Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award, NRSA, institutional research training grants, training grants, review, peer review, overall, overall impact, scored review criteria, additional review criteria, additional review considerations, national advisory council or board

11.3.4 Review

11.3.4.1 Overall

Each initial and competing continuation application will be evaluated for scientific merit by an NIH peer review group. Kirschstein-NRSA institutional research training grant applications also must be reviewed by the National Advisory Council or Board of the IC The NIH organizational component responsible for a particular grant program or set of activities. The terms "NIH IC," or "awarding IC" are used throughout this document to designate a point of contact for advice and interpretation of grant requirements and to establish the focal point for requesting necessary prior approvals or changes in the terms and conditions of award. whose activities relate to the proposed research training.

11.3.4.2 Overall Impact

Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the research training program to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved. The scored review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the research training program proposed) will be considered when determining the overall impact.

11.3.4.3 Scored Review Criteria

Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of the scientific and technical merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific merit.

• Training Program and Environment
• Training Program Director/Principal Investigator The individual(s) designated by the applicant organization/recipient to have the appropriate level of authority and responsibility to direct the project or program to be supported by the award. The applicant organization may designate multiple individuals as program directors/principal investigators (PD/PIs) who share the authority and responsibility for leading and directing the project, intellectually and logistically. When multiple PD/PIs are named, each is responsible and accountable to the official(s) at the applicant organization/recipient, or as appropriate, to a collaborating organization for the proper conduct of the project, program, or activity including the submission of all required reports. The presence of more than one PD/PI on an application or award diminishes neither the responsibility nor the accountability of any individual PD/PI.
• Preceptor/Mentors
• Trainees
• Training Record

The NOFO should be consulted for additional information describing each of the scored review criteria. Individual Institutes and Centers may have additional specialized review criteria appropriate for their special initiatives and mission.

11.3.4.4 Additional Review Criteria

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider the following additional items in the determination of scientific and technical merit, but will not give separate scores for these items.

• Protections for Human Subjects
• Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Individuals Across the Lifespan
• Vertebrate Animals
• Biohazards

• Training in Methods for Enhancing Reproducibility

• Resubmission Applications
• Renewal Applications
• Revision Applications

The NOFO should be consulted for additional information describing each of the relevant addition review criteria.

11.3.4.5 Additional Review Considerations

As applicable for the training program proposed, reviewers will address each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items and should not consider them in providing the overall impact score:

• Recruitment Plan to Enhance Diversity
• Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research
• Select Agents Research
• Budget and Period of Support

The NOFO should be consulted for additional information describing each of the relevant addition review considerations.

11.3.4.6 National Advisory Council Review

Following initial peer review, applications undergo a second-level review by the appropriate NIH IC The NIH organizational component responsible for a particular grant program or set of activities. The terms "NIH IC," or "awarding IC" are used throughout this document to designate a point of contact for advice and interpretation of grant requirements and to establish the focal point for requesting necessary prior approvals or changes in the terms and conditions of award.'s National Advisory Council or Board. In addition to the assessment of the scientific and educational merit of the research training grant application, these advisory groups will consider the initial peer review group's comments on the Recruitment Plan to Enhance Diversity and the plan for instruction in the responsible conduct of research.