nih review procedures
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
NIH Review Procedures

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 33

NIH Review Procedures - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 108 Views
  • Uploaded on

NIH Review Procedures. Betsy Myers Hospital for Special Surgery. General Process for Proposal Review. Applicant has idea Forms are submitted Proposal is reviewed for scientific merit Summary statement is prepared Funding Institute or Center gives information to applicant. www.csr.nih.gov.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' NIH Review Procedures' - dora-castaneda


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
nih review procedures

NIH Review Procedures

Betsy Myers

Hospital for Special Surgery

general process for proposal review
General Process for Proposal Review
  • Applicant has idea
  • Forms are submitted
  • Proposal is reviewed for scientific merit
  • Summary statement is prepared
  • Funding Institute or Center gives information to applicant

www.csr.nih.gov

receipt and review process at nih
Receipt and Review Process at NIH
  • >10,000 applications arrive at given deadline!
  • Receipt/review process organized in 3 cycles per year
assignment process at nih
Assignment Process at NIH
  • Assignment based on Abstract, Specific Aims, more if needed
  • Each application assigned to funding Institute(s)/Center(s)
  • Application also assigned to Integrated Review Group (IRG) within Center for Scientific Review (CSR) or to Institute/Center (IC) review group
assignment process at nih1
Assignment Process at NIH
  • CSR:
    • R01s, R03s, R21s, Small business, Fellowships
    • Reviews for >1 Institute
  • IC Review:
    • Program projects, Training grants, Career development awards, Responses to Requests for Applications
    • Specific to Institute
assignment process at nih2
Assignment Process at NIH
  • Application then assigned to Study Section
  • NIH officials will consider requests for these assignments
    • Cover letter
process at nih
Process at NIH

Scientific Review Administrator (SRA) of Study Section decides on reviewers from within members of Study Section or from ad hoc members

appointment of reviewers to study section
Appointment of Reviewers to Study Section
  • SRA recruits members of Study Section
  • Qualifications
    • Expert with training and experience in relevant scientific field
      • Level of formal education
      • Quantity and quality of relevant research
    • PI on research project comparable to those being reviewed
appointment of reviewers to study section1
Appointment of Reviewers to Study Section

SRA also needs to address

  • Diversity in gender, race, ethnicity and geographic distribution
  • Fairness and evenhandedness in review
  • Willingness to do the work required
  • Ability to write and present clearly
appointment of reviewers to study section2
Appointment of Reviewers to Study Section

Types of appointments to study section

  • Regular: Typically several years
  • Temporary: One time on standing study section, may lead to regular appointment
  • Special emphasis panel: One time only
roster of study section available online
Roster of Study Section Available Online

Meeting Roster - ZRG1    MOSS-A 91 (4/6/2005 - 4/6/2005)

CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC REVIEWSPECIAL EMPHASIS PANELZRG1 MOSSA4/6/2005-4/6/2005MEETING ROSTER

CHAIRPERSON--------------------------------------MYERS,  ELIZABETH  R. , PHDASSOCIATE PROFESSORWEILL MEDICAL COLLEGE OF CORNELL UNIVERSITYASSOCIATE SCIENTIST, HOSPITAL FOR SPECIAL SURGERYNEW YORK,  NY 10021 MEMBERS----------------ADAMS,  JOHN   S. ,  MDPROFESSORDEPARTMENT OF MEDICINECEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTERLOS ANGELES,  CA 90048

AHLGREN,  SARA   C. ,  PHD…

http://www.csr.nih.gov/Committees/rosterindex.asp

assignment of applications to reviewers
Assignment of Applications to Reviewers
  • SRA matches grant applications to specific reviewers
  • Tries to ensure
    • Appropriate expertise
    • Diverse scientific viewpoints
  • Tries to avoid
    • Overload of particular reviewer
    • Potential conflict of interest
assignment of applications to reviewers1
Assignment of Applications to Reviewers

2 reviewers and 1 discussant (typically) are assigned to each proposal

  • Primary reviewer
  • Secondary reviewer
  • Reader (does not need to prepare written review prior to meeting of study section)

Could be more – Tertiary, more Readers

nih review criteria
NIH Review Criteria

NIH review criteria for unsolicited research project grant applications (R01, R03, R21)

  • Significance
    • Important problem
    • Advancement of scientific knowledge or clinical practice
    • Influence on methods that drive the field
nih review criteria1
NIH Review Criteria
  • Approach
    • Adequate development and integration of design, methods, analyses
    • Acknowledgment of potential problems, alternatives
  • Innovation
    • Challenge to existing paradigms
    • Novel concepts, approaches, methods
nih criteria
NIH Criteria
  • Investigator
    • Appropriate training, experience
    • Complementary and integrated team
  • Environment
    • Conducive to probability of success
    • Unique features of scientific environment
    • Institutional support
nih criteria1
NIH Criteria
  • Other criteria
    • Gender/minority/children inclusion
    • Budget
    • Protection of humans, animals, and environment
  • Overall rating
    • Numerical score that reflects overall impact
review criteria k awards
REVIEW CRITERIA: “K” Awards
  • Candidate
  • Career Development Plan
  • Research Plan
  • Mentor/Co-Mentor(s)
  • Environment & Institutional Commitment
nih numerical rating
NIH Numerical Rating

Priority score: Single, global score for proposal

WORST

BEST

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

Lowest

Priority

Average

application

Highest

Priority

Strong in

all categories

submitting critique before meeting
Submitting Critique Before Meeting

Electronic submission of reviews

  • Several days before meeting, reviewers upload score and written critique
  • Once uploaded, can then read other reviewers’ scores and reviews
  • Once uploaded, reviewer cannot make changes to scores or critiques until after meeting
study section meeting
Study Section Meeting

Streamlined Applications

  • Definition:
    • Not in upper half
    • Priority score higher than 3
  • Does not apply to career awards, fellowships (R13, R18, F06, F32/33)

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

study section meeting streamlining
Study Section MeetingStreamlining

Streamlining Procedure

  • Reviewers asked ahead of time to recommend applications not in upper half (“unscored” or “streamlined”)
  • SRA compiles list
  • List discussed at beginning of meeting
  • Any member may ask for proposal to be discussed
study section meeting streamlining1
Study Section MeetingStreamlining

Benefits and rationale

  • Gives time for in-depth discussion of better applications
  • Saves costs if meeting is shortened
  • Reduces work of scientific review administrators

Less than 25% of applications will be funded

study section meeting streamlining2
Study Section MeetingStreamlining
  • If application is streamlined, applicant receives unaltered written critiques
  • Fate of unscored applications?
study section meeting review procedures
Study Section MeetingReview Procedures

Review procedure for proposals to be scored

  • Chair introduces application
  • Each reviewer gives preliminary numerical score or range
  • Primary reviewer covers description and comments
  • Other assigned reviewers add comments
study section meeting review procedures1
Study Section MeetingReview Procedures

Review procedure, continued

  • Discussion ensues
  • Consensus is not necessary
  • Chair calls for priority rating
  • Every members scores
resume
Resume

Summary Statement is prepared

  • SRA asks reviewers to modify critiques to reflect discussion
  • SRA writes resume and summary of discussion in front
  • Summary Statement (“Pink Sheets”) sent to applicant
final score
Final Score
  • Average of all scores multiplied by 100
  • Example:
    • Average of raw scores from review panel = 1.88
    • Final score = 188
percentiles
Percentiles
  • Percentiles indicate your rank relative to other applications reviewed by group
  • 0.1 (best) to 99.5 (worst)
  •  percentage of proposals receiving better score during last year
  • Example: Score: 188, Percentile: 11
applications used in percentile conversion
Applications Used in Percentile Conversion
  • R01 reviewed at standing study section
    • Percentile of score relative to all scores from current round plus last two rounds (1 year)
  • R01 reviewed at special emphasis panel
    • May be percentiled against distribution of all CSR scores
slide32

Funding

Decision

Flowchart

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/charts/flowchart_funding.htm

ad