Developing a Compelling Grant Application
Section 5
Review Criteria
Research applications are reviewed and scored by a group of scientific experts from the extramural community in a process called peer review based on significance, investigators, innovation, approach, and environment. RFAs and PARs often include additional nonstandard review criteria. In addition, all applications that include an NIH-defined clinical trial have specific review criteria, including study timeline; milestones; resources and data sharing plan; protection of human subjects; inclusion of women, minorities, and children; and addressing potential biohazards. For applications that include distinct phases, such as the UG3/UH3 mechanism used by the NIH Collaboratory Trials, reviewers assess the clarity and appropriateness of proposed milestones that must be met for the transition from the first phase to the second.
In response to concerns regarding the complexity of the peer review process for research project grants (RPGs) and reputational bias impacting peer review outcomes, the NIH is implementing a new, simplified review framework starting January 25, 2025. The new review criteria are intended to help reviewers hone in on the most important questions to determine the merit of research projects. The new criteria reviewers will have to consider are as follows:
- Importance of the Research (Covers Significance and Innovation), scored 1-9
- Rigor and Feasibility (Covers Approach), scored 1-9
- Expertise and Resources (Covers Investigator and Environment), scored sufficient or insufficient
Reorganizing the current review criteria into broader factors simplifies the process and, as previously outlined, minimizes the potential for reputational bias. Currently, peer reviewers are responsible for assessing policy compliance of research, which distracts them from determining the actual merit of research. The new framework is expected to have minimal impact on how applications are written. The intent is simply to minimize potential for bias, and focus reviewers on the fundamental questions regarding the proposed study.
Common Pitfalls Seen in Applications
- Overly ambitious—proposes research beyond the length of the application
- Missing or inappropriate control groups (For more, see the chapter on Experimental Designs and Randomization Schemes)
- Lack of sufficient expertise or skilled collaborators needed to complete the studies
- Lack of diverse sites to ensure generalizability of findings
- Insufficient publications in the area of proposed studies
- Studies that lack appropriate statistical power to address the primary hypothesis
- Lack of documentation and experience needed to recruit the population for the study
SECTIONS
DISCLAIMER
The views expressed in this chapter should not be interpreted as representing the official viewpoint of the US Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, or the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, except where noted.