{"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=3347&newUrlBase=https://grants.nih.gov/grants","nextUrl":null,"previousUrl":null}},"results":[{"content":"
\nThe following guidance may assist you in developing a strong application that allows reviewers to better evaluate the science and merit of your proposal. This page provides tips for demonstrating to reviewers and NIH staff the high quality of the personnel involved in you project and documenting resources and institutional support of the project. We provide information for new investigators and foreign applicants, as well.
\nThough the advice provided is relevant for all research grants, it is general in nature and geared toward the NIH Research Project (R01). The tips should not replace your organization's internal guidance, specific advice provided by NIH program or grants management staff, or instructions found in the funding opportunity announcement or application guide.
\nBefore You Start Writing: | \n \n | \n
Application forms are posted with each funding opportunity announcement. Form-by-form, field-by-field instructions for completing your application may be found on the How to Apply - Application Guide page under the blue header for Form Instructions. Use these instructions in conjunction with the guidance in the funding opportunity announcement (including the Related Notices section of the announcement) to develop your application. If instructions in the application guide and funding opportunity conflict, the opportunity wins. If instructions in either the application guide or opportunity conflict with an NIH Guide notice (including a Notice of Special Interest), the notice wins.
The How to Apply - Application Guide page includes other valuable information including how to Format Attachments (fonts, margins, etc.).
Careful preparation and an understanding of how your application will be reviewed can help you build a solid application. During NIH\u2019s peer review process, we convene a panel of non-Federal scientists to review your application. Although a number of factors contribute to whether your application will be funded, we place great emphasis on the review of scientific merit. The following sections describe the criteria reviewers employ to evaluate applications. Read them carefully for helpful hints on the information and content you should include in the application to garner a favorable evaluation.
\nOverall Impact
\nReviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria, and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
\nScored Review Criteria
\nReviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific and technical merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
\nSignificance. Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is there a strong scientific premise for the project? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
\nInvestigator(s). Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
\nInnovation. Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
\n Approach. Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects? If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
Environment. Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
Note that an application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
\nLearn more about how applications are scored.
\nAdditional Review Criteria
\nAs applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit and in providing an overall impact score, but will not give separate scores for these items.
\nBe sure to address any of these additional review criteria that apply to your application, as reviewers will consider them when assigning overall impact/priority scores.
\n\n | \n | Note: These are general review criteria for evaluating unsolicited research project grant applications. NRSA fellowship award, career development award, and specific funding opportunity announcements (FOAs) may have different or additional special review criteria. Applicants should look in the funding opportunity announcement to which they are applying and familiarize themselves with the review criteria by which their application will be evaluated. | \n
Additional Review Considerations
\nAs applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.
\n Note: Certain funding opportunity announcements (FOAs) that are published in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts may list additional elements under each of the above criteria related to the specific requirement of the FOA. | \n
Learn more about how applications are reviewed and scored on our peer review process page.
\n\n
Sufficient information must be included to demonstrate to reviewers and NIH staff the high quality of the PD/PI, the co-investigators, available research resources, and the applicant institution and its support of the project.
\nResources:
\nApplicants should clearly state that they have the appropriate resources to conduct the research, such as adequate equipment and laboratory space. When possible, include letters of commitment for these resources.
\n Independence and Institutional Support:
This is important for all investigators, but particularly for new and early stage investigators or those who are early in their independent careers:
Collaborators and Consultants:
\nDetermine the expertise needed for your research study team (individuals, collaborating organizations, resources, etc.). Most scientific work requires collaboration among researchers, and NIH is dedicated to fostering such relationships.
\nAlthough optional in most cases, the Cover Letter attachment on the SF424 (R&R) form and the PHS Assignment Request Form can be used to convey information to the Division of Receipt and Referral (DRR) in the Center for Scientific Review.
\n\n
\n
\n
This step will be one of your most time-consuming in the writing process.
\n\n
The research plan describes the proposed research, stating its significance and how it will be conducted. Remember, your application has two audiences: the majority of reviewers who will probably not be familiar with your techniques or field and a smaller number who will be familiar.
\n\n
The following elements need to be included in the grant application as appropriate. Unless stated, these elements do not influence the rating (priority score) of the application. However, the reviewers are asked to comment on the adequacy of the information provided for each element. Any concerns the reviewers identify may negatively affect and postpone the granting of an award.
\n\n \n
You\u2019ve planned, you\u2019ve researched, you understand the application\u2026now it\u2019s time to write. A well-written, well formatted application is an important key to success. Remember the details when formatting attachments!
\n TIP #1: Make Your Project\u2019s Goals Realistic Don\u2019t propose more work than can be reasonably done during the proposed project period. | \n
TIP #2: Be Organized and Logical Why? Reviewers are accustomed to finding information in specific sections of the application. This creates an efficient evaluation process and saves reviewers from hunting for required information. | \n
Start with an outline, following the suggested organization of the application. The thought process of the application should be easy to follow.
\nNote: Upon submission, NIH Systems will automatically add: headers, footers (time stamping, tracking number, FOA number, and page numbers). Therefore, do not include headers or footers.
\n TIP #3: Write in Clear Concise Language Why? A reviewer must often read 10-15 applications in great detail so your application has a better chance of being successful if it is easy-to-read and well-written. | \n
TIP #4: Sell Your Idea on Paper Capture the reviewers\u2019 attention by making the case for why NIH should fund your research! | \n
TIP #5: Edit Yourself, but also Enlist Help You\u2019ve most likely been looking at the same words, sentences and paragraphs repeatedly! Allow someone with fresh eyes to read your content, check your punctuation, and give you feedback on whether the content flows. | \n
TIP # 6: Share for Comments You\u2019ve most likely been looking at the same words over and over! Allow someone with fresh eyes read your content, check your punctuation, and give you feedback on whether the content flows. | \n