nih-gov/www.grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-11-064.html

407 lines
No EOL
18 KiB
HTML

<!-- Changed ON 09/24/2024 -->
<!-- Google Tag Manager -->
<script>(function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':
new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],
j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src=
'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);
})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-T2DH393N');</script>
<!-- End Google Tag Manager -->
<HTML lang="en-US">
<!-- From NoticeTemplate.txt -->
<HEAD>
<TITLE>NOT-OD-11-064: Appeals of NIH Initial Peer Review
</TITLE>
<META NAME="description" CONTENT="NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts: Appeals of NIH Initial Peer Review
NOT-OD-11-064. NIH">
<META NAME="Keywords" CONTENT="NOT-OD-11-064: Appeals of NIH Initial Peer Review
">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<link href="../guide_styles/css/bootstrap.min.css" rel="stylesheet" media="screen">
<link href="../guide_styles/css/style.css" rel="stylesheet" media="screen">
<link href="../guide_styles/css/FOAM_Style.css" rel="stylesheet">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<div class="container">
<div class="row">
<div class="col-xs-12">
<div class=WordSection1>
<span class="title">Appeals of NIH Initial Peer Review</span>
<hr noshade>
<p><span class="heading3">Notice Number:</span>
<span class="title">NOT-OD-11-064 </span></p>
<p><span class="heading3">Key Dates</span><br>
<strong>Release Date:</strong> April 15, 2011</p>
<span class="heading3">Related Announcements</span><br>
<ul>
<li>October 20, 2011 - See Notice NOT-OD-12-003. Publication of the Revised NIH Grants Policy Statement (Rev. 10/1/2011): Policy Changes, Clarifications and Document Enhancements.</li>
<li> July 29, 2011 - See Notice NOT-OD-11-101. This Notice clarifies NIH policy for handling the resubmission (A1 version) of a New, Renewal, or Revision application (A0) to the NIH for which an appeal of NIH initial peer review is pending resolution.
</li><li><a href="https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-16-129.html">NOT-OD-16-129 </a>:New Policy Eliminates Most Appendix Material for NIH/AHRQ/NIOSH Applications Submitted for Due Dates On or After January 25, 2017 </li>
<li><a href="https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-080.html">NOT-OD-10-080</a>: Enhancing Peer Review: Clarification of Resubmission Policy and Determination of New Application Status</li>
<li><a href="https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not97-232.html">Appeals of Initial Scientific Peer Review</a>; NIH Guide Volume 26, Number 38, November 21, 1997 </li>
<li><a href="https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-09-054.html">NOT-OD-09-054</a>: Recovery Act of 2009: NIH Review Criteria, Scoring System, and Suspension of Appeals Process</li>
</ul>
<div class="heading3">Issued by</div>
<p class=regulartext>National Institutes of Health (<a href="http://www.nih.gov">NIH</a>)</p>
<div class="heading2">Purpose</div>
<p class=regulartext>The purpose of this Notice is to inform the extramural
research community of recent revisions to the NIH policy concerning appeals of
the initial peer review process. These revisions will become effective for all
competing applications ( applications below) received for the January 25, 2011
due date (October 2011 Council round) and thereafter.</p>
<p class=MsoTitle> Background</p>
<p class=regulartext><strong>NIH
Peer Review</strong></p>
<p class=regulartext>The dual peer review system for the National Institutes of
Health is mandated by statute in accordance with section 492 of the Public
Health Service Act and federal regulations governing "Scientific Peer
Review of Research Grant Applications and Research and Development Contract
Projects" (<a
href="http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/42cfr52h_07.html">42 CFR
Part 52h</a>). The first level of review is carried out by a Scientific Review
Group (SRG), a committee of scientists who have expertise in relevant
scientific disciplines and current research areas, and who make recommendations
concerning the scientific and technical merit of the applications. The second
level of review is performed by Institute and Center (IC) National Advisory
Councils or Boards (Councils). Councils are composed of both scientific and lay
members chosen for their expertise, interest, or activity in matters related to
health and disease. The official outcome of the initial level of review is
made available to investigators, Council members and NIH staff via a written
report, the NIH summary statement.</p>
<p class=regulartext><strong>Definitions</strong></p>
<p class=regulartext>Appeal: An appeal is a written communication from a Program
Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) and/or applicant institution that meets
the following four criteria: 1) is received after issuance of the summary
statement and up to 30 calendar days after the second level of peer review, 2)
describes a flaw or perceived flaw in the review process for a particular
application, 3) is based on one or more of four allowable issues (described
below), and 4) displays concurrence from the Authorized Organization
Representative (AOR). </p>
<p class=regulartext>Grievance: A grievance is a written communication from a
PD/PI and/or applicant organization that presents concerns about the peer
review process for a particular application and does not meet the criteria for
an appeal.</p>
<p class=MsoTitle>Policy</p>
<p class=regulartext><strong>Applicability</strong></p>
<p class=regulartext>The revised policy applies to appeal letters received with
respect to the initial peer review of all competing applications submitted to
the NIH for support, for the January 25, 2011 due date and thereafter, including:
1) reviews conducted by the NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR) and reviews
conducted by NIH Institutes and other NIH Centers; and 2) applications such as
fellowship applications that typically do not require Council review. This
policy does not apply to appeals of the technical evaluation of Research and
Development contract projects through the NIH peer review process, appeals of
NIH funding decisions, or appeals of decisions concerning extensions of MERIT
awards. </p>
<p class=regulartext><strong>Appeal
Letters</strong></p>
<p class=regulartext>An applicant who is concerned about procedural aspects
related to the completed initial peer review of his or her application first
should consider the comments in the summary statement, and then should contact
the appropriate NIH Program Official (PO) (see contact information in the upper
left-hand corner of the first page of the summary statement). The PO can
answer questions about the summary statement and review outcome, and provide
advice to the applicant. For example, the PO may recommend modifying the
application according to NIH policies for resubmission applications (<a
href="https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-080.html">NOT-OD-10-080</a>)
and the issues that were raised in the review and communicated in the summary
statement, or may recommend reconsidering the basic intent of the project and
submitting a new application that has substantial differences in aims and
approach (<a
href="https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-080.html">NOT-OD-10-080</a>).
At no time should the PD/PI or an official of the applicant organization
attempt to contact individual members of the SRG to discuss the review of an
application, as doing so could jeopardize the confidentiality of the review
process. </p>
<p class=regulartext>Following discussion of concerns with the PO, if the PD/PI
and/or an official of the applicant organization wishes to appeal the outcome
of the initial peer review process, an appeal letter must be submitted, either
in hard copy or electronically, to the PO. The appeal letter must display concurrence
from the AOR of the applicant organization for the application. Although
the content of the appeal letter may originate from the PD/PI, Contact PD/PI
for multiple PD/PI applications, or an organizational official(s) (not
necessarily the AOR), the AOR must send the letter directly to the PO, or must
send his/her concurrence to the PD/PI who will forward the materials and AOR concurrence
to the PO. A communication from the PD/PI or official of the applicant
organization (other than the AOR) only or with a cc to the AOR will not be
accepted. The PO will send the PD/PI and/or institutional official, and AOR,
an acknowledgement letter within 10 days of receipt of the appeal letter. </p>
<p class=regulartext>The ICs may establish deadlines by which appeal letters must
be received in order to be made available at the Council meeting. However, in
no circumstance will an appeal letter be accepted before the summary statement
has been transmitted to the PD/PI or later than 30 calendar days after the
relevant Council meeting. </p>
<p class=regulartext>An appeal letter will be accepted only if the letter 1)
describes the flaws in the review process for the application in question, 2)
explains the reasons for the appeal, and 3) is based on one or more of the
following issues related to the process of the initial peer review:</p>
<ul>
<li>Evidence of bias on the part of one or more peer reviewers.</li>
<li>
Conflict of interest, as specified in regulation at <a
href="http://search2.google.cit.nih.gov/search?site=NIH_Master&client=NIHNEW_frontend&proxystylesheet=NIHNEW_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&filter=0&getfields=*&q=42+CFR+52h.5">42
CFR 52h.5</a>. Scientific Peer Review of Research Grant Applications and
Research and Development Contract Projects , on the part of one or more peer
reviewers.</li>
<li>Lack of appropriate expertise within the SRG.</li>
<li>
Factual error(s) made by one or more reviewers that could have
altered the outcome of review substantially.</li>
</ul>
<p class=regulartext>Appeal letters based solely on differences of scientific
opinion will not be accepted. A letter that does not meet these criteria
and/or does not include the concurrence of the AOR will not be considered an
appeal letter, but rather a grievance. The IC will handle grievances according
to IC- specific procedures. Appeals involving potential COI or violation of
ethical conduct rules on the part of an NIH staff member or other federal
employee will be referred to the appropriate Deputy Ethics Counselor for
consideration and resolution before any further review of, or action on, the
appeal is taken.</p>
<p class=regulartext><strong>NIH
Staff </strong></p>
<p class=regulartext>NIH staff will consider the basis for the appeal letter, and
evaluate the merit of the appeal. If both review staff and program staff
support an appeal, then the original application, without additional materials
or modifications, will be re-reviewed by the same or a different SRG. In this
case, only the results of the re-review, and not the first review, are made
available to Council, and information about the appeal is not made available to
Council.</p>
<p class=regulartext>If review staff and program staff do not support the appeal,
or do not agree on its merit, the PD/PI and/or an institutional official (not
necessarily the AOR) may elect to withdraw the appeal letter. The request to
withdraw an appeal letter must be submitted either in hard copy or
electronically to the PO, and must display concurrence from the AOR of the
applicant organization for the application. Although the content of the
request may originate from the PD/PI, Contact PD/PI for multiple PD/PI
applications, or an organizational official(s) (not necessarily the AOR), the
AOR must send the request directly to the PO, or must send his/her concurrence
to the PD/PI who will forward the materials and his/her concurrence to the PO.
A communication from the PD/PI or institutional official (other than the AOR) only
or with a cc to the AOR will not be accepted. </p>
<p class=regulartext>If review staff and program staff do not support the appeal,
or do not agree on its merit, and the appeal letter is not withdrawn, the
appeal letter will be made available to Council. The IC may not deny the PD/PI
or applicant organization the opportunity to have an appeal letter made
available to Council. </p>
<p class=regulartext><strong>Consideration
by Council</strong></p>
<p class=regulartext>Only two outcomes are possible following consideration of an
appeal letter by Council:</p>
<ul>
<li>The Council may concur with the appeal, and recommend that the
application be re-reviewed. </li>
<li>The Council may concur with the SRG's recommendation and deny the
appeal. Although factual errors or other issues may be evident, the Council
may determine that these factors were unlikely to alter the final outcome of
the SRG and deny the appeal. No action by the Council is equivalent to
concurrence with the SRG&rsquo;s recommendation and denial of the appeal.</li>
</ul>
<p class=regulartext>The recommendation of Council concerning resolution of an
appeal is final and will not be considered again by the NIH through this or
another process. At no time should the PD/PI or an official of the applicant
organization attempt to contact individual members of the Council to discuss
their consideration of an application or appeal, as doing so could jeopardize
the confidentiality of the review process. </p>
<p class=regulartext><strong>Resolution</strong></p>
<p class=regulartext>The Executive Secretary for the Council will communicate the
Council recommendation concerning an appeal to the PD/PI, AOR, and NIH staff
with a need to know. If the appeal letter was received by the IC deadline, the
PD/PI and AOR will receive a written explanation of the resolution no later
than 30 calendar days after the Council meeting. If the appeal letter was
received after the IC deadline, the Executive Secretary will provide, no more
than 30 calendar days after the date when the appeal letter was received, a
written explanation of the IC&rsquo;s plan for making the appeal available to
Council. </p>
<p class=regulartext>If the Council recommended that the application be
re-reviewed, the original application will be re-reviewed without additional
materials or modifications. The application may be re-reviewed by the same or
a different SRG, depending on the flaws in the original review process that led
to the appeal. In most cases, the re-review will entail re-assignment to a
subsequent review round and delay in the final funding decision. The outcome
of the re-review is final and cannot be appealed again.</p>
<p class=regulartext><strong>Temporary
Suspension</strong></p>
<p class=regulartext>On occasion, and for specific circumstances, the NIH may
suspend temporarily the policy and process for handling appeals of NIH initial
peer review. Such decisions will be announced in NIH Guide Notices and/or the
relevant Funding Opportunity Announcements when they are issued in the NIH
Guide for Grants and Contracts.</p>
<div class="heading2">Inquiries</div>
<p class=regulartext>Please direct all inquiries to:<br>
<br>
NIH Review Policy Officer<br>
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c290a7b4aba7b592adaeaba1bb8da4a4aba1a7b082afa3abaeecacabaaeca5adb4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ecbe899a85899bbc8380858f95a38a8a858f899eac818d8580c2828584c28b839a">[email&#160;protected]</span></a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="col-xs-12">
<P>
<HR>
<A HREF="/grants/guide/WeeklyIndex.cfm?04-15-11">Weekly TOC for this Announcement</A><br>
<A HREF="/grants/guide/index.html">NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices</A>
<hr>
</div>
</div>
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="print" href="css/notices_print.css " />
<div class="row">
<div class="footer">
<div class="col-sm-4"> <a href="/grants/oer.htm"><img src="/images7/nih-oer-logo.jpg" alt="NIH Office of Extramural Research Logo" usemap="#Map2" border="0"></a>
<map name="Map2" id="Map2">
<area shape="rect" coords="89,17,359,39" href="http://www.nih.gov" />
<area shape="rect" coords="91,39,286,58" href="http://grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm" />
<area shape="rect" coords="3,5,78,55" href="http://grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm" />
</map>
</div>
<div class="col-sm-4">
<div style="float:left; padding: 5 5 5 70"> <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/"><img src="/images7/dhhs_sm.gif" width="36" height="37" border="0" alt="Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) - Home Page" long desc="Logo, circular in shape, depicting an American eagle in-flight with stylized profiles of human faces appearing on the trailing edge of the wings. The perimeter of the logo is encircled with the words 'Department of Health and Human Services U S A'"></a></div>
<div style="padding: 5 5 5 5;">Department of Health<br>
and Human Services (HHS)</div>
</div>
<div class="col-sm-4">
<div style="padding: 5 5 5 0" align="center"> <a href="https://www.usa.gov/"><img src="/images7/USA_Gov_logo.gif" border="0" alt="USA.gov - Government Made Easy" long desc="Logo,- the words 'USA.gov - Government Made Easy' with single streaking star above the logo"></a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="footer">
<div class="col-xs-12" align="center" style="padding: 20 5 5 5"> <span style="color:#6E6E6E; font-size:1.0em; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health<sup>&reg;</sup></span> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="footer">
<div class="col-xs-12" align="center">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></BODY>
</HTML>