# Preparing for Changes in Peer Review

*The first stages of implementation of changes in NIH peer review will
begin in January and February 2009. These changes will be timed to apply
to all three standard review/award cycles in each fiscal year. Please
see the chart below showing the precise timeline by review/award cycle.
While many details continue to be worked through, the first set of
changes are highlighted below:*

**Scoring**

*To improve the transparency of the scoring process:*

-   Before a review meeting, assigned reviewers and discussants will
    score applications on the five review criteria using a scale of 1-9.

-   Each assigned reviewer and discussant will also provide a
    preliminary overall score using the new 1-9 scale.

-   At the meeting, discussed applications will receive an overall score
    from each eligible (i.e., without conflicts of interest) panel
    member and these scores will be averaged, multiplied by 10. The 81
    possible ***priority scores*** will thus range from 10-90.

-   The priority scores then will be percentiled against the appropriate
    base. The new scoring system will necessitate the establishment of
    new percentile bases. Percentiles will be reported in whole numbers.

**Critiques**

*To improve the quality of the critiques and to focus reviewer attention
on the review criteria:*

-   Before the review meeting, in addition to preliminary scoring,
    assigned reviewers will provide written critiques of the application
    through an electronic template that will prompt for strengths and
    weaknesses for each criterion.

-   After the meeting, the critiques will be compiled into a summary
    statement that will be shorter and more focused than current summary
    statements due to standardized organization and reporting of
    strengths and weaknesses.

-   Discussed applications also will have a summary of the panel's
    discussion at the meeting.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Feedback for Streamlined Applications.** [Currently]{.underline},
    applications not considered to be in the more meritorious half are
    "streamlined."  Streamlined applications are not discussed by the
    full review committee and are not assigned numerical priority
    scores, but the applicants do receive the reviewers' critiques. 

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [In 2009]{.underline}, streamlined applications will receive
    criterion scores in addition to the reviewers' critiques to help
    applicants assess whether or not they should submit an amended
    application.

**Balanced and Fair Reviews Across Career Stages and Scientific Fields**

-   The New Investigator Policy was modified to identify Early Stage
    Investigators (ESIs), see
    <http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-08-121.html>,
    and becomes effective beginning with traditional R01 applications
    received for the February 2009 receipt dates.

-   [Another notice containing specific guidance for
    ESIs](http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-09-013.html)
    was released on October 31, 2008

-   Where possible, NIH will cluster new investigator applications
    (including ESIs) for review.

-   The same clustering approach will be considered for clinical
    research applications.

**Amended Applications:**

*To speed the funding of meritorious science and minimize reviewer
burden:*

-   NIH has issued a [policy
    announcement](http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-09-003.html)
    decreasing the number of resubmissions (i.e., amendments) permitted
    from two to one. Beginning with applications intended for the
    January 25, 2009 due date, all original new applications (i.e.,
    never submitted) and competing renewal applications will be
    permitted only a single amendment (A1).

o To facilitate this transition, original new and competing renewal
applications submitted for FY 2009 or earlier, i.e. prior to January 25,
2009, will be permitted two resubmissions.

**Enhanced Review Criteria**

-   The current five scoring criteria will have clearer descriptions,
    with questions for reviewers to consider in evaluating each
    criterion.

-   The application instructions will be updated to inform applicants of
    these revised questions.

Implementation Timeline by Award/Review Cycle

  ----------- ------------- ------------- ----------- ----------- ------------
  **Funding   **Non-AIDS    **AIDS        **Review    **Council   **Earliest
  Round**     Receipt       Receipt       Dates**     Meeting     Possible
              Dates**       Dates**                   Dates**     Award
                                                                  Dates**

  FY 2010     Jan/April     May 7, 2009   May/July    Sept/Oct    Jan/March
  Cycle I     2009                        2009        2009        2010

  FY 2010     May/Aug2009   September 7,  Sept/Nov    Jan/Feb     March/May
  Cycle II                  2009          2009        2010        2010

  FY 2010     Sept/Dec 2009 January 7,    Jan/March   May/June    July/Sept
  Cycle III                 2010          2010        2010        2010

  FY 2011     Jan/April     May 7, 2010   May/July    Sept/Oct    Jan/March
  Cycle I     2010                        2010        2010        2011

  FY 2011     May/Aug 2010  September 7,  Sept/Nov    Jan/Feb     March/May
  Cycle II                  2010          2010        2011        2011

  FY 2011     Sept/Dec 2010 January 7,    Jan/March   May/June    July/Sept
  Cycle III                 2011          2011        2011        2011
  ----------- ------------- ------------- ----------- ----------- ------------

The full set of application submission dates for each cycle can be found
at: <http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm>

For more information on Enhancing Peer Review and the *NIH Guide*
Notices referenced in this document go to:
[http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov](http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/)