Presentation on theme: "How a Study Section works"— Presentation transcript:
1How a Study Section works Robert Freund, Ph.D.Scientific Review AdministratorVirology B Study SectionCenter of Scientific Review
2Subjects we will cover: Submitting an applicationReview of the applicationThe study sectionAfter the study sectionWhat next?
3Dual Review System for Grant Applications First Level of ReviewScientific Review GroupProvides Initial Scientific MeritReview of Grant ApplicationsRates Applications and Makes Recommendations for Appropriate Level of Support and Duration of AwardSecond Level of ReviewCouncil/InstituteAssesses Quality of SRGReview of Grant ApplicationsMakes Recommendation toInstitute Staff on FundingEvaluates Program Prioritiesand RelevanceAdvises on Policy
4Center for Scientific Review Division of Receipt and Referral: Central receipt point for most PHS grant applicationsInstitute assignmentAssignment to Scientific Review GroupStudy Section: Conducts initial scientific merit review of most research applications submitted to the NIH
5Applications Submitted to NIH Over 60,000 grant applications are submitted to NIH each year.
6CSR Study SectionsStanding Study Sections when the subject matter of the application matches the referral guidelines for the study section.Each study section has members.Approximately 80 applications are reviewed at each study section meetingAd 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.
7Submit Cover Letter Suggest appropriate Institute Multiple institute assignmentsSuggest appropriate Study SectionGo to web site:Description of Study SectionsStudy Section Rosters
11Assignment Notification Letter Assignment Number: 2 R01 HL A1Dual Assignment: NSScientific Review Group:Virology B (VirB)Information about SRGs may be found on the CSR Home page (http://www.csr.nih.gov)Scientific Review Administrator:DR. ROBERT FREUND , SRACTR FOR SCIENTIFIC REV6701 ROCKLEDGE DR RM MSC7808BETHESDA MD(301)Institute/Center:NATL HEART, LUNG, & BLOOD INSTDIV/EXTRAMURAL AFFAIRS RKNATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTHBETHESDA, MD(301)
12CSR Study Sections Administrative Review Recruitment Assignments Standing MembersTemporary MembersAssignmentsMatch Expertise/Interests with ApplicationsConflict of Interest IssuesWorkload of Reviewers
13Study Section Actions Unscored (lower half) Scored, Scientific Merit Rating (priority scores and percentiles)Deferral (this cycle, next cycle)
15StreamliningReviewers categorize applications in “lower half” in scientific merit using preliminary scores.Lower half applications:Not discussed or scoredWritten critiques are provided to the applicantNot taken to Advisory CouncilIn most cases, unscored applications have potential and are worth revising
16Scored Applications Reviewers (usually 3) present opinions Discussion (approx. 15 min. per application)Discuss other considerations(vertebrate animals, human subjects, bioharzards)ScoreDiscuss Budget
17Review Criteria Overall Evaluation & Score Reflects Impact on Field 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
18Scores & Percentiles Reviewers’ scores: 1.0 (best) to 5.0 (worst) Priority Score:Average of all reviewers’ scores x 100Range from 100 to 500Percentiles (R01s only):Normalizes scores between different Study SectionsEach application is ranked against all applications reviewed in the last year (3 review rounds)
19Summary StatementOnce 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:Overall Resume and Summary of Review DiscussionEssentially Unedited CritiquesPriority Score and Percentile RankingBudget RecommendationsAdministrative Notes
20Getting the Results Mailer: score & percentile Program staff: Payline informationAdvice on revisionThe NIH CommonsSummary Statement
21After Review? Contact Program Officer Revise Application Funding Decisions, advise and interpretationRevise ApplicationAddress everything in IntroductionDon’t follow comments blindlyResubmit
22NIH Grant Receipt, Review, and Award Schedule Feb-MarchJune-July Receipt DatesOct-NovJune-JulyOct-Nov Review DatesFeb-MarSeptFeb National Advisory Council Board DatesJuneDec 1Apr 1 Earliest Possible Beginning DateJuly 1