Applying for an NIH grant funding can be intimidating, especially when new rules and regulations are introduced. The Simplified Peer Review Framework for most research project grants began in January of 2025. It has arranged the review criteria into three factors to focus reviewers on three central questions:

This revised framework was implemented to identify rigorous and meritorious research while reducing the potential for scientific reputation bias. By understanding key aspects of the review process, you will be ideally equipped to position your proposal for successful extramural funding.

First, pay close attention to key Factors that will be SCORED:

Factor 1 – Should the research be done?

• Reviewers will concentrate on the Significance, Innovation and the importance of the research.
• The research needs to address an important gap in knowledge, solve a critical problem or create a valuable advance in science.
• Is there rigor of the scientific background and justification for this study?
• What are the novel concepts, methods or technologies that influence the importance of the research?

Factor 2 – Can the research be done well?

• Reviewers will examine the Approach, Rigor and Feasibility, potential pitfalls, and study timeline.
• Are the findings feasible within the timeframe? Are the findings reproducible? Is there potential for major advances rather than incremental knowledge?

Second, gain the reviewer’s confidence by showcasing EXCELLENCE in the team, the environment and the plan in your proposal and the quality of your submission. While not scored, under-developed wrap-around elements can reduce enthusiasm in a project:

Factor 3 – Are the expertise and resources in place?

• The investigators (and team) should have the expertise to carry out the project. Make sure the team covers all aspects of experimental design and analytics.
• Institutional resources and the environment should be appropriate for the study. A poorly described or inadequate scope of the project can plummet enthusiasm.

Additional review criteria:

Pay attention to sections on human subjects protections, vertebrate animal protection, and biohazards. These sections are often left to the last minute, but they can chip away at the reviewer’s confidence in the rigor and likelihood of success of a project.

Arriving at an Impact Score. The score of Factor 1 sets the threshold for the best possible impact score of the proposal. Any weaknesses or gaps identified when assessing other factors or criteria will reduce this number.

Best of luck to everyone!

Want to see these review factors in action?

Don’t miss our upcoming Mock NIH Study Section sessions on September 23 and 26, 2025 via Zoom, where you can observe expert reviewers as they evaluate real, previously submitted grant applications in real time. These “fly on the wall” sessions are a unique chance to deepen your understanding of NIH review dynamics and strengthen your own grant-writing strategy. Register here and download a flyer to share with colleagues.

To stay informed on future articles in the CCTS In Focus: Translational Workforce Development series, subscribe to the weekly CCTS Digest. You’ll also receive updates on upcoming events, including the 2025 CCTS Translational Science Symposium (TSS25), taking place October 30–31, 2025, in Gulf Shores, Alabama. We also invite you to connect with us on LinkedIn to continue the conversation and grow your professional network.

---

References:
1. National Institutes of Health. (2024, August 19). Simplified Peer Review Framework. https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/peer-review/simplifying-review/framework
2. National Institutes of Health. (2025, May). Reviewer Guidance. Reviewer Guide to Evaluating Applications.
https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/peer-review/simplifying-review/reviewer-guidance