1. Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated. See the OER Public Archive Home Page for more details about archived files.archivedOER Public Archive Home Page

2. Review of R21s in CSR Elaine Sierra-Rivera, PhD Scientific Review Administrator Oncological Sciences IRG DBBD Center for Scientific Review

3. What are R21’s To support exploratory or developmental research (allowing PIs to conduct research on innovative ideas, develop new concepts or techniques). Lead to a larger research grant (e.g. R01, P01, etc.) Must be submitted in response to a PA (PI initiated — PA-06-181 – replaces 03-107) ~408 Currently Active PAs

4. Other Characteristics of R21s Modular Budget (Range of 75 – 175K/year) 15 Page Research Plan (Few exceptions) Allow up to 2 revisions/amendments Preliminary data not required No competing continuations Appendix (PA specific) SF424 – June 1, 2006 all electronic submission

5. Review of R21s ~70% of all R21s submitted to NIH were reviewed by CSR (2005 – 01 / 2006 – 01) CSR practices grouping (clusters) R21 applications for review Assignment depends on scientific area of research PAs are included with the applications and are available on the CD

6. SRAs instruct study sections on review criteria Place less emphasis on indicators traditionally used to evaluate R01s such as preliminary data Focus their evaluation on the conceptual framework Level of innovation Potential to significantly advance current knowledge or understanding Proof of feasibility

7. R21 Applications in response to specific type of announcements (Oct 2005 – May 2006 councils) Total # of Applications = 8,579

8. Distribution of R21 applications per IC (Oct 2005 – May 2006 Council Rounds) IC’s with > 5% are shown CADK AI AG NS HL HD EB

9. R21 applications reviewed in the October 2005 - May 2006 Council rounds 73.2% (01) 21.9 (A1) 4.8%-------- ↓ (A2) Total # of Applications = 8,579 A3 = 2

10. R21’s Distribution by CSR Divisions (Oct 2005 – May 2006 Council Rounds) DBBD 32.6% DCPS 29.6% DMCM 20.8% DPP 16.9% Total Number of applications = 8,579

11. Number of R21s and R01s reviewed in CSR R21 R01 Review Cycles Number of Applications Total # of applications = 34,102

12. Effect of Review Environment 200 UN Priority Scores Percent R21 = 8,579 - R01 = 23,445

13. Type 1 R21 applications compared to Type 1 R01s in chartered/standing meetings with <40% R03/R21 applications 200 UN Priority Scores Percent R21 = 5,430 - R01 = 16,614

14. Type 1 R21 applications compared to Type 1 R01s in chartered/standing meetings with >40% R03/R21 applications 200 UN Priority Scores Percent R21 = 803 - R01 = 768

15. Type 1 R21 applications compared to Type 1 R01s in chartered/standing meetings that primarily review R03/R21 200 UN Priority Scores Percent R21 = 1,006 - R01= 159

16. Type 1 R21 applications compared to Type 1 R01s in standing meetings that primarily review SBIR 200 UN Priority Scores Percent R01= 107 - R21= 197 - SBIR/STTR= 1,640

17. Applications using Human Subjects 200 UN Priority Scores Percent R21 = 7,436 - R01 Type 1 = 17,647 - R01 All = 23,443

18. Effect of Review Environment 200 UN Priority Scores Percent R21 = 8,579 - R01 = 23,445

19. Summary Review environment does not affect score distribution of R21 applications R21 application scores are comparable to Type 1 R01s Study Sections are following review characteristics specific to R21 applications, reflecting SRAs effort in properly orienting reviewers to the uniqueness of this mechanism

20. Acknowledgements Teresa Lindquist, Program Analyst Office of Planning, Evaluation and Analysis, CSR Valerie L. Durrant, Scientific Review Administrator, Health of the Population (HOP) Integrated Review Group Elliot Postow, Division Director - DBBD