1. How a Study Section works
Robert Freund, Ph.D.
Scientific Review Administrator
Virology B Study Section
Center of Scientific Review

2. Subjects we will cover:
Submitting an application
Review of the application
The study section
After the study section
What next?

3. Dual Review System for Grant Applications
First Level of Review
Scientific Review Group
Provides Initial Scientific Merit
Review of Grant Applications
Rates Applications and Makes Recommendations for Appropriate Level of Support and Duration of Award
Second Level of Review
Council/Institute
Assesses Quality of SRG
Review of Grant Applications
Makes Recommendation to
Institute Staff on Funding
Evaluates Program Priorities
and Relevance
Advises on Policy

4. Center for Scientific Review
Division of Receipt and Referral: Central receipt point for most PHS grant applications
Institute assignment
Assignment to Scientific Review Group
Study Section: Conducts initial scientific merit review of most research applications submitted to the NIH

5. Applications Submitted to NIH
Over 60,000 grant applications are submitted to NIH each year.

6. CSR Study Sections
Standing Study Sections when the subject matter of the application matches the referral guidelines for the study section.
Each study section has members.
Approximately 80 applications are reviewed at each study section meeting
Ad Hoc Special Emphasis Panels (SEPs) when the subject matter does not fit into any study section, or when assignment of an application to the most appropriate study section would create a conflict of interest.

7. Submit Cover Letter Suggest appropriate Institute
Multiple institute assignments
Suggest appropriate Study Section
Go to web site:
Description of Study Sections
Study Section Rosters

8. How to choose a study section www.csr.nih.gov

11. Assignment Notification Letter
Assignment Number: 2 R01 HL A1
Dual Assignment: NS
Scientific Review Group:
Virology B (VirB)
Information about SRGs may be found on the CSR Home page (
Scientific Review Administrator:
DR. ROBERT FREUND , SRA
CTR FOR SCIENTIFIC REV
6701 ROCKLEDGE DR RM MSC7808
BETHESDA MD
(301)
Institute/Center:
NATL HEART, LUNG, & BLOOD INST
DIV/EXTRAMURAL AFFAIRS RK
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
BETHESDA, MD
(301)

12. CSR Study Sections Administrative Review Recruitment Assignments
Standing Members
Temporary Members
Assignments
Match Expertise/Interests with Applications
Conflict of Interest Issues
Workload of Reviewers

13. Study Section Actions Unscored (lower half)
Scored, Scientific Merit Rating (priority scores and percentiles)
Deferral (this cycle, next cycle)

14. Mock Study Section Video

15. Streamlining
Reviewers categorize applications in “lower half” in scientific merit using preliminary scores.
Lower half applications:
Not discussed or scored
Written critiques are provided to the applicant
Not taken to Advisory Council
In most cases, unscored applications have potential and are worth revising

16. Scored Applications Reviewers (usually 3) present opinions
Discussion (approx. 15 min. per application)
Discuss other considerations
(vertebrate animals, human subjects, bioharzards)
Score
Discuss Budget

17. Review Criteria Overall Evaluation & Score Reflects Impact on Field
Significance: Does the study address an important problem? How will scientific knowledge be advanced?
Approach: Are design and methods well-developed and appropriate? Are problem areas addressed?
Innovation: Are there novel concepts or approaches? Are the aims original and innovative?
Investigator: Is the investigator appropriately trained?
Environment: Does the scientific environment contribute to the probability of success? Are there unique features of the scientific environment?
Overall Evaluation & Score Reflects Impact on Field

18. Scores & Percentiles Reviewers’ scores: 1.0 (best) to 5.0 (worst)
Priority Score:
Average of all reviewers’ scores x 100
Range from 100 to 500
Percentiles (R01s only):
Normalizes scores between different Study Sections
Each application is ranked against all applications reviewed in the last year (3 review rounds)

19. Summary Statement
Once applications are reviewed, the results are documented by the SRA in a summary statement and forwarded to the Institute (and the PI) where a funding decision is made:
The summary statement contains:
Overall Resume and Summary of Review Discussion
Essentially Unedited Critiques
Priority Score and Percentile Ranking
Budget Recommendations
Administrative Notes

20. Getting the Results Mailer: score & percentile Program staff:
Payline information
Advice on revision
The NIH Commons
Summary Statement

21. After Review? Contact Program Officer Revise Application
Funding Decisions, advise and interpretation
Revise Application
Address everything in Introduction
Don’t follow comments blindly
Resubmit

22. NIH Grant Receipt, Review, and Award Schedule
Feb-March
June-July Receipt Dates
Oct-Nov
June-July
Oct-Nov Review Dates
Feb-Mar
Sept
Feb National Advisory Council Board Dates
June
Dec 1
Apr 1 Earliest Possible Beginning Date
July 1