NIH peer review "review" ends

The NIH has wrapped up its year-long effort to reform the way it reviews grant applications, releasing today (June 6) a report that focuses on changes such as shortening and redesigning applications, making it easier for good reviewers to serve, and encouraging innovative and "transformative" projects. For instance, the agency plans to create a new investigator-initiated Transformative R01 Award program worth at least $250 million, and invest at least $750 million in innovative awards, such as

Written byAlison McCook
| 1 min read

Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
1:00
Share
The NIH has wrapped up its year-long effort to reform the way it reviews grant applications, releasing today (June 6) a report that focuses on changes such as shortening and redesigning applications, making it easier for good reviewers to serve, and encouraging innovative and "transformative" projects. For instance, the agency plans to create a new investigator-initiated Transformative R01 Award program worth at least $250 million, and invest at least $750 million in innovative awards, such as the Pioneer, EUREKA, and New Innovator Awards, for a total of $1 billion over five years. Additional highlights of the changes include: -Increasing flexibility for reviewers, and compensating them for their time and effort -Focusing applications on impact, including five review criteria, and changing the rating system for applications -Establish a minimum of early stage investigators and those new to the NIH to support, encourage the Transformative Research Pathway During the last year, the NIH solicited feedback from the life science community about how it should linkurl:change;http://www.the-scientist.com/2008/5/1/32/1/ peer review, and received 2,000 responses, some in the form of a statement from an institution or professional organization, each representing thousands of researchers. In January, I sat down with Lawrence Tabak, director of the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research and co-chair of one of the NIH peer review working groups, to talk about the process. linkurl:Click here;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/54180/ to listen to the interview. And check out the linkurl:NIH's Web site;http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/ for more information on how it's changing peer review.
Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

The Scientist Logo
Receive full access to more than 35 years of archives, as well as TS Digest, digital editions of The Scientist, feature stories, and much more!
Already a member? Login Here

Meet the Author

Share
February 2026

A Stubborn Gene, a Failed Experiment, and a New Path

When experiments refuse to cooperate, you try again and again. For Rafael Najmanovich, the setbacks ultimately pushed him in a new direction.

View this Issue
Human-Relevant In Vitro Models Enable Predictive Drug Discovery

Advancing Drug Discovery with Complex Human In Vitro Models

Stemcell Technologies
Redefining Immunology Through Advanced Technologies

Redefining Immunology Through Advanced Technologies

Ensuring Regulatory Compliance in AAV Manufacturing with Analytical Ultracentrifugation

Ensuring Regulatory Compliance in AAV Manufacturing with Analytical Ultracentrifugation

Beckman Coulter Logo
Conceptual multicolored vector image of cancer research, depicting various biomedical approaches to cancer therapy

Maximizing Cancer Research Model Systems

bioxcell

Products

Sino Biological Logo

Sino Biological Pioneers Life Sciences Innovation with High-Quality Bioreagents on Inside Business Today with Bill and Guiliana Rancic

Sino Biological Logo

Sino Biological Expands Research Reagent Portfolio to Support Global Nipah Virus Vaccine and Diagnostic Development

Beckman Coulter

Beckman Coulter Life Sciences Partners with Automata to Accelerate AI-Ready Laboratory Automation

Refeyn logo

Refeyn named in the Sunday Times 100 Tech list of the UK’s fastest-growing technology companies