Master the R Series Bootcamp - October 17, 24, 31 and November 7. Registration is now open.

Update on NIH’s Proposal to Change Review Criteria

By Bouvier Grant Group

We stay current on NIH happenings and would be delighted to keep you informed.

Last year we told you that NIH was seeking public input on its intention to potentially modify application review criteria. NIH has now released results from that request for information (RFI). We recap it for you below, but first a brief reminder of the proposed changes.

Under the existing criteria, applications for research project grants (the “R” grants) are evaluated based on Significance, Investigators, Innovation, Approach, and Environment. 

Under the new scoring criteria, grants will be evaluated as follows:

  • Factor 1: Importance of the Research (Significance, Innovation), numerical score (1-9)
  • Factor 2: Rigor and Feasibility (Approach), numerical score (1-9)
  •  Factor 3: Expertise and Resources (Investigator, Environment), assessed and considered in the Overall Impact Score, but not individually scored.

If you want to read more about how the current criteria would map to the new one and the history behind this proposed change, check out our original post

Results

NIH received nearly 800 responses from individuals, 30 from scientific societies, and 30 from academic institutions. There was majority support for the proposed changes. Respondents felt that the changes would achieve the intended goal of refocusing reviewers on the truly important elements that identify impactful research. This would be accomplished via: (1) reduced burden – reviewers would need to focus on fewer elements and a simplified process; (2) better emphasis on key evaluations, and (3) reduced impact of global reputation of the investigator and environment in favor of a focus on evaluation in the context of the research proposed. 

Respondents also requested clearer definitions of Innovation, Feasibility and Rigor, and the investigative team, noting that better definitions would help reviewers make unbiased reviews. Respondents also commented that NIH should develop strong training for reviewers so that they are well-prepared to execute the new criteria.

A trans-NIH committee has been established to implement the changes for simplifying review criteria. A timeline is under development, as are a rollout and trainings. We’ll update you as soon as further information is shared.

The full report contains information regarding the methods of the RFI, detailed respondent feedback, and additional insight and considerations.  

Dr. Meg Bouvier

Author:
Dr. Meg Bouvier

Margaret Bouvier received her PhD in 1995 in Biomedical Sciences from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine. After an NINDS post-doctoral fellowship, she worked as a staff writer for long-standing NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins in the Office of Press, Policy, and Communications for the Human Genome Project and NHGRI. Since 2007, Meg has specialized in editing and advising on NIH submissions, and began offering virtual courses in 2015. She's recently worked with more than 40% of the nation's highest-performing hospitals*, four of the top 10 cancer hospitals, three of the top five medical schools for research, and 14 NCI-designated cancer centers. Her experience at NIH as both a bench scientist and staff writer greatly informs her approach to NIH grantwriting. She has helped clients land over half a billion in federal funding. Bouvier Grant Group is a woman-owned small business.

*Our clients include 9 of the top 22 hospitals as recognized by the 2023/24 US News & World Report honor roll

Categories:
Related posts

You May Also Be Interested In

We read all NIH notices for our clients. When you join our mailing list, we’ll pass along important changes directly to your inbox, as well as opportunities to improve your grantsmanship skills.
Primary Position
Lead Source

Wait!

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter for the latest NIH news, grantwriting tips, and more.

NIH October 2023 Newsletter cover