Study Sections, also known as Scientific Review Groups or SRGs, are panels of experts that review and score NIH grant applications to recommend funding. Each study section focuses on a specific area of science or methodology. Study sections are composed of scientists with expertise in relevant fields, including basic and translational researchers, clinicians, and statisticians. Members are selected for their deep knowledge and experience, with the goal of ensuring rigorous and fair evaluations. While many NIH study sections are longstanding, the NIH does add and remove sections periodically. A complete list of all study sections is available here, and the NIH provides a tool called ART to help scientists identify relevant study sections.

Why Study Section Selection Matters

Study section selection matters because it directly influences who will review your research proposal. Choosing the right study section ensures your work is evaluated by scientists with relevant expertise in your specific research area, increasing the likelihood of a fair and accurate assessment of your proposal.

Each study section posts a list of reviewers on their website. You should review this list and ensure it contains members who are likely to be familiar with your research area. Such individuals are likely to overlap with colleagues you interact with regularly at more specialized scientific conferences, and colleagues whose work you cite in your grant proposals and manuscripts. If you don’t recognize anyone, you likely are targeting the wrong study section.

Can I request a specific study section?

Yes, but in addition to doing this you should ensure that your project title and abstract align with your desired study section, because a request is just a request. This post includes information on how to write an abstract that targets a specific study section. If your grant proposal is determined to not align with a particular study section, the NIH will send it to the section it deems appropriate, not the one you requested.

In the past, applicants used the cover letter to request a specific study section. The NIH no longer allows this, and instead provides an Assignment Request Form that allows you to request a specific study section and/or funding agency, note any conflicts of interest, and describe the type of expertise that is needed to properly review your proposal. Note that you should never use this form to name a person you would like to be a reviewer. This form is optional, and you can complete any or all fields on the form as it pertains to your desires for your proposal. 

How are study section members selected?

Study sections consist of a mix of appointed members and ad hoc reviewers. The NIH has posted a detailed description of how appointed study section members are selected. This post covers selection criteria for individual reviewers as well as details on the overall nomination process conducted by the study section’s Scientific Review Officer (SRO). 

Briefly, the selection prioritizes relevant expertise in reviewer selection, with the goal of ensuring that each scientific area included within the scope of the study section has a recognized expert for that research area. The SRO also pays attention to geographic diversity and overall study section composition, and aims to keep the composition of the study section fluid to facilitate the introduction of novel and diverse viewpoints. SROs prepare a nomination package annually, which consists of a cover letter describing the section and the composition of the study section, a nomination slate describing all potential nominees to the study section, and documentation that supports each nominee (CVs, funding history, etc). Then this package is reviewed in a multi-level review and revision process that ends with the NIH Director signing off on the final package.

When an individual study section meets, the appointed reviewers are joined by a number of ad hoc reviewers that are also selected by the SRO. Ad hoc reviewers fill in any expertise gaps. They are brought in on a case-by-case basis for a single review cycle to provide expert feedback on a particular research area. Often serving as an ad hoc reviewer is a stepping stone to becoming an appointed member of the study section.

The Study Section’s Role in the Review Process

Study sections meet on specific dates (see the study section webpage) to review grant proposals. Prior to this date, the SRO reviews all applications to ensure that they are complete and compliant, and that each grant is in the appropriate study section. Then the SRO assigns each grant proposal to study section members for review (usually 3). These members receive your proposal approximately 6 weeks before the study section meets. The reviewers read your grant and assign scores for overall impact as well as for each review criteria. They also submit narrative critiques of your proposal. This is all done anonymously. The SRO uses these documents and scores to make a list of which applications to discuss when the study section meets. Applications on the lower part of the list are usually not discussed. At the actual meeting, all proposals to be discussed are discussed in a random order (not the ranked order on the SRO’s list). 

During the meeting, the reviewers present your grant proposal and their evaluations, which are then discussed by the group. After the discussion, each reviewer submits an overall impact score. The SRO and other NIH staff usually attend these meetings. While they do not participate, they often take notes on what was discussed and most will be willing to provide you with further context after the review process is complete. Scores are posted on eRA commons within a few days of the study section meeting. Summary statements are sent about a month later. Reviews are confidential and you should never directly contact any member of a study section about your grant proposal, however the NIH allows and even encourages you to contact your SRO to learn more context about how the study section viewed your grant proposal.

After the study section makes its recommendations, your proposal is sent to the advisory council of the NIH funding institute. This group evaluates your proposal within the context of the institute’s priorities and public health needs, and ultimately determines if your proposal will be funded.