1 / 21

The peer review process and your application

The peer review process and your application. William N. Elwood, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer Community-Level Health Promotion study section. National Institutes of Health U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH Peer Review.

gilda
Télécharger la présentation

The peer review process and your application

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The peer review process and your application William N. Elwood, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer Community-Level Health Promotion study section National Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Health and Human Services

  2. NIH Peer Review Summary Statement and Priority Score transmitted to applicant and Institute Researcher writes and submits application Application assigned to NIH Institutes & Study Sections Application assigned to 30-50 reviewers 3 Reviewers read and write critiques

  3. Second Level of Review Council Assesses Quality of SRG Review of Grant Applications Makes Recommendation to Institute Staff on Funding Evaluates Program Priorities and Relevance Advises on Policy Dual Review System for Grant Applications • First Level of Review • Scientific Review Group (SRG) • Provides Initial Scientific Merit Review of Grant Applications • Rates Applications and Makes Recommendations for Appropriate Level of Support and Duration of Award

  4. Serves as central receipt point for most PHS grant applications Assigns applications to CSR Integrated Review Groups/Study Sections or Institute Scientific Review Groups Assigns applications to NIH Institute(s) as potential funding component(s) Conducts initial scientific merit review of most research applications submitted to the NIH in about 220 Study Sections and regularly recurring special emphasis panels Center for Scientific Review

  5. Types of Scientific Review GroupsWhere are Applications Reviewed? Groups Applications Reviewed Research Projects Academic Research Enhancement Awards Postdoctoral Fellowships Small Business Innovation Research Shared Instrumentation Program Projects Centers Institutional Training Grants Conference Grants Career Awards Small Grants RFAs Contracts CSR IRGs Study Sections Special Emphasis Panels Institutes Scientific Review Groups Contract Review Committees

  6. Requests for Applications (RFAs) Program Project Grant (P01) Development Awards (K01, K02, K05, K07, K08, K23, K24, etc.) Small Grants (R03) Center Grants (P30, P50, P60) Conference Grants (R13) Institutional Training Awards (T32, T35) MARC (F34, F36, T34) Minority Biomedical Support Grant (S06) Contracts Research Project Grant (R01) Small Business Grants (R41, R42, R43, R44) Individual Fellowships (F30, F31, F32, F33, etc.) Exploratory/Development Grants (R21, R33, R21/R33) Shared Instrumentation Grant (S10) Academic Research Enhancement Award (R15) Resource Grants (P40, P41, R24, R26, R28) Peer Review of NIH Support Mechanisms Review by CSR, theInstitutes and CSR*, orthe Institutes

  7. NIH Grant Receipt, Review, and Award Schedule Jan-May May-Sept Sept-Jan Receipt Dates June-July Oct-Nov Feb-Mar Review Dates Sept-Oct Jan-Feb May-June National Advisory Council Board Dates Dec 1 Apr 1 July 1 Earliest Possible Beginning Date

  8. CSR Peer Review -- 2007 • 76,000 applications received • 54,000 applications reviewed • 16,000 reviewers • 240 Scientific Review Officers • 1,800 review meetings

  9. Division A (Neuroscience, Development and Aging) Division B (AIDS, Behavioral and Population Sciences) Division C (Basic and Integrative Biological Sciences) Division D (Physiological and Pathological Sciences) Division E (Translational and Clinical Sciences) Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience IRG (BDCN) Biobehavioral and Behavioral Processes IRG ( BBBP) Biological Chemical and Macromolecular Biophysics IRG (BCMB) Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproductive Sciences IRG (EMNR) Cardiovascular and Respiratory Sciences IRG (CVR) Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Neuroscience IRG (MDCN) Risk, Prevention and Health Behaviors IRG (RPHB) Bioengineering Sciences and Technologies IRG (BST) Immunology IRG (IMM) Surgical Sciences, Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering IRG (SBIB) Epidemiology and Population Sciences IRG (EPS) Cell Biology IRG (CB) Infectious Diseases and Microbiology IRG (IDM) Musculoskeletal, Oral And Skin Sciences IRG (MOSS) Integrative, Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience IRG (IFCN) Genes, Genomes and Genetics IRG (GGG) Healthcare Delivery and Methodologies IRG (HDM) Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems IRG (DKUS) Oncology 2 – Translational Clinical IRG (OTC) Emerging Technologies and Training in Neuroscience IRG (ETTN) Oncology 1 – Basic Translational IRG (OBT) AIDS and Related Research IRG (AARR) Vascular and Hematology IRG (VH) Biology of Development and Aging IRG (BDA) Interdisciplinary Molecular Sciences and Training IRG (IMST) CSR 5 Review Divisions with 25 IRGs Scientific Review Groups= 48 Scientific Review Groups= 44 Scientific Review Groups= 55 Scientific Review Groups= 43 Scientific Review Groups= 50

  10. Peer Review in CSR • CSR Study Sections are managed by a Scientific Review Officer (SRO) who is a professional, usually at the MD, Ph.D. MD/PhD level, whose scientific background is close to the expertise of the study section • Each CSR standing study section has 12-40 members who are primarily from academia • As many as 60-100 applications are reviewed at each study section meeting

  11. Scientific Review Officer • Performs administrative and technical review of applications to ensure completeness and accuracy • Selects reviewers based on broad input • Manages study sections • Prepares summary statements • Provides requested information about study section recommendations to Institutes/Centers and National Advisory Councils/Boards

  12. Confidentiality • Review materials and proceedings of review meetings represent privileged information to be used only by consultants and NIH staff. • At the conclusion of each meeting, consultants will be asked to destroy or return all review-related material. • Consultants should not discuss review proceedings with anyone except the SRO. • Questions concerning review proceedings should be referred to the SRO. K185pp.46

  13. Certification of Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure I fully understand the confidential nature of the review process and agree: (1) to destroy or return all materials related to the evaluation; (2) not to disclose or discuss the materials associated with the review, my evaluation, or the review meeting outside of that meeting or with any other individual except as authorized by the Scientific Review Officer (SRO) or other NIH designated official; (3) not to disclose procurement information prior to the award of a contract; and (4) to refer all inquiries concerning the review to the SR0 or other designated NIH official. SIGNATURES

  14. Review Criteria • Significance:Does the study address an important problem? How will scientific knowledge or clinical practice be advanced? • Approach:Are design and methods well-developed and appropriate? Are problem areas addressed? • Innovation:Are there novel concepts or approaches? Are the aims original and innovative? • Investigator:Is the investigator appropriately trained? • Environment:Does the scientific environment contribute to the probability of success? Are there unique features of the scientific environment or subject populations?

  15. Research Involving Human Subjects Important Considerations • Is the proposed study exempt from human subject review? • Are there any apparent risks* to the human subjects? • Are the protections adequate? • What are the potential benefits to the subjects and to mankind? • Are the inclusions of minorities and both genders adequately addressed? *”Risks” include the possibility of physical, psychological, or social injury resulting from research.

  16. Priority Scores/Percentile Rank • For each study section, applications in the upper half generally are scored from 1.0-3.0, with 1.0 the best score. Scores as low as 5.0 are possible. • Individual scores are averaged and multiplied by 100 to give the final priority score • Unscored (lower half) • Deferral • plus past two meetings

  17. Action Unscored • Application is unanimously judged to be in the lower half of applications reviewed by the study section or scientific review group. No priority score is assigned. The summary statement provided to the applicant is a compilation of reviewers’ comments prepared prior to the meeting.

  18. Summary Statement Results are documented by SRO in a summary statement and forwarded to the PI and the assigned NIH Institute or Center, where a funding decision is made. The Summary Statement Contains • Summary of Review Discussion • Essentially Unedited Critiques • Budget Recommendations • Administrative Notes • Priority Score and Percentile Ranking

  19. NIH Peer Review Information on the Web • National Institutes of Health (http://www.nih.gov) • Office of Extramural Research (http://www.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm) • Grants Policy (http://www.nih.gov/grants/policy/policy.htm) • Electronic Submission (http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt) • Center for Scientific Review (http://www.csr.nih.gov) • Resources for Applicants (http://www.csr.nih.gov/ResourcesforApplicants) • CSR Study Section Rosters (http://www.csr.nih.gov/committees/rosterindex.asp) • Review Group Meeting Dates (http://www.csr.nih.gov/Committees/meetings/ssmeet1.asp)

  20. CSR Web Site: http://www.csr.nih.gov • About CSR • News and Reports • Peer Review Meetings • Resources for Applicants

  21. Helpful Handouts Insiders Guide What Happens to NIH Grant Application to Peer Review Your Grant Application Useful Web Links http://cms.csr.nih.gov/publications/

More Related