PEER REVIEW APPEAL PROCESS NIH GUIDE, Volume 23, Number 39, November 4, 1994 P.T. 34 Keywords: Grants Administration/Policy+ National Institutes of Health The National Institutes of Health (NIH) provide an applicant who feels that some aspect of the handling or peer review of his/her grant application has been inappropriate, biased, or wrong with two sequential opportunities (respectively referred to as "rebuttals" and "appeals") to have his/her concerns addressed. The first opportunity is after receipt of the summary statement that documents the results of the initial review of an application's scientific and/or technical merit. If the applicant submits a letter rebutting the review to the program administrator who is responsible for the application, that letter will usually be made available to the National Advisory Council/Board of the relevant NIH Institute/Center/Division (ICD) for consideration, if the ICD staff cannot handle the concerns administratively. The Council may recommend that the application be deferred and rereviewed, if the applicant's objections are deemed to have merit. However, should the Council not recommend deferral and rereview but concur with the initial review and deem that it should stand, then the applicant has a second opportunity to have his/her concerns heard, by submitting a formal appeal of the Council's decision. "The PI and the applicant institution, represented by the institutional official authorized to sign applications, must jointly sign an appeal and send it to the NIH Peer Review Appeals Officer. The official representative's signature indicates that the applicant institution endorses both form and substance of the appeal" (ref: NIH Manual Chapter 4518). The appeal letter must explain fully the reasons for the disagreement, append supporting documentation, and be sent to: NIH Appeals Officer Office of the Director National Institutes of Health Building 1, Room 328 Bethesda, MD 20892 Two points that are important for applicants considering an appeal to weigh for themselves concern the possible outcomes and the timing of the appeal process. The most favorable possible outcome for an applicant in an appeal case can only be a decision that the application in question be rereviewed, since appeals cases examine only whether there were any flaws in the peer review process. The other possible outcome is that the review of the application was not substantially flawed and any minor flaws in the review did not affect the recommendation regarding the application. In that case, the review would stand and the application would not be rereviewed. As the conduct of an appeal case involves several steps of process and review, it may take at least four months (or one review cycle) to complete. Thus, given, the possible outcomes and the timing of the appeal process, an applicant may wish to consider whether deficiencies in the review of his/her application were substantive enough to have had a major deleterious effect on the review of the application and, if not, to revise and resubmit the application instead. Applicant concerns about the acceptance for review, responsiveness to a Request for Applications, other receipt issues, or the referral of their application, when submitted prior to the initial review, are entirely the responsibility of the Division of Research Grants (DRG) or of the ICD assigned to review the application (as indicated on the computer-generated notice of assignments sent to applicants). This DRG or ICD process also provides two opportunities for applicant concerns to be addressed. As they are actions that are external to the peer review process, decisions regarding the funding of applications may not be appealed. INQUIRIES For additional information about the peer review appeal process or to discuss a particular matter, contact Dr. Janet Cuca at 301/496-5358. .
Return to NIH Guide Main Index
![]() |
Office of Extramural Research (OER) |
![]() |
National Institutes of Health (NIH) 9000 Rockville Pike Bethesda, Maryland 20892 |
![]() |
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) |
![]() |
||||