One Year Later: How Centralized NIH Peer Review is Strengthening Efficiency, Competition, and Transparency

In March 2025, NIH announced that all peer review would be centralized within the Center for Scientific Review (CSR) (see also this NIH Guide Notice). We explained that centralizing peer review allowed for cost savings through increased efficiency, as well as improved consistency of review, and would maximize scientific competition to better identify the most innovative ideas.  

Less than three months later, CSR assumed responsibility for the first level of peer review of all applications for grants and cooperative agreements and proposals for contracts. As the one-year anniversary approaches, we are providing an update on the consolidation and its initial effects on the peer-review process. 

First, some background: 

• Until 2025, NIH had 24 administratively distinct review offices – CSR plus review branches at 23 funding institutes and centers (ICs).
• CSR conducted most peer review for NIH with a focus on R01s, fellowship applications, and small business grant applications.
• The funding IC review branches handled peer review of most career development and institutional training applications, multicomponent applications, all loan repayment applications, and R01s in response to specific funding initiatives. 

There were vast differences in the scale of peer review operations. 

• In 2024, CSR reviewed 66,697 applications.
• The largest IC review branch reviewed under 5,000 applications a year and several reviewed under 300 applications in 2024.
• While ICs collectively reviewed about 23% of NIH applications, about 50% NIH review staff worked in IC review branches. It had become evident that per application review costs were much lower at CSR.
• In response to changing Administration priorities early in 2025, NIH leadership identified peer review as an area where processes could be consolidated to achieve significant operational efficiencies. 

Most of the efficiencies in peer review that have been achieved since centralization reflect economies of scale. 

• Management and support of peer review require fewer staff.
• Training and continuing educational resources for NIH scientific review officers and reviewers have been centralized.   
• Free of the constraint of administrative assignments, applications can be grouped together based on science. Larger, more efficient study sections result; larger meetings make more efficient use of staff and reviewer effort.  
• Centralized decision-making and policy management is more efficient and faster. These benefits of centralization were critical to the NIH response to the 43-day lapse in appropriations in 2025. The lapse in appropriations hit at the height of a review meeting cycle and postponed the review of 32,000 applications. Having all peer review operations within CSR allowed a quick and decisive response. CSR successfully completed a round by February 11, rather than needing to cancel the round of review. This accomplishment also reflected the generosity with which the external scientific community gave their time to serve in review.

Addressing the Challenge of Many More Applications

With consolidation, CSR became responsible for managing the review of about 30,000 additional applications per year. How to create stable, predictable, and transparent review homes for these grant applications was a major challenge of this first year. We now have in place plans for many new study sections, recurring meetings that you will see in action over the next couple of years. 

• CSR expects to create 52 new chartered study sections to manage the review of R01 applications previously handled by funding ICs. These study sections are essentially being created out of existing study sections, which are now oversubscribed. Overflowing study sections will be divided to cover different, scientifically coherent sets of topics.
• CSR has also created review homes for individual career development, institutional training, and multicomponent program project applications. Each of the five scientific review divisions within CSR has established recurring special emphasis panels to review these applications. These panels will cluster applications with similar review criteria and in similar scientific areas to ensure that the applications are evaluated appropriately.
• Having review meetings with applications grouped according to science, rather than the IC that administers them, promotes appropriate competition. Better competition should ultimately result in better review outcomes.  
• Descriptions for new study sections are posted on NIH’s website.
• CSR is recruiting reviewers who had previously served on panels convened by funding ICs to retain valuable expertise. 

Building Consistency in Review Practices

Centralization also allows for consistency in review practices across NIH. While all NIH review branches followed the same review policies there was significant local variation in review practices. Capitalizing on expertise of scientific review officers reassigned to CSR from ICs, CSR has developed standard guidelines for conducting the review of career development, training, and multicomponent grants. Training of staff and reviewers is necessary to effectively implement standard review practices and to implement new review practices, such as that with the Simplified Review Framework. 

CSR has long been the primary source of review staff training materials for all of NIH but could not previously accommodate IC staff in numerous interactive trainings. All NIH scientific review officers now participate. 

To Recap 

Peer review operations at NIH have been through much change in the past year, but peer review remains strong. It is a core tenant of NIH’s Unified Funding Strategy. 

• Many reviewers who formerly served in IC review meetings are now serving in CSR review meetings.
• Most of the review staff who were at IC branches are now staffing CSR meetings.
• New study sections are being created to provide predictable, scientifically appropriate review of the many applications that were absorbed.
• Review procedures were standardized.
• Robust training and continuing education efforts are in place.

NIH’s transition to a centralized peer review system has effectively increased efficiency while strengthening peer review processes. We are deeply grateful to the reviewers, staff, and broader research community whose dedication is making this transformation possible. 

We recognize that important challenges remain, and we look forward to continued engagement with the research community to thoughtfully address them and further strengthen the peer review system in the years ahead. We remain committed to ensuring rigorous, fair, and transparent review as policies, procedures, and structures continue to evolve.