The NIH Activity Code R35 denotes research projects awarded to outstanding investigators. An R35 award is intended to provide recipients with long-term support for any research in their laboratory (so long as it’s in keeping with the awarding IC’s mission) instead of a specific project. The funding and flexibility will allow them to pursue more high-risk, adventurous research and pivot to follow developing research directions.
Last year, we summarized the different R35s issued by four NIH ICs: NIGMS, NINDS, NHLBI, and NCI. We also talked about where R35 applications are reviewed. Now let’s talk about what reviewers focus on when they review R35s.
NIGMS
The NIGMS R35 is known as the Maximizing Investigators’ Research Award (MIRA). While the review criteria are the same as an R01, the emphasis is on the review of the investigator’s overall NIGMS-relevant research program rather than a specific, narrowly focused project with highly tailored specific aims. Reviewers should emphasize MIRA-specific aspects of significance, investigator qualifications, innovation, approach, and environment.
Reviewers provide a single overall impact score and don’t provide individual criterion scores. This shifts emphasis away from details of the application and the approach. Instead, the emphasis is on the potential impact of the investigator’s research program on the field.
NINDS
NINDS calls their R35 the Research Program Award. According to this NINDS presentation, the R35 review is more heavily weighted on the PI’s track record and potential future impact of the ongoing research. In a standard R01 review, the Approach criteria are what drive the scoring.
NHLBI
NHLBI issues two R35 awards: the Outstanding Investigator Award (OIA) and the Emerging Investigator Award (EIA). NHLBI’s page has a lengthy Q&A section about the R35 review process. We summarize some of the key points here:
Review panel(s) for NHLBI R35 applications will have expertise from each of NHLBI’s specific mission areas. The focus is on the challenge or gap in the field (as articulated in the R35 application), the applicant’s prior research contribution and impact on the research gap or challenge, and the expectation for the investigator’s research program to continue on its outstanding and productive trajectory.
The NHLBI R35 review process differs from that of R01s in that the reviewers are asked to shift emphasis away from details of the application and the approach, and to emphasize the potential impact of the investigator’s research program on the field.
While R35 general review criteria are the same as for R01s, emphasis is placed on the review of the investigator’s overall NHLBI-relevant research program rather than a specific, narrowly focused project with highly tailored specific aims. The emphasis is on the R35-specific aspects of significance, investigator qualifications, innovation, approach, and environment.
NCI
The NCI R35 NOFO states that applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by NCI, in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review criteria. Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons.
Reviewers will emphasize the following in their review of new applications:
- Evidence of important previous contributions made by the PD/PI to their field (outstanding research quality; continuous record of publications in peer-reviewed journals; landmark publications, honors and awards received; etc.);
- PD/PI’s demonstrated outstanding cancer research accomplishments of the highest quality for at least the past five years;
- Potential for the PD/PI’s impact on cancer research and influence to continue at the same high caliber level.
