerations
• Responsible Conduct of Research
• Select Agents Research
• Resource Sharing Plans
• Budget & Period of Support
28 28

The NIH Peer Review Process
• New system
– Numerical scores
•1.0 (exceptional) to 9.0 (poor)
• Final impact/priority score = average of individual scores x 10
• Individual criterion scores
• Ranked by percentile for certain mechanisms
– Not Discussed (ND) - streamlining
– Other designations (NR, DF, AB, NP, etc.)
Final impact/priority scores range from 10 through 90!
29 29

The NIH Peer Review Process
• Preliminary scores (before the SRG meeting)
– Entered by assigned reviewers and discussants in secure website
– Made available to other SRG members
•
Final overall impact/priority scores (at the SRG meeting)
– Voted by private ballot
– All eligible SRG members vote
Reviewers are instructed to revise their criterion scores after the meeting.
30 30

The NIH Peer Review Process
Impact
High Impact
Moderate
Impact
Low Impact
Score Descriptor
1 Exceptional
2 Outstanding
3 Excellent
4 Very Good
5 Good
6 Satisfactory
7 Fair
8 Marginal
9 Poor
31 31

The NIH Peer Review Process
• Allows discussion of more meritorious applications
– Research projects ~ 50%
– Shared instrumentation ~ 40%
– Fellowship applications ~ 30%
– RFAs – pre - arranged limits
• Requires full concurrence of SRG
• Not discussed at SRG meeting
• Summary statement:
– Reviewer critiques
– Individual criterion scores
– No final overall impact/priority score (ND)
32 32

The NIH Peer Review Process
• Score order of review
– SRG discusses most meritorious applications first
– Entire SRG decides when to stop, which applications will not be discussed in panel
• Other order of review (e.g., IC assignment, mechanism)
– SRO prepares a list of average preliminary scores
– Distributes to SRG
– Entire SRG decides which applications to discuss
33 33

The NIH Peer Review Process
SRO
– Performs administrative review of applications
– Recruits reviewers, arranges for meeting date and site
– Assigns 3 SRG members to each application
– Makes applications available to reviewers
• Internet Assisted Review (IAR) site or on CDs
• Usually about six weeks before the SRG meeting
– Instructs reviewers in review procedures
– Monitors posting of initial scores and critiques in IAR
34 34

The NIH Peer Review Process
• Reviewer Orientation
• Review Criteria at a Glance
• Overall Impact versus Significance
• Scoring System and Procedure
• Critique Template Instructions
• NIH Certification Forms
• Budget Information
• Human Subjects, Protection and Inclusion
• Vertebrate Animals
• Resource Sharing Plans
Available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/reviewer_guidelines.htm#general_guidelines
35 35

The NIH Peer Review Process
New summary statement format
– Bulleted comments from reviewers
– Less text
– Criterion scores
– Decreases variability
– Increases quality of information in critiques
– More succinct, better organized
– Encourages evaluative statements
– Ensures that reviewers address all review criteria and considerations
36 36

The NIH Peer Review Process
Links to definitions of review criteria http://grants.nih.gov/ grants/peer/reviewer_guidelines htm#general_guidelines
37 37

The NIH Peer Review Process
Reviewers
– Examine assignments
– Complete and submit Conflict of Interest and
Confidentiality voucher
– Read applications, prepare written critiques using formatted template
– Enter preliminary scores into IAR
– Read and consider other critiques and preliminary scores
– Make travel and hotel arrangements
Preliminary scores and critiques may be due several days or a week in advance!
38 38

The NIH Peer Review Process
Late grant material
– Acceptance at discretion of SRO
• Correcting errors or omissions, e.g.
– Additional letters of support or collaboration
– Corrected budget form pages
– Information that a manuscript has been accepted
• Cannot modify Research Plan, except for new letters
– Cannot be accepted with fewer than 30 days before the
SRG meeting
39 39

The NIH Peer Review Process
Agenda
– Call to Order - Chairperson
– Policy and instructions - SRO
– Discuss applications one at a time
– Where feasible:
•
In score order
• Cluster NI applications
• Cluster clinical applications
– Score each application after its discussion
– Discuss other considerations
•
Budget
Remember the
Mock Study Section
• Resource Sharing Plans tomorrow!
40 40

The NIH Peer Review Process
• New Investigator (NI):
A PD/PI who has not yet competed successfully for a substantial
NIH research grant
• Early Stage Investigator (ESI):
An NI who is within 10 years of completing the terminal research degree or medical residency (or equivalent)
41 41

The NIH Peer Review Process
New Investigator Policy
– Support New Investigators at success rates equivalent to that of established investigators submitting new applications
– Where feasible, NI applications are clustered in review
– NI and ESI applications are identified for reviewers
– Expectations for preliminary data or track record should
– not be the same as for established investigators
42 42

The NIH Peer Review Process
Discussion format
– Members with conflicts excused
– Initial levels of enthusiasm stated
(assigned reviewers and discussants)
– Primary reviewer - explains project, strengths, weaknesses
– Other assigned reviewers and discussants follow
– Open discussion (full panel)
– Levels of enthusiasm (assigned reviewers) re-stated
– Individual SRG members vote
– Other review considerations discussed (budget)
43 43

The NIH Peer Review Process
Reviewer workload
~ 6 – 8 as “reviewer”
~ 2 – 3 as “discussant”
Don’t assume reviewers will
– See the unstated
– Grasp nuances
– Understand your lingo
– Look things up
– Read your mind!
44 44

The NIH Peer Review Process
• If 60 applications/SRG meeting
~ 50% streamlined
30 applications to discuss and score
• If 9 hour SRG meeting
~ ½ hour introduction, streamlining
~ 1 hour lunch, 2 x 15 minute breaks
• Leaves
~ 14 minutes/application
~ 3 - 4 minutes/reviewer
Clarity and brevity are essential!
45 45

The NIH Peer Review Process
• Teleconferences
• Editorial-style review
• Video-enhanced discussions
• Internet Assisted Meetings
46 46

47
The NIH Peer Review Process
• NIH Program Officer = Point of Contact
• Wait for summary statement
• Read summary statement carefully before calling!
A favorable score does not guarantee funding!
47

The NIH Peer Review Process
eRA Commons
( http://era.nih.gov/commons/index.cfm
)
– Final Impact/Priority Score available three days after the
SRG meeting
– Summary statement available 4 – 8 weeks after meeting
• Available to Program Officers at that time
• Confidential document
• Available to:
– PD/PIs
– NIH officials
– Advisory Council members
48 48

The NIH Peer Review Process
First page
– NIH Program Officer (upper left corner)
• Name
• Contact information
– Final Impact/Priority Score or ND
– Percentile (if applicable)
– Codes
• Human subjects
• Vertebrate animals
• Inclusion plans
– Budget request
49 49

The NIH Peer Review Process
Subsequent Pages
– Description (provided by applicant)
– Resumé and Summary of Discussion (if discussed)
– Reviewer critiques – essentially unedited
• Follow review criteria for mechanism
• Protections for Human Subjects
• Inclusion Plans
• Vertebrate Animals
• Biohazards
• Budget
– Administrative Notes
50 50

The NIH Peer Review Process
Consider your options if the outcome is unfavorable
– Revise and resubmit application
• Consider critiques in summary statement
• Address critiques in introduction and text
– Appeal review outcome
• Procedural deficiencies
• Factual errors
• May result in re-review of same application by different SRG
Discuss your options with your Program Officer!
51 51

The NIH Peer Review Process
Appeals are submitted to the NIH Program Officer
• All correspondence must be in writing
• All correspondence from the PO must be in hard copy
• Must address procedural flaws in the review, not differences of scientific opinion
• Can be submitted up to thirty days after Council
• Results of a re-review cannot be appealed further
52 52

The NIH Peer Review Process
53
Second level of review
– Make recommendations to IC Director:
• Research priority areas
• Policy
• Appeals
• Funding
• Quality of SRG review
– Concur with SRG recommendations
– Modify SRG recommendations
– Deferral for re-review
– Cannot change final impact/priority score from SRG
–
53

The NIH Peer Review Process
Members
– Scientists from the extramural research community
– Public representatives
– Appointed to multi-year terms
– Appointed as Special Government Employees
– Subject to Standards of Ethics for federal employees
• Rosters: http://www1.od.nih.gov/cmo/committee/index.html
• Schedule: http://www1.od.nih.gov/cmo/committee/index.html
54 54

The NIH Peer Review Process
Committee
– Subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)
– Balanced representation
• Expertise
• Stature in field
• Mature judgment
• Impartiality
• Managed conflicts of interest
• Balanced representation
–
Gender, Diversity
– Geography, Seniority
55 55

The NIH Peer Review Process
Funding decisions – IC Director
– Scientific and technical merit
(initial peer review)
– Council recommendations
– Relevance to program priorities in IC
– Number of meritorious applications received
– Availability of funds
– Advise of IC Program Staff
56 56

The NIH Peer Review Process
• Enhancing Peer Review Initiative http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/
• Office of Extramural Research Peer Review Process http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer_review_process.htm
• Peer Review Policies & Practices http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/peer.htm
• Center for Scientific Review http://cms.csr.nih.gov/AboutCSR/Welcome+to+CSR/
57 57

The NIH Peer Review Process
Sally Amero, Ph.D.
NIH Review Policy Officer
Extramural Research Integrity Liaison Officer
Office of Extramural Programs
Office of Extramural Research
National Institutes of Health ameros@od.nih.gov
58 58