NIH All About Grants Podcast – Simplified Review Framework

David Kosub >> Simplified review framework. Three words you’ve probably heard a lot about as it relates to the review of your grant application here at NIH. Well this framework resulted from substantial engagement and input from the extramural research community, from peer reviewers, from investigators, from members of advisory groups over the past several years to help us strengthen the peer review process. Join us for this episode of the NIH’s All About Grants podcast to learn more about what you should know as it relates to simplified review framework.

Announcer >> From the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. This is all about grants.

Kosub >> All right. Well, welcome to the show. My name is David Kosub, and I'm with the NIH Office of Extramural Research. And I'm glad to say that we have two guests with us today to talk about Simplified Review Framework or SRF. And that's Doctor Stephanie Constant. She serves as the NIH review policy officer. And we also have Doctor Lisa Steele. She is the chief of the Epidemiology and Population Health Branch within the NIH center for Scientific Review. And I welcome you both to the show.

Stephanie Constant >> Thank you. David. Nice to be here.

Lisa Steele >> Thank you. This is Lisa. Hello.

Kosub >> All right, well, tell us how we got here. What exactly was done? And what is simplified review framework actually mean?

Constant >> So so this is Stephanie. And to just set the scene. This has been a long time coming. We've been building up to this for several years. It started with an advisory council work group at the center for Scientific Review that came up with some recommendations. We have solicited input from within NIH. We've also put out a request for information to the extramural community. Lots and lots of input, sort of, as I said, building up to finally being able to roll out this simplified review framework. And I'll leave it to Lisa to maybe give some details about what it's going to look like. Yeah.

Steele >> So basically, this framework has taken the five regulatory criteria that we already have of significance investigator, innovation approach and environment and then bundled them into three factors. Factor one the importance of the research. Factor two the rigor and feasibility of that research. And then factor three the expertise and resources, as well as removing some of the more administrative elements from review.
Kosub >> So you kind of touched on this, Lisa. What exactly is changing as part of this simplified review framework?

Steele >> Right. So in addition to reorganizing these criteria and kind of reframing them into these factors, factor one and factor two are actually going to get scores, but factor three is not going to be scored. But all three factors will go into that overall impact assessment.

Kosub >> So what is not changing then with all these forthcoming things that are changing?

Constant >> So we still I mean, even though we now have factors, we still have the five review criteria, their significance investigator, innovation approach, environment. But now it's going to be much more focused on the actual impact of that science, the feasibility of that science. These are all things that were important before. So that's not changing, but they're sort of being more emphasized now to sort of refocus reviewers on looking at these very, very high level and important criteria that are felt to be the driving force for what makes a very impactful project, ultimately.

Kosub >> So does this mean that, like all applications are created equally, meaning like, does this affect all of the research applications that are coming our way?

Steele >> This is Lisa. It does affect most of the research project grants. So the big ones that you think of, the R01s, the r21s, the ro3, those will all be considered under the simplified review framework, but definitely check the notice of funding announcement as well as the website that will tell you about to see which exactly grant mechanisms are affected by this.

Constant >> I think another thing to add, actually, is that in terms of writing an application, there really isn't going to be much change for the applicants. They're still going to write the application the same way. The same elements still have to be there. So from an applicant perspective, not much is changing at all. It's really the review of those applications that are going to be evaluated in a different way.

Kosub >> Well, it's good to hear that, you know, certain things are changing. Some things are staying the same. And hearing about how this might affect one's application when you're putting it together. But I kind of wanted to focus on this factor three that you mentioned, something that you know is slightly changing. It's not being scored, but it's to focus on the investigator and the environment. How exactly are those elements going to be assessed during review?

Constant >> Yeah. This is Stephanie, and I know Lisa mentioned this earlier, but there's going to be binary scoring here. So either the investigators and the environment are either sufficient or they're insufficient. And so if there's sufficient that is all that is needed in order to feel comfortable that the proposed research will be done and can be done by this group. But in cases where it's insufficient, reviewers will be asked to provide some comments about that, what it is that they're concerned about. But in the end, we really want the focus to be on the project itself and how impactful that project is ultimately going to be.

Steele >> And this is Lisa. This is also part of our efforts, NIH wide to reduce reputational bias, so that by saying that basically, the investigators and the environment have the tools that are needed to achieve the research project, we can avoid some of that halo effect of reviewers. Starting out with this is a leader in the field or etc. that can lead to some bias. So this way it's just do they have what they need and then reviewers can move on to evaluate the project.

Kosub >> Cool. Thank you for clarifying that and telling us more about the simplified review framework and what's expected going forward. Before we go, it'd be great to hear any final thoughts you all might have in leaving the audience about the simplified review framework.

Constant >> All right, this is Stephanie. While we have lots and lots of resources, we have lots of public web pages that we've put out that has lots of information and links and FAQs. Also reach out to your program officers, reach out to your scientific review officer. We're here at NIH. Staff are there to help you, and there will be lots more resources coming, including some additional trainings and some webinars.

Steele >> Um, I think Stephanie hit most of it. I just wanted to reassure all of the reviewers that you will be adequately trained to evaluate the applications underneath this framework. There'll be lots more resources coming, and that the NIH staff is being very well trained on our side.

Kosub >> Wonderful. Well, Stephanie. Lisa, this has been great to learn more about the simplified review framework and help inform our applicants and our reviewers of information that they should be made aware of. You know, I reiterating a few points, definitely reach out to program staff here at NIH. If you have questions, check out the resources that are available. Definitely search for Simplified Review Framework. You know, on our NIH sites, you can send an email, to [email protected], All one word. And you know, we're happy to get these questions and we're happy to get you answers as soon as possible. This has been David Kosub with NIH is all about grants. Thank you.