Della Hann, PhDDeputy Director, Office of Extramural ResearchNational Institutes of Health

CSR Advisory Council

Resubmission Policy

2

• Enhancing Peer Review initiative: NIH reduced the number of resubmissions from two to one

• Policy aimed to address trend in which successive resubmissions were scored more favorably, resulting in queuing of meritorious applications prior to being funded

For NIH Internal Use Only

Rationale

3

From November 2012 Rock Talk

Monitoring 2010 Policy

4

NIH Budget

5For NIH Internal Use Only

• Applications submitted are permitted only a single amendment (A1)

• Following an unsuccessful resubmission (A1), applicants may submit the same idea s a new (A0) application.

• New applications do not need to demonstrate substantial changes in scientific direction.

New Policy (April 17, 2014 – Present)

• Applications submitted were permitted only a single amendment (A1).

• Following an unsuccessful resubmission (A1), applications could be resubmitted only after fundamental revision to qualify as new. 

• New applications were expected to substantially differ in content and scope.

Previous Policy(January 25, 2009 – April 16, 2014)

Comparison of Resubmission Policies

6For NIH Internal Use Only

• NIH will not assess similarity of science in new (A0) applications to previously reviewed submissions when accepting applications for review

• The following associated policies will not change:– NIH will not accept a resubmission application submitted more than 37

months after submission of corresponding new (A0) application .

– NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time, including:

• a new (A0) application submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of an overlapping resubmission (A1) application. 

• a resubmission (A1) application submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of the previous new (A0) application. 

• an application that has substantial overlap with another application pending appeal of initial peer review.

New Resubmission Policy: Details

7For NIH Internal Use Only

New Resubmission Policy: Public Reaction

8For NIH Internal Use Only

“This is indeed great news. Thank you NIH for listening to our concerns. I am a relatively new investigator and given the time frame we have to set up the laboratory and generate sufficient data for R01, it’s almost impossible finding new research direction that would dazzle reviewers after unsuccessful submission. thank you so much again.”

“I am tremendously grateful to the NIH for listening to the feedback from all sides, and making what I think will be viewed as a welcome change to many bright, qualified young scientists who are having trouble competing with big, established labs for funding of their first grant.”

• Most cited benefit: The new policy will help new investigators

– Helps new investigators compete with established labs

– Gives young investigators hope

• Other benefits include:

– Research/careers will not be as negatively impacted by a single reviewer

– New policy offers encouragement to persevere (improved morale)

– New policy addresses concern with prior policy which forced major changes in scientific direction

New Resubmission Policy: Positive Comments

9For NIH Internal Use Only

“Study sections overwhelmed… There are going to be thousands of grants that were turned down over the past two years all resubmitted in the next round or two. There is no reason not to and it will be used to show administrators that one is still actively pursuing research“

“as a reviewer, this is not positive. the reality is that this will not increase your chances of getting funded, only more funding will do that. you may have more chances but so will everyone else. the probability of getting funded will stay the same. the only thing it will do is increase the workload on reviewers, which will decrease the quality of the reviews. it’s hard to see how there is anything positive to this.”

• Most cited concern: Increased reviewer workload/burden

• Other concerns include:

– Increase in queuing/time to award

– Reduction in quality of applications

– Increase in study section “shopping” with the same application

– An increase in number of applications will hinder new investigators more than established labs resulting in a greater disparity between top awardees and new investigators

New Resubmission Policy: Negative Comments

10

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

R Activities

P Activities

U Activities

Other Activities

F, T and K Activities

Fiscal Year

Nu

mb

er o

f A

pp

licat

ion

s P

eer

Rev

iew

edMonitoring the Policy:

Peer –Reviewed Applications 2004-2013

For NIH Internal Use Only

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8RPGR01-like

Fiscal Year

Ap

pli

cati

on

s R

evie

wed

per

Ap

pli

can

t

A3+ revisions phased out

A2 revisions phased out

*Excludes awards made with Ameri-can Recovery and Reinvestiment Act (ARRA) funds, and ARRA-solicited ap-plications.

Monitoring the Policy:Applications Reviewed per Applicant 1990-2013