Changes is NIH Review Process
and Grant Application Forms
Shirley M. Moore
Professor of Nursing and Associate
Dean for Research
Frances Payne Bolton
School of Nursing
Case Western Reserve University
PEER REVIEW
2
Changes to Proposal Reviews
Began in May/June 2009 Reviews
 Enhanced Review Criteria
– Significance, Investigator(s), Innovation,
Approach, Environment
 New Templates for Structured Critiques
 Scoring of Individual Review Criteria
 New 1-9 Scoring Scale
3
Goals of the Changes
 Clearer understanding of the basis of
application ratings
 More emphasis on impact and less emphasis
on technical details
 Succinct, well-focused critiques that
evaluate, rather than describe, applications
 Routine use of the entire rating scale
4
Reviews
When reading applications the
assigned reviewers :
 Identify major strengths and weaknesses
 Assign scores of 1-9 to each of 5 “core”
criteria
 Assign an overall impact/priority score that
ranges from 1-9
5
Critiques
Written critiques:
 Use of bulleted points to make succinct,
focused comments
 Short narratives may occasionally be
appropriate, but are rare
 Focus is on major strengths and weaknesses
(ones that impacted the overall rating of the
application)
6
Excerpt from a Critique Template
 List major strengths and weaknesses that
influenced the overall impact/priority score
 Text limited to ¼ page per criterion, although
more text may occasionally be needed
7
Scoring of Individual Review Criteria
 There are 5 “core” criteria for most types of
grant applications
 For example, the core criteria for R01s are:
–
–
–
–
–
Significance
Investigator(s)
Innovation
Approach
Environment
 9-point scale (1 = exceptional, 9 = poor) for
the five “core” review criteria.
8
Overall Impact/Priority Scores
 Criterion strengths and weaknesses
considered in determining the overall
impact/priority score
 Reviewers encouraged to use the entire 1-9
range
9
Scoring Descriptions
Score
Descriptor
Additional Guidance on Strengths/Weaknesses
1
Exceptional
Exceptionally strong with essentially no weaknesses
2
Outstanding
Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses
3
Excellent
Very strong with only some minor weaknesses
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
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
Minor Weakness: An easily addressable weakness that does not substantially lessen impact
Moderate Weakness: A weakness that lessens impact
Major Weakness: A weakness that severely limits impact
Scoring Descriptions
11
Summary Statements
 Overall impact/priority scores of discussed
applications are the mean of scores voted
by all eligible reviewers, multiplied by 10
 Final scores will range from 10-90, in whole
numbers
 Summary statements for ALL applications
will include the criterion scores and critiques
posted by assigned reviewers
12
IAR: New Header Information in Critique
 Preliminary IAR Critique now includes
criterion scores
13
Early Investigator and
New Investigator Status
New Investigator
Early Investigator
14
Major Changes to Applications
Major changes for due dates on or after
January 25, 2010
– Restructured application forms
– Shorter page limits and new instructions
For ALL competing applications:
New, Renewal, Resubmission, and Revision
NOT-OD-09-149, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-09-149.html
Applicants Must Download New Forms
for due dates on or after 1/25/10
Applicants must return to FOA or reissued
Parent Announcement to download new
forms.
Most forms will be available by December
Applications submitted using incorrect forms will
be delayed and may not be reviewed!
Overview of the Changes
Goal: Align structure and content of
applications with review criteria and
improve efficiency and transparency of
the review process
– Application forms revised in three
sections:
– Research Plan
– Biographical Sketch
– Resources and Facilities
– Shorter page limits
Forms Revised in Three Sections
Research Plan:
 Specific Aims
– Includes new language about the impact of the
proposed research
 Research Strategy
– Background and Significance, Innovation, Approach,
includes Preliminary Studies/Progress Report
 Select Agents Research
- Reflect the criterion
Resources:
– Statement of how environment supports the
proposed research
Biographical Sketch:
– Requires a Personal Statement and provide
Shorter Page Limits
Current Page Limit
(Section 2-5 of the Research
Plan)
New Page Limit
(Research Strategy)
<25
25
6
12
>25
Follow FOA Instructions
Note: Follow FOA page limit requirements if
different from the application instructions.
Table of Page Limits: http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/page_limits.html
Introductions for revised and
resubmission applications are
limited to 1 page
20
For additional information:
Enhancing Peer Review at NIH Web Site
http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov
Thank you for your review service
21