Reinvent merit review NIH is entrusted with evaluating the merit of research grant applications that depends on the judgment of “study sections” - committees of peer scientists - from narrowly defined disciplinary areas who volunteer their services. Although this approach successfully identifies strong proposals for funding and is envied throughout the world, the application and review processes have become increasingly complex and inefficient, while the number of worthy applications far exceeds allocated funding. As a result, study sections are favoring safe, incremental research proposals from established researchers at prestigious institutions over bold and innovative new ideas. The higher funding rate afforded more cautious proposals makes researchers less likely to propose their best and boldest ideas.
To create incentives for more strongly advancing novel ideas through NIH’s merit review system, we recommend the following revisions:
a. Pilot a two-phase application process. Phase I would require a single page synopsis of Abstract and Specific Aims, lacking direct or indirect identifiers of the investigator or their host institution. Approximately ~50% of applications would advance past this phase. Applications reaching Phase II, would be reviewed as full proposals, including identifiers and other details. Applicants would have the option to submit both phases for review in a single review cycle, or to submit only Phase I, preparing Phase II for the subsequent cycle. Other funders using this two-phase review process report that it identifies and supports uncon- ventional ideas with potential for breaking new ground, and is more likely to recognize such ideas irrespective of the reputation or institutional affiliation of the applicant. NIH should design a pilot program to assess the impact of these changes on how proposals are ranked and on the quality of the review experience for applicants and reviewers. b. Revise the Research Strategy section of all standard research project award (R01) proposals to be shorter (from 12 to 6 pages), and focused on significance (What would be the impact on the field if the work is successful?) and innovation (Is the idea a new one? Does the idea challenge prevailing paradigms or exploit novel approaches or technologies?). Eliminating detailed description of methods and preliminary results will greatly streamline these applications, and squarely focus on creativity and potential impact.
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker