The New NIH Review System: Reviewer s perspective

1. The New NIH Review System: Reviewer’s perspective Liz Madigan, FPB School of Nursing

2. NIH information/guidance Advantages/disadvantages as a reviewer Recommendations for further improvement

3. Relationship of Old vs. New Scores

4. NIH Guidance The NIH grant application scoring system uses a 9-point rating for the impact/priority score  Assigned reviewers also provide ratings for each review criterion (Significance, Investigator(s), Innovation, Approach, Environment) using the same 9-point scale. These criterion ratings are provided in the summary statement of all applications, both discussed and undiscussed. Criterion ratings should be considered in determining the overall impact/priority score, but because the relative importance of each criterion to the overall impact/priority score differs for each application, reviewers should not apply a formula of unweighted or weighted criterion scores across applications.

5. NIH Guidance Reviewers are strongly encouraged to utilize the full range of the rating scale in determining ratings. Optimally, scores will be normally distributed with very few 1’s and 9’s and a majority of scores in the middle of the range (4-6). Discussed applications will receive impact/priority scores from all eligible (not in conflict) reviewers, and these scores will be averaged and multiplied by 10 to determine the final impact priority score (range of 10 to 90). Because the relative importance of each individual criterion to the overall score differs for each application, reviewers should not use a formula of weighted or unweighted averages across applications to determine the overall impact/priority score.