The NIH Center for Scientific Review recently updated the continuous submission policy. Among the changes are revised cut-off dates for assignment to advisory council rounds. For example, applications submitted under the continuous submission policy for the standard February and March … Continue reading
Over the past several years we have heard consistent concerns about the complexity of review criteria and administrative load of peer review. To address these concerns, CSR has convened a working group of our advisory council, charged with recommending changes to research project grant review criteria that will improve review outcomes and reduce reviewer burden. We would like to hear your thoughts on the issue. How might review criteria be modified to obtain the best evaluations of scientific merit? Continue reading
The scientific peer review process benefits greatly when the study section reviewers bring not only strong scientific qualifications and expertise, but also a broad range of backgrounds and varying scientific perspectives. Bringing new viewpoints into the process replenishes and refreshes the study section, enhancing the quality of its output. Continue reading
What happens when a former colleague contacts you, a reviewer, out of the blue to ask if the application on which he is a principal investigator could be treated favorably at the review meeting? Do you brush off the investigator and figure you will not let the contact influence your review of that application? Or do you instead immediately notify NIH? Intrigued? We have a case for you (based on true stories, details have been changed slightly and names have been fictionalized). Read on. Continue reading
This series aims to raise awareness and inspire creative problem solving of the challenges in maintaining integrity in peer review. In this case, Dr. Smith, who is being considered as a reviewer for the application, is a professional associate of Dr. Jones, the PI on the application. However, Dr. Smith had not declared a conflict with that application. Continue reading
In this next installment of the NIH’s All About Grants podcast series, we talk about how NIH manages conflicts of interest to ensure that we maintain integrity throughout the peer review process. Sally Amero, Ph.D., NIH’s Review Policy Officer, joins us and explains why it is important to manage these conflicts, what is and is not a potential conflict, how to disclose conflicts, and who is involved throughout the peer review process. Continue reading
It is a priority to us to continue to engage with the community about what constitutes a breach of NIH peer review integrity. The NIH defines a breach of review integrity as any violation of a core value of NIH peer review. Continue reading
Confidentiality is at the core of ensuring research ideas submitted in grant applications are protected. In this next installment of the NIH’s All About Grants podcast series, Sally Amero, Ph.D., NIH’s Review Policy Officer, discusses how NIH strives to maintain the highest levels of confidentiality and integrity in the peer review process. Continue reading
It gives me enormous pleasure to extend my warm congratulations to a friend and colleague, Noni H. Byrnes, Ph.D., for her recent selection as the new Director for the NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR). Continue reading
Curious about how NIH grant applications are reviewed? Get a front row seat to the peer review process in this video created by the NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR). Investigators will get insights into how applications are reviewed so they can better enhance and advance their applications in the NIH peer review process. Continue reading