CSRTitle

Peer Review Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   R   S   T   U   V   W   X  

If you don’t find what you need here, check the glossary on the NIH Office of Extramural Research Web site.
 
Activity Code: A 3-character code used to identify a specific category of extramural research activity, applied to various funding mechanisms. NIH uses three funding mechanisms for extramural research awards: grants, cooperative agreements and contracts. Within each funding mechanism, NIH uses 3-character activity codes (e.g., R01, R03, K08, P01, R21, T32, etc.) to differentiate the wide variety of research-related programs NIH supports. A complete list of Activity Codes is available Online.

Administrative Supplements: Applicants can request Administrative Supplements for additional funding for a current budget period to meet unforeseen costs that are within the scope of the previously funded application. Administrative supplements may also be used to achieve special purposes. The funding NIH Institute or Center reviews these requests internally.

Ad Hoc Reviewer: See Temporary Member.

Applicant: The “Applicant” is the company, organization, institution or Government that submits a grant application. The Principal Investigators are not “Applicants,” though they are often referred to as applicants.

Application Due Date: Competing grant applications are submitted in response to Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOA). FOAs specify the application due date, which can be either standard or special application due dates. Applications resubmitted by New Investigators (NIs) follow different due dates (see NOT-OD-7-083). Electronic applications must be successfully received by Grant.gov no later than 5:00 p.m. local time (of the applicant institution/organization) on the due dates specified in the FOA to be considered “on time.” Paper applications with standard application due dates will be considered “on time” if mailed on or before the published application due date. Paper applications with unique application due dates must be received by the specified date. Standard application due dates for various funding mechanisms are posted Online.

Application Identification Number: The application number identifies the type of application (add internal hyperlink to “Application Type.”) (e.g., 1), the activity code (e.g., R01), the NIH Institute or Center to which it is assigned for potential funding (e.g., “AI” for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), the serial number assigned by the Center for Scientific Review (CSR), the suffix showing the support year of the application (e.g., -01) and other information identifying a revision (e.g., S1) or a resubmission (e.g., A1). Sample Application Identification Number 1 R01 AI 183723-01 A1.

Application Type:

Type l New
Type 2 Renewal (competing continuation)
Type 3 Revision (application competing for supplemental support)
Type 4 Non competitive extension
Type 5 Non-competing continuation (continuation Progress Report)
Type 6 Designation no longer in use
Type 7 Change of grantee institution
Type 8 Change of NIH Institute or Center (Non competing continuation)
Type 9 Change of NIH awarding Institute or Center (renewal, competing continuation)


Assigned Reviewer: A reviewer who is assigned to review a specific application. At least three reviewers are assigned to each application to provide in-depth evaluations of its scientific merit. Before the review meeting, assigned reviewers write detailed critiques and give scores for each scored review criteria and the application’s overall scientific impact. If the application is discussed at the meeting, assigned reviewers lead the panel discussion.

Authorized Organization Representative (AOR): The individual, named by the applicant organization, who is authorized to act for the applicant and to assume the obligations imposed by Federal laws, regulations, requirements, and conditions that apply to grant applications or grant awards. This official is equivalent to the Signing Official (hyperlink the words Signing Official to the glossary description.) in the eRA Commons, i.e., holds the SO Role. Responsibilities include: 1) Submitting the grant on behalf of the applicant organization 2) Signing grant applications and the required certifications and/or assurances necessary to fulfill the requirements of the application process.

Center for Scientific Review (CSR): CSR is the portal for NIH grant applications and their review for scientific merit. It receives all research grant applications sent to NIH and handles the review of more than 70% of those by organizing peer review groups (study sections) to evaluate research grant applications. Its mission is to see that NIH grant applications receive fair, independent, expert, and timely reviews – free from inappropriate influences – so NIH can fund the most promising research.

Clinical Research:Patient-oriented research including epidemiologic and behavioral studies, outcomes research, and health services research. It includes research on mechanisms of human disease, therapeutic interventions, clinical trials, and development of new technologies, but does not include in vitro studies using human tissues not linked to a living individual. Studies falling under 45 CFR46.101(b) (4) are considered core search for purposes of this definition.

Clustering: During the review process, applications using the same grant Activity Code are often grouped together to avoid requiring reviewers to make multiple switches in mind-set and review criteria. Potential clusters of applications include applications from New Investigators or Early Stage Investigators and clinical applications.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): An annually revised codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register. More. . .

Commons or eRA Commons: is an online interface where signing officials, principal investigators, trainees and post-docs at institutions/organizations as well as reviewer can access and share administrative information relating to research grants.

Competitive Supplement (Revision): A request for an increase in support in a current budget period for expansion of a project’s approved scope of research protocol. An applicant initiates a competitive supplement, which goes through the normal peer review process. This kind of supplement expands beyond the scope of the “parent grant” but work is closely tied to the parent grant.

Conflict of Interest: Regulations to ensure that Government employees, scientific review group members, Council members, or others having the ability to influence funding decisions have no financial or personal interest in the outcome. More. . .

Continuous Submission:Regular members of chartered study sections as well as other reviewers who have served six times on NIH review groups in an 18 month period from January 1 of one year to June 30 of the following year are permitted to submit at anytime applications for R01, R21 and R34 grant applications that would otherwise have standard due dates (see recent “Substantial Service” below Insert internal hyperlink.). NIH established this policy to reduce the burden reviewers have in preparing their own grant applications while reviewing others. This benefit is also extended to members of NIH Advisory Boards or Councils, NIH Boards of Scientific Councilors, and the NIH Program Advisory Committees. Depending on the timing of submission and the number of applications, NIH staff will decide whether an eligible application will be reviewed in a standing study section (Insert internal hyperlink for standing study section) or in a special emphasis panel (SEP) (Insert internal hyperlink for SEP). Additional information is available on the CSR and Office of Extramural Research(OER) websites.

Criterion Scores: Before the review meeting, each reviewer assigned to an application gives a separate numerical score for the established review criteria. For example, when reviewing most research project applications, reviewers provide scores for Significance, Investigator(s), Innovation, Approach, and Environment. For all applications, even those not discussed by the full committee at the review meeting, the criterion scores of the assigned reviewers are reported individually on the summary statement. See NIH Guide notice.

Critique: The written comments of an assigned reviewer organized by a statement of Overall Impact and the specific review criteria regarding the major strengths and weaknesses of the application.

Division Directors: Managers for the scientific and administrative divisions at CSR

Dual IC Assignment: Many but not all applications are given dual or secondary NIH Institute or Center (IC) assignment to one or more IC(s) with interests in the content of the application. More. . .

Dyad: Two individuals serving on a study section review panel who represent different components of the same academic institution (e.g., Department of Neuroscience and Department of Statistics of the University of Maryland). Dyads in meeting rosters are determined by the combination of both permanent and ad-hoc members. Two reviewers with primary appointments in the same Department or equivalent administrative unit at the same organization located in the same city are never allowed on study section meeting rosters or on study section slates, without a waiver from the NIH Deputy Director.

Early Career Reviewer (ECR): An Early Career Reviewer (ECR) is a scientist in the early stages of a research career that has been vetted to serve on CSR Study Sections. ECRs hold academic appointments or the equivalent, have independent programs of research, and publish their work in peer-reviewed journals. They are trained to evaluate research applications and review no more than four applications as third reviewer on no more than two review panels.

Early Career Reviewer (ECR) Program: The CSR Early Career Reviewer (ECR) Program trains qualified scientists who are in the early stages of a research career to become effective reviewers. The program aims at advancing the careers of developing scientists by exposing them to the peer review process. Applicants are vetted by Scientific Review Officers and assigned to study sections to serve as third reviewer on a limited number of applications.

Early Stage Investigator (ESI): A new investigator within 10 years of completing his/her terminal research degree or medical residency is classified as an ESI. When a traditional (R01) NIH research grant application from an ESI is reviewed and considered for funding, the applicant’s career stage is considered. Investigators can request an extension of the ESI period. ESI status is only considered on R01 applications.

Editorial Board Review (also known as Two-Stage Review): An alternate review format where Stage 1 typically involves each application being evaluated by two or more specialist mail reviewers charged with assessing applications for technical merits. This step is followed by an in-person meeting of Stage 2 reviewers, who have broad expertise and focus on the significance and impact of the science. Only Stage 2 reviewers provide final overall impact scores for the applications. See Editorial Board Review Survey Report.

Electronic Research Administration (eRA): The NIH's computerized infrastructure for conducting interactive electronic transactions for the receipt, review, monitoring, and administration of NIH grant awards to biomedical and behavioral investigators worldwide. eRA systems provide applicants, grantees and federal staff the tools necessary for electronic processing of grants. Used by NIH, AHRQ, CDC, FDA, SAMHSA and the VA, the eRA Commons and IMPAC II systems support the full grants life cycle from receipt to award to closeout.

Electronic Reviews: Some peer review meetings are convened electronically when it is difficult or impossible to have all reviewers travel to a face-to-face meeting. See listings for Hybrid meeting Internet Assisted Meeting (IAM, add internal hyperlink), Video Assisted Meeting (VAM add internal hyperlink) and Telephone Assisted Meeting (TAM, add internal hyperlink).

Extramural Support Assistant (ESA): ESAs provide logistical support to Scientific Review Officers and the scientific review groups during the pre-meeting, meeting and post-meeting time periods. ESAs report to the Integrated Review Group Chiefs, who are their supervisors.

Face-to-Face Reviews: This is the traditional review format. Reviewers meet in person for one or more days to review applications. Other reviewers may join by telephone. Reviewers may also be recruited to submit mail reviews.

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA): This is the principal statute pertaining to advisory committees within the Federal Government. It requires that the membership of the advisory committee be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented. It requires that all advisory committee meetings (except where designated by the President or Agency Head) be open to the public and be published in the Federal Register at least 15 calendar days prior to the meeting. NIH peer review meetings are not open to the public.

Federal Register: An official, daily publication communicating proposed and final regulations and legal notices issued by Federal agencies, including announcements of the availability of funds for financial assistance and notice of review meetings. More . . .

Federal Reviewer: NIH occasionally recruits researchers from Federal agencies who have needed expertise to review grant applications. These agencies may include the Veterans Administration, and the Uniformed Services University of Health Services. Regulations specify that Federal reviewers cannot represent more than 25% of a review group.

Fiscal Year (FY): The annual period established for Government accounting purposes. A Fiscal Year begins on October 1 and ends September 30 of the following year. Example: FY2009 – Started October 1, 2008 and ended September 30, 2009.

Funding Announcement (FOA): A publicly available document by which a Federal Agency announces its intentions to award discretionary grants or cooperative agreements, usually through a competitive process. Funding opportunity announcements may be known as program announcements, requests for applications, notices of funding availability, solicitations, or other names depending on the Agency and type of program. Funding opportunity announcements can be found in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts.

Funding Mechanism: The type of application or transaction used at the NIH to award funds. Extramural research awards are divided into three main funding mechanisms: grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts. See list of NIH funding mechanisms.

High Risk/High Impact (HR/HI): A category of applications identified by a scientific review group as having a high degree of uncertainty in approach but also a high potential for impact. R21 is a funding mechanism frequently used for HR/HI applications.

Hybrid Meeting: Reviewers who cannot attend a face-to-face meeting may participate in a Hybrid Meeting: Using a secure video link from their home or office, these reviewers are able to see and interact with reviewers who are gathered in a meeting room or other reviewers who are also using a video connection. These meeting rooms are equipped with large monitors, video cameras and computers that allow reviewers to interact as if everyone were in the same room.

Integrated Review Group (IRG): Review activities of the Center for Scientific Review (CSR) are organized into Integrated Review Groups (IRGs). Each IRG represents a cluster of study sections around a general scientific area. Applications usually are assigned first to an IRG, and then to a specific study section within that IRG for evaluation of scientific merit. More . .

Internet Assisted Meeting (IAM): An alternative Web-based review format that uses a threaded message board with features tailored to NIH peer review. IAM permits the discussion and private scoring of grant applications without the need for concurrent assembly or teleconference. IAM allows reviewers to participate in peer review meetings from their office or any other location that has a computer and the appropriate connections. IAM is used to engage reviewers who may find it difficult traveling to attend a face-to-face to participate in peer review.

Internet Assisted Review (IAR): This secure online system enables reviewers to access the applications they are assigned to review and submit critiques and preliminary scores for those applications during the pre-meeting “Submit” phase. IAR allows Scientific Review Officers (SROs) and Grant Technical Assistants (GTAs) to view all critiques once they are submitted and until they are purged after the meeting. In IAR, Assigned reviewers may read other assigned reviewers critiques only after they have submitted their own. Preliminary summary statements containing submitted critiques are also created within the IAR system.

Mail Reviewer: Scientists from the research community who have needed expertise sometimes are asked to submit “mail” reviews via the secure Internet Assisted Review (IAR) system to assist regular members during their reviews. Mail Reviewers provide written critiques, criterion scores, and initial impact score(s) on applications and can participate by phone in the discussion of their assigned applications. Typically they review a small number of applications compared with a regular reviewer. CSR also recruits mail reviewers for review formats such as Editorial Board (add internal hyperlink to “Editorial Board.”)

Member (regular, or standing member): A researcher becomes a member of a chartered study section (Scientific Review Group) after the NIH Director approves a slate of proposed members. Study section members typically make a four or six-year commitment to serve as reviewers for three or two meetings per year, respectively. Study section members must be recognized authorities in their field.

New Investigator (NI): An investigator who has not previously competed successfully for an NIH-supported research project award other than the following small or early-stage research awards: R00, R03, R15, R21, R34, R36, R41, R43, R55, and R56. Resubmitted applications from NIs have different due dates than those from other, non NIs, applicants.(see NOT-OD-7-083). Also, summary statements for NIs are released earlier than those for other, non NIs, applicants. NI status is only considered on R01 applications. More . .

Not Discussed (previously labeled as unscored): In the NIH peer review process, this label is given to applications judged by a particular study section to be in the lower half of the applications evaluated in a particular study section review round. These applications are generally not discussed by the full committee during the review meeting and, thus, do not receive an Overall Impact/Priority score. Applicants of non-discussed applications receive a Summary Statement which includes the assigned reviewers' criterion scores and written comments.

Not Recommended for Further Consideration (NRFC): An application may be designated NRFC by the Scientific Review Group if the application lacks significant and substantial merit; presents serious ethical problems in the protection of human subjects from research risks; or presents serious ethical problems in the use of vertebrate animals, biohazards, and/or select agents. Applications designated as NRFC do not proceed to the second level of peer review by NIH Institute or Center advisory councils because these applications cannot be funded. See NIH Guide notice: NOT- OD- 09- 024

OER: The NIH Office of Extramural Research provides leadership, oversight, tools and guidance needed to administer and manage NIH grants policies and operations. As part of its efforts, OER oversees trans-NIH policies related to NIH peer review.

OFACP: Acronym for the Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. OFACP’s mission is to develop policy and to provide guidance and resources to the public, advisory committee members, the Congress, the President, and those managing Federal advisory committees at the NIH, HHS, and other Federal agencies.

Order of Review: The Order of Review is set by the SRO prior to the study section meeting. This is the order in which applications are considered during the review meeting. SROs may use various criteria, including preliminary score order, to set the Order of Review.

Overall Impact Score: This score reflects the reviewers’ overall assessment of the potential impact that the project, if successful, could have on the field. Scores range from 1 to 9, with 1 being the best score. The overall impact score is not a numerical average of individual review criterion scores. Preliminary overall impact scores provided by the assigned reviewers before the meeting usually determines if an application will be discussed at the meeting and in which order. After reviewers discuss an application, all eligible panel members, whether assigned to that application or not, provide an overall impact score. (Reviewers in conflict with an application may not discuss or score it.) The average of all the overall impact scores, multiplied by 10, represents the composite score, which ranges from 10 – 90. This overall impact composite score, also known as the “priority score,” is reported on the summary statement. Overall impact scores are not reported when applications are not discussed at the review meeting. See NIH Guide notice: NOT-OD-09-024

Panel Member: A reviewer participating in any peer review group—including a chartered study section or a special emphasis panel (SEP)—is sometimes called a “panel” member.

Percentile: For unsolicited R01s (research project grant applications) reviewed by the NIH Center for Scientific Review, NIH converts the overall impact/priority score into a percentile. This is done to normalize the scoring by CSR/NIH study sections. The percentile is a ranking that shows the relative position of each application’s overall impact score among all the scores assigned by a particular scientific study section, usually based on the last three meetings. Percentiles range from 1 to 99 in whole numbers. Other but not all types of NIH applications receive percentile scores. More. . .

Preliminary Scores: Before the review meeting, reviewers assigned to each application provide preliminary scores: an overall impact scores and individual criterion scores. The Overall Impact score is not a numerical average of the individual criterion scores but rather reflects the reviewers’ overall assessment of the potential impact that the project, if successful, could have on the field. The average of the preliminary impact scores provided by the assigned reviewers is used to determine which applications will be discussed at the review meeting and in which order. Final overall impact scores are determined at the review meeting. See NIH Guide notice: NOT-OD-09-024

Primary Institute/Center (IC assignment): All applications are assigned to a primary Institute or Center (IC) for potential funding based on the content of the application and its relevance to the mission of that IC. While the application will have the most relevance to the mission of the primary IC, the application may have some relevance to the mission(s) of other IC(s). Many but not all applications are given dual or secondary assignment to one or more ICs with interests in the content of the application. More. . .

Receipt, Referral, and Assignment of Applications: The Division of Receipt and Referral (DRR) within the Center for Scientific Review (CSR) serves as the central receiving point for all competing applications, whether solicited or unsolicited. Upon receipt of a competing application, DRR:
  • Checks for completeness
  • Determines area of research
  • Assigns application to specific NIH Institute or Center for possible funding
  • Assigns an identification number
  • Assigns application to a Integrated Review Group (IRG) - Applications are assigned to a specific study section, also known as a Scientific Review Group (SRG) or review committee, within the IRG that has the expertise to evaluate the scientific and technical merit.

CSR reviews most R01s, fellowships, and small business applications and some PAs, PARs, & RFA’s
IC review groups handle applications that have Institute-specific features such as program projects, training grants, career development awards, and responses to Requests for Applications.

Renewal: A grant application competing for additional years of funding to continue original projects. Such an application was previously known as a competing continuation.

Resubmission: A grant application resubmitted to NIH after an applicant changes it based on feedback from the initial peer review. A resubmission is designated with a suffix with the assignment number (e.g., -A1).

Review Appeal: An appeal is a written communication from a Program Director/Principal Investigator 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 (Institute/Center Advisory Council/Board Meeting), 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 in the link below), and 4) displays concurrence from the Signing Official (Insert internal hyperlink to SO.)/Authorized Organization Representative. More. . .

Review Criteria: When evaluating grant applications, reviewers are asked to consider five core review criteria: (1) Significance, (2) Investigator(s), (3) Innovation, (4) Approach, and (5) Environment. They are also asked to assign an overall impact score to the application to assess the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved. There are additional review criteria that can affect the overall impact score. See NIH Guide notice: NOT-OD-09-025. Review criteria for funding are published for every Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA). More. . .

Review Cycle: Refers to the Center for Scientific Review's thrice yearly initial peer review cycle, from the receipt of applications to the date of the review.

Cycle I Cycle II Cycle III
Scientific Merit Review May - July September - November January - March
Advisory Council Review September - October January - February May - June
Earliest Project Start Date December April July

Revision: A revision, previously called competing supplement, is an application requesting additional funds to expand the scope of an existing grant, not just because expenses have increased. These applications are submitted through the same process as other competing grant applications and are subjected to peer review in scientific review groups, designated with a suffix S1.

Scientific Review Group (SRG): The SRGs are panels of subject matter experts that are organized according to scientific discipline or medical specialty. The primary function of the SRG is to provide the first stage of peer review of grant applications for the scientific and/or technical merit using established review criteria. (Insert internal hyperlink to review criteria) and that appropriate care is taken for vertebrate animals and human subjects. The panel also makes budget recommendations for amount and duration of support. SRGs are also known as Study Sections(Insert internal hyperlink to study sections).

Scientific Review Officer (SRO): The SRO is the NIH official who serves as the Designated Federal Official (DFO) who must be present at any review-related discussion. The SRO has responsibility for identifying individuals to serve as peer reviewers, assigning applications for review, managing the peer review meeting, and ensuring that proper procedures for evaluating the applications assigned to the SRG are followed. The SRO serves as an intermediary between the applicant and reviewers prior to the review meeting and prepares summary statements for all applications after the review.

Scored (applications): In the peer review process, this term refers to applications that are discussed during the review meeting and are judged by a study section to be competitive, i.e., generally in the upper half of all the applications reviewed by that study section at that meeting. These applications are assigned an overall impact score and forwarded to the appropriate Institute/Center for the second level of review.

Scoring System: The NIH scoring system for assessing review criteria and the overall impact of an application utilizes a 9-point integer rating scale (1 = exceptional; 9 = poor). See NIH Guide notice: NOT- OD- 09- 024

Signing Official (SO): Individual who has institutional authority to legally bind the institution in grants administration matters. The individual fulfilling this role may have any number of titles in the grantee organization. The label, "Signing Official," is used in conjunction with the NIH eRA Commons. The SO can register the institution, and create and modify the institutional profile and user accounts. The SO also can view all grants within the institution, including status and award information. An SO can create additional SO accounts as well as accounts with any other role or combination of roles. For most institutions, the SO is located in its Office of Sponsored Research or equivalent. The SO is also the Authorized Organization Representative (AOR). (Add internal hyperlink to the AOR.)

Slate: A slate lists accomplished researchers recommended for membership on a chartered study section. The Scientific Review Officer annually prepares the slate for his or her study section. Membership is staggered, and reviewers typically agree to serve for four or six years and participate in two or three meetings per year. Slates must be approved by the NIH Director, who receives a “nomination package,” which includes a cover letter that addresses both the past and present scientific review needs of the study section; the slate that lists those recommended for membership and their areas of expertise and terms of service; and supporting documentation.

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR): A congressionally mandated, set-aside program designed to support domestic small business concerns engaging in innovative research/research and development efforts that have a potential for commercialization. More. . .

Small Business Technology Transfer Research (STTR): A congressionally mandated, set-aside program designed to support research and development of innovative technology with potential for commercialization, through a formal cooperative effort between a domestic small business concern and a non-profit U.S. research institution. More. . . 

Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): In addition to its standing study sections, CSR runs a number of Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meetings with rosters tailored to the applications under consideration. Although some SEPs are convened only one time, there are also recurring SEPs such as member SEPs. The latter are SEP for the review of applications from standing study section members. SEPs are also considered to be study sections.

Study Section [Chartered or Standing Study Section]: Chartered study sections are standing scientific review groups (insert internal hyperlink to SRGs.) made up of external scientific experts, who are recruited by Scientific Review Officers to provide the first level of review for NIH grant applications for scientific and technical merit. These review groups operate under the umbrella of Integrated Review Groups/Initial Review Group, which are established by the NIH Director in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. They meet three times a year and have a slate (add internal hyperlink to “slate.”) of appointed members who normally serve for four or six years. A chartered study section will also engage temporary members to meet needs for additional expertise. The term “study section” is sometimes used to refer to any scientific review group, such as one-time or recurring special emphasis panel. (Insert internal hyperlink to SEP.)

Substantial Service (“frequent reviewer”): Recent substantial service is defined as serving as a regular or temporary member, on NIH review panels, six times in an 18 month period from January 1 of one year to June 30 of the following year. Reviewers with substantial service are eligible to submit at anytime applications for R01, R21 and R34 grant applications that would otherwise have standard due dates. (See continuous submission. Add internal hyperlink.) The inclusive dates are published in the NIH guide. An eligibility list is produced bi-monthly and is available on the NIH Office of Extramural Research website. Additional information is available on the CSR and Office of Extramural Research(OER) websites.

Summary Statement: This is an official document that every applicant receives after their applications are review by a scientific review group. For applications discussed at the meeting, the summary statement includes the Overall Impact Score (or priority score) and a percentile for an R01 and some other applications; the reviewers' critiques and criterion scores; the Scientific Review Officer’s summary of the members' discussion during the study section meeting; a recommended budget; and administrative notes of special considerations. For applications not discussed at the review meeting, the summary statement only includes the reviewers’ critiques and criterion scores.

Supplement: A request for additional funds either for the current operating year or for any future year recommended previously. Also known as a Type 3 application or award, a supplement can be either non-competing (administrative) or competing (subject to peer review). Please see Administrative Supplements and Competitive Supplements.

Telephone Assisted Meeting (TAM): A traditional teleconference is an alternative review format typically used to convene small review meetings.

Temporary Member (earlier called “ad hoc” members): Scientists other than standing members are routinely needed on a temporary basis. Scientific Review Officers recruit temporary reviewers to:
  • Provide a needed scientific expertise that is lacking among the standing members
  • Lighten the assignment load of members when the number of applications assigned to a study section is high.
  • Replace standing members who cannot participate in the meeting
Scientific Review Officers seek temporary members who have the same qualifications as standing members. Temporary members play the same role as regular, standing members during a meeting. The only difference is that a temporary member usually participates in one meeting while regular, standing members commit to participating in two to three meetings a year over the course of six or four years, respectively.

Translational Research: Translational research includes two areas of translation. One is the process of applying discoveries generated during research in the laboratory, and in preclinical studies, to the development of trials and studies in humans. The second area of translation concerns research aimed at enhancing the adoption of best practices in the community. Cost-effectiveness of prevention and treatment strategies is also an important part of translational science.

Two Tier NIH Peer Review: Peer review process used by NIH. The first level of review provides a judgment of the scientific and technical merit. The NIH Institutes and Centers conduct a second level review that usually involves a review by their advisory councils, which make funding recommendations based on how well applications meet public health needs and established research priorities. More. . .

Video Assisted Meeting (VAM): With software and a webcam, CSR offers video-assisted discussion as an alternative approach for smaller face-to-face review meetings. If reviewers have access to high-speed internet, they can participate in a video conference review meeting from their home or office.