1. NIH R03 Program Review Ning Jackie Zhang, MD, PhD, MPH College of Health and Public Affairs 04/17/2013

2. Purposes of R03 Preliminary study for a larger grant For new investigators to develop a track record Pilot study or testing a core measurement or a secondary analysis of relevant data FOA/RFA/investigator initiated Building up collaborations or team Producing some publications Getting yourself familiar with the application processes

3. Fiscal Year Application typeInstitutes Activity Code # of SubmissionsAwarded Success RateFunding 2012NewNCIR0350610120.0%$7,735,027 2012NewNHLBIR03281035.7%$792,750 2012NewNIDCRR03891820.2%$2,647,031 2012NewNIDDKR03833238.6%$3,029,282 2012NewNINDSR031463020.5%$2,361,349 2012NewNIAIDR032445522.5%$4,182,359 2012NewNICHDR034966112.3%$4,688,729 2012NewNIEHSR0358712.1%$528,298 2012NewNIAR032715721.0%$4,421,958 2012NewNIAMSR031402014.3%$1,561,046 2012NewNIDCDR03792734.2%$4,057,781 2012NewNIMHR031202420.0%$1,861,476 2012NewNIDAR031433323.1%$4,073,120 2012NewNIAAAR0340410.0%$299,091 2012NewNINRR0347919.1%$689,967 2012NewNHGRIR0331722.6%$543,040 2012NewNIBIBR031321410.6%$1,232,975 2012NewFICR0354916.7%$522,624 2012NewODR0311100.0%$338,234 2012New Common FundR031675331.7%$2,192,499 2012FY Total All InstitutesTotal 51,313 9,03217.6%$3,811,804,254 Funding success rates in 2012

4. Five Review Criteria for Research Proposals Significance Investigator(s) Innovation Approach Environment

5. Overall Impact Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria, and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed). http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer_review_process.htm?print=yes

6. Significance Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?

7. Investigator(s) Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?

8. Innovation Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

9. Approach Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

10. Environment Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?

11. Scoring System

12. ScoreDescriptor Additional 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

13. Results ND Scored with percentage, not funded – Summary statement – Resubmission Funded

14. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/

15. http://report.nih.gov/

16. https://commons.era.nih.gov/