Information for Reviewers

Scope Note

Reviewers can find process and policy resources that walk them chronologically through their review tasks, while scientific review officers can find the latest review guidelines and policy documents. Applicants can get a sense of the key elements reviewers are looking for in their grant applications.

Important Updates

Resources for Reviewer Activities

As stipulated in the NIH Peer Review regulations CFR 52h, in order for the NIH to award research funds, an application must be approved by two levels of NIH peer review. The role of first level peer reviewers is to assess the overall impact that a proposed project will likely have on the biomedical research field. To learn more about first level peer review see First Level: Peer Review | Grants & Funding.

Reviewers are required to certify that they understand the rules of integrity and confidentiality in the peer review process and the consequences for not following these rules. They must also certify before and after review meetings that all conflicts of interest (COI) were identified and declared. In addition, NIH reviewers are required to take trainings in review integrity and bias awareness to participate in most NIH review meetings.

Reviewers must evaluate applications using the criteria established in the notice of funding opportunity to which an application(s) was submitted. Additional guidance for how to evaluate individual criteria is also available through standard reviewer guidance documents.

Reviewers are brought together as a Scientific Review Group (SRG) to discuss the merits of the studies proposed in individual applications and submit a final impact score for each. As part of the meeting, the SRG will also discuss any concerns with the use of human subjects, vertebrate animals, and/or biohazards within applications.

Tip: watch a mock study section to learn how reviewers discuss applications

Applications are typically given a preliminary rating as part of assigned reviewers’ initial evaluations, however an application’s final rating or ‘overall impact score’ is determined by the entire review panel.

Reviewer critiques are part of the summary statement and an important source of feedback for what reviewers liked and didn’t like about their application.

IAR is a web-based module within NIH’s eRA Systemsthat is used by reviewers to view meeting materials, certify their confidentiality and COI forms, access applications and submit scores and critiques.

FAQs

Resources

Upcoming Events

    Videos


      This page last updated on: December 4, 2024
      For technical issues E-mail OER Webmaster