K01, K08, K23. Does the candidate have the potential to develop as an independent and productive researcher (focusing on patient-oriented research)? Is the candidate's academic, clinical (if relevant), and research record of high quality? Is there evidence of the candidate's commitment to meeting the program objectives to become an independent investigator in (patient-oriented) research? Do the letters of reference from at least three well-established scientists address the candidate's potential for becoming an independent investigator?

K02. Has the candidate demonstrated the capacity to carry out independent research? Does the candidate have potential to become an outstanding scientist who will make significant contributions to the field? Is there evidence of past and present research productivity as evidenced by contributions to the scientific literature, and success in obtaining independent funding? Has the candidate demonstrated the ability to conceptualize and organize a long-term research approach? Is there evidence of current independent, peer-reviewed research support? Is the candidate's level of training, experience, and competence commensurate with the purposes of the award?

K05. Is the candidate an outstanding scientist who is making significant contributions to the field? Is there evidence of ongoing, high quality research productivity as evidenced by contributions to the scientific literature and success in obtaining independent funding? Has the candidate demonstrated the ability to conceptualize and organize a long-term research approach? Is there evidence of the candidate’s capabilities and commitment to serve as a mentor? Is the candidate’s level of training, experience, and competence commensurate with the purposes of the award?

K07 (Development). Does the candidate show potential to become an outstanding investigator, teacher, resource person, and leader in research, educational and (where appropriate) clinical programs related to the mission of the NIH awarding component? Is there likelihood that the award will contribute substantially to the academic and research career development of the candidate? Do the letters of reference on behalf of the candidate express the potential and commitment to the planned academic career program and the likelihood that the program will meet the candidate’s career goals?

K07 (Leadership). Does the candidate show potential to continue as an outstanding investigator, teacher, resource person, and leader in research, educational and (where appropriate) clinical programs related to the mission of the NIH awarding component? Is there likelihood that the award will contribute substantially to the academic and research career of the candidate? Is there adequate past experience in teaching, curriculum development and leadership? Does the candidate have the ability and commitment to work cooperatively with other scientists to develop innovative curricula, educational materials, and programs?

K99/R00. What is the candidate’s record of research productivity, including the quality of peer-reviewed scientific publications? What is the quality of the candidate's pre- and postdoctoral research training experience, including expertise gained? Based on the postdoctoral candidate’s experience, track record and prior research training, what is the candidate’s potential to become an outstanding, successful independent investigator who will contribute significantly to his/her chosen field of biomedical-related research? To what extent does the application provide evidence of the candidate’s research creativity, and does this evidence suggest that the candidate has the potential to develop a creative, independent research program? Given the candidate’s prior training, proposed career development plan, and the referees’ evaluations, is it reasonable to expect that the candidate will be able to achieve an independent, tenure-track or equivalent position within the time period requested for the K99 phase of this award? Do the letters of reference from at least three well-established scientists address the above review criteria, and do they demonstrate evidence that the candidate has a high potential for becoming an independent investigator? Relative to the above review criteria, how do these scientists evaluate the candidate? Do the letters provide strong evidence that the candidate has a high potential to become an independent investigator?

K22 (mentored). Does the candidate have the potential for becoming a successful independent investigator who will contribute significantly to a chosen health-related research field? Will the research experiences in the mentored phase prepare the candidate to implement successfully the independent phase research project? Do the letters of reference from at least three well-established scientists address the candidate's potential for becoming an independent investigator?

K24. Is there evidence of ongoing high quality patient-oriented research, and what is the relationship of that research to this K24 application? Is there evidence of the candidate's capabilities and commitment to serve as a mentor for new clinical investigators in the conduct of patient-oriented research? Does the application demonstrate that the proposed program and protected time will relieve the candidate from non-research patient care and administrative duties and allow him/her to devote additional time and to augment his/her capabilities in patient-oriented research? Does the application demonstrate a record of independent peer-reviewed support for patient-oriented research that is likely to continue during the K24 award?

K01, K08,  K25. What is the likelihood that the plan will contribute substantially to the scientific development of the candidate leading to scientific independence? Are the candidate's prior training and research experience appropriate for this award? Are the content, scope, phasing, and duration of the career development plan appropriate when considered in the context of prior training/research experience and the stated training and research objectives for achieving research independence? Are there adequate plans for monitoring and evaluating the candidate's research and career development progress?

K02 and K05. What is the likelihood that the award will contribute substantially to the continued scientific development and productivity of the candidate? Are the career goals and objectives consistent with the candidate's career goals? Is there evidence that the award will enable the candidate to devote full time (at least the required minimum percentage of full-time professional effort) to research and related duties by release from teaching, administration, clinical work, and other responsibilities?

K07 (Development). Is the candidate’s career development plan, including plans for after termination of the award, of high quality and sufficient feasibility? Are the content and duration of the proposed didactic and curriculum development components appropriate and reasonable? Do the structured activities such as coursework (including course numbers and descriptive titles), seminars or technical workshops, etc., meet the career goals of the candidate? Are there appropriate timelines planned for the candidate’s progress? Is there a satisfactory and appropriate relationship of the research plan to the career development goals and the candidate’s previous experience?

K07 (Leadership). Is the candidate’s career development plan, including plans for after termination of the award, of high quality and sufficient feasibility? Are the content and duration of the proposed didactic and curriculum development components appropriate and reasonable? Do the structured activities such as coursework (including course numbers and descriptive titles), seminars or technical workshops, etc., meet the career goals of the candidate? Are there appropriate timelines planned for the candidate’s progress? Is there a satisfactory and appropriate relationship of the research plan to the career development goals and the candidate’s previous experience?

K99/R00. Are the content and duration of the proposed didactic and research components of the career development plan appropriate for the candidate’s current stage of scientific and professional development and proposed research career goals? Is the proposed career development plan likely to contribute substantially to the scientific and professional development of the candidate including his/her successful transition to independence? For individuals currently supported by research training programs, how does the proposed career development plan enhance or augment the applicant’s training to date? Is the additional proposed training needed and appropriate for the proposed research plan and the applicant’s future career plans? To what extent are the plans for evaluating the K99 awardee’s progress adequate and appropriate for guiding the applicant towards a successful transition to the independent phase of the award? Is the timeline planned for the transition to the independent phase of the award appropriate for the candidate’s current stage of scientific and professional development and the career development proposed for the K99 phase of the award?

K22 (mentored). To what extent are the plans for evaluating the awardee's progress adequate and appropriate for guiding the applicant towards a successful transition to the independent phase of the award? Is the timeline planned for the transition to the independent phase of the award appropriate for the candidate's current stage of scientific and professional development and the career development proposed for the phase of the award?

K23. What is the likelihood that the plan will contribute substantially to the scientific development of the candidate leading to scientific independence? Is the candidate's prior training and research experience appropriate for this award? Are the goals and scope of the plan when considered in the context of prior training/research experience and the stated training and research objectives, appropriate? Are the content and duration of the proposed didactic research activities during the proposed award period clearly stated and appropriate? Are there adequate plans for evaluating the candidate's research and career development progress?

K24. Are the plans to provide mentoring or supervising new clinical investigators in patient oriented research adequate? Are plans to integrate appropriate clinical research curricula, such as those offered by available K30 programs at the institution, into the mentoring plans adequate? Is an appropriate level of effort proposed for the mentoring component?

K01, K23, K25. Are the proposed research question, design, and methodology of significant scientific and technical merit? Is the research plan relevant to the candidate's research career objectives? Is the research plan appropriate to the stage of research development and as a vehicle for developing the research skills described in the career development plan? If applicable, are there adequate plans for data and safety monitoring of clinical trials?

K07 (Development and Leadership). Is the research plan appropriate for the candidate’s past experience and current academic/research goals? Is the scientific and technical merit of the research plan appropriate and adequate for developing new or enhancing existing skills needed to meet the candidate’s career goals? Is the plan for coupling the research with other planned activities, appropriate and adequate for providing the experience, knowledge, and skills necessary to achieve the objectives of the award?

K08. Are the proposed research question, design, and methodology of significant scientific and technical merit? Is the research plan relevant to the candidate's research career objectives? Is the plan for developing/enhancing the candidate’s research skills appropriate and adequate? If applicable, are there adequate plans for data and safety monitoring of clinical trials?

K22 (mentored and independent). Is the proposed research project appropriate for the candidate's stage of research development and as a vehicle for development of research skills described in the career development plan? Are the scientific and technical merits of the research question, design, and methodology appropriate in the context of prior training and experience? Is the proposed research relevant to stated career objectives?

K23. Are the proposed research question, design, and methodology of significant scientific and technical merit? Is the research plan relevant to the candidate’s research career objectives focusing on patient-oriented research? Is the plan for developing/enhancing the candidate’s research skills appropriate and adequate? If applicable, are there adequate plans for data and safety monitoring of clinical trials?

K99/R00. Is the proposed K99 phase research significant? Are the scientific and technical merits of the K99 research question, experimental design and methodology appropriate for the candidate’s level of training, an appropriate vehicle for developing the research skills described in the career development plan, and appropriate for developing a highly successful R00 research program? Is the proposed R00 phase research scientifically sound and a logical extension of the K99 phase research? Is there evidence of long-term viability of the proposed R00 phase research plan? Does the R00 phase project address an innovative hypothesis or challenge existing paradigms? Does the project develop or employ novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, tools, or technologies? To what extent is the proposed R00 phase research likely to contribute significantly to our understanding of biomedical problems? To what extent is the proposed R00 phase research likely to foster the career of the candidate as an independent investigator in biomedical research?

K02 and  K05. Candidates are expected to have an independent, peer reviewed research support at the time the career award is made. In such instances, reviewers should not re-evaluate the research plan. Rather, the reviewers should evaluate how the research and career development plans together further the candidate's research career. Is the research plan of high quality, and does it have potential for advancing the field of study? Is the scientific and technical merit of the proposed research plan of significance? When applicable for the specific candidate and situation, do the letters from consultant(s) and collaborator(s) adequately document their willingness to participate in the independent scientist award program?

K24. Candidates are expected to have an independent, peer reviewed research support at the time the career award is made. In such instances, reviewers should not re-evaluate the research plan. Rather, the reviewers should evaluate how the research and career development plans together further the candidate’s research career. Is the research plan an appropriate vehicle for demonstrating and developing the prospective mentee’s skills and capabilities in patient-oriented research? Are the scientific and technical plans of the proposed research of merit? Is the proposed research relevant to the candidate's career objectives? Are adequate resources available to conduct the research program? This includes adequacy of plans for continued support of the research during the funding period of the grant.

K01, K08, K22 (mentored), K23 and K25. Are the mentor's research qualifications in the area of the proposed (patient-oriented) research appropriate? Do(es) the mentor(s) adequately address the candidate's potential and his/her strengths and areas needing improvement? Is there adequate description of the quality and extent of the mentor's proposed role in providing guidance and advice to the candidate? Is the mentor's description of the elements of the research career development activities, including formal course work adequate? Is there evidence of the mentor's, consultant's, collaborator's previous experience in fostering the development of independent investigators? Is there evidence of previous research productivity and peer-reviewed support? Is active/pending support for the proposed research project appropriate and adequate? Are there adequate plans for monitoring and evaluating the career development awardee's progress toward independence?

K02. Are the proposed collaborations with other active investigators and other opportunities for professional growth appropriate and of high quality? Is adequate information provided that clearly documents expertise in the proposed area(s) of consulting/collaboration?

K05. Are the plans to provide mentoring to new or junior investigators adequate? Have past and current mentoring activities been adequately described? Is an appropriate level of effort proposed for the mentoring component? Are the proposed collaborations with other active investigators and other opportunities for professional growth appropriate and of high quality? Is adequate information provided that clearly documents expertise in the proposed area(s) of consulting/collaboration?

K07 (Development). Are the qualifications of the mentor(s) including current and pending research support, prior research experience, and mentoring track record appropriate and adequate for guiding the candidate in meeting the goals of the Development Award? Do the mentor(s) adequately address the above review criteria including the candidate’s potential and his/her strengths and areas needing improvement? Does the mentor’s statement demonstrate a strong commitment to the candidate’s progression to independent academic investigator? Are the combined expertise, roles and responsibilities of any involved co-mentors, consultants, and/or collaborators likely to enhance the candidate’s career development?

K07 (Leadership). Are the combined expertise, roles and responsibilities of any involved consultants, and/or collaborators likely to enhance the candidate’s career development?

K22 independent. Is adequate information provided that clearly documents expertise in the proposed area(s) of consulting/collaboration? Have the proposed consultant(s) and collaborator(s) provided evidence of commitment to the candidate and the candidate's project? Do the proposed consultant(s)/collaborator(s) provide the required expertise for successful conduct of the research project?

K24. Is there adequate information provided that clearly documents expertise in the proposed area(s) of consulting/collaboration?

K99/R00. To what extent does the mentor have a strong track record in training future independent researchers? To what extent are the mentor’s research qualifications and experience, scientific stature, and mentoring track record appropriate for the applicant’s career development needs? Do(es) the mentor(s) adequately address the above review criteria including the candidate’s potential as well as his/her strengths and areas needing improvement? Is the proposed supervision that will occur during the mentored phase of support adequate, and is the commitment of the mentor(s) to the applicant’s continued career development appropriate? Does the mentor have a comprehensive plan to support the proposed K99 phase career development and research plans as well as the candidate’s efforts to transition to independence? Is this plan adequate and appropriate? Are the consultants’/collaborators’ research and/or mentoring qualifications appropriate for their roles in the proposed K99 phase of the award?

K01, K08, K23, K25. Is there clear commitment of the sponsoring institution to ensure that the required minimum of the candidate's effort will be devoted directly to the research described in the application, with the remaining percent effort being devoted to an appropriate balance of research, teaching, administrative, and clinical responsibilities? Is the institutional commitment to the career development of the candidate appropriately strong? Are the research facilities, resources and training opportunities, including faculty capable of productive collaboration with the candidate adequate and appropriate? Is the environment for scientific and professional development of the candidate of high quality? Is there assurance that the institution intends the candidate to be an integral part of its research program?

K02, K05, K24. Is the level of the applicant institution's commitment to the scientific development of the candidate appropriate? Is the level of assurance from the institution that they intend the candidate to be an integral part of its research program adequate? Are the research facilities, resources and educational opportunities available to the candidate appropriate and adequate? Are the size and quality of the pool of (clinician) investigators to be mentored by the PI/PD adequate? Are the quality and relevance of the environment for continuing the scientific and professional development of the candidate and for others pursuing (patient-oriented) research appropriate and adequate? Is the commitment from the sponsoring institution to provide protected time for the candidate to conduct the research program adequate?

K07 (Development and Leadership). Is there merit to the institution’s plan and commitment to strengthening research and education activities beyond the current status of activities and capacities? Is there a strong statement of commitment by the institution to the levels of effort required for this career award? Are the scope and nature of collaboration among participating schools and departments appropriate and adequate? Are there adequate research facilities and training opportunities for the award? Are the quality of the scientific environment and relevance to the candidate’s professional academic and scientific development, including any unique features of the scientific environment beneficial to the candidate, adequate and appropriate?

K22 (mentored and independent). Are there adequate and appropriate research facilities and educational opportunities, including collaborating faculty? Is there clear commitment of the sponsoring institution to ensure that the required effort of the candidate will be devoted directly to the research training, career development, and research activities described in the proposed career development and research plans? Is there strong institutional commitment to fostering the career development of the candidate? Are there unique features of the scientific environment that benefit the proposed research; e.g., useful collaborative arrangements or subject populations? Is the environment of high quality and relevance for scientific and professional development of the candidate?

K99/R00. To what extent does the mentor have a strong track record in training future independent researchers? To what extent are the mentor’s research qualifications and experience, scientific stature, and mentoring track record appropriate for the applicant’s career development needs? Do(es) the mentor(s) adequately address the above review criteria including the candidate’s potential as well as his/her strengths and areas needing improvement? Is the proposed supervision that will occur during the mentored phase of support adequate, and is the commitment of the mentor(s) to the applicant’s continued career development appropriate? Does the mentor have a comprehensive plan to support the proposed K99 phase career development and research plans as well as the candidate’s efforts to transition to independence? Is this plan adequate and appropriate? Are the consultants’/collaborators’ research and/or mentoring qualifications appropriate for their roles in the proposed K99 phase of the award?

K01, K07 (Development Award), K08, K18, K22, K23, K25 and K99/R00. Taking into account the circumstances of the candidate, including level of experience, the reviewers will address the following questions: Does the plan satisfactorily address the format of instruction, e.g. lectures, coursework, and/or real-time discussion groups? Do plans include a sufficiently broad selection of subject matter, such as conflict of interest, authorship, data management, human subjects and animal use, laboratory safety? Do the plans adequately describe the role of the sponsor/mentor or other faculty involvement in the candidate's instruction? Does the plan meet the minimum requirements for RCR, i.e., eight contact hours of instruction every four years? Plans and past record will be rated as acceptable or unacceptable, and the summary statement will provide the consensus rating of the review committee.

K02, K05, K07 (Leadership), K24 and K26. Taking into account the circumstances of the candidate, including the more senior level of experience of candidates for this award, the reviewers will address the following questions: Does the plan satisfactorily address the format of instruction, e.g. lectures, coursework, and/or real-time discussion groups that the candidate will participate in? Do plans include a sufficiently broad selection of subject matter, such as conflict of interest, authorship, data management, human subjects and animal use, laboratory safety? Do the plans adequately describe the candidate's role in the participation in instruction in RCR? Does the plan meet the minimum requirements for RCR, i.e., eight contact hours of instruction every four years? Plans and past record will be rated as acceptable or unacceptable, and the summary statement will provide the consensus rating of the review committee.