| |||||||||
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
| NIDDK Home : Research Funding : DEA : Review Branch : Review Criteria | |||||||||
Review Criteria for and Rating of Unsolicited Research Grant and Other ApplicationsNIH GUIDE, Volume 26, Number 22, June 27, 1997 KeywordsGrants Administration/Policy BackgroundAs part of the ongoing effort to maintain high standards for peer review at the NIH, the Rating of Grant Applications (RGA) subcommittee of the NIH Committee on Improving Peer Review was charged with examining the process by which scientific review groups rate grant applications and with making recommendations to improve that process in light of scientific knowledge of measurement and decision making. The charge was in response to the perception that the review of grant applications needed to be refocused on the quality of the science and the impact it might have on the field, rather than on details of technique and methodology. After extensive discussion of the RGA's report by NIH staff, the extramural community, and the Peer Review Oversight Group (PROG), at the May 5, 1997, meeting of PROG the director of NIH announced procedures to be used for the review of research grant applications. The procedures will be effective for all unsolicited research project grant applications (including those in response to Program Announcements published in the NIH Guide) submitted on or after October 1, 1997, most of which will be reviewed starting in January/February 1998. Reviewers will be instructed to (a) address the five review criteria below and (b) assign a single, global score for each scored application. The score should reflect the overall impact that the project could have on the field based on consideration of the five criteria, with the emphasis on each criterion varying from one application to another, depending on the nature of the application and its relative strengths. The goals of NIH-supported research are to advance our understanding of biological systems, improve the control of disease, and enhance health. In the written comments reviewers will be asked to discuss the following aspects of the application in order to judge the likelihood that the proposed research will have a substantial impact on the pursuit of these goals. Each of these criteria will be addressed and considered in assigning the overall score, weighting them as appropriate for each application. Note that the application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact and thus deserve a high priority score. For example, an investigator may propose to carry out important work that by its nature is not innovative but is essential to move a field forward. (1) Significance: Does this study address an important problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts or methods that drive this field? (2) Approach: Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well-integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics? (3) Innovation: Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches, or method? Are the aims original and innovative? Does the project challenge existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or technologies? (4) Investigator: Is the investigator appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator and other researchers (if any)? (5) Environment: Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed experiments take advantage of unique features of the scientific environment or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support? While the review criteria are intended for use primarily with unsolicited research project applications (e.g., R01, R29, P01), to the extent reasonable, they will also form the basis of the review of solicited applications and non-research activities. However, for some activities (e.g., construction grants), use of these criteria as stated may not be feasible. In addition to the above criteria, in accordance with NIH policy, all applications will also be reviewed with respect to the following:
Requests for Applications (RFAs), which are published in the NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts, will list the specific criteria for scientific peer review of applications submitted in response to the particular RFA. InquiriesInquiries regarding this notice may be directed to: Dr. Janet Cuca |
|||||||||
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
|
Director: Dr. Allen Spiegel || Contact NIDDK | |||||||||
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
