Your Feedback Wanted on Proposed Changes to Reporting Peer Review Outcomes for Applications

NIH is seeking public comment on proposed changes to the reporting of peer review outcomes for grant applications (NOT-OD-26-088). Comments will be accepted electronically here until October 13, 2026.

These proposed updates are intended to strengthen alignment with the NIH Unified Funding Strategy which prioritizes scientific merit and reinforces the central role of peer review in NIH funding decisions. Under this framework, NIH Institutes, Centers, and Offices (ICOs) should consider peer review information in its entirety.

Key proposed changes:

• First-level peer review process would place applications into one of three overall impact categories: “Most Competitive,” “Competitive,” or “Not Discussed.” All discussed applications will fall into either the Most Competitive (top 25%) or Competitive (26%-50%) category, based on the final overall impact score derived from scores entered by all reviewers not in conflict.
• Numerical overall impact scores would no longer be released to principal investigators, applicant institutions, NIH program staff, ICO leadership, or NIH Advisory Councils.
• Scoring procedures in the review meeting will remain the same.
• All other peer review reporting procedures would remain unchanged, including the release of written reviewer critiques, individual criterion/factor scores, and panel discussion summaries that provide clarity on the panel’s assessment of overall impact.

These proposed changes are intended to:

• Maintain the rigor of NIH peer review.
• Elevate the importance of substantive critiques from independent experts and panel discussions, which provide the most meaningful assessment of an application’s scientific and technical merit.
• Align with the NIH Unified Funding Strategy, which emphasizes ICOs should consider peer review outcomes alongside scientific priorities, strategic plans, and budget considerations, rather than relying primarily on paylines (see this Nexus article for how ICO directors weigh these factors)
• The size of the categories were designed to empower NIH program staff to interpret peer review information holistically, using their expertise and professional judgment to ensure funding recommendations reflect ICO strategic priorities and goals. The categories were designed to be large enough to avoid creating artificial pay lines and broaden the number of applications under consideration for funding.
• More closely align NIH practices with those used by other federal research agencies, including the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, and U.S. Department of Agriculture.

We welcome comments on any aspect of the proposed changes, such as perspectives on:

• Whether the broader impact categories would provide sufficient clarity regarding review outcomes.
• Potential benefits and challenges of placing greater emphasis on written critiques and panel discussion summaries rather than numerical scores.
• Additional safeguards or considerations that could help ensure consistency, transparency, and fairness in funding recommendations.

We look forward to reviewing submitted comments, which will be used to inform the final recommendation on the proposal, including implementation and communication considerations.