Finding Your Way Through the Peer Review Process at the
National Institutes of Health
By Thomas A. Tatham, Ph.D.
Contact NIH Institute Staff Prior to Writing an
Application
It is often helpful to contact an NIH
institute with a mission related to your research prior to writing
an application. A list of NIH institutes may be accessed from the
"Institutes, Centers & Offices" link on the NIH home page (www.nih.gov). Most
institute home pages have a link similar to "Funding Opportunities"
leading to descriptions of content areas (known as "programs") and
the scientist ("program official") responsible for each area.
Program officials can be of great service in deciding whether your
research topic is of interest to their institute and may be able to
refer you to another institute if your research does not fit their
institute's interests. The NIH has a broad array of funding options
(grant mechanisms), including pre- and post-doctoral fellowships
(F31 and F32 grants), Career Development Awards appropriate to
various career stages and situations (K awards), Small Grants
(R03), Academic Research Enhancement Awards (R15) for researchers
at academic intuitions that do not have substantial NIH funding,
and standard Research Grants (R01). Program officials can assist in
selecting an appropriate grant mechanism, which is very important
to obtaining funding. Institute staff can also provide guidance on
the mechanics of preparing grant applications as well as offer
scientific guidance.
Consider Requesting Dual Institute
Assignment
Following receipt, grant applications
are assigned, based on content, to a primary funding institute
(such as the National Institute on Mental Health or the National
Institute on Drug Abuse). The assigned institute will have the
first opportunity to fund your application if it receives a
favorable merit review by a study section. Your chances of being
funded may be increased if your application has been assigned to
one or more secondary institutes; secondary institutes have the
option of funding an application if the primary institute declines
and your research is consistent with their objectives. Both primary
and secondary institute assignments may be requested in a cover
letter submitted with your application; it is best to contact
program staff at the relevant institutes prior to submission.
Consider the Audience
Study sections tend to be highly
interdisciplinary so not every member of the panel will be an
expert in your area. Furthermore, the several reviewers assigned to
critique your application in detail may not be experts in all
facets of your project. For example, a project applying a given
technology to a special population might be critiqued by a reviewer
with expertise in both the technology and population, a reviewer
with expertise in the technology but not the population, and a
third reviewer with expertise in the population but not the
specific technology. Do not assume that methods or knowledge common
to your field will be understood or accepted without justification
by all members of the study section. The interdisciplinary nature
of study sections may be seen by perusing the list of study
sections run by the Center for Scientific Review (www.csr.nih.gov,
which reviews approximately 75 percent of applications).
Ask Colleagues to Critique Your Application
It would be ideal to complete a draft
of your application well before the submission deadline so that you
can ask several colleagues to review it. However, avoid contacting
a colleague serving on a study section that might review your
application because this could prevent your application from being
reviewed by that person. Related to the issues raised under
"Consider the Audience", it would be ideal to have the application
read by colleagues with varying levels of expertise in the area of
your application.
Carefully Attend to Application
Instructions
Application instructions may vary
depending upon the type of application and across institutes. Be
sure that your application conforms to the appropriate guidelines.
Also be sure to use current application instructions and forms.
Applications involving human subjects must fully address the
protection of human subjects in a very specific format, and must
also discuss the inclusion of women, minorities and children.
Similar considerations apply to applications involving non-human
vertebrate animals. Non-compliance in these areas can negatively
affect your score, reduce your chances of funding, and could serve
as a bar to funding until the issues are resolved.
The Budget Should be Appropriate
Study sections are not permitted to
consider budgetary details when evaluating applications for
scientific merit, so there is no advantage to attempting to
convince the reviewers that your project is a "bargain". However,
excessive requests may be reduced by study sections or program
officials following scientific merit review and it is best to avoid
having someone else bring your budget into line. In other words,
make a realistic request.
Persist
Although there is considerable
variability across institutes, most institutes award funding to no
more than the top 20 percent of applications. However, many
applications that are not initially funded receive a favorable
score and funding following revision and resubmission. An area of
special concern is "unscoring". In general, study sections
designate 50 percent of the applications as falling in the lower
half of the merit distribution, and these applications are not
discussed at the study section meeting. This practice allows study
sections to devote more discussion time to applications with a
greater likelihood of funding. When study sections designate an
application as unscored, they are not attempting to "send a
message" to the principal investigator; they are simply making a
dichotomous decision regarding the score. In many instances,
initially unscored applications receive fundable scores upon
revision and resubmission.
Attend Carefully to Prior Critiques
Principal investigators receive a
summary statement following review (usually within six to eight
weeks). The summary statement contains the essentially unedited
critiques of the assigned reviewers (typically three people). It is
essential to consider the critiques carefully and to explicitly
respond to their concerns if it is necessary to revise and resubmit
your application. Ignoring or responding dismissively to critiques
is detrimental to receiving a favorable review; indeed it is likely
that the previous reviewers will be asked to review your revision
and prior summary statements are typically provided to the
reviewers. If you feel that the reviewers missed or did not
understand something that was already in the application, it would
be wise to consider whether your presentation of the issues needs
to be reworked. Program officials can assist in interpreting
summary statements and formulating an approach to your
revision.
Take Advantage of Helpful NIH Websites
The NIH home page: www.nih.gov.
Study section descriptions, study section rosters, and other
peer review information is available on the Center for Scientific
Review's home page: www.csr.nih.gov.
A portal to many forms, instructions and helpful information
about applying for grants: www.grants.nih.gov.
An overview of the grant review process is available at http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/peer/peer.htm.
An NIH page with multiple links proving grant writing tips:
http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/grant_tips.htm.