Applications submitted on or after January 25, 2025 have been evaluated using NIH’s Simplified Review Framework (SRF). Recently, NIH interviewed several study section chairs to hear what they thought of peer review under the new SRF. Below is a summary of the chairs’ feedback broken down by topic, along with my thoughts on the topics, based on my reading of several dozen summary statements across study sections issued since the implementation of the SRF.
(1) Emphasis on Factor 1: Importance of the Research. The study section chairs interviewed felt that perhaps the most consequential shift was much more emphasis on Factor 1, which they felt was appropriate. Without a lengthy checklist, the discussion did not begin with, nor focus on, technical minutia. Instead, it began with a thoughtful discussion of the Importance of the Research: Should this project be done? This restructure in the flow of the discussion meant that panels began with the premise, rather than arriving at questions of importance as a conclusion. Importance framed everything and drove the discussion, rather than reviewers being bogged down in details. In addition, CSR offered guidance to reviewers that the Factor 1 score creates the ceiling for the overall impact score.
Meg’s thoughts: This sounds great. But recall that under the old scoring system, Approach was statistically the worst score of the 5. Now, anecdotally, I am seeing Factor 2 as the worse score of the two. We will see how this plays out in upcoming cycles, as we all learn more.
(2) Benefit of combining Significance & Innovation into a single Factor 1 score: The chairs felt that merging Significance and Innovation into a single scored criteria allowed reviewers to think about the importance of the problem in a more cohesive way. Under the previous framework, reviewers had to allocate their assessments separately between significance and innovation, often straddling an uncertain line between the two. Folding both into Factor 1 allowed for a more coherent evaluation of the research problem as a whole, without having to artificially partition related judgments into separate boxes.
Meg’s thoughts: In my opinion, combining Significance and Innovation was one of the best and most substantive changes implemented under the SRF. Applicants often struggle to disambiguate between the two, and sometimes the ideal methodology for a project is not innovative. By combining Significance and Innovation, it frees reviewers to focus on the big picture, asking whether the project is worth doing.
(3) More time for discussion. With fewer discrete criteria for the primary reviewers to work through during the meeting, reviewers spent less time on checklists and more on substantive deliberation, discussing the big picture. Feedback from the chairs who were interviewed suggested that simplifying the criteria did not flatten the review process—it deepened it.
Meg’s thoughts: It would be nice if that more substantive deliberation was translated to more substantive feedback to applicants. Under the SRF, my sense from reading a few dozen summary statements across different study sections is that reviewer comments have become brief and quite a bit less detailed. So while some study section chairs may believe that the SRF has deepened discussion among reviewers, but I am not seeing that feedback communicated to applicants.
(4) Efficiency and Time Savings. The chairs felt that the SRF led to a more efficient and focused experience. Rather than working through a long list of discrete criteria, reviewers found they could organize their analysis around two clear questions: (Factor 1) should this research be done, and (Factor 2) can it be done well? They could then evaluate applications accordingly. Panels spent less time per application while concentrating more on what actually mattered. One chair said that he could simplify the reviews he was writing and compartmentalize into broad views of importance of research and execution of research.
Meg thoughts: While reviewers may enjoy not having a long list of discrete criteria, it concerns me that reviewers are spending less time on applications. Again, I’m seeing reviewer comments that are much shorter and less substantive than they were in the old system, which does not benefit the applicant.
(5) Possible reduction in bias. Reviewers described a deliberate change in sequencing of review, assessing the science first, then returning to evaluate the investigator and institutional resources only after completing that scientific judgment. Keeping those two assessments separate helped prevent a candidate’s track record or institutional prestige from quietly biasing how the application itself was read—a small procedural shift with meaningful implications for the integrity of the review. Chairs perceived a reduction in reputational bias, with less deference to senior investigators on the basis of track record alone. One chair stated that by assessing the team and institution last, it helped him avoid unintended creep in bias.
Meg thoughts: If it is true that the SRF has reduced reputational bias, that would be wonderful. This issue has dogged NIH review for decades and CSR has experimented with various strategies over the years to address this concern.
(6) Change in how risk is evaluated. The tradeoff between risk and innovation is inherent in cutting-edge research, and the balance of the two is one with which reviewers grapple. While the SRF did not eliminate it, chairs who navigated the transition described practical strategies for shifting how panels engaged with risk. Instead of treating it as a disqualifying flaw, reviewers viewed it as an inherent feature of innovative science.
When a reviewer fixated on a methodological uncertainty, the chair could redirect: Had the investigator identified this risk? Had they proposed alternative approaches if the primary strategy failed? That line of questioning shifted the panel’s attention from the presence of risk to the quality of the scientific thinking surrounding it and helped to meaningfully shape what a panel’s deliberations.
Meg’s thoughts: I am not sure that this will appreciably change the long-standing fact that NIH tends to fund next-logical-steps research. This is especially true right now, as the four mechanisms in the high-risk, high reward portfolio have yet to be re-authorized as of the writing of this post.
(7) Possible benefit to basic science. Under the prior framework, it was common to anchor remarks to the significance of a disease broadly—”studying Alzheimer’s is important”—rather than the specific contribution the application proposed to make. Merging significance and innovation into a single factor pushed reviewers toward a more precise question: not just whether the disease matters, but whether this particular project meaningfully advances understanding of it.
This shift mattered especially for basic research and model-organism work, which has historically been undervalued for lacking an immediately obvious clinical hook. The new framework’s emphasis on the biological problem and its broader implications created more equitable conditions for that work to be assessed on its own terms. One chair felt that the focus on the broad nature of the proposed project was helpful for basic science projects where short-term disease impact is not immediately clear. It allowed reviewers to think of a biological problem and the broad implications of that problem for basic research.
Meg’s thoughts: If the SRF leads to fair review for basic science projects, that can only be good for all of us! However, my enthusiasm is tempered by the fact that NIH is prioritizing human-based research.
In summary, the early experience of several study section chairs suggests that the SRF has largely delivered on its intent. Panels became more focused, deliberations more substantive, and evaluations more grounded in scientific merit. Meg’s Thoughts: While I am encouraged by listening to these interviews, I remain very disappointed in the summary statements I have seen under the new SRF. Applicants rely strongly on feedback provided to them by reviewers; indeed, the ability to read reviewer comments and revise an application is at the heart of successful grantwriting. Without substantive feedback, applicants are left adrift in terms of how to revise their application. I’m hoping that at least part of the reason for the sparse feedback is the backlog of applications caused by the government shutdown at the start of FY27. Time will tell.
