Application Assignment and Review

Competing applications undergo a thorough, two-level review process. (1) Peer review for scientific and technical merit and (2) advisory council to assess relevance to Institute/Center (IC) priorities and public health needs.

On this page you'll find:

• Application Assignment
• Peer Review
• After Peer Review
• Advisory Council

Application Assignment

After your application is received, NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR) staff

• Conduct additional application checks
• Assign an application identification number
• Assign a potential funding Institute/Center (IC)
• Assign a study section who will review your application

Assignment details show in eRA Commons about 2 weeks after the due date.

Resource

• The Assignment Process

Contact

• CSR Division of Receipt and Referral ([email protected]; 301-435-0715)

Peer Review

A Scientific Review Officer (SRO) in CSR manages the initial peer review. The study section meets and assesses their assigned applications against the review criteria stated in the funding opportunity. An impact score and summary statement are provided for each peer-reviewed application.

• Impact score - assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research fields(s) involved
  • Impact scores may be numeric (10 – 90) or alphabetical (ND for Not Discussed)
  • Available in eRA Commons 2-3 days after the review
     
• Summary Statement - a combination of the reviewers' written comments and the SRO's summary of the members' discussion
  • Available in eRA Commons within a month of review

Resources

• Peer Review – gain a high-level understanding of the dual peer review system used by NIH
• Peer Review Policies and Practices – explore guidance provided to reviewers on confidentiality, conflict of interest, human subjects, inclusion, vertebrate animals, budgets, and more
• View Review Outcome in eRA Commons
• View an NIH Mock Peer Review Session.

Contact

• Scientific Review Officer displayed in eRA Commons Status (while the application is under review)
• Program Official displayed in eRA Commons Status (after the summary statement is released)
   

After Peer Review

Check your impact score and summary statement in eRA Commons.

Favorable Score

• IC may ask you to provide additional information, including the disclosure form for applications received after September 5, 2023, using the Just-in-Time (JIT) process in eRA Commons, prior to making final funding decisions.
  • Not an indication of a pending award
  • Information requested (e.g., other support and human subjects and animal welfare assurances) must be in place for an award to be made
  • Reduces the burden of this additional data collection to only those applicants in a competitive range
• View this tutorial for more information about what is expected during the JIT process.

Non-favorable Score or Not Discussed (ND)

• Take a deep breath and read your summary statement again
• Reach out to the Program Official to discuss how to strengthen your application and next steps
• Consider submitting a Resubmission application addressing reviewer feedback
  • Many unfunded applicants go on to become successful grant recipients through perseverance

Resources

• Next Step FAQs

Contact

• Program Official (PO) displayed in eRA Commons Status
   

Advisory Council

NIH uses a dual peer review system. The first level is the initial scientific peer review. The second level is often referred to as the council or advisory council.

Procedures vary across Institutes/Centers (ICs), but each IC Director chairs a National Advisory Council for their IC that considers the study section's results and determines the relevance of the applications to the IC's priorities and public health needs. 

The advisory council recommends applications for funding, and the IC Director makes final funding decisions. 

Contact

• Program Official (PO) displayed in eRA Commons Status