How Your Application Is Reviewed Vonda Smith, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer (SRO)

Your SRO is a doctoral-level scientist with expertise relevant to your field who manages the overall peer review of your application. Your Scientific Review Officer Takes Charge

Your SRO Assigns at Least Three Reviewers to Your Application

Demonstrated scientific expertise/research support Doctoral degree or equivalent Mature judgment Work effectively in a group context Breadth of perspective Impartiality Diversity Geographic distribution What Your SRO Looks for When Recruiting Reviewers

The Study Section Meeting Your SRO Convenes the Study Section Meeting

Any member in conflict with an application leaves the room Reviewer 1 introduces the application and presents critique Reviewers 2 and 3 highlight new issues and areas that significantly impact scores All eligible members are invited to join the discussion and then vote on the final overall impact score At the Meeting: Application Discussion

Reviewers typically discuss the top half of the applications The panel will discuss any application a reviewer wants to discuss Discussions Focus on the Best Applications

Overall Impact Assessment of the likelihood that the proposed training will enhance the candidate’s potential for a productive, independent scientific career. Five Core Review Criteria Main Review Criteria

1. Fellowship Applicant – Scholastic performance – Productivity commensurate with career stage – Aptitude and enthusiasm – Clarity of stated career goals – Letters of reference – Mentoring committee for pre-docs is a plus Five Core Review Criteria

2. Sponsors, Collaborators, and Consultants − Documented mentoring successes − Expertise in the field – Present productivity – Funds available to cover research expenses – Co-mentor to cover weaknesses – Clearly defined roles for mentors and collaborators Five Core Review Criteria

3. Research Training Plan – Significance & impact of the proposed research – Logical hypothesis – Clarity, feasibility and alternative strategies – Stats, vertebrate animals, human subjects – Sophisticated technologies and approaches – Likelihood training will lead to publications and degree − Appropriate for the applicant fellow's stage of research development Five Core Review Criteria

4. Training Potential − Is there individualized training that addresses weaknesses and career development needs? − Will participants learn new technical skills, new design approaches? − Do training activities match career goals? − Will training confer an advantage to be competitive? − Will the the applicant fellow receive requisite individualized and supervised experiences? Five Core Review Criteria

5. Institutional Environment and Commitment to Training − Scientific environment − Opportunities for collaborations within and outside institution if needed − Resources available Five Core Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to state whether the proposed training is “Acceptable” or “Not Acceptable” Is there formal and face-to-face training? Are all ethical topics clearly depicted? Are faculty participating in the training? Will the total hours of training be at least 8 contact hours? Are future opportunities/refreshers for continued training listed? Does retraining occur every 4 years or at every career stage? Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research

9-Point Scoring Scale

Each panel member provides an overall impact score. Range of Scores After discussion, assigned reviewers state final Overall Impact Scores, defining the score range. Panel members may vote outside this range although any intent to do so must be declared. Scoring

Resource Sharing Plans: –Data –Model Organisms –Genome Wide Association Studies Foreign Organizations Select Agents Budget Other Considerations that Do Not Affect Overall Impact Scores

Electronic reviews are used to facilitate reviewer participation Electronic Review Platforms Telephone Assisted Meetings Internet Assisted Meetings Video Assisted Meetings Your Application Could Be Reviewed Electronically

View the Video

Your SRO Prepares summary statements Provides information to NIH Institutes and Centers After Your Review

Scores for each review criterion Critiques from assigned reviewers Administrative notes if any If your application is discussed, you also will receive: An overall impact/priority score and percentile ranking A summary of review discussion Budget recommendations Your Summary Statement

Check the Status of Your Application in NIH Commons

Read instructions and the most recent updates for the funding opportunity Clearly state rationale and design of proposed investigation Provide sufficient detail so reviews will know what you mean Refer to pertinent literature Include well-designed tables and figures Include a well-designed training plan that addresses the candidate’s development and deficiencies Present an organized, lucid write-up Obtain pre-review from faculty at your institution NIH Grant Writing Tips When Preparing an Application

Impact Exciting ideas Clarity of the research and training plans Realistic aims and timelines -- Don’t be overly ambitious Brevity with things that everybody knows Noted limitations of the study A clean, well-written application What Reviewers Look for in Fellowship Applications

NIH Office of Extramural Research NIH Center for Scientific Review Key NIH Review and Grants Web Sites

Before You Submit Your Application A Program Officer at an NIH Institute or Center Scientific Review Officer After You Submit Your Scientific Review Officer After Your Review Your Assigned Program Officer Who Can Answer Your Questions?