Skip Navigation LinksCSR Home > Reviewer Resources > Become a Reviewer > How Scientists Are Selected to Be Chartered Reviewers

 How Scientists Are Selected to Be Chartered Reviewers

 
I. Selection Criteria
There are general requirements that scientists must meet as well as expertise requirements and requirements specific to the given study section.
 
 
 
II. The Nomination Process
Scientists are usually asked to first serve on the given study section as a temporary reviewer before being nominated for membership to the panel. A nomination package with information on the review needs of the study section and information on the nominee must be prepared.
 
 
Balancing experience and diversity when developing study section member rosters is one of the most challenging tasks a Scientific Review Officer (SRO) faces. Study section membership is generally a four-year commitment, involving three meetings per year.
 
I.        Selection Criteria
 
General Requirements
 
  • Candidates must be recognized authorities in their field and active scientists.
  • There must be diversity with respect to the geographic distribution, gender, race and ethnicity of the membership. 
  • Candidates must be dedicated to high quality, fair reviews.
 
Expertise Requirements
 
  • Expertise is the paramount consideration when developing/updating a study section roster. 
  • Each scientific area reviewed by the study section needs appropriate expert representation. 
  • The SRO must ensure that the study section does not become static. Care must be taken to ensure that the study section remains responsive to emerging areas of science and shifting scientific boundaries. 
  • It is important to consider that one-fourth of study section members will rotate off each year. This could dramatically affect the breadth of a study section's expertise without proper long-term planning.
Study Section-Specific Requirements 
 
  • Unique characteristics of study sections must be factored into selection of members. The breadth of science, the multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary nature of the applications, and the types of applications or grant mechanisms being reviewed play a large role in the selection of appropriate members.
 
Examples: 
 
1.     Study sections that review multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary applications have a greater need for scientists who have broader expertise or who have demonstrated the capacity to appreciate and evaluate areas of science outside their immediate area of expertise.
2.     Study sections covering clinically oriented research have a greater need for reviewers who are clinicians. 
3.     Study sections reviewing bioengineering or bioinformatics applications or applications involving partnerships with small businesses have a greater need for scientists who work in non-academic settings. 
 
  • Group dynamics should be considered when selecting study section members. 
Examples: 
 
1.     There is a need for balance in the level of seniority represented among members of a study section. Too many senior-level reviewers are just as problematic as too few. 
2.     There is a need to balance those who are generalists and provide the broader perspective needed for evaluation of the overall impact of a given project and those who are specialists and provide a more focused perspective needed to ensure proper evaluation of feasibility. 
3.     For study sections that cover multiple scientific areas or disciplines within the context of a common theme, there is a particular need for reviewers who bridge these areas or disciplines so as to prevent factions from developing within the study section.
 
Individual Reviewer Qualifications
 
  • Fairness and objectivity are the most important criteria for a reviewer. 
  • Reviewers need to be able to articulate their views succinctly, engage in productive exchanges, actively participate in the discussion of applications other than those specifically assigned, and demonstrate an ability to work collegially in a group setting.
  •  Reviewers who are able to facilitate or help focus the discussion are particularly valued, as are those who remain actively engaged in ensuring the fairness and consistency of the scoring practices within the group throughout the meeting.
II.        The Nomination Process
 
Identifying Potential Reviewers
 
  • SROs have many sources of information available to assist them in identifying potential study section members:
Examples: 
 
1.     Recent scientific literature in the area covered by the study section
2.     Scientific meetings that allow for the identification and evaluation of potential members
3.     The list of successful grant applicants within a given area of scientific expertise
4.     Former study section members and Chairs (although care must be taken to ensure this does not lead to over-representation of a given subset of scientists within a given scientific area)
5.     NIH program staff within the relevant Institutes served by the study section 
6.     Institute Advisory Councils 
7.     Major scientific societies served by a particular study section are increasingly offering to contribute the CVs of individuals they would recommend for service
8.     Individuals interested in serving on a study section are free to submit their CVs directly to the SRO of a given study section
 
Selecting Study Section Members
 
  •  After identifying potential reviewers, further information is needed regarding: 
1.     Their NIH or other agencies grant history 
2.     Their publication history 
3.     Their professional status and/or record of accomplishments 
4.     Their review experience 
 
  • As a part of the selection process, most individuals are asked to first serve on the study section as a temporary reviewer, since the reviewer's objectivity and ability to work in a group are important considerations for membership. Service as a temporary reviewer is a mechanism for preparing reviewers for regular study section membership as well as a means for bringing needed expertise and a fresh perspective to a study section.
Preparing the Nomination Package
 
  • For individuals selected for "permanent" study section membership a nomination package is compiled by the SRO annually. 
  • The charter for each study section specifies the number of permanent study section members allowed, although temporary reviewers frequently constitute a significant percentage of the actual review panel at a given meeting. 
  • The number of permanent members on a study section is determined by the typical number of applications reviewed by that study section, the complexity of the applications reviewed, and the breadth of science covered by the study section. 
 
Obtaining Approval of the Nomination Slate
 
  •  The nomination package prepared by the individual SRO is reviewed from varying perspectives within the Center for Scientific Review prior to its review within the Offices of the Director of NIH.
  • Rejection of the nomination package at any level sends it back to the SRO for revision and the process is repeated until final approval is obtained from the Director of NIH.
  •  Approval of the nomination slate takes the following path: 
1.     The nomination package is prepared by the SRO and reviewed by the IRG Chief. Subsequent to approval the package is sent to the Division Director.
2.     After approval at the Division level, the CSR Committee Management Office (CMO) reviews the package. 
3.     Once the CMO approves the nomination package, it is sent to relevant Institute program staff for comment. 
4.     If no concerns are expressed it is then presented to the CSR Director for approval.
5.     The package is then sent to the central NIH Committee Management office for evaluation.
6.     If the nomination package is found acceptable, it is sent to the Director of NIH for final signature approval. 
 
The process of preparing and approving nomination slates is designed to help ensure high quality study section membership. While the process is somewhat cumbersome and may not be perfect, empirically it has proven an effective way to select appropriate and effective review panels.
 
Reviewed Nov 2017