In this case study, we will discuss how plagiarism in the grant application process is handled at NIH and remind the research community about the importance of maintaining confidentiality of the peer review process.
Most reviewers participating in review meetings in early 2024 are required to complete 2 training modules before they can access their assigned applications in the Internet Assisted Review (IAR) module. New resources are available to help.
0 Comments
NIH is pleased to announce that a simplified review framework will be implemented for grant receipt deadlines of January 25, 2025 and beyond. The simplified framework is expected to better focus peer reviewers on the key questions needed to assess the scientific and technical merit of proposed research projects: “Can and should the proposed research project be conducted?”
28 Comments
Dr. Stephanie Constant, NIH’s Review Policy Officer, joins us in this next episode of the NIH All About Grants podcast to talk about Post-Submission materials. She will tell us about the purpose of the policy, what “unforeseen events” can be added after submission (such as preliminary data in certain situations), what cannot (like preprints), logistics for providing them to NIH, how reviewers use this additional information, and who to contact.
0 Comments
The confidential nature of the NIH peer review process requires that any information pertaining to an application or proposal cannot be disclosed, transmitted, or discussed with any other individual. Therefore, technologies where confidential information might be viewed by others are prohibited, including locally hosted AI technologies where uploaded information could be shared across multiple individuals.
3 Comments
Effective for the May 2024 council round (peer review meetings in early 2024), all reviewers will be required to complete trainings related to review integrity and bias awareness prior to serving on NIH peer review groups. These trainings build on our long-standing commitment to maintaining integrity and fairness throughout the review process.
41 Comments
Reviewers are trusted and required to maintain confidentiality throughout the application review process. Thus, using AI to assist in peer review would involve a breach of confidentiality. In a recently released guide notice, we explain that NIH scientific peer reviewers are prohibited from using natural language processors, large language models, or other generative AI technologies for analyzing and formulating peer review critiques for grant applications and R&D contract proposals.
30 Comments
As discussed in the blog, “Update on Simplifying Review Criteria: A Request for Information (RFI),” NIH issued an RFI—from December 8, 2022, through March 10, 2023—seeking feedback on its proposed plan to revise and simplify the framework for the first level of the peer review of research project grant (RPG) applications.
3 Comments
NIH is recommending changes to the peer review of Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) fellowship applications by restructuring the review criteria. To comment, go to the Request for Information, which contains additional background and links to submit your thoughts.
4 Comments
We are discussing “Not Discussed” in this NIH All About Grants podcast.
0 Comments
9 Comments