1. Understanding NIH Peer Review
David B. Winter, Ph.D.
Scientific Review Officer
Cellular and Molecular Immunology-A (CMIA) Study Section
Center for Scientific Review, NIH

2. NIH – 27 Institutes and Centers
Office of the Director
National Library
of Medicine
Center for
Information
Technology
Scientific Review
Fogarty
International
Center
National Institute
of Arthritis and
Musculoskeletal
and Skin Diseases
of Diabetes and
Digestive and
Kidney Diseases
of Dental and
Craniofacial
Research
National Institute on
Deafness and Other
Communication
Disorders
National Eye
Institute
National Heart,
Lung, and Blood
on Alcohol Abuse
and Alcoholism
National Cancer
on Drug Abuse
of Environmental
Health Sciences
of Mental Health
of Neurological
Disorders and
Stroke
of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases
National Center on
Minority Health and
Health Disparities
on Aging
of Child Health
and Human
Development
National Human
Genome Research
of General
Medical Sciences
of Nursing Research
National Center
for Complementary
and Alternative
Medicine
for Research
Resources
Clinical Center
National Institute of
Biomedical Imaging
and Bioengineering
no funding
authority
Component of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
27 Institutes and Centers and the Office of the Director (Francis Collins M.D., Ph.D.)
over 18,000 Employees
Headquartered in Bethesda, MD.
Off-campus sites in Rockville and Bethesda, MD; North Carolina; Michigan; Montana; and Arizona
National Institute
on Minority Health
and Health
Disparities
Different Missions, Responsibilities and Constituencies

3. NIH Extramural Staff Program Officer (PO)
Scientific Review Officer (SRO)
Grants Management Specialist (GMS)

4. Program Officer A science professional, usually Ph.D./M.D. level, who:
Serves as an advocate for investigators
Provides scientific stewardship and administration of grants & contracts awarded by NIH
Identifies areas of scientific priority and develops funding opportunities for extramural researchers
Provides guidance on NIH extramural policy/procedures, research resources, and funding opportunities to extramural investigators

5. Scientific Review Officer
A science professional, usually M.D. or Ph.D. level, who:
Is based at an NIH Institute or Center (IC), or at the Center for Scientific Review (CSR)
Manages Study Sections and review panels for grants and contracts
Selects review panel members
Assigns reviewers to applications
Compiles application summary statements

6. Grants Management Specialist
Business/finance professional who:
Negotiates and awards all grants
Provides fiscal administration of grants
Is the government official on fiscal and policy issues and approvals

7. NIH Peer Review System for Grant Applications
First Level of Review
Scientific Review Group
(Study Section)
Second Level of Review
NIH Institute/Center Advisory Council

8. CSR assigns applications to study section (review) & NIH Institute (funding)
Researcher writes and
Institution submits application to NIH
Summary Statement and Priority Score transmitted to applicant (Commons) and NIH extramural staff
Study section composed of reviewers – review/discuss applications
3- 4 reviewers assigned to read and write critiques for each application

9. Center for Scientific Review
Division of Receipt and Referral
Central receipt point for most PHS Grant Applications
Institute/Center assignment (potential funding component)
Assignment to Scientific Review Group in CSR or in an Institute
Scientific Review Groups
Approximately 240 CSR chartered study sections and regularly recurring Special Emphasis Panels that primarily review:
Research Grant Applications
Fellowship Applications
Academic Research Enhancement Award Applications
Small Business Innovation Research Applications

10. CSR Web Site http://www.csr.nih.gov About CSR Applicant Resources
Study Sections
Rosters and Meetings

11. Division of Physiological and Pathological Sciences
Integrated Review Groups (IRGs)
Digestive, Kidney, and Urological Systems
Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition, and Reproductive Sciences
Immunology (IMM )
Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
Cellular and Molecular Immunology A
Cellular and Molecular Immunology B
Hypersensitivity, Autoimmune, and Immune-Mediated Diseases
Immunity and Host Defense
Innate Immunity and Inflammation
Transplantation, Tumor, and Tolerance Immunology
Vaccines Against Microbial Diseases

12. Cover Letter ONLY NIH STAFF HAVE ACCESS TO YOUR COVER LETTER!
The cover letter should be used for a number of important purposes:
Suggest Institute/Center assignment
Suggest review assignment
Identify individuals in potential conflict and explain why
Identify areas of expertise needed to evaluate the application
Discuss any special situations
It is NOT appropriate to use the cover letter to suggest specific reviewers.

13. How Reviewers Are Selected for Study Section Service
Demonstrated scientific expertise/research support
Doctoral degree or equivalent
Mature judgment
Work effectively in a group context
Breadth of perspective
Impartiality
Representation of women and minority scientists
Geographic distribution

14. Integrity of the NIH Peer Review Process
Confidentiality
Review materials and proceedings of review meetings represent privileged information for reviewers and NIH staff.
Applicants should never communicate directly with any members of the study section about an application.
Conflicts of Interest (COI)
Institutional, family member/close friend, collaborator, longstanding scientific disagreement, personal bias, appearance of conflict

15. Before the Study Section Meeting
Each application is assigned to 3 or more reviewers 5-6 weeks in advance
Reviewers assess each application by providing:
A preliminary Overall Impact score
Criterion Scores for each of the 5 Core Review Criteria
A written critique

16. What Reviewers Look for in Applications
Significance and impact
Exciting ideas
Clarity
Ideas they can understand -- Don’t assume too much
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
In thinking upon what one of your peers might generally look for as a reviewer of an application keep the following practical ideas in mind:

17. Common Problems in Applications
Lack of new or original ideas
Lack of a clearly stated hypothesis
Absence of an acceptable scientific rationale
Lack of experience in the essential methodology
Questionable reasoning in experimental approach
Uncritical approach
Diffuse, superficial, or unfocused research plan
Lack of sufficient experimental detail
Lack of knowledge of published relevant work
Unrealistically large amount of work
Uncertainty concerning future directions

18. Review criteria each scored from 1-9
Overall Impact
Assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved
Core Review Criteria
Significance
Investigator(s)
Innovation
Approach
Environment
Review criteria each scored from 1-9

19. Significance vs. Overall Impact
The Significance criterion – Assumes success Assuming that all the aims are successful, does the project address a problem or critical barrier to progress in the field or have the ability to improve knowledge, technical capability, or clinical practice in a major (1-3), moderate (4-6) or minor (7-9) way? Overall Impact – can be influenced by all 5 criteria (significance, investigator, innovation, approach, environment) weighted based on reviewer’s judgment The high (1-3), medium (4-6) or low (7-9) likelihood that a project will have a sustained and powerful influence on the science.

20. Additional Criteria Contribute to Overall Impact Scores
Protections for human subjects
Inclusions of women, minorities, and children
Appropriate use of vertebrate animals
Management of biohazards

21. Scoring 9-point score scale is used to provide:
Criterion Scores for each of the 5 core review criteria
Overall Impact/Priority Score based on but not a sum of the core criterion scores plus additional criteria
All applications receive scores:
Not discussed applications will receive only initial criterion scores from the three assigned reviewers.
Discussed applications also receive an averaged overall impact score from eligible (i.e., without conflicts of interest) panel members.

22. The Study Section Meeting

23. CSR Study Sections: The Meeting
Each CSR standing Study Section has ~12-22 regular members plus temporary reviewers from the scientific community
About applications are usually reviewed by each study section in 1-2 day meetings

24. At the Meeting Order of Review
The average of the preliminary Overall Impact score from the assigned reviewers determines the review order
Discussions start with the application with the best average preliminary Overall Impact score
Clustering of Review
New Investigator R01 applications are clustered
Clinical applications & other mechanisms may be clustered (n ≥ 10)
Not Discussed Applications
About half the applications will be discussed
Applications unanimously judged by the review committee to be in the lower half are not discussed

25. Summary Statement Program Officer Impact/Priority Score 10-90 range
Percentile in whole numbers
Percentile: 29

26. Your Application Was Reviewed What Do You Do Next?
Visit NIH’s Next Steps Website

27. Who Can Answer Your Questions?
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
Grants Info: –

28. NIH and CSR Information Sources

29. NIH Guide For Grants and Contracts
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Announces NIH Scientific Initiatives
Provides NIH Policy and Administrative Information
Supplies links to application forms
Available on the NIH Web Site:
NIH Grant Writing Tips:

30. NIH Peer Review Information on the Web
National Institutes of Health:
Office of Extramural Research
Grants Policy
Electronic Submission
Comprehensive Funding Information for NIH Grants and Contracts
Center for Scientific Review:
Resources for Applicants
CSR Study Section Descriptions
CSR Rosters and Meeting Dates
CSR Peer Review Notes