NIH R03 Program Review
Ning Jackie Zhang, MD, PhD, MPH
College of Health and Public Affairs
04/17/2013
Purposes of R03
• Preliminary study for a larger grant
• For new investigators to develop a track record
• Pilot study or testing a core measurement or a
secondary analysis of relevant data
• FOA/RFA/investigator initiated
• Building up collaborations or team
• Producing some publications
• Getting yourself familiar with the application
processes
Funding success rates
in 2012
Fiscal
Year
Application
Activity
type
Institutes Code
# of
Submissions
Success
Rate
Awarded
Funding
2012
New
NCI
R03
506
101
20.0%
$7,735,027
2012
New
NHLBI
R03
28
10
35.7%
$792,750
2012
New
NIDCR
R03
89
18
20.2%
$2,647,031
2012
New
NIDDK
R03
83
32
38.6%
$3,029,282
2012
New
NINDS
R03
146
30
20.5%
$2,361,349
2012
New
NIAID
R03
244
55
22.5%
$4,182,359
2012
New
NICHD
R03
496
61
12.3%
$4,688,729
2012
New
NIEHS
R03
58
7
12.1%
$528,298
2012
New
NIA
R03
271
57
21.0%
$4,421,958
2012
New
NIAMS
R03
140
20
14.3%
$1,561,046
2012
New
NIDCD
R03
79
27
34.2%
$4,057,781
2012
New
NIMH
R03
120
24
20.0%
$1,861,476
2012
New
NIDA
R03
143
33
23.1%
$4,073,120
2012
New
NIAAA
R03
40
4
10.0%
$299,091
2012
New
NINR
R03
47
9
19.1%
$689,967
2012
New
NHGRI
R03
31
7
22.6%
$543,040
2012
New
NIBIB
R03
132
14
10.6%
$1,232,975
2012
New
FIC
R03
54
9
16.7%
$522,624
2012
New
OD
R03
1
1
100.0%
$338,234
2012
New
Common
Fund
R03
167
53
31.7%
$2,192,499
2012
FY Total
All
Institutes
Total
51,313
9,032
17.6%
$3,811,804,254
Five Review Criteria for Research Proposals
•
•
•
•
•
Significance
Investigator(s)
Innovation
Approach
Environment
Overall Impact
• Reviewers will provide an overall
impact/priority score to reflect their
assessment of the likelihood for the project to
exert a sustained, powerful influence on the
research field(s) involved, in consideration of
the following review criteria, and additional
review criteria (as applicable for the project
proposed).
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer_review_process.htm?print=yes
Significance
• Does the project address an important
problem or a critical barrier to progress in the
field? If the aims of the project are achieved,
how will scientific knowledge, technical
capability, and/or clinical practice be
improved? How will successful completion of
the aims change the concepts, methods,
technologies, treatments, services, or
preventative interventions that drive this
field?
Investigator(s)
• Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers
well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators
or New Investigators, or in the early stages of
independent careers, do they have appropriate
experience and training? If established, have they
demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments
that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is
collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have
complementary and integrated expertise; are their
leadership approach, governance and organizational
structure appropriate for the project?
Innovation
• Does the application challenge and seek to shift
current research or clinical practice paradigms by
utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches
or methodologies, instrumentation, or
interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or
methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions
novel to one field of research or novel in a broad
sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new
application of theoretical concepts, approaches
or methodologies, instrumentation, or
interventions proposed?
Approach
• Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses
well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the
specific aims of the project? Are potential problems,
alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success
presented? If the project is in the early stages of
development, will the strategy establish feasibility and
will particularly risky aspects be managed? If the
project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1)
protection of human subjects from research risks, and
2) inclusion of minorities and members of both
sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children,
justified in terms of the scientific goals and research
strategy proposed?
Environment
• Will the scientific environment in which the
work will be done contribute to the
probability of success? Are the institutional
support, equipment and other physical
resources available to the investigators
adequate for the project proposed? Will the
project benefit from unique features of the
scientific environment, subject populations, or
collaborative arrangements?
Scoring
System
Score
Descriptor
Additional Guidance on
Strengths/Weaknesses
1
Exceptional
Exceptionally strong with
essentially no weaknesses
2
Outstanding
Extremely strong with
negligible weaknesses
3
Excellent
Very strong with only some
minor weaknesses
Results
• ND
• Scored with percentage, not funded
– Summary statement
– Resubmission
• Funded
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/
http://report.nih.gov/
https://commons.era.nih.gov/