The NIH Review Process

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a complex organization, so understanding the ins and outs of their processes can be daunting. But, fortunately, they provide many resources and insights into their review process. Depending on the program, the NIH will at times create special study sections to review applications, like those submitted for K programs or in response to an RFA. But, today, I wanted to offer a snapshot of the NIH review process that most applications go through and point you to more resources to better understand the process from the horse's mouth.

Center for Scientific Review (CSR)
Once you've submitted your grant application to the NIH, it is received by the CSR. In the CSR, PhD-level scientists check your grant for completeness and direct it to the appropriate study section and institute. You can request the study section and institute to which your application goes in the PHS Assignment form. This form is also where you identify any reviewers who are inappropriate to review your grant as well as any expertise reviewers should have to review your grant. This information used to go in your application cover letter, but NIH implemented this new form last year to streamline the process.

If you're unsure of which study section and/or institute to direct your application, the NIH has a neat tool to help you assess this. Matchmaker is a tool through the NIH's Reporter, where you enter your abstract and the database will produce a report on success levels by related study sections  and institutes based on how similar proposals have fared.

Study Section
Once they initially check your proposal for completeness and identify the appropriate study section and institute to field your application, the CSR passes your application on to the assigned study section. The Scientific Review Officer (SRO) is responsible for managing their study section. The SRO recruits the reviewers to their study section and manages any conflicts of interest. They also prepare the summary statements for applicants after the review.

The review process within the study section begins with each application being assigned to a primary, secondary, and tertiary reviewer. A reviewer assigned to an application is responsible for reading and reviewing the proposal and submitting an impact score from 1-9 (1 is the best). Based on these initial scores, a certain number of applications are discussed in the study section meeting, where as those with the worst scores are triaged and not discussed. For those discussed, during the study section meeting, the primary reviewer gives a brief presentation on the proposal and its strengths and weaknesses. The secondary reviewer shares any additional perspective on the grant, and the tertiary reviewer shares any other points not yet discussed. Then the whole study section (30-40 people) scores the application. The final score is an average of all scores. The NIH offers a video illustrating this process.

Institute Advisory Council/Board
The best-scored applications out of the study sections are sent on to the institute to which they were assigned. Once there, the staff at the institute develop a grant funding plan based on the priorities of the institute. This plan is then reviewed and amended or approved by the institute's Advisory Council or Board.

Hopefully then you receive a funding notification for your project. But, if not, you'll receive a summary statement with valuable advice for revising and resubmitting your application and be ready for the next time.

Resources:
CSR Director Video - NIH
Grant Process Overview - NIH