Review Criteria

This SOP has internal roles only.

Purpose

To provide peer reviewers standard review criteria, and possibly, initiative-specific review criteria, for judging an application's scientific and technical merit.

Procedure

Peer reviewers typically use only the standard NIH review criteria for investigator-initiated R01 applications. Other types of investigator-initiated applications (e.g., P01, R21, R34, and U01) and initiatives (e.g., requests for applications, program announcements) may have additional review criteria.

Investigator-Initiated Review Criteria

1. Significance. Does this study address an important problem? If the aims are achieved, how will scientific knowledge or clinical practice be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventions that drive this field?
2. Approach. Are the conceptual or clinical framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, well reasoned, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Do the PI or PIs acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics? For multiple PI applications, is the leadership plan consistent with and justified by the project's aims and each PI's expertise?
3. Innovation. Is the project original and innovative? For example: Does it challenge existing paradigms or clinical practice or address an innovative hypothesis or critical barrier to progress in the field? Does the project develop or use novel concepts, approaches, methods, tools, or technologies?
4. Investigators. Are the PI or PIs and other key personnel appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the PI or PIs and other researchers? Do the PI or PIs and investigative team bring complementary and integrated expertise to the project (if applicable)?
5. Environment. Does the scientific environment or environments contribute to the probability of success? Do the studies benefit from unique features of the scientific environment or environments or subject populations? Do the studies use useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support?

Reviewers will also assess the following items in determining scientific merit and priority score:

1. Protection of Human Subjects from Research Risk: Involvement of human subjects and protections from risks related to their participation in the proposed research. For more information, see the Grant Application Guide (for an electronic application) or PHS 398, Research Plan, Human Subjects Research (for a paper application).
2. Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children in Research: Adequacy of plans to include subjects from both genders, all racial and ethnic groups (and subgroups), and children, as appropriate, for the scientific goals of the research. Reviewers will also evaluate plans for recruiting and retaining subjects. For more information, see the Grant Application Guide (for an electronic application) or PHS 398, Research Plan, Human Subjects Research (for a paper application).
3. Care and Use of Vertebrate Animals in Research: If vertebrate animals are to be used in the project, see the five items described under the Grant Application Guide (for an electronic application) or PHS 398, Content of Research Plan, Vertebrate Animals (for a paper application).

Applicants

If you're applying for a grant other than an R01, read the NIH Guide notice referenced in the funding opportunity announcement to see if there are additional review criteria. For SBIR/STTR applications, also read the SBIR/STTR Grant Application Guide for additional review criteria for Fast Track and Phase II Applications.

Program Officers

• When writing an RFA, use the investigator-initiated review criteria as the basis for writing, and if necessary add wording to expand these criteria.
• If more criteria are necessary to evaluate applications, work with the scientific review officer to develop additional review criteria. Add no more than five additional criteria specific to the RFA.

Scientific Review Officers

• If additional criteria are required, develop them with the program officer.
• Prepare reviewers to evaluate any RFA-specific review criteria.

Contacts

For general information, contact Contact for NIAID Staff

For initiative development, contact Contact for NIAID Staff

If you have knowledge to share or want more information on this topic, email deaweb@niaid.nih.gov with the title of this page or its URL and your question or comment. Thanks for helping us clarify and expand our knowledge base.

Links

Electronic Application Resources

Grant Application, Electronic SOP

Grant Application, Paper SOP

NIH Grants Administration Manual - 4204-204B - Peer Review Process

NIH Grants Policy Statement section on peer review

Scientific Review Meeting Rosters and Schedules, CSR