Institutional Review Board
Competing applications are applications for a new, renewal, or resubmission research project grants(RPG), including R01s, R21s, and related mechanisms, that require competitive peer review
Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB)
NINDS and NIA are paying applications responding to specific AD/ADRD funding opportunities by impact rating rank order (priority, or "overall impact" score) rather than by percentile rank. These institutes are currently paying these applications to an impact rating of 40. Though these pay lines are generally followed, NIA and NINDS may pay a few applications beyond these lines or choose to provide short-term support or require a resubmission from a few applications within these lines, following both peer review comments and published funding priority guidelines.
- type of application (1)
- activity code (R01)
- organization to which it is assigned (AI)
- serial number assigned by the Center for Scientific Review (183723),
- suffix showing the support year for the grant (-01)
- other information identifying a revision (S1), resubmission (A1), or a fellowship's institutional allowance. For contracts, the suffix is replaced by a modification number.
Sample Grant Number 1 R01 AI 183723 -01 A1 S1
Grants Management Officer (GMO)
High Risk/High Impact (HR/HI)
Independent Clinical Trial
An independent clinical trial is one for which the researcher proposing the study has primary or lead responsibility for conducting and executing the trial. NIH policy permits individual career development awardees and individuals appointed to institutional career development awards to be involved in a range of clinical trial activities, including leading independent clinical trials. For NRSA trainees or fellows, however, NIH policy precludes leading an independent clinical trial as part of their training experience. Instead, NRSA trainees and fellows interested in clinical trials may gain clinical trial research experience by working on a trial led by their mentor or another investigator.
Institute or Center (IC)
The NIH organizational component responsible for a particular grant program or set of activities. The terms "NIH IC" or "awarding IC" are used throughout this document to designate a point of contact for advice and interpretation of grant requirements and to establish the focal point for requesting necessary prior approvals or changes in the terms and conditions of award.
Institutional Review Board
An application may be designated Not Recommended for Further Consideration (NRFC) by the Scientific Review Group if it lacks significant and substantial merit; presents serious ethical problems in the protection of human subjects from research risks; or presents serious ethical problems in the use of vertebrate animals, biohazards, and/or select agents. Applications designated as NRFC do not proceed to the second level of peer review (National Advisory Council/Board) because they cannot be funded.
Office of Research Integrity
The process that involves the consistent application of standards and procedures that produce fair, equitable, and objective examinations of applications based on an evaluation of scientific or technical merit or other relevant aspects of the application. The review is performed by experts (Peer Reviewers) in the field of endeavor for which support is requested. Peer review is intended to provide guidance and recommendations to the NIH individuals responsible for making award decisions.
Peer Review Criteria
Phase IIB Competing Renewal
A PA is a formal statement about a new or ongoing extramural activity or program. It may serve as a reminder of continuing interest in a research area, describe modification in an activity or program, and/or invite applications for grant support. Most applications in response to PAs may be submitted to a standing submission date and are reviewed with all other applications received at that time using standard peer review processes. NIH may also make funds available through PARs (PAs with special receipt, referral, and/or review considerations) and PASs (PAs with set-aside funds).
PAs may be used for any support mechanism other than construction awards. Unless otherwise specified in the PA, new applications (and associated renewal and revision applications) submitted in response to PAs are treated as investigator-initiated. PAs also are used to annually solicit applications for the SBIR and STTR programs. Those applications must be received by the dates specified in the PA.
The terms Study Section and Review Committee are normally used for continuing Scientific Review Groups in the Center for Scientific Review or NIH Institute, respectively. These are groups with members who have been appointed for multi-year terms of service; at any given meeting there are also usually a number of temporary members present to provide the expertise needed to review the applications.
Scientific Review Group
A peer review committee group of primarily non-government experts (peer reviewers), qualified by training or experience in particular scientific or technical fields, or as authorities knowledgeable in the various disciplines and fields related to the applications under review, to evaluate and give expert advice on the scientific and technical merit of the applications. No more than one-fourth of the members of any SRG may be Federal employees, as noted in 42 CFR 52(h).
Scored Review Criteria
Special Emphasis Panel (SEP)
Scientific Review Groups formed on an ad hoc basis to review applications requiring special expertise or when a conflict of interest situation occurs.Scientific Review Groups formed on an ad hoc basis to review applications requiring special expertise or when a conflict of interest situation occurs.