Misrouting happens, but it’s often preventable. Here are some reasons why it might have happened:
1- You let CSR choose the study section. While it may be tempting to let the Center for Scientific Review’s (CSR) algorithm determine your study section assignment, that approach carries risk. The algorithm won’t invest the time and care that you will, which is why it’s worth conducting a thorough CSR Assisted Referral Tool (ART) search, researching your options, and making a deliberate selection.
2- You didn’t make the request using the Assignment Request Form. The request must be submitted using the Assignment Request Form (ARF), not the cover letter, which was the standard practice until a few years ago but is no longer the correct mechanism.
3- You didn’t provide a rationale for your study section request. The ARF allows you to list up to three preferred study sections and, importantly, includes an open-response field where you can provide a written rationale for your request. You should always provide this rationale. Use this field to state explicitly why your work belongs in the requested study section and, equally important, why it might not belong in a similar one.
4- You weren’t mindful of possible key words in the narrative. Review your Specific Aims page, title, and abstract carefully. These are the text fields most likely to contain keywords that triggered incorrect routing. In the future, strip out language that points toward the ‘wrong’ study section and intentionally seed terminology aligned with your intended one.
5- You didn’t list the types of expertise needed for review. In the ARF, you can describe the types of expertise needed to evaluate your science. Thoughtful completion of this section provides another lever to guide appropriate placement. Do not name potential reviewers here, just expertise.
Should you request a different study section on a resubmission (A1)? While requesting a different study section on resubmission is technically allowed, it’s generally inadvisable. The receiving study section will likely question why the application was redirected, and it reflects poorly on the submission. If a study section change is truly necessary, the cleaner path is to retool the work as a new A0 application and pursue proper routing from the outset.
One word of caution: I have heard that sometimes when an organization uses a system-to-system submission (as opposed to submitting directly via NIH ASSIST or grants.gov), the ARF isn’t always supported for every NOFO. Principal Investigators should make their pre-award support personnel aware early on that the ARF is a must. If the S2S doesn’t support it, make sure that the application is submitted via a system that does.
