On Friday August 14, shortly after NIH's webinar on its Unified Funding Strategy, the agency released a new Request for Information (RFI) on "Proposed Changes to Reporting Outcomes from NIH Peer Review.” The proposal includes sorting applications into one of three categories: "most competitive," "competitive," or "not discussed.” It is proposed that these impact categories be released in lieu of final impact scores or percentiles. Specifics about how grants are prioritized would be withheld from applicants, and from NIH program staff, Institute and Center leadership, and Advisory Councils.
NAVBO believes that the NIH grant review system will become significantly less transparent if these changes are enacted. The two proposed competitive categories each cover 25% of the total grants submitted/round, with no indication of where in that range a given application falls. And historically funding paylines usually do not even come close to the first 25 percentile. This secrecy will compromise accountability, and breed uncertainty, inefficiency, and distrust. It is also likely that the dearth of data regarding grant reviews will compromise the ability of Congress to exercise oversight and the agency’s own ability to assess and improve its funding choices.
Consider submitting a comment and informing your networks regarding this proposed policy change.