<< previous · tutorial index · next >>
The following are the standard NIH review criteria:
- Significance. Does this study address an important problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge or clinical practice be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
- Approach. Are the conceptual or clinical framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well-integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the investigator acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?
- Innovation. Is the project original and innovative, e.g., does it challenge existing paradigms or clinical practice or address an innovative hypothesis or critical barrier to progress in the field? Does it develop or use novel concepts?
- Investigator. Are the investigators appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work appropriate to the experience level of the PI and other researchers? Does the investigative team bring complementary and integrated expertise to the project?
- Environment. Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the studies benefit from unique features of the scientific environment or subject populations or include useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support?
In addition to the review criteria listed above, peer reviewers factor the adequacy of the following into a priority score:
- Plans to include both genders, minorities and
their subgroups,
and children as
appropriate to the scientific goals. Reviewers also evaluate plans
for recruiting and retaining human subjects.
- Protection for humans and animals.
- Plan to protect from biohazards, if appropriate.
Additional Resources
<< previous · tutorial index · next >> |
Subscribe to Alerts
