1 of 18

INSIGHTS INTO NIH GRANT REVIEW

Disclaimer: the following reflects my approach and not that of other reviewers

Lucile Wrenshall, MD, PhD

Professor Dept of Neuroscience, Cell Biology, and Physiology

Wright State University

lucile.wrenshall@wright.edu

2 of 18

Key Components of an NIH grant and related scoring

  • Project summary/narrative
  • Facilities/resources/equipment
  • Biosketch
  • Specific Aims
  • Research Strategy
    • Significance
    • Innovation
    • Approach
  • Overview (no direct impact on scoring)
  • Environment
  • Investigators
  • Entire proposal
  • Significance
  • Innovation
  • Approach

3 of 18

Grant scoring (each scored 1-9)

  • Overall impact
  • Significance
  • Investigators
  • Innovation
  • Approach
  • Environment

4 of 18

Simplified Review Framework (for due dates 1/25/25 and after)

  • Factor 1,2, and overall impact are scored per usual.

​

  • Factor 3 has two options: appropriate, additional expertise/resources needed. If appropriate then no comments allowed. If additional expertise, etc. then list what is needed.

https://grants.nih.gov/sites/default/files/Simplified-Review-Reviewer-Guide-to-Evaluating-Applications.pdf

5 of 18

Summary Statement

  • If grant is triaged then summary includes reviews of 3 reviewers
  • If grant is discussed then includes summary of discussion as first item
  • Summary of discussion reflects what was discussed and issues that swayed reviewers
  • Overall impact (from each individual review) should reflect score driving factors
  • Third reviewer may not provide complete review (in TIO all 3 provide a review)
  • If item scored is 3 or less (ie high) then no “weaknesses” required

6 of 18

Key Components of an NIH grant (how I score)

  • Project summary
  • Facilities/resources/equipment
  • Biosketch
  • Specific Aims
  • Research Strategy
    • Significance
    • Innovation
    • Approach

7 of 18

Key Components of an NIH grant (how I score)

  • Project summary/narrative
  • Facilities/resources/equipment – rarely an issue
  • Biosketch
  • Specific Aims
  • Research Strategy
    • Significance
    • Innovation
    • Approach

8 of 18

Key Components of an NIH grant (how I score)

  • Project summary/narrative
  • Facilities/resources/equipment
  • Biosketch – look for what collaborators are doing, is biosketch specific to the project or generic. Is the collaborator contributing expertise/experiments/effort or just a name. Productivity – can hurt a borderline proposal but minimal impact on strong proposal.
  • Specific Aims
  • Research Strategy
    • Significance
    • Innovation
    • Approach

9 of 18

Key Components of an NIH grant (how I score)

  • Project summary/narrative
  • Facilities/resources/equipment
  • Biosketch
  • Specific Aims - critical component of the grant. If you lose reviewers on this page unlikely to get them back.
  • Research Strategy
    • Significance
    • Innovation
    • Approach

10 of 18

Key Components of an NIH grant (how I score)

  • Project summary/narrative
  • Facilities/resources/equipment
  • Biosketch
  • Specific Aims
  • Research Strategy
    • Significance – “importance” is almost always a given. Sometimes importance is a problem if only a small fraction of people are affected or if the proposed “fix” is incremental. Significance includes premise, which in turn speaks to rigor.
    • Innovation
    • Approach

11 of 18

Rigor and Transparency Table

Source: NIH

​

Applies to which applications

Where do I find it in the application

Where do I include it in my critique

Addition to review criteria

Affect overall impact score?

Rigor of prior research

​

All

Research Strategy (Significance)

Significance

Is the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project rigorous?

Yes

Research Strategy (Approach)

Approach

Are there plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project?

Rigor of proposed research

All

Research Strategy (Approach)

Approach

Are there strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach?

Yes

Consideration of Relevant Biological Variables such as Sex

Projects with vertebrate animals or human subjects

Research Strategy (Approach)

​

Approach

Are there plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, included for vertebrate animal or human studies?

Yes

Authentication of Key Biological and or Chemical Resources

Projects involving key biological or chemical resources

New attachment

Additional Review Considerations

Comment on plans for identifying and ensuring validity of resources

No

12 of 18

Key Components of an NIH grant (how I score)

  • Project summary/narrative
  • Facilities/resources/equipment
  • Biosketch
  • Specific Aims
  • Research Strategy
    • Significance
    • Innovation – often additive as a plus or minus but can be a score driving factor if the work seems redundant or incremental. A technique that is developed by someone else is not your innovation.
    • Approach

13 of 18

Key Components of an NIH grant (how I score)

  • Project summary/narrative
  • Facilities/resources/equipment
  • Biosketch
  • Specific Aims
  • Research Strategy
    • Significance
    • Innovation
    • Approach – often undermined by the significance. Approach may be based on tenuous preliminary data. In the era of “omics” descriptive approach is a common problem. Alternatives often do not consider incorrect hypothesis.

14 of 18

Key Components of an NIH grant (how I score)

  • Project summary/narrative
  • Facilities/resources/equipment
  • Biosketch
  • Specific Aims
  • Research Strategy
    • Significance
    • Innovation
    • Approach

​

​

Overall impact - impact on the field if grant successfully completed. Summary paragraph should include score driving factors.

15 of 18

Keys to a successful NIH grant (if I am reviewing)

  • Clarity is key
    • Reviewers may not be experts in your niche
    • Minimize acronyms
  • Strong, well controlled preliminary data
    • Don’t make reviewers look for key data in a citation. Make sure citation contains what you say it contains.
  • Clear advance over current literature/data (ie not incremental)
  • Consider spacing – be kind to the reviewer

16 of 18

Example of poor spacing

sub-section heading

figure

figure

hypothesis

sub-section heading

hypothesis

page break

17 of 18

Questions

Does the discussion change scores?

​

​

​

​

Do reviewers notice if you don’t cite their work or the right work?

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

sometimes

sometimes

18 of 18

Your Questions