With the goals of both reducing review burden and broadening the number of individuals and institutions working with the NIH, the NIH is moving to a simplified review framework for all grants submitted on or after January 25, 2025. As of this writing, the outcome of review currently includes 5 scored criteria: Significance, Investigators, Innovation, Approach, and Environment. The Simplified Framework reorganizes these 5 factors into three factors. Factor 1 is the Importance of the Research, which will take into account both the current significance and innovation. Factor 2 is Rigor and Feasibility, currently the Approach. Factor 3 includes Expertise and Resources, the former Investigator and Environment criteria. Factors 1 and 2 are scored on a 1 (best) to 9 scale. Factor 3 will simply be determined to be sufficient for the proposed research or not. All 3 Factors will contribute to a grant’s overall impact score, though as per now, not in a mathematical way. Overall impact will continue to be defined as “the project’s likelihood to exert a sustained, powerful influence on its field.” As per now, the additional criteria of Human Subject Protections, Vertebrate Animal Protections, Biohazards, and if the application is a Resubmission, Renewal or Revision will continue to factor into the overall impact score. Together these changes facilitate reviewers’ assessment of the following three core questions:

1. Should it be done? (Factor 1)
2. Can it be done? (Factor 2)
3. Will it be done? (Factor 3)

Does this change how I write my grants?

The NIH views this as a change that only affects review, noting that the required components of the grant are unchanged. However, writing in a way that makes it easy for your reviewers to determine whether your grant matches review criteria is likely to be helpful. Therefore, it makes sense to explicitly address the new criteria briefly in your specific aims and in greater depth in the research strategy section of your grant proposal. My advice would be to comment on each factor at the conclusion of the section relevant to it by adding a sentence or two at the end of the Significance/Innovation sections, and in the Approach section, and to conclude with an overall summary combining this information. It is also helpful to refer to other documents to establish that you have the capacity to perform individual assays, for example the Equipment section when describing the use of a specific imaging technique.

Below is a sample Research Strategy conclusion that addresses the core questions:

This research should be done because [sentence on significance]. Furthermore, [sentence on innovation]. Our approach [1-2 sentences summarizing approach] can be done as [comment on rigor and reproducibility]. It will be done as we have the necessary expertise [comment on qualifications of PI, team, collaborators] and resources [comment on availability of facilities and equipment and any other needed resources] in place to perform all assays described in our aims. [End with a sentence describing what the outcomes of the grant will be].