Since 2000, a lot has changed in NIH peer review for grant applications—and more changes are underway.
I talked with Noni Byrnes, Ph.D., Director of the NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR), about these changes and the impact of the NIH Engagement and Access for Research-Active Institutions (EARA) initiative.
As Dr. Byrnes emphasized, “It’s important that you get advice that isn’t based on outdated experiences.”
Getting Grant Applications Through the Front Door
"We represent the ‘front door and living room’ of NIH, so to speak" said Dr. Byrnes. “CSR’s Division of Receipt and Referral is like ‘the front door’ that receives NIH applications and assigns them to the appropriate institute or center for potential funding and study section for peer review. CSR’s study sections serve as ‘the living room,’ where approximately 77% of the applications submitted to NIH are evaluated by experts based on scientific merit.”
Each year, NIH receives more than 80,000 grant applications. CSR handles the peer review of about 66,000 of these applications.
And yet, not only are more grant applications welcome—they are needed. EARA can help.
“EARA facilitates direct connections between institutional faculty and NIH staff who guide them through the process of developing a competitive application, finding the right funding opportunity and study section, and familiarizing them with the NIH grants system,” explained Dr. Byrnes. “It’s the first time we have a program that involves all NIH Institutes and Centers to connect faculty with NIH program staff in their scientific areas, as well as the people and resources in CSR and the Office of Extramural Research.”
Having met with academic leaders participating in EARA, Dr. Byrnes noted, “EARA humanizes NIH, making the agency less opaque and more approachable.”
Dr. Byrnes and I both see great potential—especially now.
“NIH peer review needs a breadth of perspectives to identify the most promising research,” said Dr. Byrnes.
Ensuring Fair Peer Review
CSR is taking action to strengthen peer review. Here are four examples:
Bias Awareness and Mitigation Training
All reviewers must complete bias awareness and mitigation training before accessing their assigned applications. As of September 2024, 39,000 reviewers have completed the training.
“The training targets biases familiar in peer review—those involving institutional reputation or investigator pedigree—and includes real examples of bias in peer review. It also provides tools for reviewers to intervene when they think they hear a statement or read a comment in a critique that may be biased,” Dr. Byrnes explained.
The training is having an impact.
“Based on responses from more than 22,000 people to date, the training appears to be highly effective in raising awareness of potential biases and leaving reviewers feeling comfortable intervening during the study section meeting,” she said. “It’s not uncommon to hear a reviewer reference the training when asking a fellow reviewer to explain their comments.” (A report of a 2022 analysis of survey results is on CSR’s website.)
Simplified Review Criteria
CSR led the development of the Simplified Review Framework for most NIH Research Project Grants (R01s, R21s, etc.). This framework changes how investigators and environment are assessed. Investigators and environment will no longer receive criterion scores and will be evaluated in the context of the proposed scientific project. This new framework starts with applications submitted for deadlines on or after January 25, 2025.
“Reviewers will assess if the expertise and resources are in place to carry out the specific project proposed, which we hope will mitigate the effects of the reputation of the institution or investigator,” said Dr. Byrnes.
Changes to Fellowship Review
CSR led the development of revised criteria and applications for individual fellowship awards. The proposed changes are designed to mitigate the effects of the institution or investigator’s reputation and the sponsor’s career stage. The new criteria and forms for individual fellowships are in effect for applications submitted for deadlines on or after January 25, 2025.
Dedicated Reporting Avenue
Each year, CSR handles the peer review of about 66,000 applications, which 19,000 expert reviewers assess.
“With this scale, we recognize that sometimes, instances of bias or unfairness in the review process will occur,” Dr. Byrnes explained. “This is why CSR has a dedicated email ([email protected]) where applicants, reviewers, or NIH staff can report specific concerns. We investigate every complaint, and if we agree that a review was unfair, CSR will review the application again in the same cycle without the delay of a formal NIH appeals process. Regardless, we respond to every complaint.”
Concerns about breaches of review integrity may be reported to [email protected].
A Great Time to Apply
Dr. Byrnes affirmed, “With all the changes at NIH, in peer review and across the agency, now is a great time to submit applications to NIH!”