How Criterion Scores Predict the Overall Impact Score and Funding Outcomes for National Institutes of Health Peer-Reviewed Applications.

Understanding the factors associated with successful funding outcomes of research project grant (R01) applications is critical for the biomedical research community. R01 applications are evaluated through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) peer review system, where peer reviewers are asked to evaluate and assign scores to five research criteria when assessing an application's scientific and technical merit. This study examined the relationship of the five research criterion scores to the Overall Impact score and the likelihood of being funded for over 123,700 competing R01 applications for fiscal years 2010 through 2013. The relationships of other application and applicant characteristics, including demographics, to scoring and funding outcomes were studied as well. The analyses showed that the Approach and, to a lesser extent, the Significance criterion scores were the main predictors of an R01 application's Overall Impact score and its likelihood of being funded. Applicants might consider these findings when submitting future R01 applications to NIH.

Toward Independence: Resubmission Rate of Unfunded National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute R01 Research Grant Applications Among Early Stage Investigators.

PURPOSE: The current, budget-driven low rate of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for biomedical research has raised concerns about new investigators' ability to become independent scientists and their willingness to persist in efforts to secure funding. The authors sought to determine resubmission rates for unfunded National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) early stage investigator (ESI) independent research grant (R01) applications and to identify resubmission predictors. METHOD: The authors used a retrospective cohort study design and retrieved applications submitted in fiscal years 2010-2012 from NIH electronic research administrative sources. They defined ESI applicants as those who have received no prior R01 (or equivalent) funding and are within 10 years of completion of their terminal research degree or medical residency training. ESI applications at the NHLBI were eligible for special funding consideration if they scored above, but within 10 points of, the payline. The primary outcome was application resubmission after failing to secure funding with the first R01 submission. RESULTS: Over half of the unfunded applications were resubmitted. Some of these were discussed and "percentiled." Among percentiled applications, the only significant predictor of resubmission was the percentile score. Over half (59%) of the ESI R01 grants funded by NHLBI in fiscal years 2010-2012 had percentile scores above but within 10 points of the NHLBI payline, and benefited from the special funding considerations. CONCLUSIONS: The only independent predictor of resubmission of NHLBI ESI R01 grant applications was percentile score; applicant demographics and institutional factors were not predictive of resubmission.