Definitions of Criteria and Considerations for R13/U13 Critiques

Updated March 21, 2016

Standard criteria and considerations are shown below. Individual Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) may have additional criteria and considerations.

[Return to ‘Guidance for Reviewers’ website]

Overall Impact

After considering all of the review criteria, briefly summarize the significant strengths and weaknesses of the application and judge the likelihood that the proposed conference will have a substantial impact on the pursuit of the goals of NIH-supported research, which is to advance our understanding of biological systems, to improve the control of disease, and to enhance health.

Scored Review Criteria

1. Significance.

Does this conference address an important problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge or clinical practice be advanced? What will be the effect of these endeavors on the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?

2. Investigator(s).

Is (are) the PD(s)/PI(s) well suited for organizing and fulfilling the goals of the conference? Are the qualifications and past performance of the PD(s)/PI(s) appropriate, and are they will suited for their described roles in the conference?  Are the key personnel and selected speakers appropriate and well suited for their described roles in the conference?

3. Innovation.

Does the conference employ novel approaches or methods to fulfill its purpose?  Does the conference/scientific meeting draw together appropriate experts who may otherwise not have an opportunity to meet?

4. Approach.

Are the format and agenda for the conference appropriate for achieving the specified goals? Is the conference timely for the subject matter?  For applications designating multiple PDs/PIs, is the Leadership Plan approach, including the designated roles and responsibilities, governance and organizational structure consistent with and justified by the topics of the conference and the expertise of each of the PDs/PIs?

5. Environment.

Is the conference site appropriate?  Does the applicant organization have the ability to contribute to the probability of success?  Do the proposed meetings, exhibits, interactions, etc., take advantage of unique features of the environment or employ useful collaborative arrangements?  Is institutional support evident?

Additional Review Criteria

Appropriate Representation.
How well do the plans for inclusion of women, racial/ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, and other individuals who traditionally have been underrepresented in science provide for their appropriate representation in the planning, organization, and execution of the proposed conference/scientific meeting? See Inclusion of Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in NIH-Supported Conference Grants: (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-066.html.

Protections for Human Subjects.
Generally not applicable.   Reviewers should bring any concerns to the attention of the Scientific Review Officer.

Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children.
Generally not applicable. Reviewers should bring any concerns to the attention of the Scientific Review Officer.

Vertebrate Animals.
Generally not applicable.  Reviewers should bring any concerns to the attention of the Scientific review Officer.

Biohazards.
Generally not applicable.  Reviewers should bring any concerns to the attention of the Scientific Review Officer.

Resubmissions.
For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.

Renewals.
For Renewals, the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period.

Revisions.
For Revisions, the committee will consider the appropriateness of the proposed expansion of the scope of the project. If the Revision application relates to a specific line of investigation presented in the original application that was not recommended for approval by the committee, then the committee will consider whether the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group are adequate and whether substantial changes are clearly evident.

Additional Review Considerations

Provision of Family Care Facilities.
Are the plans to inform attendees about family care resources adequate?

Applications from Foreign Organizations.
Not Applicable.

Select Agent Research.
Generally not applicable.  Reviewers should bring any concerns to the attention of the Scientific Review Officer.

Resource Sharing Plans.
Not Applicable

Budget and Period of Support.
Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed conference.

Additional Comments to the Applicant (Optional).
Reviewers may provide guidance to the applicant.

[Return to ‘Guidance for Reviewers’ website]