* You may use our information as a resource, but please credit The University of Iowa as the source.
NIH Links/Review Criteria
DSP ‘portal’ to NIH webpage
http://research.uiowa.edu/dsp/main/index.php?get=nih1
NIH Institutes, Centers, and Offices
http://www.nih.gov/icd/
Institutes and Centers have money to support their particular research agendas. About 20% of the funding is for grant projects defined by NIH, and nearly 80% of the research funding is investigator initiated. So it is crucial to become familiar with the missions of the various institutes and centers to find potential support for your research.
NIH Extramural Office
http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm
This site has substantial resources and information to help you in your funding search and proposal development. You should make it a goal to learn this information.
Types of NIH grant programs/award mechanisms
http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/funding_program.htm
Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards (NRSA)
http://grants1.nih.gov/training/nrsa.htm
New Investigators Program/ Pathways to Independence
http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/index.htm
Extramural Office-Grants Writing Tips Sheet
http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/grant_tips.htm
NIH Tips for New Grant Applicants
http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Research/Application/Tips.htm
Peer Review Process
http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/peer_review_process.htm
RePORT - NIH funded awards database
http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm
Search RePORT to see what has been funded in the past in your area of interest to determine funding agendas and the innovation of your own project. You might start by selecting “Fellowships” from the Activity Code category.
Scientific Review Center (SRC)
This gives you important information regarding how your proposal is processed and reviewed. There is even a video that shows you a sample review meeting so you can see what makes a successful proposal.
NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts
http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/index.html
Official publication for NIH medical and behavioral research: includes Grant Policies, Guidelines and Funding Opportunities. Subscribe to their listserv to receive weekly electronic e-mails with Table of Contents information for that week’s issue with links to each notice published that week.
Review Criteria
The goals of NIH-supported research are to advance the understanding of biological systems, improve the control of disease, and enhance health. Reviewers judge the likelihood that the proposed research will have a substantial impact on the pursuit of NIH’s research goals by addressing, in their written comments about the application, the following criteria:
Significance. Does this study address an important problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts or methods that drive this field?
Approach. Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?
Innovation. Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches or methods? Are the aims original and innovative? Does the project challenge existing models or develop new methodologies or technologies?
Investigator. Is the investigator appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the PI and other researchers (if any)?
Environment. Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed experiments take advantage of unique features of the scientific environment or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of organizational support?
All of the criteria, weighted as appropriate for each application, will be considered when assigning the overall score. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have a major scientific impact and thus deserve a high priority score. For example, an investigator may propose to carry out work that, by its nature, is not innovative but is essential to move a field forward.
Although the review criteria are intended for use primarily with unsolicited research project grant applications (e.g., R01 and P01), including those in response to PAs, to the extent reasonable, the criteria also will form the basis of the review of solicited applications and non-research activities. However, for some activities (e.g., construction grants), the use of these criteria may not be feasible. Applications also may be reviewed against specific criteria as stated in RFAs or PAs.
In addition to the above criteria, in accordance with NIH policy, all applications will be reviewed with respect to the following:
Adequacy of plans to include both genders, members of minority groups, children, and their subgroups, as appropriate for the scientific goals of the research. Plans for the recruitment and retention of subjects also will be evaluated.
Reasonableness of the proposed budget and duration in relation to the proposed research.
Adequacy of the proposed protection for humans, animals, or the environment to the extent they may be adversely affected by the project proposed in the application.
