NIH research project grants (RPGs) submitted on or after January 25, 2025 will be evaluated using the new NIH Simplified Peer Review Framework.
If you want the history and rationale for NIH’s implementation, check out this blog post. We also have blog posts that look more in-depth at Factors 1 and 2.
In this post, we’ll go more in-depth regarding Factor 3, Expertise and Resources. Below is a side-by-side, color-coded comparison of the old review criteria and where they will fall under the new paradigm.
| Current Review Criteria | Simplified Review Framework |
|---|---|
| Significance – scored Innovation – scored | Factor 1: Importance of the Research Significance, Innovation Scored 1 – 9 |
| Approach – scored | Factor 2: Rigor and Feasibility Approach (includes Inclusion and Clinical Trial (CT) Study Timeline) Scored 1 – 9 |
| Investigator(s) – scored Environment – scored | Factor 3: Expertise and Resources Investigators, Environment Evaluated as appropriate or gaps identified; gaps require explanation Considered in overall impact; no individual score |
It’s important to note that the five items under the old review criteria are all scored. Under the new simplified review framework, investigators and environment will be considered, but not scored. In other words, under the new Simplified Review Framework, they will not receive an individual numeric score.
Guests on a recent All About Grants podcast explained that in this criteria, the investigators and the environment will either be deemed sufficient or insufficient. If they are sufficient, reviewers will be confident that the proposed research can be carried out by the research team. In cases where there are questions or concerns, reviewers will be asked to provide comments about their concerns. This is part of an NIH-wide effort to reduce reputational bias.
Note that historically, most applications received their best scores on Investigators and Environment. De-emphasizing these criteria is a welcome change, as we often hear applicants (particularly those serving on study section) complain that a handful of people receive much of the funding. Another strategy NIH has used to address this problem is that some institutes have implemented caps on the number of R01s on which a given researcher may serve as PI.
Review CriteriaThe table below compares the review criteria of the old review framework and the new simplified framework.
| Old Framework | Under the Simplified Review Framework Factor 3. Expertise and Resources |
|---|---|
| Investigator(s) Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or those in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance, and organizational structure appropriate for the project? Environment Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements? | Investigator(s) Evaluate whether the investigator(s) have demonstrated background, training, and expertise, as appropriate for their career stage, to conduct the proposed work. For Multiple Principal Investigator (MPI) applications, assess the quality of the leadership plan to facilitate coordination and collaboration. Environment Evaluate whether the institutional resources are appropriate to ensure the successful execution of the proposed work. |
