{"meta":{"status":200,"messages":[],"pagination":{"max":1,"offset":0,"count":1,"total":1,"pageNum":1,"totalPages":1,"sort":null,"currentUrl":"https://api.digitalmedia.hhs.gov/api/v2/resources/media.json?offset=0&max=1&ignoreHiddenMedia=1&format=json&id=17314&newUrlBase=https://grants.nih.gov/grants-process/","nextUrl":null,"previousUrl":null}},"results":[{"content":"\n
\n
\n
\n

Review

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n Scope Note \n
\n
\n

What happens between the time you submit the application and NIH lets you know you will be funded? Learn more about receipt and referral and NIH\u2019s scientific peer review process.

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Application Receipt and Referral

\n

Learn what happens once your application is received by NIH, including how we determine which study section it will go to for peer review and how we assign it to an NIH institute, center, or office for funding consideration.

\n

First Level: Peer Review

\n

The first level of review is carried out by a scientific review group (SRG), also referred to as a study section, composed primarily of non-federal scientists who have expertise in relevant scientific disciplines and current research areas. The role of SRGs is to assess the overall impact that your proposed project (or resource, or training, or center, etc.) will likely have on the biomedical research field(s) involved. Learn more about how the first level of peer review works, scoring, roles, and more.

\n

Second Level: Advisory Council Review

\n

National Advisory Councils or Boards perform the second level of peer review for research grant applications and offer advice and recommendations on policy and program development, program implementation, evaluation, and other matters of significance to the mission and goals of the respective Institutes or Centers (ICs). The advisory council makes funding recommendations to the Institute or Center Director, who ultimately makes the funding decision.

\n

After Review

\n

If you receive a favorable review outcome, you may be asked to submit additional information. If you don't receive a favorable review outcome, reach out to your Program Official to discuss next steps.

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Contact

\n
\n

Check online guidance and direct your questions to staff in your organization's sponsored programs office. If you still need assistance, find NIH contacts at Need Help?

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n This page last updated on: August 16, 2024
For technical issues E-mail OER Webmaster \n
\n \n
Syndicated Content Details:
Source URL: https://grants.nih.gov/grants-process/review#
Source Agency: National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Captured Date: 2017-11-15 18:33:00.0
","description":"The core values of peer review drive the NIH to seek the highest level of ethical standards, and form the foundation for the laws, regulations, and policies that govern the NIH peer review process. The NIH dual peer review system is mandated by statute in accordance with section 492 of the Public Health Service Act and federal regulations governing \"Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications and Research and Development Contract Projects\". NIH policy is intended to promote a process whereby grant applications submitted to the NIH are evaluated on the basis of a process that strives to be fair, equitable, timely, and free of bias.","id":17314,"mediaType":"Html","name":"Peer Review","sourceUrl":"https://grants.nih.gov/grants-process/review#"}]}