We have had much discussion on this blog about NIH’s resubmission policy (most often referred to as the NIH A2 policy). I have also heard from many of you in a variety of forums, expressing serious concerns about the impact of NIH’s resubmission policy on applicants during these times of tight funding. We’ve listened to your concerns, and we are making changes. ….
RePORT is your go-to source for NIH data, and I’m excited to let you know about a new addition to the NIH Data Book on RePORT: data on peer review across NIH. The new “NIH Peer Review” section provides information related to initial peer review across NIH. It includes data on peer review organized by the Center of Scientific Review as well as by NIH institutes and centers. ….
Understanding NIH’s system of percentiling can be a challenge. My posts on how percentiles relate to paylines and success rates continues to get a lot of hits. A recent presentation by NIH’s Center for Scientific Review provided an example that I thought might be helpful to people trying to understand more about how a percentile is calculated for some grant applications. ….
A critical component in assuring the efficacy of NIH’s peer review system is the continuous assessment of peer review activities, to be sure that the practices and policies uphold the core values of peer review. In fact, this continual assessment was a key component of the 2008 NIH Enhancing Peer Review Initiative. ….
We have heard from many of you about the policy to sunset A2 applications. As you may remember, this policy was developed as part of NIH efforts to enhance peer review. There were concerns that applications were piling up in a “queue” and subject to a holding pattern that delayed funding until the resubmission (A1 and A2) stages, and as a consequence highly meritorious science proposed in original (A0) applications was made to wait additional months for funding.
My thoughts are with everyone affected by Hurricane Sandy, and I am deeply sympathetic to the struggles of those who continue to feel the aftermath of this destructive storm. The immediate and long term economic and emotional costs of natural disasters such as Sandy can be overwhelming.
So you’re wearing your lucky shoes and are ready to take a first look at the results of your grant review. Whether you are anticipating doing a victory dance or getting ready to head out to the nearest kickboxing class, it’s a good time to think about what comes next.
It’s been three months since I discussed how, during May Advisory Council meetings, NIH would pilot a new Special Council Review process for particularly well-funded applicants. Since that time, we ran the pilot and carefully considered all the great feedback we received from Advisory Council members and staff. We are now ready to implement the final policy on Special Council Review.
I wanted to let you know about a request for information we just issued to collect opinions on a proposal to modify the NIH biographical sketch that is used as part of your NIH application.
Back in February, I posted on our fiscal year 2013 Presidential budget request. One of the things I mentioned was an additional review that we were considering for applications from investigators that have received NIH funds of $1.5M or more in total costs.