Only a single resubmission (A1) of an original application (A0) will be accepted.
Following an unsuccessful resubmission (A1) application, applicants may submit the same idea as a new (A0) application for the next appropriate new application due date (see NOT-OD-18-197 for exceptions).
Resubmissions (A1) must be submitted within 37 months of the new (A0) application (see NOT-OD-10-140 and NOT-OD-12-128).
For more details on the Resubmission Policy, visit the Resubmissions webpage and see NOT-OD-18-197.
NIH’s resubmission policy applies to applications submitted to all grant and cooperative agreement funding opportunities that allow resubmissions, including all fellowship, training, and career development awards.
Once your application has been reviewed, you must wait for the summary statement to be issued before you resubmit that application or submit any other application with substantial scientific overlap.
Even though you can submit your work again, NIH expects applicants to strengthen and improve their applications with each submission—using a combination of your own research progress, updates from the literature, and feedback provided in the summary statement.
No. The number of such cycles is not limited, but NIH encourages applicants to update their applications to reflect the status of the field over the interim period and to incorporate new preliminary data, literature citations, letters of reference, etc. as time passes.
If the award can be renewed, you may submit one renewal application followed by one resubmission of that renewal application to an appropriate funding opportunity announcement.
If the renewal application is not funded, your options are to submit an A1 resubmission application or to submit a new type 1 application.
If the resubmission application is not funded, your next option is to submit a new type 1 application. See NOT-OD-15-059 for information about the content differences between new, renewal, and resubmission applications.
All applications submitted as new must target due dates designated for new applications, regardless of whether the previous submission was a competing renewal, a resubmission, or a new application.
Generally, yes, but there are some specific limitations:
You cannot submit the resubmission (A1) application to a funding opportunity announcement that does not accept resubmissions
You cannot submit the resubmission (A1) application to an RFA if the new or renewal (A0) application was submitted to a PA, PAR, or PAS
You cannot submit the resubmission (A1) application to a PA, PAR, or PAS if the new or renewal (A0) application was submitted to a RFA
You cannot submit a resubmission (A1) application to an RFA that only accepts resubmissions from specified funding opportunity announcements unless you used one of those specified FOAs to submit the new or renewal (A0) application
All requirements of the funding opportunity announcement used for the resubmission (A1) application must be followed.
An application submitted as new to one Program Announcement (like the Parent R01) may be resubmitted as an A1 (resubmission) to any other Program Announcement, so long as that program announcement accepts resubmissions and it is submitted within 37 months of the A0 (original, new) submission.
A resubmission application must contain an Introduction, which addresses the comments from the previous review; a new application makes no reference to a previous submission.
An A1 application is the only way that you may specifically address the critiques of the previous review. A new application may not have an introduction responding to the previous critiques, and can only be submitted after the summary statement is received, unless the funding opportunity announcement says otherwise. All applicants should submit applications that reflect the current status of the field, new preliminary data, or new plans in response to new findings or strategies.
A resubmission allows you to provide a one page introduction to tell reviewers directly how you have addressed their critiques. Alternatively, the introduction allows you to explain why you did not address them.
This issue should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Read the summary statement carefully and note weaknesses that you could address in a reasonable length of time. Discuss the critiques with your collaborators, colleagues, and/or senior researchers/mentors to get their suggestions. The PO also can discuss your options going forward. It is possible for an application that carefully addresses the reviewers’ comments to go from being “not-discussed” to receiving outstanding scores upon resubmission.
Generally, no. NIH will not allow duplicate or highly overlapping applications to be under review at the same time. This includes: 1) a new (A0) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of an overlapping new (A0) or resubmission (A1) application; and 2) a resubmission (A1) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of the previous new (A0) application. (NOT-OD-18-197)
Yes. Investigators should take into account the scores of the previous application, the reviewer comments, and any advice from NIH program staff when deciding whether to submit the application as new. Should you decide to submit the application as new, take advantage of the comments from reviewers to reshape your application, but remember, you should not directly reference the previous review in the new application. If the previous application was a renewal resubmission, the new application should not include a Progress Report or a Progress Report Publication List. (Note special rules apply for submitting after an unsuccessful Phase II SBIR/STTR application.) Work from the prior funding period should be presented as preliminary data and/or rationale for the proposed research. Publications from the prior work may be cited in the reference list, as applicable, and/or listed in the biosketches of the investigators.
No. A new application must be prepared as a new application. You may not include previous scores, comments of the previous reviewers, your responses to those comments, or place marks in the text of the research strategy or any other section of the application to indicate changes from a previous submission. Remind collaborators providing letters of support not to refer to previous submissions or reviews, and for applications requiring reference letters, remind your referees that these letters should not include any references to a previous application or review.
No. Your application will be withdrawn from the review process if you include anywhere in the your application the kind of information that would be found in a previous summary statement (score, critique criterion scores, reviewers comments), information that would be appropriate for an Introduction (response to the previous review and information about how the application was changed), or marks in the text of the application to show how it has changed since the last submission.
No. If you submit your application as a new A0 application, it must be submitted for the new application due date, regardless of the past review history for this project. If you submit the new application on the resubmission due date, it will be withdrawn for being late.
No. Only a single resubmission of a competing new, revision, or renewal application (A0) will be accepted. After a resubmission of a competing renewal (Type 2) application that is not funded, a subsequent new renewal (Type 2 A0) application may not be submitted. The next application submitted on this topic should be submitted as a new application (Type 1 A0) on an appropriate due date for new applications (see NOT-OD-18-197 for exceptions).
No. As a new Type 1, the application would be due on the new application due date, not the renewal application due date. The application must not contain a Progress Report, Progress Report Publication List or response to previous critiques in an Introduction or elsewhere in the application.
You may present the data generated during your grant in the preliminary data section of your new application. You may include publications in your biosketch and cite them as support for your research plans.
For an institutional training grant (T) or career development award (K) application, you can use the Background section to describe a previous program and how it impacted the proposed program. For a research education (R25) grant application, experience with a previous program and its influence on the current application could be described in the Institutional Environment or Institutional Setting section. However, information regarding a previously funded program must not be presented as a progress report or include elements of a progress report for the previous grant.
No. Those elements are not allowed for a new application. New applications containing a Progress Report or Progress Report Publication List will be withdrawn before review.
No. It is a new application and it must be submitted on the due date for new applications listed in the FOA. If it is submitted on the due date for renewal applications, it will be withdrawn for being late.
You may withdraw an A1 application before the date of review and submit another A1 for a later, appropriate due date. Note that NIH will not accept a resubmission application that is submitted later than 37 months after the due date of the initial (A0) application (see NOT-OD-10-140).
Yes. In most cases a previously unfunded investigator-initiated application that is submitted in response to an RFA is to be prepared as a new application. See NOT-OD-09-100.
If the application is not successful through the RFA and is subsequently submitted to a different RFA or to a program announcement (such as the standard “parent” announcement), then it is considered a new application. If your application was submitted previously to a PA and you want to now submit it to an RFA, it is considered a new application. If you submit a new application to a PA and then submit to an RFA, you can subsequently resubmit to the PA as an A1. For more information on submission following an RFA review, see policy notice NOT-OD-09-100.
For most RFAs that have a single receipt date, all applications will be considered new. Some RFAs have multiple receipt dates and allow resubmission applications to the same RFA (designated with the grant number suffix “A1”). The text of each RFA should clearly state which types of applications are allowed (new, resubmission, renewal, revision). This can be a complicated issue, and it is best to contact the program official listed in the RFA.
In most cases, two or more applications that have scientific overlap in the experiments proposed are not allowed in peer review at the same time, even if one is to an RFA and the other(s) to a PA/PAR/PAS. There are exceptions to this rule. NIH allows subprojects of Program Project Grant applications to be submitted as research applications (R01, R03, R15, R21, etc.) in the same cycle. In most cases, a second application for the same project should not be submitted until after the summary statement for the original submission has been released. See more information on overlapping applications.
Although NIH will not assess the similarity of the science in the new (A0) application to any previous submission when accepting it for review, we encourage investigators to take into account critiques from the previous review and advice from program staff. Remember, duplicate or highly overlapping applications are not allowed in review at the same time.Remember also that the NIH will not accept an A0 or A1 application if an appeal of initial peer review is pending on a substantially overlapping application.
You should consider the resubmission application when you can address the weaknesses described in the summary statement. Often, additional preliminary data are needed to address the criticisms. Therefore, you may need to skip a due date or two and plan on including the results from additional experiments. Note that the standard due dates for resubmission applications are often later than those for new applications. An application can be resubmitted up to 37 months after the original application’s due date; after that, it must be submitted as a new application and not refer to the previous review. However, as the time increases between the original application and the resubmission, reviewers may expect more preliminary data, as evidence that the investigator is productive and committed to the project. Alternatively, you may discuss with your Program Officer the possibility of submitting a new application rather than a Resubmission application.
The introduction of your resubmission application should address all of the weaknesses described in the summary statement. If you disagree with a reviewer’s statement, explain why, and provide additional information. Avoid responses that could be seen as argumentative. Ask a colleague to read the reviewers’ critiques and your responses prior to resubmission, to confirm that you have addressed the critique in a way that is informative and non-confrontational.
Possibly. If you are applying to a new funding opportunity announcement (FOA), you must use the form associated with that FOA. When submitting to the same FOA as the previous application, you must check the funding opportunity to make sure that no form updates have happened since your previous submission. If a more recent form version is available, you will need to transfer your information to that form. See Do I Have The Right Electronic Forms For My Application?
You should not refer to the previous submissions in the cover letter to the new application, as it will be given a new number and will not be compared to the previous submissions when accepting it for review.
Generally, the introduction is limited to one page unless otherwise specified in the FOA or Table of Page Limits. For example, an exception is made for R25, Ts, Ds and some K applications, to allow a 3 page introduction to the resubmission application.
Identifying individual changes in the text of the specific aims, research strategy and other application attachments is no longer required (NOT-OD-15-030). It is sufficient to outline the changes made to the Resubmission application in the Introduction attachment. The Introduction must include a summary of substantial additions, deletions, and changes to the application. It must also include a response to weaknesses raised in the Summary Statement.
Yes, your resubmission application can have a different title than your original application. However, if there is a significant change in the content and scope of the proposed research, it may be best to develop a new application. Consult with your program official for further guidance.
A PD/PI can be added to or removed from the resubmission application. It is best to explain these changes in the introduction of your application. A change of PD/PI also needs to be noted via a checkbox in the application.
You should respond as thoroughly as possible to all of the reviewers’ comments in the “Introduction” attachment found on the PHS 398 Research Plan or equivalent form (i.e., PHS 398 Training Program Plan, PHS Fellowship Supplemental Form, or PHS 398 Career Development Award Supplemental Form).
The Introduction should include a summary of the substantial additions, deletions, and changes to the application, as well as, a response to the major weaknesses raised in the Summary Statement.
Identifying individual changes in the text of specific aims, research strategy and other application attachments is no longer required (NOT-OD-15-030), though NIH will continue to accept applications that contain the specific mark-ups.
Resubmission applications may be submitted for an appropriate due date up to 37 months after the application due date of the initial application. Any application on the same topic that you submit more than 37 months from the initial receipt date is considered a new application; it should not refer to the previous review(s) and must be submitted on the appropriate due date for new applications. (See related policy notice.)
A PD/PI can be added to or removed from the resubmission application. It is best to explain these changes in the introduction of your application. A change of PD/PI also needs to be noted via a checkbox in the application.
Yes, but you must wait until the summary statement for the previous submission is released and you need to look carefully at the requirements of the new activity code. 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 separate R01 submission. See Types of Grant Programs to learn about requirements for other activity codes. For more on the submission of applications with a changed activity code, visit NOT-OD-09-100.
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.
Reviewers are instructed to evaluate the resubmission application as presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project. For resubmitted renewals, the committee will also consider the progress made in the last funding period.
Resubmission applications usually are assigned to the same study section and Institue/Center (IC) as the original application but you can request a change using the Assignment Request Form with the resubmission application following the instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. It is a good idea to consult with your Program Officer (PO) and/or Scientific Review Officer (SRO) to discuss whether a change would be appropriate.
The Division of Receipt and Referral (DRR) at the Center for Scientific Review (CSR) is responsible for assigning applications to ICs and in some cases to Scientific Review Groups (SRGs). DRR usually accommodates requests if appropriately justified and requested well before the review meeting date, but reserves the right to make the final decision. ICs websites describe mission interest which can help applicants match topics of research to the appropriate funding component. The CSR website provides information regarding the focus of expertise of each of the CSR standing study sections.
You may direct referral questions to the CSR Referral Office (CSRDRR@mail.nih.gov or 301-435-0715).
Contact the NIH scientific review officer assigned to your application to discuss the review assignment. While the SRO can look into the concern and describe the panel’s expertise, in CSR the Integrated Review Group Chief and in IC’s the Review Branch Chief has the authority to make assignment changes and should become involved when it is clear that a change is desired by the applicant.
Contact the Division of Receipt and Referral in the Center of Scientific Review to discuss the IC assignment (CSRDRR@mail.nih.gov or 301 435-0715).
No. Each new (Type 1) A0 application must be considered as a new submission and reviewers must consider only the information included in the current application regardless of any prior submissions.
No. Regardless of the nature of the comments, negative or positive, no reference to a prior submission of a new (Type 1) A0 is permitted in the written critique or during discussion of the application. In addition, reviewers should not refer to previous reviews or discussions in their written critiques or during discussion at a review meeting.
No. This should not be done. Reviewers are instructed by the SRO to regard as confidential all review-related materials and to securely dispose of all such materials in a timely fashion following the review meeting (published papers by the applicants are exempt). Storing prior critiques for potential future use is not appropriate.
This is considered a new application, and any potential changes made by the applicant may not be readily apparent. You should treat the application as fairly as you would an application you have never seen before and be willing to consider the possibility that the applicant made changes as s/he saw fit. If there are similar strengths and weaknesses that affect the overall impact score, it is appropriate to restate these points in the critique. However, it is inappropriate for reviewers to “copy and paste” previous critiques, which in any event you should no longer have available.
No. The review of any new (Type 1) A0 application must be carried out in an unbiasedmanner without regard to any prior submission(s) of the same or similar application. The score should fairly reflect the merit of the application at the time it is submitted; this score may be better or worse than a prior application—but scores should not be used to senda punitive message
No. An application should be reviewed and rated on its merits, irrespective of the number of submissions of the same or similar application. NRFC is appropriate for applications that lack significant and substantial merit or present serious ethical problems in the protection of human subjects from research risks, use of vertebrate animals, biohazards and/or select agents. NRFC should not be used punitively or to express annoyance at seeing an application too many times. A proposal to NRFC requires a full discussion of the application by the review group, followed by a motion and a formal vote (with the number of members who vote for and against the motion—or abstain, recorded in the Summary Statement). Should reviewers wish to consider for NRFC an application that would otherwise fall in the ND range, the application must be “rescued” during the streamlining process and will be subsequently brought up for full discussion
The “Additional Comments to Applicant” box was developed for reviewers to provide additional information or advice to the applicant (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/guidelines_general/Additional_Comments.pdf). The box may be used to advise the applicant against submitting an application again unless there are significant changes in the application (you may specify where you think changes are most needed). Note, however, that these comments are not binding, do not represent a consensus of the review panel and should not be considered in scoring the application. For new (Type 1) A0 applications, the comments in this section, as with any part of your critique, must pertain to the current submission only and must not reference past submissions or reviews (if any).
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)
NIH Staff 
