Researchers Object to NIH Proposal That Would Hide Grant Impact Scores
The National Institutes of Health is considering a change to how it shares grant review results with applicants. Under the proposal, instead of receiving an averaged impact score from peer reviewers, applicants would be placed into broad categories: top 25 percent, next 25 percent, or bottom 50 percent. Researchers criticized the plan, saying it could obscure how funding decisions are made and introduce political influence into grant review.
Currently, NIH grant applications undergo review by at least three field experts, who provide written evaluations and numeric ratings. Those ratings are averaged into an impact score that applicants see.
The proposed system would replace that number with three tiers: upper quarter, second quarter, and lower half. The lowest tier would indicate an application received little discussion. Even under the change, reviewers would still supply critiques and individual criterion scores, according to the agency document described above.
If adopted, the change could affect researchers seeking NIH funding, review panels, and program officers who allocate awards. Applicants may lose a precise benchmark for comparing proposals, while officials could gain discretion in interpreting review outcomes. That may alter how scientists revise applications and how institutions assess funding prospects. Broader public trust in federal research spending could also be influenced, depending on whether the new categories are seen as clarifying or obscuring decision-making.