Public FAQs
		NIH Staff FAQs

1. Why does the NIH have a limit of a single resubmission and set a time limit for the single resubmission allowed?
2. If I’ve submitted an A1 application that has not yet been reviewed, may I withdraw this application and retain the option of another A1 submission?
3. What distinguishes a "new" application from a "resubmission" application?
4. What constitutes "significant" and "substantial" in determining if an application is new?
5. Is it acceptable to change the title and abstract of my unfunded application and submit it as a new application?
6. My competing renewal was not funded after the maximum number of reviews. Although my broad goals remain the same, I plan to take this work in a new direction. Is it acceptable to submit a new application? How different does my application have to be?
7. Does the resubmission policy apply only to R01s?
8. What is the current practice to determine if an application is “New” and not simply another version of a project that has already received the maximum number of reviews?
9. What is the current practice to determine if an application is “New” or a resubmission (A1) of an application that has been reviewed once before?
10. How is it handled if there is a disagreement about whether an application is new?
11. My R01 application was reviewed and was not funded. May I submit the application using a different grant mechanism, for example, as an R21 (Exploratory/Developmental Research) grant?
12. In the last allowable resubmission opportunity, my application was not funded. May I submit it as a new application if I remove the aim that the reviewers didn't like?
13. My application has been reviewed the maximum number of times and even though the score steadily improved with each resubmission, it still was not funded. May I split the aims into two new applications as the reviewers suggested?
14. My resubmission application was reviewed, but did not receive a fundable score. My collaborator has new ideas to expand upon within the general theme of the proposed research. Can this person develop these ideas and submit a new application?
15. A different PI is being proposed for an application that has had an initial review. Is this application considered a new application or does the review under the previous principal investigator count as one of the potential submissions?
16. I am submitting a new application in the same topic area of science as my unfunded resubmission application. Should I address my changes or the fact that this is a new application in a cover letter?
17. Only part of my application was funded: a) the scope of my work was reduced; and/or b) the length of time for my award was cut. May I submit a new grant application for the unfunded aims?
18. May I use preliminary data reported in my unfunded resubmission application in my new application?
19. May I use the same literature review that I wrote for my unfunded resubmission application in my new application?
20. I responded to a Request for Applications (RFA) funding opportunity that permitted resubmissions of unfunded applications from a previous RFA; however, my application was not funded. If I submit the unfunded grant application as an investigator-initiated application, is it considered “new” or a resubmission?
21. My investigator-initiated application was not funded. May I submit this application in response to an appropriate RFA?
22. After the maximum number of reviews of an application for an Institutional Training grant, what constitutes a “new” application?
23. When I submit my resubmission application, can I request a different review group? What about a different IC assignment?
24. My original application was reviewed before the Enhancing Peer Review Initiative, so it will be hard for me to cut my resubmission application down to the new page limit. What should I do?

1. Why does the NIH have a limit of a single resubmission and set a time limit for the single resubmission allowed?
   In general, it was noted that the likelihood of subsequent success decreased with an increasing number of amendments.  To ensure that the largest number of high-quality and meritorious applications receive funding earlier and to improve system efficiency, NIH has decreased the number of allowed grant application resubmissions (amendments) to one (NOT-OD-09-003 and NOT-OD-09-016). This policy applies to all NIH extramural funding mechanisms that allow resubmissions, whether reviewed in CSR or another NIH Institute/Center. Because of the pace of scientific discovery, NIH has chosen to limit the time for the resubmission.
2. If I’ve submitted an A1 application that has not yet been reviewed, may I withdraw this application and retain the option of another A1 submission?
   For an A1 application, you may withdraw the application before the date of review and retain the option of submitting a future A1. Note that NIH will not accept a resubmission application that is submitted later than 37 months after the due date of the initial application NOT-OD-10-140.
3. What distinguishes a "new" application from a "resubmission" application?
   As stated in NOT-OD-10-080, a new application is expected to be substantially different in content and scope with more significant differences than are normally encountered in a resubmitted applications.  It should exhibit “a significant change in direction and approach” and “include substantial changes in all sections of the Research Plan.”
4. What constitutes "significant" and "substantial" in determining if an application is new?
   This is inevitably a scientific judgment for which no set of universally applicable examples can be provided. However, rewording of the Title and Specific Aims or incorporating minor changes in response to comments of reviewers from the prior review does not constitute substantial changes in scope, direction, or content. Requests for review by a different review committee or funding consideration by a different NIH institute are not sufficient reasons to consider an application as new.
5. Is it acceptable to change the title and abstract of my unfunded application and submit it as a new application?
   No, it is not enough to change the title and abstract. You must take a “fresh approach.” You must substantially change your aims, the questions that you are asking, the approach and/or methods that you are using to address your research questions, and consequently the potential outcomes that might be expected.
6. My competing renewal was not funded after the maximum number of reviews. Although my broad goals remain the same, I plan to take this work in a new direction. Is it acceptable to submit a new application? How different does my application have to be?
   An application in the same general area of research but with different components (e.g., aims, methods, outcomes) may be sufficiently different. Simply changing the title and asking for a new review group is not sufficient. As stated above, the application must exhibit “a significant change in direction and approach”, and “include substantial changes in all sections of the Research Plan.” In general, it must be a creditable attempt to present a fresh approach. The evolution of scientific ideas proceeds rapidly and should also be factored into the changes proposed for the submission of a new application.
   
   For example, an investigator may inquire if moving from one model system to another is different enough. That will depend on how different the research is in the two applications. For instance, if the investigator is looking at the same transcription factors in different strains of transgenic mice, the differences may be considered insufficient; but changing both from transgenic mice to yeast and from one kind of transcription factor to another may well be sufficient. Also, in clinical studies, changes that appear small may sometimes nonetheless be very significant (for example, same intervention, different disease; same intervention, different population; same intervention, different outcome measure; etc.).
7. Does the resubmission policy apply only to R01s?
   No. This policy applies to all funding activities (grants and cooperative agreements) including research, institutional training, career, and fellowship mechanisms.
8. What is the current practice to determine if an application is “New” and not simply another version of a project that has already received the maximum number of reviews?
   New applications received by the NIH are screened multiple times and checked to determine if the application is a new application. The first check is done within the Division of Receipt and Referral in the Center for Scientific Review (CSR).  Subsequent checks are performed by the Scientific Review Officer in charge of the review meeting and by NIH program staff. Sometimes reviewers identify potential problems. Previous applications are analyzed for similarities to the current application and Summary Statements are also considered.  When an application is determined to be another version of an application that has already received the maximum number of reviews and in violation of this policy, the “virtual A2” application is administratively withdrawn and is not processed further.  The Division of Receipt and Referral, CSR, informs the project director/principal investigator and institution of this determination.  More details are provided in Evaluation of Unallowable Resubmission and Overlapping Applications.
9. What is the current practice to determine if an application is “New” or a resubmission (A1) of an application that has been reviewed once before?
   The same process is followed as described in the previous question to determine if application is a “Virtual A1.”  New applications received by the NIH are screened multiple times and checked to determine if the application is a new application. The first check is done within the Division of Receipt and Referral in the Center for Scientific Review (CSR).  Subsequent checks are performed by the Scientific Review Officer in charge of the review meeting and by NIH program staff. Sometimes reviewers identify potential problems. Previous applications are analyzed for similarities to the current application and Summary Statements are also considered.  When an application is determined to be another version of an application that has been reviewed once before there are two possible outcomes.  If there is sufficient time the “new” application will not be assigned and the applicant will be instructed to submit an A1 application at the next appropriate due date.  If the A1 is identified after the initial assignment, the assignment will be changed to a resubmission and the applicant will need to send the required Introduction to the Scientific Review Officer (SRO).
10. How is it handled if there is a disagreement about whether an application is new?
    If there is disagreement about whether an application assigned to CSR for review is new or re-submitted, CSR staff may refer it to a CSR-convened committee of NIH scientists to conduct further analysis and recommendations to the Division of Receipt and Referral. The evaluation process includes the analysis of previous applications and summary statements to determine the similarities and differences to the current application. Individual Institutes and Centers have their own evaluation processes. When applications are determined to be a version of an application that has already received two reviews and in violation of this policy, it is administratively withdrawn and not reviewed. The Division of Receipt and Referral in CSR informs the Program Director/Principal Investigator and institution of this determination.
11. My R01 application was reviewed and was not funded. May I submit the application using a different grant mechanism, for example, as an R21 (Exploratory/Developmental Research) grant?
    Yes, but an R21 is intended to encourage exploratory/developmental research projects by providing support for the early conceptual stages of the work. For example, they usually do not require preliminary data.  Applications for R21 awards should describe projects distinct from those supported through the traditional R01 mechanism. For example, long-term projects, or projects designed to increase knowledge in a well-established area are generally not appropriate for R21 awards.  Specifics for this activity are available at: NIH Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant Award. Note that not all ICs participate in this activity. If the R01 application is changed to focus on a subset of aims and submitted as an R21, those aims may not be included in a R01 submission. For more on the submission of applications with a changed activity code, visit NOT-OD-09-100.
12. In the last allowable resubmission opportunity, my application was not funded. May I submit it as a new application if I remove the aim that the reviewers didn't like?
    No. Removal of an aim in response to a previous review does not constitute a new application or a new line of research. The main objective of the science is essentially the same and it is NIH policy that the same project may not be reviewed more than the maximum number of times.
    
    An application in the same general area of research but with different components (e.g., aims, methods, outcomes) may be sufficiently different. A new application is one that presents a new line of research and one that has not been previously peer reviewed by the NIH.
13. My application has been reviewed the maximum number of times and even though the score steadily improved with each resubmission, it still was not funded. May I split the aims into two new applications as the reviewers suggested?
    This is not acceptable. Even though there are now two applications, if the specific focus, question or approach has not changed, then the applications are both considered resubmissions of a project that has already been reviewed the maximum number of times.
14. My resubmission application was reviewed, but did not receive a fundable score. My collaborator has new ideas to expand upon within the general theme of the proposed research. Can this person develop these ideas and submit a new application?
    This is acceptable as long as the aims and research design are new ideas and that the research proposed is sufficiently different from that previously reviewed.  The same standards are applied whether the PD/PI is the same or different.
15. A different PI is being proposed for an application that has had an initial review. Is this application considered a new application or does the review under the previous principal investigator count as one of the potential submissions?
    The review under the previous principal investigator does count toward the number of allowable resubmissions. A new principal investigator does not make the application new if the overall scientific direction and approach of the project remain the same.
16. I am submitting a new application in the same topic area of science as my unfunded resubmission application. Should I address my changes or the fact that this is a new application in a cover letter?
    Address the changes in the cover letter if you feel that the topics are similar enough that there may be questions. This does not guarantee that NIH or the reviewers will agree with you. It may be helpful to discuss your situation with your program director.
17. Only part of my application was funded: a) the scope of my work was reduced; and/or b) the length of time for my award was cut. May I submit a new grant application for the unfunded aims?
    Possibly. You can submit a new application that incorporates the deleted aims if there has been a renegotiation of the scope (specific aims) of the research grant application and you have documentation from the funding IC to support the change. Consult the program director assigned to the application. This individual is the program contact shown in the upper left hand corner of your summary statement.
18. May I use preliminary data reported in my unfunded resubmission application in my new application?
    Yes, you may use the preliminary data if they are relevant to the new aims of the new application.
19. May I use the same literature review that I wrote for my unfunded resubmission application in my new application?
    Unlikely. The literature review may be substantially similar to the one in your resubmission application, but given that your research aims will have changed, it would follow that you will need to up-date the literature review to make it relevant to the current aims.
20. I responded to a Request for Applications (RFA) funding opportunity that permitted resubmissions of unfunded applications from a previous RFA; however, my application was not funded. If I submit the unfunded grant application as an investigator-initiated application, is it considered “new” or a resubmission?
    When an application that was submitted in response to an RFA is not funded and the investigator wishes to resubmit an application on this topic as an investigator-initiated application, it is to be submitted as a new application. The investigator will be allowed to submit the new application and a resubmission of this application, should that be necessary (NOT-OD-09-100).
21. My investigator-initiated application was not funded. May I submit this application in response to an appropriate RFA?
    Yes, normally a previously unfunded investigator-initiated application that is submitted in response to an RFA is to be prepared as a new application. (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-09-100.html)
22. After the maximum number of reviews of an application for an Institutional Training grant, what constitutes a “new” application?
    The NIH recognizes that faculty, resources and areas of scientific strength continually evolve at institutions leading to significant changes in research training programs. In the case of institutional Training and institutional Career Development applications, there must be a significant or substantial change in the programmatic, leadership, administrative, or other critical aspect of the program.
23. When I submit my resubmission application, can I request a different review group? What about a different IC assignment?
    NIH will consider either or both requests for a resubmission.
24. My original application was reviewed before the Enhancing Peer Review Initiative, so it will be hard for me to cut my resubmission application down to the new page limit. What should I do?
    All competing applications (including resubmissions) must use the new forms and follow the new page limits.  For details on how you should treat your application in this case, please see the Nexus article, Resubmitting? Shorter Page Limits Apply to You, Too.

Glossary:

A0: First submission
A1: First resubmission
A2: Second resubmission (not permitted after January 25, 2010, as described in NOT-OD-10-080)
A3: Third resubmission (not permitted)

Go to Resubmission (Amended) Applications