Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Jun 1;11(6):e0155060.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155060. eCollection 2016.

How Criterion Scores Predict the Overall Impact Score and Funding Outcomes for National Institutes of Health Peer-Reviewed Applications

Affiliations

How Criterion Scores Predict the Overall Impact Score and Funding Outcomes for National Institutes of Health Peer-Reviewed Applications

Matthew K Eblen et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Understanding the factors associated with successful funding outcomes of research project grant (R01) applications is critical for the biomedical research community. R01 applications are evaluated through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) peer review system, where peer reviewers are asked to evaluate and assign scores to five research criteria when assessing an application's scientific and technical merit. This study examined the relationship of the five research criterion scores to the Overall Impact score and the likelihood of being funded for over 123,700 competing R01 applications for fiscal years 2010 through 2013. The relationships of other application and applicant characteristics, including demographics, to scoring and funding outcomes were studied as well. The analyses showed that the Approach and, to a lesser extent, the Significance criterion scores were the main predictors of an R01 application's Overall Impact score and its likelihood of being funded. Applicants might consider these findings when submitting future R01 applications to NIH.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Box Plot Distributions of Criterion and Overall Impact Scores for R01 Applications, FY 2010–2013.
Fig 1 shows the box plot distributions of the five research criterion scores (scale: 1–9) and the Overall Impact score (scale: 10–90). Box plot whiskers extend to the most extreme data point which is no more than 1.5 times the interquartile range from the box. Each criterion score N = 123,707 applications; Overall Impact score N = 71,651 applications.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Box Plot Distributions of Overall Impact Scores for R01 Applications by IC, FY 2010–2013.
Fig 2 shows the box plot distributions of the Overall Impact score (scale: 10–90) by IC. Box plot whiskers extend to the most extreme data point which is no more than 1.5 times the interquartile range from the box. IC names have been masked. N = 71,651 applications (discussed applications only).
Fig 3
Fig 3. Distributions of Funding Rate for R01 Applications by IC, FY 2010–2013.
Fig 3 shows the distribution of the percentage of reviewed applications funded by each IC. IC names have been masked and have been labeled to agree with Fig 3, i.e., the IC labeled as “1” in Fig 2 is the same IC labeled as “1” in Fig 2. N = 123,707.

References

    1. NIH Budget History, NIH Extramural & Intramural Funding: FY 2014 Enacted 2014 [cited 2015]. Available from: http://report.nih.gov/NIHDatabook/Charts/Default.aspx?showm=Y&chartId=28....
    1. NIH Peer Review: Grants and Cooperative Agreements. 2013. Available from: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/PeerReview22713webv2.pdf.
    1. Enhancing Peer Review at NIH 2011. Available from: http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/index.html.
    1. Enhancing Peer Review: The NIH Announces Updated Implementation Timeline NIH Guide2008 [cited 2014 November 20]. Available from: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-09-023.html.
    1. Graves N, Barnett AG, Clarke P. Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel. British Medical Journal. 2011;343 10.1136/bmj.d4797 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources