1. Mary Ann Guadagno, PhD Senior Scientific Review Officer CSR Office of the Director Review Issues – CSR Surveys

2. Peer Review is Fundamental to the NIH Mission CSR Goal – to ensure that grant applications submitted to NIH are evaluated on the basis of a process that is fair, equitable, timely, and free of bias. CSR Review Issues – Are current CSR best practices optimal for achieving the mission? CSR Peer Review Issues

3. Receives all NIH applications from Applicants Refers them to NIH Institutes/Centers and to scientific review groups SROs manage the peer review process Reviewers review grant applications for scientific merit NIH Program Officers make funding recommendations CSR is the Focal Point for Initial Review at NIH Are Current CSR Best Practices Optimal for Achieving the Mission?

4. CSR Leadership Program Surveys CSR New Chair Training Surveys Other Studies Focus Groups – SROs, POs, Reviewers, Applicants Personal Interviews – NIH Institute and Center Directors Evaluation of the Peer Review Process from Stakeholders Pilot 1 - January 2015 Quick Feedback for CSR from Program Officers Pilot 1 - February/March 2014 Pilot 2 - May/June 2014 Pilot 3 - September/October 2014 Pilot 4 - March/April 2015 Quick Feedback for CSR from Reviewers Evaluating the CSR Peer Review Process

5. To assess the utility of asking Reviewers and NIH Program Officers about their CSR study section meeting experience (*queried both Reviewers and POs): –Program Officer Experience –*Quality of Prioritization –*Collective Expertise –*Assignment of Applications to Reviewers –*Quality of Discussion Objectives

6. –Alternative Meeting Formats –Meeting Issues –Overall Quality of Review –General Comments Objectives continued …

7. REVIEWER SATISFACTION WITH SELECT ELEMENTS OF PEER REVIEW

8. S1 - The Panel was able to prioritize applications according to their impact/scientific merit. S2 – The roster of reviewers was an appropriate assembly of scientific expertise for the set of applications in the meeting. S3 – Assignment of applications to reviewers made appropriate use of their broad expertise. S4 – The nature of the scientific discussions supported the ability of the panel to evaluate the applications being reviewed. General Comments – In addition to the answers you provided in this questionnaire, please add any other comments in the text box below. Four Agreement Statements and Comments

10. NIH PROGRAM OFFICER SATISFACTION WITH SELECT ELEMENTS OF PEER REVIEW

11. –If Program Officer did not observe or listen-into a CSR Study Section - 2 text boxes: Why not? What could CSR do to help facilitate your ability to follow our SRGs? –If Not Applicable (N/A) – not responsible for applications reviewed that round. End of interview. Thank you. Skip Patterns on Question 1

12. S1 - The panels were able to appropriately score my programs’ applications. S2 – The rosters of reviewers represent strong scientific expertise for the set of applications in the meetings. S3 – Assignments of applications to reviewers made appropriate use of their broad expertise. S4 – The scientific discussions supported my ability to make programmatic decisions. S5– I am comfortable having my own programs’ applications reviewed using: –Video Assisted Meeting (VAM) format –Internet Assisted Meeting (IAM) format Program Officer Agreement Statements and Comments

13. Of the meetings you followed, how many CSR study sections were…? –Face-to-face meetings in person –Face-to-face meetings by telephone –Internet Assisted Meetings (IAM) –Video Assisted Meetings (VAM) –Teleconference How many years have you been an NIH Program Officer? Meeting Issues – In the meetings you followed, did you have any concerns about the following issues? (please check all that apply) –Internet connectivity –Telephone –Microphone –Real Time Meeting Status Tool –Travel to the meeting was inconvenient Overall Quality of Review – In your experience, the best Scientific Review Groups are (list up to 3 – either CSR or IC)? General Comments – In addition to the answers you provided in this questionnaire, please add any other comments in the text box below. Additional Questions and Comments

17. REVIEWERS VS. PROGRAM OFFICERS

18. Overall CSR Quick Feedback Favorable Responses

19. SATISFACTION VARIES ACROSS NIH INSTITUTES AND CENTERS

22. MEETING CHALLENGES REPORTED BY PROGRAM OFFICERS

24. CONTENT ANALYSIS CHALLENGES FROM GENERAL COMMENTS

25. Positive - SROs Neutral - RTMS Tool + Quality of Peer Review Challenges Microphone Issues Telephone Issues Roster Quality IAM Meeting Format Scoring Meeting Logistics Themes from General Comments

26. Identification of areas where CSR is meeting or exceeding customer expectations as well as areas that present challenges, using survey research to guide us. Strengths and limitations of methodology –1 survey to all POs at end of council round –Response rate Next steps –CSR Director begins discussions with IC Directors. –Share results with CSR staff, PLC, RPC, EPMC. –Begin addressing actionable items. –Continue to survey over time to track changes. What Do We Hope to Learn?

27. Suggestions or Questions? Thank you!