Genesis of PSBR

The genesis of the re-organization of study sections was in an extensive outreach to the extramural research community in 1998 by Dr. Ehrenfeld, the former director of CSR. Dr. Ehrenfeld identified six priority areas for attention, including study section organization and the distribution of scientific areas for review. Since study sections were originally clustered into Integrated Review Groups [IRGs] for administrative purposes and no one had systematically examined how the science was organized into groups for review, Dr. Ehrenfeld asked the Panel on Scientific Boundaries for Review [PSBR] to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of study section organization. The Panel, a working group of the CSR Advisory Committee, was charged in April 1998 with recommending how peer review should be organized in order to review research appropriately at that time, and to be able to anticipate future changes. In their January 2000 Report, the Panel affirmed that an outstanding grant review process must set high standards, contribute to the advancement of the health-related science, encourage innovation and risk taking, exercise fairness, be transparent to all participants, and undergo periodic review. 

To accomplish these goals, the Report recommended a new organizational structure of IRGs that ensure the philosophy of a broad, bigger picture perspective, with less attention to spot-on expertise. An additional goal was to move from a heterogeneous structural design derived from growth over the years to a systematic structure based on the following principles: moving basic science to organ/disease when possible; creating several cross cutting clusters; and maintaining a set of study sections to handle basic science and applications concerned with multiple organs/diseases.

Progress to Date

It has been four and a half years since the Panel’s Report was accepted by the CSR Advisory Committee and there has been considerable progress. During this period CSR has held 16 meetings with 384 community leaders to draft guidelines for 98 study sections in 16 IRGs. CSR has also participated in over 100 outreach activities with interested parties, and over 1,750 comments on these proposed guidelines were received from individuals and professional societies. The CSR Advisory Committee and Director have reviewed this mass of advice to ensure that the new design was consistent with the objectives of the PSBR recommendations. So far, study sections for 12 of the 16 reorganized IRGs [or 71 study sections] have already had their first meetings:

• Hematology [HEME];
• Biology of Development and Aging [BDA];
• Musculoskeletal, Oral and Skin Sciences [MOSS];
• Oncological Sciences [ONC];
• Bioengineering Sciences and Technologies [BST];
• Cardiovascular Sciences [CVS];
• Digestive Sciences [DIG];
• Renal and Urological Sciences [RUS];
• Respiratory Sciences [RES];
• Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproductive Sciences [EMNR];
• Immunology [IMM]; and
• Surgical Sciences, Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering [SBIB] IRGs.

Next Group of Study Section Meetings

In October/November 2004, CSR will enter its fifth and penultimate implementation cycle for new study sections. Fifteen new study sections will meet for the first time within the new Genes, Genomes and Genetics [GGG] and reorganized Infectious Diseases and Microbiology [IDM] IRGs. The applications to be reviewed at these meetings were received in June and July 2004.

Last Provisional Rosters and IRG Descriptions Posted

September 2004 is a major milestone for CSR. We will begin to receive and process applications for the new Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular Biophysics [BCMB] and Cell Biology [CB] IRGs, the last of our IRGs to be implemented under PSBR. The provisional rosters for the new study sections, which will meet for the first time in February/March 2005, are currently available on the PSBR Implementation Timeline (http://www.csr.nih.gov/events/timeline.htm) and CSR's Roster Index (http://www.csr.nih.gov/Committees/rosterindex.asp) Pages. The guidelines for each IRG are also available on CSR's IRG Description Page (http://www.csr.nih.gov/review/irgdesc.htm ).

Benefits and Lessons Learned

Reorganization has several benefits. With coordinated and clearly described guidelines with prominent Web postings, scientific communities are better informed about peer review and about options for review of specific scientific topics. Although the stepwise implementations have created a few interim complexities and communication activities need to continue, benefits of reorganizing are emerging.

One objective of the Panel was to create a more flexible organization that adjusts continuously to applicant and scientific trends in order to provide optimal assessment of scientific merit. Each new study section was designed with a specific scientific scope and workload in mind. The recent increase in applications created one of the first challenges to the PSBR design process. Relying on the process of extensive community involvement developed during the implementation of the re-organization, several adjustments have already been made in the Hematology, Health of the Population, and Musculoskeletal, Oral and Skin Sciences IRGs.

The most striking lesson we have learned in this process was the willingness and the ability of scientific communities to engage in a valuable and constructive dialog on the restructuring of specific areas of science, to see the bigger picture, and to act beyond narrow self interests. We have also learned that changes in philosophy and particularly in the structures of study sections are complicated and often field dependent. For example, on the one hand the while the prokaryotic molecular geneticists were strongly of the opinion that multiple nearly parallel image review loci would best serve their field. Hematologist on the other hand, who had two parallel study sections [HEM-1 and HEM-2] before re-organization, were strongly of the opinion that more focused study sections would be preferred.

The process of creating new study sections called for the migration of existing reviewers from their original study sections assignment to a new study section. Reviewers naturally carry with them a “mind-set” or cultural concept of scoring from the old to the new. Since the new study sections often mixed reviewers from several old study sections, there was also a mix of voting cultures. One unforeseen consequence was culture clash in voting behavior. Fortunately this was quickly recognized and through the wonderful leadership of the Chairs and SRAs, who were also struggling with change, this was recognized as a rare opportunity to recalibrate scoring behavior and scoring spread to make the outcome more meaningful and less compressed.

Continuous Monitoring

Although all of the IRGs have been implemented as planned, our work is not done. As recommended by the PSBR Report and the CSR Advisory Committee, CSR will examine the functioning of the new IRGs and study sections in our next round of IRG evaluations. Please read the Post CSRAC Comment to the Scientific Community (http://www.csr.nih.gov/events/postcsracomment.htm) for further information concerning the evaluation process, and continue to visit our Reorganization Activities Page (http://www.csr.nih.gov/review/reorgact.asp) for the latest news concerning CSR's activities. We thank you, our customers, for your input throughout this reorganization process and look forward to working with you in the future. Thanks.

[News]