1 / 17

ENHANCING PEER REVIEW Implementation of Recommended Actions Slides Accompanying Video of Dr. Alan Willard, February 200

ENHANCING PEER REVIEW Implementation of Recommended Actions Slides Accompanying Video of Dr. Alan Willard, February 2009 . NIH Peer Review System. Cornerstone of the NIH Extramural Mission Standard of Excellence Worldwide Collaboration between NIH Extramural Staff and Scientific Community.

broderick
Download Presentation

ENHANCING PEER REVIEW Implementation of Recommended Actions Slides Accompanying Video of Dr. Alan Willard, February 200

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ENHANCING PEER REVIEWImplementation of Recommended Actions Slides Accompanying Video of Dr. Alan Willard, February 2009

  2. NIH Peer Review System • Cornerstoneof the NIH Extramural Mission • Standard of Excellence Worldwide • Collaboration between NIH Extramural Staff and Scientific Community

  3. Enhancing NIH Peer Review • Facilitate changing nature of science • Identify and encourage new and early stage investigators • Ease burden on research enterprise • Streamline time to award • Fund the best science, by the best scientists, with the least amount of administrative burden

  4. Background Year-long Deliberative Effort Gathering Feedback & Input: • Request for Information • NIH Staff survey • IC White Papers • Internal Town Hall Meetings • External Consultation Meetings • Data Analysis • Internal and External Working Groups Working Groups Established to: • Engage the Best Reviewers • Improve the Quality and Transparency of Review • Ensure Balanced and Fair Reviews Across Scientific Fields and Career Stages • Continuous Review of Peer Review September 2008 March 2008 – June 2008 June 2007 – Feb. 2008 Identified Key Recommendations

  5. Enhancing Peer Review at NIH Web Site http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov • Latest Status • Timelines • Related Policy Changes • Frequently Asked Questions • Training and Communication Resources

  6. Changes Happening NOW January 2009 (and beyond) Due Dates Potential FY2010 funding • New Policy on Resubmissions • Identification of Early Stage Investigator (ESI) Applications

  7. Goals of New Resubmission Policy • Fund meritorious science earlier • Enhance success rates of new and resubmitted applications by decreasing the number of allowed grant application resubmissions (amendments) from two to one

  8. New Policy on Resubmissions • For January 25, 2009 due dates and beyond, NIH will accept only a single amendment to the original application • original new applications (i.e., never submitted) • competing renewal applications

  9. Early Stage Investigator (ESI) Policy • NIH will support New Investigators at success rates comparable to those for established investigators submitting new applications • ESIs will comprise a majority of the NIs supported (FY 2009 funding and beyond). • To ensure appropriate consideration for ESI eligibility, all NIs will need to update their eRA Commons profiles, and will now see their eligibility displayed in eRA Commons.

  10. Goals of Identifying Early Stage Investigators (ESIs) • Encourage transition to independence for investigators • Counter trend of increasing time spent in training phase of career • Strongly encourage New Investigators (NIs), particularly ESIs, to apply for R01 grants when seeking first-time NIH funding 

  11. Early Stage Investigator (ESI) Implementation • Beginning with the traditional R01 grant applications received for the February 5, 2009 receipt dates, NIH will identify grant applications from NIs and ESIs • NI and ESI applications will be clustered for review beginning with the May 2009 review meetings

  12. Changes Coming SOONMay 2009 Review Meetings Potential FY2010 funding • New 1-9 Scoring System • Scoring of Individual Core Criteria • Templates for Structured Critiques

  13. 1-9 Scoring System • The new scoring system will use a 9-point scale (1 = exceptional, 9 = poor) • This scale will be used for overall impact/priority scores AND for individual criterion scores • Preliminary impact/priority scores will help determine which applications are discussed

  14. Scoring of Individual Review Criteria • Assigned reviewers will use the 9-point scale for five review criteria • Each assigned reviewer’s criterion scores will be reported in the summary statement • Criterion scores will be reported for ALL applications • Reviewers will consider criterion scores as appropriate for each application in determining overall impact/priority score

  15. Templates for Reviewer Critiques • Templates contain a box for reviewers to write their comments for: • each of the core review criteria • overall impact • other review criteria and additional considerations • Comments will be in the form of bullet points or short narratives • The template will be uploaded to become part of the summary statement

  16. Changes Coming LATER • Restructuring of the application will begin with the FY 2011 funding cycle (applications submitted for January 2010 due dates and later) • shorter length • realignment of the application sections with the review criteria

  17. For additional information: Enhancing Peer Review at NIH Web Site http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov

More Related