Over a year in the works, the overhaul of NIH peer
review is coming to fruition. Working groups have done their job, the research community has weighed in, and an
implementation plan is in place.
Atthe June 6, 2008, meeting of the NIH Advisory Committee to the Director, NIH Director
Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D., announced his commitment to the proposed implementation plan, which will be carried out over the
next 18 months.
The committee, whose working groups oversaw the effort, and the public got a glimpse of what's ahead from Dr. Larry Tabak,
director of the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research and co-chair of the internal Steering Committee
Working Group.
This month, NIH will launch some pilots and try some changes, such as shortening the length of R01 and some other applications,
developing a new scoring system, and giving applicants more useful feedback.
Other innovative ideas will be tested later, including the use of editorial board models for interdisciplinary research.
Here are some highlights of the implementation plan. You can see the Report
on Enhancing Peer Review at NIH Implementation Plan slides and watch the committee proceedings at NIH Videocasting Past Events.
New Scoring Paradigm
A new scoring scale is in the works: 1 to 7 will replace the existing 41 point range of 1.0 to 5.0. Psychometrics show that
reliability levels off at about 7 points, a scale the committee feels gives reviewers enough flexibility.
Also, reviewers will score each review criterion separately (as they feel is appropriate, also the current method), in addition
to giving a global score.
Perhaps even more important, reviewers will emphasize substance and impact and de-emphasize methods. Reviews should become
shorter as they more specifically address the five review criteria:
- Impact
- Investigator
- Innovation/originality
- Project plan/feasibility
- Environment
Streamlined
applications, though not discussed at the review meeting, will get summary statements that include an average score for each
of the five criterion.
Atend of the meeting, reviewers will rank order all applications and possibly readjust scores. NIH will pilot different ways
of
implementing that new approach.
Shorter Applications
Expect shorter applications: 12 pages for R01s (other mechanisms to be correspondingly shorter) with an optional appendix up to eight pages, which is mostly for complex
awards such as clinical or epidemiologic applications.
Reviewer Incentives
Toattract the best-qualified scientists, NIH will look into giving incentives such as making review service more flexible
--
for example, spreading the required 12 sessions over four to six years and sharing review duty with other scientists.
Other options would give reviewers a one-year cost extension for one R01 and create a distinguished reviewer service award.
On
the other hand, NIH may institute an expectation of service for accomplished investigators.
Supporting Different Career Stages
A major goal is reducing bias against new
investigators, whose applications often get less attention from reviewers and end up unscored.
For more established investigators, reviewers will place equal emphasis on research proposed and research accomplished.
NIH expects to create a new investigator-initiated Transformative R01 Award under the NIH Roadmap and may expand Pioneer, EUREKA, and New Innovator awards.
UT Virtual View Book
UT Rockets
Let Us Share More About UT!
UTMC Named Regions #1 Hospital
