The Grant Review Process at the National Institutes of Health

1. The Grant Review Process at the National Institutes of Health Vicky holetswhittemore, phd Program director Ninds, nih

2. Program Directors are there to help you! • Important to identify the relevant Program Director for your research: • Channels, Synapses and Neural Circuits • Neural Environment • Neurodegeneration • Neurogenetics • Office of Clinical Research • Office of International Activities • Office of Special Programs in Diversity • Office of Translational Research • Office of Training, Career Development and Workforce Diversity • Repair and Plasticity • Systems and Cognitive Neuroscience

3. How can they help you? Identify the appropriate grant mechanism Help you identify a specific Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Suggest the appropriate study section(s) for review Review specific aims and offer suggestions Answer questions about the submission and review process If grant is >$500,000 you are required to get pre-approval to submit an application – the Program Director will serve as your Institute representative

4. BeforeYou Submit Your Application The most important part is your Specific Aims page – work hard to make it clear, logical and succinct For R01 applications – you need a clear hypothesis and specific aims that test that hypothesis Major mistake made by young investigators is to be overambitious – propose too many experiments Allow sufficient time for your collaborators and/or mentors to read your application and provide suggestions

5. Submitting Your Grant to NIH All information must be submitted through your grants administration office to www.grants.gov Information on grant submission, forms, deadlines at www.grants.nih.gov NINDS-specific information at: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/funding/index.htm Program Director can answer questions about process Once the grant is submitted, you may communicate with the Scientific Review Officer (SRO) of the study section for any issues

6. The Review Process Your grant will be assigned to either a CSR or NINDS study section for review Standard study sections are run by Center for Scientific Review (CSR) www.csr.nih.gov NINDS runs study sections for clinical trials, training grants, special initiatives http://www.ninds.nih.gov/funding/review_committees/srb/index.htm

7. The Review Process You can request which study section you would like to review your grant in your cover letter for some applications You may indicate a specific expertise required to review your grant (i.e. a neurosurgeon that does a particular type of surgery) – but don’t provide names of suggested reviewers You may also indicate if there is someone with a conflict of interest who should not review your grant

8. The Study Section Composed of the Scientific Review Officer (SRO) who identifies the reviewers for the grants and coordinates the study section. One individual member of the study section serves as the Chair and runs the meeting. Each grant is reviewed by at least 3 people. Sometimes there are additional adhoc reviewers if a specific expertise is needed beyond that provided by individuals on the study section.

9. The Discussion of Your Grant After the preliminary review and scoring prior to the meeting, all of the applications are ranked from 1 (best score) to last (worst score) within their category Applications from Early Stage Investigators and New Investigators are discussed in a separate category from those from more senior investigators

10. The Discussion of Your Grant In each study section, the top ~50% of the grants in each category will be discussed. The rest will receive a score and summary statement, but are not discussed at the meeting. Any individual that has a conflict of interest with a specific application is asked to leave the room during the discussion of that grant application.

11. The Discussion of Your Grant During the discussion, the primary reviewer gives a summary of the grant and their critique, and then the additional reviewers add any additional comments and critiques of the grant. There is then an open discussion of the grant by all members of the study section which allows other study section members to ask questions and provide other comments. Final scores are provided by the assigned reviewers, and all study section members score the grant.

12. For Example: Preliminary Scores: 2, 3, 2 Primary reviewer provides a summary of the grant and then addresses the strengths and weaknesses of the application If the application is a resubmission, the primary reviewer will comment on how well the PI responded to the previous review (this is critical!) Additional reviewers provide their comments The grant is open for discussion and questions from other members of the study section Chair summarizes the discussion Reviewers provide final scores and all members score the grant

13. What do the scores mean? • 9 point scale: • 1=Exceptional • 9=Poor • Final overall impact score is calculated using mean score X10. • So, if the scores given by all of the study section members are: 2, 3, 2, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3 = 22 • Score of 22 divided by 9 reviewers = 2.6 • Impact score of 2.6 X 10 = 26 • Best score possible is 10, worst is 90 • Your percentile will depend on the scores of the other applications reviewed in your study section

14. The Summary Statement • Each reviewer scores the application for: • Significance • Investigator(s) • Innovation • Approach • Environment • The score given in review by each reviewer is the overall score (impact) • Each reviewer provides strengths and weaknessesfor each category: • Minor Weakness:  An easily addressable weakness that does not substantially lessen impact • Moderate Weakness:  A weakness that lessens impact • Major Weakness:  A weakness that severely limits impact

15. What’s Next? Once your grant is reviewed, what’s next? Your scores will be posted typically within 48 hours of the end of the study section Go to: What’s Next http://grants.nih.gov/grants/next_steps.htm Talk to your Program Director who will have listened to the discussion of your grant at study section and can give you feedback – best to wait until the summary statement has been posted If you are within the payline, it is likely your grant will be funded If you scored outside the payline, you will want to consider your options for resubmission