The University of Michigan is seeking input from researchers and research administrators on a recent National Institutes of Health (NIH) proposal that would significantly change how the agency reports the outcomes of peer review for grant applications.
Members of the U-M research community are encouraged to complete this form by Sept. 18. Feedback received through the form will help inform the university’s response to NIH ahead of the agency’s Oct. 13 public comment deadline.
On Aug. 14, NIH released a Request for Information seeking public input on the proposed changes.
Under the current process, applications that advance to discussion receive a final overall impact score based on scores submitted by voting members of the peer review panel. NIH’s proposal would retain the underlying scoring process but significantly change how its results are reported. Instead of providing final overall impact scores and percentile rankings, NIH would place applications into one of three categories:
- “Most Competitive” – applications in the top 25% of final overall impact scores.
- “Competitive” – applications in the 26-50% range.
- “Not discussed” – applications outside the top 50%.
Although reviewers would continue to submit individual overall impact scores and NIH would continue to calculate a final overall impact score for discussed applications, those scores and any associated percentile rankings would no longer be shared with principal investigators or applicant institutions. Written critiques, criterion/factor scores and summaries of discussion would continue to be provided.
NIH states that the proposed approach is intended to reduce overreliance on numerical scores and allow program officials to more fully consider qualitative peer review assessments alongside scientific opportunities, health priorities, portfolio considerations and other factors when making funding recommendations.
The proposed changes, however, raise important questions for researchers, including how the loss of final impact scores and percentile rankings could affect the transparency, consistency and reliability of NIH funding decisions, as well as researchers’ ability to understand the relative standing of their applications and make informed decisions about revisions and resubmissions.
The Office of the Vice President for Research, in coordination with university partners, is reviewing the proposal. Feedback from U-M researchers and research administrators will be considered as the university develops its response to NIH.
Individuals also may respond to this proposal directly, but may not use university letterhead to do so and must clearly identify any stated views as their own.
NIH is accepting public comments on the RFI through Oct. 13. The agency states that responses may inform future policy development and that a content analysis of responses will be made public after the comment period closes.