To reduce components that could inject bias into the review and streamline the process of evaluating research funding proposals for scientific quality, the National Institutes of Health is acting. The modifications will assist reviewers in concentrating on the possibility of planned research to enhance human health and increase scientific understanding.
Five elements were previously rated separately on a shared scale; these criteria are now divided into three components under the streamlined review methodology. A similar scale is used to score two of these factors: the significance of the research and the rigour and practicality. Expertise and resources, the third factor, are assessed solely for sufficiency and are not assigned a numerical score.
Grant applications submitted on or after January 25, 2025, will be subject to the streamlined review process. Acting Director of the National Institutes of Health Lawrence A. Tabak, D.D.S., Ph.D., stated that “studies have shown that consideration of the institution or investigator’s reputation in the grant review process could affect the assessment of scientific merit, potentially giving reputation greater weight than other factors.”
“In the end, ideas should have a greater potential to advance science than the reputation of the people applying and the places they work.” The extramural community has provided NIH with a great deal of feedback regarding the grant application review procedure, and in December 2022, the agency recommended changes to the procedure through an effort called Simplified Framework for NIH Peer Review Criteria.
These adjustments support NIH’s ten-year endeavor to remove any possibility of bias in grant-making and create fair competition. Furthermore, by delegating administrative duties from peer reviewers to NIH employees, these modifications free up reviewers’ time to concentrate on the science. Through a 2022 Request for Information, NIH received more than 800 answers from people and scientific societies that helped shape the streamlined framework.
Most replies endorsed the suggested modifications and emphasized the importance of resources, advice, and communication well in advance of implementation. NIH Center for Scientific Review Director Noni Byrnes, Ph.D., stated, “As the largest public funder of biomedical and behavioral research in the world, NIH strives to continually improve the grant application review process.”
“Should and can the proposed research project be conducted? These are the key questions that need to be addressed by peer review to evaluate the scientific and technical merit of proposed research projects,” according to the streamlined review framework.Â
Reference Â
National Institute of Health, “NIH revises grant review process to improve focus on scientific merit, reduce reputational bias” https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-revises-grant-review-process-improve-focus-scientific-merit-reduce-reputational-bias. Â
