MTP: NIH Review Process

As a result of the recent National Institutes of Health (NIH) evaluation of Peer Review, there are a number of changes with respect to the NIH Policy on Resubmission (Amended) Applications.

The NIH will accept only a single amendment to the original application. Failure to receive funding after two submissions (i.e., the original and the single amendment) will mean that the applicant should substantially re-design the project rather than simply change the application in response to previous reviews.

The Center for Scientific Review at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has produced a video of a mock study section meeting to provide an inside look at how NIH grant applications are reviewed for scientific and technical merit.

Scoring is critical—reviewers provide six scores for each application (1=best, 9=worst)—one for each of the five criteria, as well as an Overall score. You can find more information at the Center for Scientific Review web site. New reviewers often use the study section descriptions to learn about their study sections. Applicants also regularly use these descriptions to request a Center for Scientific Review study section that might best review their applications.

Consider becoming a reviewer for the UCSF Resource Allocation Program (RAP) so you can build your resume to become a reviewer for the NIH.

You can find more complete information about the new critique templates and scoring system to be used on the NIH Enhancing Peer Review website.

You can also subscribe to the Peer Review Notes published by the Center for Scientific Review to inform reviewers, NIH staff and others of news related to grant application review policies, procedures and plans.

Back to top