1 CSR’s Mission and Function and What’s New in Peer Review Martha M. Faraday, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer Division of AIDS, Behavioral & Population Sciences Risk Prevention & Health Behavior IRG Psychosocial Risk & Disease Prevention Study Section Date : April 22, 2009 National Institutes of Health U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
37
Embed
CSR’s Mission and Function and What’s New in Peer Review
CSR’s Mission and Function and What’s New in Peer Review. Martha M. Faraday, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer Division of AIDS, Behavioral & Population Sciences Risk Prevention & Health Behavior IRG Psychosocial Risk & Disease Prevention Study Section. Date : April 22, 2009 . - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
CSR’s Mission and Function
and
What’s New in Peer Review
Martha M. Faraday, Ph.D.
Scientific Review OfficerDivision of AIDS, Behavioral & Population Sciences
Risk Prevention & Health Behavior IRGPsychosocial Risk & Disease Prevention Study Section
Date : April 22, 2009
National Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
National Institutes of HealthNational Institutes of Health
National Instituteon Alcohol Abuseand Alcoholism
National Instituteof Arthritis andMusculoskeletal
and Skin Diseases
National CancerInstitute
National Instituteon Drug Abuse
National Instituteof Environmental Health Sciences
National Instituteon Aging
National Instituteof Child Health
and HumanDevelopment
National Institute onDeafness and Other
CommunicationDisorders
National EyeInstitute
National HumanGenome Research
Institute
National Instituteof Mental Health
National Instituteof NeurologicalDisorders and
Stroke
National Instituteof General
Medical Sciences
National Instituteof Nursing Research
National Libraryof Medicine
Center for Center for Scientific ReviewScientific Review
National Centerfor Complementary
and AlternativeMedicine
National Instituteof Allergy and
Infectious Diseases
FogartyInternational
Center
National Centerfor ResearchResources
Clinical Center
National Center on Minority Health andHealth Disparities
National Institute of Biomedical Imagingand Bioengineering
Interdisciplinary Interdisciplinary Molecular Molecular & Training& Training
CSR Review DivisionsCSR Review Divisions
• Standing Study Sections when the subject matter of the application matches the referral guidelines for the study section
• Special Emphasis Panels (SEPs) when the subject matter does not fit into any study section, or when assignment of an application to the most appropriate study section would create a conflict of interest. Also used for special mechanisms (e.g., fellowships, SBIRs, AREAs)
Within an IRG, applications are assignedfor review to
Assignment to CSR Review Groups
• Read the instructions• Never assume that reviewers “will know what you
mean”• Refer to the literature thoroughly• State rationale of proposed investigation• Include well-designed tables and figures• Present an organized, lucid write-up• Remember to address human subjects, vertebrate
animals, potential biohazards; these could affect your score
• Obtain pre-review from faculty at your institution
NIH Grant Writing Tips: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/grant_tips.htm
When Preparing Your ApplicationWhen Preparing Your Application
Reviewers are guided by specific review criteria Protections for Humans, Vertebrate Animals, Environment (Biohazard) may affect final scoreAssigned reviewers recommend scores for each application in upper half; all members not in conflict vote their conscience (outlier score policy pertains)Other considerations not affecting final score are discussed (e.g., budget, foreign applicants, resource sharing plans)
• Lower half applications not discussed, not assigned an overall score
* Aspects of this process will change in May, 2009http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov
Post Meeting Review Process• Scores are provided to investigators within 3 working days
• Summary Statements for discussed and scored applications include Resume & Summary of Discussion, (largely unedited) critiques, and other recommendations (e.g., Budget)
• Summary Statements for lower half (Not Discussed) applications receive (largely unedited) critiques and review criteria scores but no overall impact scores
• All Summary Statements are made available within 30 days of meeting (10 days for new investigators’ R01s)
What’s New in Peer Review?What’s New in Peer Review?
Enhancing Peer ReviewEnhancing Peer Review““Fund the best science, by the best scientists, Fund the best science, by the best scientists, with the least administrative burden…” with the least administrative burden…”
Elias Zerhouni, MD, Former Director, NIHElias Zerhouni, MD, Former Director, NIH
2008: The Year of Peer Review2008: The Year of Peer Review
RecommendationsRecommendations
Amended Applications:Amended Applications:
To speed the funding of meritorious science and To speed the funding of meritorious science and minimize reviewer burden:minimize reviewer burden:
•As of January 25, 2009, all original new applications (i.e., never submitted) and competing renewal applications will be permitted only a single amendment (A1)single amendment (A1).
What’s New in Peer ReviewWhat’s New in Peer Review
• New Investigators/Early Stage InvestigatorsNew Investigators/Early Stage Investigators
• Scoring Scale (9 point scale)Scoring Scale (9 point scale)Criterion ScoringCriterion ScoringOverall Impact ScoreOverall Impact Score
21
New Investigators/Early Stage InvestigatorsNew Investigators/Early Stage Investigators
• New Investigator (NI): New Investigator (NI):
PD/PI who has not yet competed successfully for a substantial NIH research grant
o For multiple PD/PIs-all PD/PIs must meet requirements for NI status
• Early Stage Investigator (ESI):Early Stage Investigator (ESI):
PD/PI who qualifies as a New Investigator AND is within 10 years of completing the terminal research degree or is within 10 years of completing medical residency (or equivalent)
• Applies only to R01 applicationsApplies only to R01 applications• New Investigators/Early Stage Investigators will be clustered New Investigators/Early Stage Investigators will be clustered
together for reviewtogether for review
22
Enhanced Review CriteriaEnhanced Review Criteria
• Overall Impact: Overall Impact: Assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involvedresearch field(s) involved
• New Core Criteria Order:New Core Criteria Order:SignificanceInvestigator(s)InnovationApproachEnvironment
o Review criteria enhanced and expandedReview criteria enhanced and expanded
23
CritiquesCritiquesGoal: To improve the quality of the critiques and to Goal: To improve the quality of the critiques and to focus reviewer attention on the review criteria:focus reviewer attention on the review criteria:
•Provide clear, concise, and explicit information•Aid in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of each criterion
Template-Based CritiquesTemplate-Based Critiques
Template-Based CritiquesTemplate-Based Critiques
• Critique template contains a total of 18 boxesCritique template contains a total of 18 boxesReviewers should provide text for only those criteria that Reviewers should provide text for only those criteria that are applicable.are applicable.
4. Approach4. Approach 9. Protection of Human Subjects
16. Applications from Foreign Organization
5. Environment5. Environment 10. Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children
17. Resource Sharing Plan
11 Vertebrate Animals 18. Additional 18. Additional Comments to Comments to ApplicantApplicant
12. Biohazards
Template-Based CritiquesTemplate-Based Critiques
• Goal: is to write evaluative statements and to Goal: is to write evaluative statements and to discourage summarizing the applicationdiscourage summarizing the application
Comments should be in the form of bullet points or if necessary short narrativesDo not record scores Do not record scores on the critique templateThe entire template is uploaded to IAR to become part of the summary statement.
26
1. SignificanceSignificance Please limit text to ¼ pagePlease limit text to ¼ page
Strengths Weaknesses
Goal: To improve the transparency of the scoring Goal: To improve the transparency of the scoring process:process:
• Score applications on five review criteria using a five review criteria using a scale of 1-9scale of 1-9.
• Preliminary overall impact score using 1-9 scaleoverall impact score using 1-9 scale.Should not be the average of the criterion scores.Not DiscussedNot Discussed applications will receive initial criterion scores from the three assigned reviewers
Scoring – 9 Point ScaleScoring – 9 Point Scale
Scoring DescriptionsScoring Descriptions
Impact Score Descriptor Strengths/Weaknesses
High Impact
1 Exceptional
Weaknesses
2 Outstanding
3 Excellent
Moderate Impact
4 Very Good
5 Good
6 Satisfactory
Low Impact
7 Fair
8 Marginal
9 Poor
29
ClusteringClustering
• NI/ESI R01 NI/ESI R01 applications will be clustered together in review.
ESI applications will not be separately ESI applications will not be separately clustered within the NI\ESI group.clustered within the NI\ESI group.o NI/ESI applications will be identified for
reviewers so there can be appropriate review in context of career stage.
o Expectations of preliminary data and publication track record less than for established investigators.
Order of ReviewOrder of Review
Goal: Discuss applications in order of average Goal: Discuss applications in order of average preliminary score.preliminary score.
Why:Why:•Concern - variation of scores during different times of the meeting.
One recommendation was to recalibrate scores at One recommendation was to recalibrate scores at the end of the meeting .the end of the meeting .
Solution:Solution:•Recalibrate “dynamically” throughout meeting.
Order of ReviewOrder of Review
• For calibration purposes: For calibration purposes: Begin meeting by discussing the best scored application (any activity code)
o NI/ESI R01s clustered beginning of meetingNI/ESI R01s clustered beginning of meetingo All other activity codes clustered if feasible (if at
least 10 discussed (may include R03, R15, and R21s as a group that can be clustered)
Order of ReviewOrder of Review
SummarySummaryDiscussion order is based on the average of the impact scores from assigned reviewersFinal scores of discussed applications may differ from preliminary scores as re-calibration happens dynamically
Discuss ~ 50-60% of applicationsSRO will then ask if there are any other applications that panel wishes to discuss The remaining applications will not be discussed
(applications receive criterion scores only) o Same after review of ~60% of SBIR applications
Not DiscussedNot Discussed
Final ScoresFinal Scores
• Discussed applications will receive an overall score from each eligible (i.e., without conflicts of interest) panel member and these scores will be averaged to one decimal place, and multiplied by 10. The 81 possible priority scores will thus range from 10-90.
• Percentiles will be reported in whole numbers.
•Summary statement will be shortershorter and more focused.
•DiscussedDiscussed applications will also have a summarysummary of of the panel’s discussiondiscussion at the meeting.
•ALL applications will be scoredALL applications will be scored.Not discussed Not discussed applications will receive criterion scorescriterion scores only.
Summary StatementsSummary Statements
Recruiting the Best ReviewersRecruiting the Best Reviewers
Move a meeting a year to the West Coast
Additional review platforms
Develop a national registry of volunteer reviewers Searchable database with 4,000 reviewers
Provide tangible rewards for reviewers No submission deadlines for chartered members of study sections (effective February 2008). 1574 chartered members used flexible deadlines during the last 6 months
Provide flexible time for reviewers Choice of 3 times/year for 4 years or2 times/year for 6 years