Presentation on theme: "How a Study Section works Robert Freund, Ph.D. Scientific Review Administrator Virology B Study Section Center of Scientific Review"— Presentation transcript:
How a Study Section works Robert Freund, Ph.D. Scientific Review Administrator Virology B Study Section Center of Scientific Review Freundr@csr.nih.gov 301-435-1050
Submitting an application Review of the application The study section After the study section What next? Subjects we will cover:
Dual Review System for Grant Applications Second Level of Review Second Level of ReviewCouncil/Institute Assesses Quality of SRG Review of Grant Applications Makes Recommendation to Institute Staff on Funding Evaluates Program Priorities and Relevance Advises on Policy First Level of Review Scientific Review Group Provides Initial Scientific Merit Review of Grant Applications Rates Applications and Makes Recommendations for Appropriate Level of Support and Duration of Award
Center for Scientific Review Division of Receipt and Referral: Central receipt point for most PHS grant applications Institute assignment Assignment to Scientific Review Group Study Section: Conducts initial scientific merit review of most research applications submitted to the NIH
Applications Submitted to NIH Over 60,000 grant applications are submitted to NIH each year.
CSR Study Sections Standing Study Sections when the subject matter of the application matches the referral guidelines for the study section. Each study section has 20 - 30 members. Approximately 80 applications are reviewed at each study section meeting Ad Hoc Special Emphasis Panels (SEPs) when the subject matter does not fit into any study section, or when assignment of an application to the most appropriate study section would create a conflict of interest.
Submit Cover Letter Suggest appropriate Institute Multiple institute assignments Suggest appropriate Study Section Go to web site: www.csr.nih.govwww.csr.nih.gov Description of Study Sections Study Section Rosters
Streamlining Reviewers categorize applications in “lower half” in scientific merit using preliminary scores. Lower half applications: Not discussed or scored Written critiques are provided to the applicant Not taken to Advisory Council In most cases, unscored applications have potential and are worth revising
Scored Applications Reviewers (usually 3) present opinions Discussion (approx. 15 min. per application) Discuss other considerations (vertebrate animals, human subjects, bioharzards) Score Discuss Budget
Review Criteria Significance: Does the study address an important problem? How will scientific knowledge be advanced? Approach: Are design and methods well-developed and appropriate? Are problem areas addressed? Innovation: Are there novel concepts or approaches? Are the aims original and innovative? Investigator: Is the investigator appropriately trained? Environment: Does the scientific environment contribute to the probability of success? Are there unique features of the scientific environment? Overall Evaluation & Score Reflects Impact on Field Overall Evaluation & Score Reflects Impact on Field
Scores & Percentiles Reviewers’ scores: 1.0 (best) to 5.0 (worst) Priority Score: Average of all reviewers’ scores x 100 Range from 100 to 500 Percentiles ( R01s only ): Normalizes scores between different Study Sections Each application is ranked against all applications reviewed in the last year (3 review rounds)
Summary Statement Once applications are reviewed, the results are documented by the SRA in a summary statement and forwarded to the Institute (and the PI) where a funding decision is made: Once applications are reviewed, the results are documented by the SRA in a summary statement and forwarded to the Institute (and the PI) where a funding decision is made: The summary statement contains: The summary statement contains: Overall Resume and Summary of Review Discussion Essentially Unedited Critiques Priority Score and Percentile Ranking Budget Recommendations Administrative Notes
Getting the Results Mailer: score & percentile Program staff: Score & percentile Payline information Advice on revision The NIH Commons Summary Statement
After Review? Contact Program Officer Funding Decisions, advise and interpretation Revise Application Address everything in Introduction Don’t follow comments blindly Resubmit
NIH Grant Receipt, Review, and Award Schedule Feb-March June-JulyReceipt Dates Oct-NovJune-July Oct-NovReview Dates Feb-MarSept FebNational Advisory Council Board Dates June Dec 1 Apr 1Earliest Possible Beginning Date July 1