Center for Scientific Review National Institutes of Health Department of Health and Human Services Toni Scarpa NIH Peer Review: Continuity and Change NIDA.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
NIH Peer Review: Continuity and Change
Advertisements

Myths, Facts, and Suttons Law
SBIR/STTR Origins... Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982 Stimulate technological innovation Meet federal R&D needs Foster and encourage participation.
How a Study Section works
NIH Academic Research Enhancement Award (AREA) R15 AASCU November 5, 2009 Mary Ann Guadagno, PhD Office of Extramural Research National Institutes of Health.
Determining Your Program’s Health and Financial Impact Using EPA’s Value Proposition Brenda Doroski, Director Center for Asthma and Schools U.S. Environmental.
Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.
Laurie Tompkins, PhD Acting Director, Division of Genetics and Developmental Biology NIGMS, NIH Swarthmore College May 14, 2012 NIH 101.
California State University, Fresno – Office of Research and Sponsored Programs Basics of NIH – National Institutes of Health Nancy Myers Sims, Grants.
Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.
Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.
Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.
Grant Writing1 Grant Writing Lecture What are the major types of grants available in mental health research? What is the process of grant preparation and.
Roger Sorensen, Ph.D., MPA Program Official National Institute on Drug Abuse 1 Update on “New” Investigator Activities.
The Life Cycle of an NIH Grant Application Alicia Dombroski, Ph.D. Deputy Director Division of Extramural Activities NIDCR.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute James P. Kiley, Ph.D. National Heart,
1 Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.
The NIH Roadmap for Medical Research
From Your Idea to Your First R01: Perspectives of a National Institutes of Health Extramural Scientist.
NIH OBSSR Summer Institute July 2012 National Institutes of Health U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Overview of the NIH Peer Review Process.
THE NIH REVIEW PROCESS David Armstrong, Ph.D.
DELAWARE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES Division of Public Health Public Health and PCMH Karyl Rattay, MD, MS Director Delaware Division of Public Health.
Office of the Director National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism National Institute of Arthritis.
1 Process for a Research Grant National Institutes of Health IMPAC II Center for Scientific Review Study Section Institute Advisory Councils & Boards Assign.
Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.
NIH Review Procedures Betsy Myers Hospital for Special Surgery.
The Center for Symptom Management The NIH review process Kathryn Lee, RN, PhD April 3, 2009 MDP.
Overview of ARS National Programs Steven Kappes Deputy Administrator Animal Production & Protection National Program Staff Agricultural Research Service.
The Review of Your NIH Grant Application Begins Here Richard Nakamura, Ph.D. Director NIH Center for Scientific Review.
CSR Peer Review of NIH HIV/AIDS Grant Applications NIH Grantsmanship Workshop Diana Finzi, Ph.D. Chief, Pathogenesis and Basic Research Program Division.
Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.
Enhancing Peer Review The Study Section Chair as Effective Partner Role and Best Practices toni scarpa National Institutes.
Leadership Team Meeting March 24,  Project Based Approach  Cross Functional Project Teams  Projects Support Multiple Operational Expectations.
Academic Research Enhancement Award (AREA) Program Erica Brown, PhD Director, NIH AREA Program National Institutes of Health 1.
NIH Challenge Grants in Health and Science Research RFA OD
NIH Mentored Career Development Awards (K Series) Part 5 Thomas Mitchell, MPH Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics University of California San Francisco.
Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.
How to Obtain National Institutes of Health Awards: The Basics A workshop providing information on the process of applying for external research awards.
Richard Nakamura, Ph.D. October 2014 CSR Goals and Philosophy.
Building Sustainable Community-Linked Infrastructure to Enable Health Science Research (RC4) RFA OD Pre-application workshop October 23, 2009.
Components of a Successful AREA (R15) Grant Rebecca J. Sommer Bates College.
12/11/2009 Writing a NIH Grant Application Ellen Puré, PhD, Professor and Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs, Wistar Institute Mitchell Schnall.
The Importance of a Strategic Plan to Eliminate Health Disparities 2008 eHealth Conference June 9, 2008 Yvonne T. Maddox, PhD Deputy Director Eunice Kennedy.
Introduction to the NIH
15 th NOAA Science Advisory Board Meeting NOAA Program Review Team Recommendations for Grants Administration Rimas T. Liogys NOAA Finance and Administration.
Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.
Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.
Analysis of Overall Impact Scoring Trends within AHRQ Peer Review Study Sections Gabrielle Quiggle, MPH; Rebecca Trocki, MSHAI; Kishena Wadhwani, PhD,
Mary Ann Guadagno, PhD Senior Scientific Review Officer CSR Office of the Director Review Issues – CSR Surveys.
Research in the Office of Vaccines Research and Review: Vision and Overview Jesse Goodman, M.D., M.P.H. Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
How is a grant reviewed? Prepared by Professor Bob Bortolussi, Dalhousie University
An Insider’s Look at a Study Section Meeting: Perspectives from CSR Monica Basco, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer Coordinator, Early Career Reviewer Program.
Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.
Funding Opportunities for Investigator-initiated Grants with Foreign Components at the NIH Somdat Mahabir, PhD, MPH Program Director Epidemiology and Genetics.
BRI/ORC MicroGrants: pilot program Application accepted on a rolling basis Post-docs, clinical fellows and junior faculty (ranking assistant professor.
Richard Nakamura, Ph.D. May 18, 2015 Improving Quality at CSR.
1 Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.
Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.
Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.
Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.
Peer Review and Grant Mechanisms at NIH What is Changing? May 2016 Richard Nakamura, Ph.D., Director Center for Scientific Review.
David M. Murray, Ph.D. Associate Director for Prevention Director, Office of Disease Prevention Multilevel Intervention Research Methodology September.
Challenges and Opportunities in Peer Review A Vision for Ensuring Its Strategic National Value toni scarpa Memorial Sloan-Kettering.
Portfolio Analysis in OPASI at NIH
NSF/NIH Review Processes University of Southern Mississippi
NSF/NIH Review Processes University of Southern Mississippi
Health and Human Services
Rick McGee, PhD and Bill Lowe, MD Faculty Affairs and NUCATS
Carolina Mendoza-Puccini, MD
How to Succeed with NIH: September 28, 2018
Presentation transcript:

Center for Scientific Review National Institutes of Health Department of Health and Human Services Toni Scarpa NIH Peer Review: Continuity and Change NIDA Council Bethesda, Feb 8, 2006

Peer Review: An N.I.H. “Conception” Is the heart and soul of NIH Has produced an effective partnership between the federal government and research institutions Has created the best academic medical centers, the best biomedical/behavioral research and biotechnology Has made possible the best cures and the best prevention Has been admired and imitated here and abroad Has protected NIH against outside influence

Center for Scientific Review

This Is Not Amazon.com This is CSR

Applications Received for all of NIH and Applications Referred for CSR Review, FY NIH Applications Applications for CSR Review

CSR Mission Statement To see that NIH grant applications receive fair, independent, expert, and timely reviews -- free from inappropriate influences -- so NIH can fund the most promising research.

NIDA Applications Reviewed by CSR in FY 2002 and Number of applications reviewed by CSR (for all ICs) 33,46951,690 Number of NIDA applications reviewed by CSR Percent of total reviewed by CSR 969 (2.9%) 1,480 (2.9%) Number of CSR study section meetings 1,3871,798 Number of CSR study sections meetings that reviewed NIDA applications (Percent of total) 225 (16.2%) % Fiscal Year of Review

Review Outcomes for NIDA Applications in 2002 and 2005 R01 Applications Only FYN % Unscored Median Priority Scores % Scoring at the 10 th percentile or better % Scoring at the 20 th percentile or better % %18.6% %* % 20.5% * FY comparison, p <.001

Time Complexity and Impact CSR Operations Current Systems New Systems? Necessary Changes in CSR Peer Review Operations

Increase communications between CSR, the ICs, our reviewers and applicants Increase uniformity Increase efficiency Facilitate work of IC program staff Changes in CSR Operations

Increased Communication and Transparency Within CSR With NIH and other Agencies With the Scientific Community Changes in CSR Operations 1

Increase uniformity Slate Nomination Summary Statements Posting all within one month of Study Section meetings Posting Summary Statements of new investigators within one week Producing more complete and structured resumes Unscoring Common practice Unscoring 50% Changes in CSR Operations 2

Increase Efficiency Electronic Submission Text Fingerprinting, Artificial Intelligence Software Changes in CSR Operations 3

Potential of Knowledge Management Tools for Peer Review Collexis Software or Others Knowledge management solutions Fingerprinting and text retrieving Disease coding Benefits for Peer Review Assigning applications to Integrated Review Groups or Study Sections Selecting reviewers (one application, multiple applications) Nine pilots are underway to begin to assess these benefits

Facilitate work of IC program staff Possible Changes in CSR Operations

Study Section Realignment Review of one IRG every month Total review every 2 years

Required Changes in Current Systems Shorten the review cycle

This is Not an Ford Assembly Line ReceiptRefer Evaluate Scientific Merit of Applications

Shortening the NIH Review Cycle, Initial Steps For most research grants, we are posting summary statements within one month after the study section meeting instead of two to three months after the meeting (effective Oct 05) We are conducting a pilot study to speed the review process for new investigators so they may revise and resubmit for the very next review cycle 4 months earlier than before (effective Feb 06)

Possible Changes in Current Systems Shorten the review cycle Address concern that clinical research is not properly evaluated Improve the assessment of innovative, high- risk/high-reward research Do more to recruit and retain more high-quality reviewers

Expanding Peer Review’s Platforms Electronic Reviews Telephone Enhanced Discussions Video Enhanced Discussions Asynchronous Electronic Discussions Study Sections Necessity ● Clinical reviewers Preference ● Physicists, computational biologists New Opportunities ● Fogarty, International Reviewers

Applications Received for All of NIH FY ,000 40,000 60,000 80, Fiscal year Number of applications

Number of Research Grant Applications/Applicant

CSR Applications Reviewed, Regular and SEP May Council Only

Study Section Application/Reviewer Ratio October Council Only

CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC REVIEW FY Non-Discretionary vs. Discretionary Spending ■ Non-Discretionary ■ Discretionary FY 2004FY 2005 FY 2006

If we didn’t have any peer-review system and we had to design one from scratch, what would it look like? Possible New Systems

This is CSR