Peer Review of Research Grant Applications

• the significance and originality from a scientific or technical standpoint of the goals of the proposed research;
• the adequacy of the methodology proposed to carry out the research;
• the qualifications and experience of the principal investigator and proposed staff;
• the reasonable availability of resources necessary to the research;
• the reasonableness of the proposed budget and duration in relation to the proposed research; and
• the adequacy of plans to include both genders and minorities and their subgroups as appropriate for the scientific goals of the research. Plans for the recruitment and retention of subjects will also be evaluated.

Additional review criteria may be included for special grant programs and for RFAs.

The second level of review is performed by the National Advisory Council or Board of the potential awarding component (institute or center). Council or Board recommendations are based not only on considerations of scientific and technical merit, as judged in the initial review, but also on the relevance of the proposed study to an NIH institute's programs and priorities. Councils include not only senior scientists with broad experience, but also include public members with general knowledge of and interest in the mission of the IC.

To be considered for funding, a grant application must not only be favorably recommended in initial review, but must also have the concurrence of the National Advisory Council to which it has been assigned. In some cases Council review may be bypassed when the amount of funds requested does not exceed $50,000 in direct costs per year.

Initial review at the NIH is performed either by the Division of Research Grants (DRG) or by the ICs, most of which have their own review capacity. Most investigator-initiated applications are reviewed by DRG; applications received in response to special announcements or to meet specific program needs are more likely to be reviewed by the ICs. Applications are assigned to various groups for initial review and to ICs for potential funding based on established referral guidelines.

In addition to assessing scientific and technical merit, initial reviewers assign numerical score(s) reflecting these assessments for those applications recommended for consideration for funding. They also review, and when necessary comment on, the appropriateness of proposed procedures for the protection of human subjects and the treatment of animals. Councils and Boards review the recommendations from the initial review and associated matters and may make recommendations about funding priorities. In addition, Councils have other functions related to providing advice and guidance on the research and programmatic activities of the IC.

The decision to fund or not fund an application is based primarily on the assessment of scientific and technical merit and Council recommendations, but must also take into consideration program balance and the available resources. This decision is the responsibility of the director of the IC with the advice of program staff.

As a part of the National Performance Review (NPR), the NIH has been designated as a "Reinvention Laboratory" and one of the most important activities being reinvented is the peer review process. Peer review at the NIH has always been a dynamic system. NIH staff, as well as scientists outside the NIH, have regularly studied the process in an effort to refine it while carefully preserving its basic tenets: identification of scientific excellence using a fair and equitable process. The added impetus of the NPR has encouraged staff to join with experts from the scientific community to reexamine the basic assumptions underlying the process and this has led to a number of new ideas about how peer review might be streamlined and improved. These ideas are now being carefully studied and may lead to changes in the near future.

Note: In addition to the grant mechanism, NIH also has available the cooperative agreement, a support mechanism in which NIH staff play a significant role in the conduct of the research, and research and development contracts. Cooperative agreements are reviewed using the same process as grants; contracts are also subject to peer review, but the process is somewhat different owing to the legal and technical requirements of this method of support.