����Ӱҵ

Thursday, March 6, 2025

����Ӱҵ centralizes peer review to improve efficiency and strengthen integrity

The proposed approach is expected to save more than $65 million annually.

Today the ����Ӱҵ is announcing plans to centralize peer review of all applications for grants, cooperative agreements and research and development contracts within the agency’s Center for Scientific Review (CSR). The proposed approach is expected to save more than $65 million annually by eliminating duplicative efforts across the agency, making the review process more efficient.  

“At ����Ӱҵ, we are working to optimize our resources to support the best science,” said Acting ����Ӱҵ Director Matthew J. Memoli, M.D. “By centralizing the peer review process, we will not only reduce costs—we will also improve the quality, consistency and integrity of review, and maximize competition of similar science across the agency.”   

More than 80% of ����Ӱҵ’s funding overall supports research institutions across the country, largely through competitive grants that are administered by ����Ӱҵ Institutes and Centers (IC) or the ����Ӱҵ Office of the Director. Each IC has its own budget and research agenda, often focusing on specific diseases or body systems.  

Funding decisions are made through a rigorous dual-level review process. Scientific review groups or study sections, first evaluate and score research proposals for . Study sections are made up of volunteer scientists, mostly from academia, and overseen by ����Ӱҵ staff known as scientific review officers. Advisory councils for ����Ӱҵ ICs and the ����Ӱҵ Office of the Director then perform a for mission relevance. Ultimately, IC directors make final funding decisions, taking into consideration current research priorities and the existing funding portfolio. 

The new centralization effort will apply to the first stage of the review process. ����Ӱҵ’s CSR, which was established in 1946 to manage the scientific review of ����Ӱҵ grant applications and to ensure independent, expert review free from inappropriate influence, currently manages the peer review process for more than 78% of ����Ӱҵ grants. The remaining 22% are reviewed in study sections within 23 ICs, each operating separately with its own administrative and support overhead. The proposed consolidation would eliminate the IC-based study sections so that CSR conducts all first-level review.  

According to an analysis of FY24 data, CSR uses 0.3% of the ����Ӱҵ budget to review more than 66,000 applications annually. In comparison, review costs in the ICs average about 300% of CSR’s costs. 

“Centralized peer review will mitigate the potential for bias by entirely separating the peer review and funding components of ����Ӱҵ,” said CSR Director Noni Byrnes, Ph.D. 

����Ӱҵ’s proposal is now under review with implementation pending external review. This includes review by HHS and the Office of Management and Budget, providing Congress with a 15-day notification period, and issuing a Federal Register notice.

About the ����Ӱҵ (����Ӱҵ): ����Ӱҵ, the nation's medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ����Ӱҵ is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about ����Ӱҵ and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.

����Ӱҵ…Turning Discovery Into Health^®