As many of you know, NIH is trying to improve the way grant applications are reviewed. Last Friday the NIH released its game plan on planned enhancements to the process and plans for accomplishing this major task. The project has been divided into three phases: the diagnostic phase, the design of the implementation plan, and finally, implementation of the selected actions.

Some highlights from the Overview at NIH:

Diagnostic Phase

The Final Draft Report issued February 29, 2008, documents the outcome of the diagnostic phase and describes recommendations for addressing the following seven major challenges:

1. Reducing Administrative Burden of Applicants, Reviewers, and NIH Staff
2. Enhancing the Rating System
3. Enhancing Review and Reviewer Quality
4. Optimizing Support at Different Career
5. Optimizing Support for Different Types and Approaches of Science
6. Reducing Stress on the Support System of Science
7. Meeting the Need for Continuous Review of Peer Review

Implementation Phase

In March 2008, the NIH Director established the Steering Committee Peer Review Implementation Group to draft the outline of implementation plans for each recommended action. The subgroups were composed largely of NIH program and review officers, planning and evaluation experts and statisticians.

The implementation plan process was guided by two fundamental principles. First, while improving the system, do no harm. That is, ensure that any changes to the peer review system bring significant value and reflect a favorable balance between costs and benefits. Secondly, continue to maximize the freedom of scientists to explore.

Feedback was solicited from both NIH internal and external communities. This feedback, together with careful consideration of the pros and cons of both individual and combined recommendations, informed the development of the draft implementation plan, which four core priorities emerged:

1. Recruit, train and reward the best possible reviewers;
2. Align structure of applications, review criteria, summary statements and the rating process to improve quality and transparency of reviews;
3. Ensure balanced and fair reviews across scientific fields and scientific career stages while reducing unnecessary burden on applicants;
4. Implement a system for continuous review and improvement of peer review.

Resources:

• Jocelyn Kaiser presents a wonderful overview in “NIH to Overhaul Peer Review of Grants”
• The Scientist’s Alison McCook describes one scientist’s experience in “Losing Your Lab”
• Press Release: NIH Director Announces Enhancements to Peer Review
• Enhancing Peer Review at NIH homepage

New links today (6/11/2008)

• Nature’s take on the process
• A Nature blog for peer-reviewers about peer review.