An official website of the United States government
The first level of review is carried out by a scientific review group (SRG), also referred to as a study section, composed primarily of non-federal scientists who have expertise in relevant scientific disciplines and current research areas. The role of SRGs is to assess the overall impact that your proposed project (or resource, or training, or center, etc.) will likely have on the biomedical research field(s) involved.
Learn more about how the first level of peer review works, scoring, roles, and more.
Background
NIH peer review policy is intended to promote a process whereby grant applications submitted to the NIH are evaluated in a fair, equitable, and timely manner that strives to be free of bias.
The core values of peer review drive the NIH to seek the highest level of ethical standards, and form the foundation for the laws, regulations, and policies that govern the NIH peer review process. The NIH dual peer review system is mandated by statute in accordance with section 492 of the Public Health Service Act and federal regulations governing "Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications and Research and Development Contract Projects.”
Who Reviews Your Application?
NIH peer reviewers are scientists, mostly from academia. Serving as a peer reviewer for NIH is an important way in which scientists participate in the ecosystem of scientific discovery.
Given that they must provide objective, fair, and timely reviews free from inappropriate influences, reviewers are fully vetted for appropriate expertise, potential conflicts of interest, and other requirements based on NIH peer review policies.
NIH provides reviewers extensive orientation and training to ensure they are prepared. (Learn more on our Information for Reviewers page). As part of this orientation reviewers are reminded that NIH review meetings are confidential and not to divulge any information outside the meeting.
Depending on the type of expertise required, peer review meetings are run by either the NIH Center of Scientific Review or an NIH institute or center.
Meeting Overview and Roles
Each SRG is led by a scientific review officer (SRO). The SRO is an NIH extramural staff scientist and the designated federal official responsible for ensuring that each application receives an objective and fair initial peer review, and that all applicable laws, regulations, and policies are followed.
Other key roles include the chair, who is a SRG member and is responsible for leading the discussions, and scientists serving on the SRG who review your application.
Before the meeting. The SRO assigns at least three reviewers to assess each application and gives all reviewers on the panel (except those with conflicts of interest) access to the applications to be reviewed. Before the meeting, assigned reviewers will read each application thoroughly, write a critique summarizing the strengths and weaknesses of the application, and assign it a preliminary Overall Impact score. Learn more about scoring below.
At the meeting. At the review meeting, the SRO actively manages the meeting to ensure fair and effective review, manage conflicts of interest, and ensure compliance with review policy. The chairperson facilitates the discussions.
After the SRO opens the meeting, any reviewer with a conflict of interest is asked to leave the room before the group begins reviewing an individual application. The primary reviewer then presents the application to the group and starts off the discussion of it. The other two assigned reviewers may provide additional comments. All panelists not in conflict, not just the assigned reviewers, then discuss and score the application.
Roles. Learn more about the roles of the SRO and reviewers in the table below.
| Scientific Review Officer (SRO) | Scientific Review Group (SRG) Members |
|---|---|
|
Chair
|
Other Federal Officials. Federal officials who have a need-to-know are permitted to attend review meetings with advance approval from the responsible SRO. These staff members may provide programmatic or grants management input at the SRO's discretion.
Peer Review Criteria and Considerations
Changes coming to how most research grant applications will be reviewed. Learn about the new simplified review framework.
Each grant application submitted to NIH is evaluated according to established review criteria that must be stated clearly in a notice of funding opportunity. For most application types, the required review criteria are defined in NIH Peer Review regulations (see resources under See Also below), however they may be re-defined to facilitate the goals of the grant program and/or specific criteria may be added.
Scored Review Criteria
Reviewers assign individual criterion scores for all scored review criteria. These scored criteria contribute to the Overall Impact score of an application.
Each reviewer uses their own judgement to determine how each criterion weighs into the Overall Impact score of the application, unless specified differently in the funding opportunity. Criterion scores typically use a numerical scale of 1 to 9 but may also include non-numerical ratings. For example, the Expertise and Resources factor for many research grants may be evaluated as either sufficient or not.
Additional Review Criteria
Additional review criteria do not receive individual criterion scores but contribute to the Overall Impact score. Some of these criteria need to be considered acceptable before the NIH can award a grant (for example, the protections for human subjects, vertebrate animals, and biohazards criteria).
Additional Review Considerations
Additional review considerations do not receive individual criterion scores and do not contribute to the Overall Impact score. The NIH uses additional review considerations to seek the input of scientific experts concerning programmatic issues that do not directly reflect the scientific and technical merit of the work proposed, and therefore do not affect the scoring. For example, reviewers may be asked whether an application’s budget is sufficiently justified by the proposed project, or whether the project could be completed for a small budget (or in fewer years) than requested.
Scoring
Most review criteria, as well as an application’s overall impact, are rated using numerical scoring.
The NIH utilizes a 9-point rating scale (1 = exceptional; 9 = poor) in whole numbers (no decimals). Before the SRG meeting, each reviewer assigned to an application gives a separate score for each review criterion. The individual scores of the assigned reviewers for these criteria are provided to the applicant.
In addition, each reviewer assigned to an application gives a preliminary Overall Impact score for that application. In many review meetings, the preliminary scores are used to determine which applications will be discussed in full at the meeting. For each discussed application, a final Overall Impact score is given by each eligible panelist (individuals without a conflict of interest).
A final Overall Impact score for each discussed application is determined by calculating the mean score from the final impact scores from all the eligible members and multiplying the average by 10. This calculation results in final Overall Impact scores ranging from 10 (high impact) through 90 (low impact).
Not Discussed (ND) applications. Applications unanimously judged by the SRG to be less competitive (typically rank in the bottom half) are not discussed at the meeting. These application do not receive a numerical final Overall Impact score.
Summary Statement
After the meeting, all reviewed applications receive an impact score and a summary statement prepared by the SRO.
NIH typically releases scores in the eRA Commons system within 3 business days and uploads your summary statement within about 30 days. Users who have the principal investigator or signing official role in eRA Commons can view the released scores and summary statement.
The summary statement includes:
- Impact Score and Percentile (if applicable)
- Brief summary of the SRG discussion (written by the SRO)
- Criterion scores from the assigned reviewers
- Bulleted critiques (strengths and weaknesses) from the assigned reviewer
- Budget recommendations
- Any administrative comments
Appeals
NIH's peer review appeal system provides investigators and applicant organizations the opportunity to seek reconsideration of the initial review results if, after consideration of the summary statement, they believe the review process was flawed for reasons of either bias of a reviewer, conflict of interest, absence of appropriate expertise, or factual errors by one or more reviewers that could have substantially altered the review outcome. This policy does not apply to appeals of NIH funding decisions, appeals of decisions concerning extensions of MERIT awards, or appeals of the technical evaluation of R&D contract projects through the NIH peer review process.