Have you ever wondered what an NIH review panel meeting is like and how you can increase your likelihood of being funded? The review process has some positive features and some that need to be improved. I’ll let you decide which is which. A (long) thread. /1

Everything is organized around study sections – groups of people designated to review grants in a specific area (e.g., Social Psychology, Personality and Interpersonal Processes – SPIP). Most study sections are ongoing. Occasionally special ones are made for a specific purpose /2

Even though study sections are organized around specific topics, many sections have people from a variety of fields. For example, one I recently sat on had people from psychology, sociology, human development and family studies, preventive medicine, cancer prevention, etc. /3

Prior to the study section meeting, 3 reviewers are assigned to each grant. Reviewers 1 and 2 score and provide extensive feedback on each component of the grant, whereas reviewer 3 often only provides an overall score and summary of the bigger strengths and weaknesses. /4

After the initial reviews are complete, the scientific review officer for the study section ranks the applications based on the average of the 3 reviewers’ overall scores. Those in the top 50% of scores get discussed during the review meeting and have a chance of being funded. /5

The lower 50% are not discussed, and do not have a chance of being funded. The investigators still receive the scores from the assigned 3 reviewers along with any written feedback the reviewers provided. /6

A typical study section meeting is 2 or 3 days long. A recent panel that I sat on had ~45 applications to review in 2 days. This meant that we had ~15 minutes to discuss each proposal. Yes, you read that right, 15 minutes per application. /7

Importantly, most study section members have only read the grants they were assigned to score as reviewer 1, 2 or 3. And most members have only been assigned to read a small proportion of grants (anywhere from ~3-10 applications depending on a variety of factors). /8

BUT, all study section members submit a final score for all of the grants that are discussed (unless there is a COI). So, that means that there are a lot of people submitting scores on a grant that they likely haven’t read. /9

Yes, you read that right, there are a lot of people submitting scores on a grant that they likely haven’t read (except perhaps a quick superficial read during the 15 minutes when that grant was discussed). /10

When it is time to discuss a grant, reviewer 1 provides a summary of the proposal along with anything they perceive to be a strength or weakness. Reviewer 2 and 3 then add anything they want to the discussion. /11

By the time reviewers 1, 2, and 3 are done talking, there isn’t much time left for Q&A from the other study section members. During my recent panel, it was common to have ~7 minutes left for Q&A. So there isn’t really time for extensive back and forth or significant debate. /12

After the discussion is over, reviewers 1, 2, and 3 say their final scores out loud. Everyone else submits their final score privately. And people can score within the range of the 3 assigned reviewers or not, it is totally up to each person to decide on their own score. /13

So how can you improve your likelihood of being funded? There are many possible ways and many different opinions on this. I am going to focus on things that are directly related to the structure of the review meetings, as described above. /14

First, reviewer 1, 2, and 3 clearly play an influential role in how a grant gets scored. For many study section members, the only info they know about your grant is what these assigned reviewers said out loud. /15

So you need to get the assigned reviewers excited. An enthusiastic assigned reviewer can be very persuasive in the scoring process. Think about how to frame your ideas in a compelling way, and make sure the writing itself is clear and compelling. /16

You should also make it easy for the assigned reviewers to do their job. Knowing that reviewer 1 will summarize key parts of your grant at the beginning of the discussion, why not give them a nice and concise summary somewhere in the grant? /17

Use the knowledge that many people will only give your grant a superficial read during the 15-minute discussion to your advantage. How can you grab their attention and get them to know the most important parts of your grant in those 15 minutes? /18

(a) Use bold and underline thoughtfully. If everything is in bold or underlined, it will be too much for anyone to quickly read. If nothing is bold or underlined, they won’t know what to focus on. (b) Figures summarizing key info are also super helpful. /19

(c) People will quickly scroll through your grant looking for specific info (e.g., a power analysis). Find out the typical proposal structure for your study section before submitting and follow it closely! Make it easy for people to find what they are looking for. /20

Last but not least, your assigned reviewers likely have some expertise related to your grant. But remember that everyone on the panel scores your grant, and a single study section often has people from many different fields. Use this knowledge to your advantage. /21

Don’t use a ton of jargon. Don’t use a ton of acronyms. Don’t assume people have specific background knowledge when reading your grant – because they might not. Write in a way that is accessible to people outside of your area. /22

And last but not least, remember that lots of good grants don’t get funded, so try not to take it personally if yours isn’t funded. It obviously super sucks, but it is NOT a statement about your capabilities or promise as a scientist. You are more than your grant submissions. /23