Structuring your grant proposal in a way that makes it easy for your reviewers will help them both understand the importance and impact of your science, and validate that you meet all requirements for funding. Understanding what happens to a grant  after submission can help you do this. 

Compliance Review and Referral

All grant proposals submitted to the NIH go to the Division of Receipt and Referral (DRR) within the Center for Scientific Review (CSR). Here each proposal is checked for completeness, and assigned both to an NIH institute, center, or office for funding consideration, and to a study section, also known as a scientific review group or review committee, which is where peer review happens. Which study section and institute your grant is sent to is important, and the NIH has mechanisms applicants can use to target grants to specific study sections. I’ve posted on how to target a grant proposal before.

After assignment, a proposal is reviewed first by a study section (peer review) and then by a specific NIH institute (advisory council review). The advisory council makes funding recommendations to the Institute or Center Director, who ultimately decides what will be funded.

Peer Review

This is a useful moment to take a step back and remember what the current process for determining a grant’s overall impact is. While the overall impact score does not come from a specific mathematical formula, there is a clearly defined process by which reviewers are directed to decide upon it.

I’ve covered this process before in detail in this previous post. The quick summary is that prior to the study section meeting, the SRO reviews and assigns each grant proposal to 3+ study section members for evaluation. Reviewers score the proposals and provide narrative critiques anonymously, which the SRO uses to create a list of proposals to discuss at the study section meeting. During the meeting, reviewers present and discuss your grant proposal before submitting an overall impact score, while NIH staff attend to take notes. Scores are posted on eRA Commons shortly after the meeting, and summary statements follow about a month later. Although reviews are confidential, you can contact your SRO for additional context on the study section's evaluation.

Advisory Council Review

Each NIH Institute has an Advisory Council composed of both scientists from the broader scientific community and public representatives. Members are chosen by the respective IC and are approved by the Department of Health and Human Services. For certain committees, members can be appointed by the President of the United States.

Prior to Advisory Council review, NIH staff create a grant funding plan that is sent to the Advisory Council for review. These plans take into account overall impact scores, percentiles, and summary statements and the overall funding priorities of the institute. Council members also have access to the grant proposals. They review the funding plan and make recommendations, which are then presented to the Institute’s Director for a final decision.

After Review

Both your scores and your review will be posted in eRA Commons. If you receive a fundable score, be on the lookout for additional communications from the NIH. You will often be asked to provide “just in time” information, and may be asked for more. If you do not receive a fundable score, you should reach out to your program officer to get insight on why, as they often can provide helpful context that isn’t apparent in the written critiques you receive, and can advise on next steps.