Changes is NIH Review Process and Grant Application Forms Shirley M. Moore Professor of Nursing and Associate Dean for Research Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing Case Western Reserve University

PEER REVIEW 2

Changes to Proposal Reviews Began in May/June 2009 Reviews   Enhanced Review Criteria – –Significance, Investigator(s), Innovation, Approach, Environment   New Templates for Structured Critiques   Scoring of Individual Review Criteria   New 1-9 Scoring Scale 3

Goals of the Changes   Clearer understanding of the basis of application ratings   More emphasis on impact and less emphasis on technical details   Succinct, well-focused critiques that evaluate, rather than describe, applications   Routine use of the entire rating scale 4

Reviews When reading applications the assigned reviewers :   Identify major strengths and weaknesses   Assign scores of 1-9 to each of 5 “core” criteria   Assign an overall impact/priority score that ranges from 1-9 5

Critiques Written critiques:   Use of bulleted points to make succinct, focused comments   Short narratives may occasionally be appropriate, but are rare   Focus is on major strengths and weaknesses (ones that impacted the overall rating of the application) 6

Excerpt from a Critique Template  List major strengths and weaknesses that influenced the overall impact/priority score  Text limited to ¼ page per criterion, although more text may occasionally be needed 7

Scoring of Individual Review Criteria   There are 5 “core” criteria for most types of grant applications   For example, the core criteria for R01s are: – –Significance – –Investigator(s) – –Innovation – –Approach – –Environment   9-point scale (1 = exceptional, 9 = poor) for the five “core” review criteria. 8

Overall Impact/Priority Scores   Criterion strengths and weaknesses considered in determining the overall impact/priority score   Reviewers encouraged to use the entire 1-9 range 9

ScoreDescriptorAdditional Guidance on Strengths/Weaknesses 1Exceptional Exceptionally strong with essentially no weaknesses 2Outstanding Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses 3Excellent Very strong with only some minor weaknesses 4Very Good Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses 5Good Strong but with at least one moderate weakness 6Satisfactory Some strengths but also some moderate weaknesses 7Fair Some strengths but with at least one major weakness 8Marginal A few strengths and a few major weaknesses 9Poor Very few strengths and numerous major weaknesses 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 Scoring Descriptions

11

Summary Statements   Overall impact/priority scores of discussed applications are the mean of scores voted by all eligible reviewers, multiplied by 10   Final scores will range from 10-90, in whole numbers   Summary statements for ALL applications will include the criterion scores and critiques posted by assigned reviewers 12

13 IAR: New Header Information in Critique   Preliminary IAR Critique now includes criterion scores

Early Investigator and New Investigator Status New Investigator Early Investigator 14

Major Changes to Applications Major changes for due dates on or after January 25, 2010 –Restructured application forms –Shorter page limits and new instructions For ALL competing applications: New, Renewal, Resubmission, and Revision NOT-OD ,

Applicants Must Download New Forms for due dates on or after 1/25/10 Applicants must return to FOA or reissued Parent Announcement to download new forms. Most forms will be available by December Applications submitted using incorrect forms will be delayed and may not be reviewed!

Overview of the Changes Goal: Align structure and content of applications with review criteria and improve efficiency and transparency of the review process –Application forms revised in three sections: –Research Plan –Biographical Sketch –Resources and Facilities –Shorter page limits

Research Plan:  Specific Aims – –Includes new language about the impact of the proposed research  Research Strategy – –Background and Significance, Innovation, Approach, includes Preliminary Studies/Progress Report  Select Agents Research - - Reflect the criterionResources: – –Statement of how environment supports the proposed research Biographical Sketch: – –Requires a Personal Statement and provide guidelines for the inclusion of references Forms Revised in Three Sections

Shorter Page Limits Current Page Limit (Section 2-5 of the Research Plan) New Page Limit (Research Strategy) < >25 Follow FOA Instructions Note: Follow FOA page limit requirements if different from the application instructions. Table of Page Limits:

Introductions for revised and resubmission applications are limited to 1 page 20

For additional information: Enhancing Peer Review at NIH Web Site Thank you for your review service 21