NIH’s Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) fellowships are designed to support predoctoral (F30, F31) and postdoctoral (F32) candidates preparing for careers in biomedical research. When reviewing fellowship applications, NIH tasks peer reviewers with identifying the most promising trainees as well as excellent, individualized training programs that will help them become outstanding scientists of the next generation.
Recently, and separately from NIH efforts to simplify review criteria for research project grants, NIH reexamined the review criteria for fellowship awards. The instruction given to reviewers has room for improvement, particularly around the challenges of discerning the potential of an applicant and the value of the training planned.
To further this aim, NIH released a Request for Information (RFI) seeking public feedback on proposed changes to fellowship review criteria and sections of the NRSA application form. Specifically, NIH is looking for input on the proposed restructuring of criteria to evaluate NRSA fellowship applications and proposed revisions to the Fellowship Supplemental Section of PHS SF 424.
If you applied for, sponsored, or reviewed NIH fellowship applications, share your thoughts with us about strengths, weaknesses, and suggestions for improvement to the fellowship review process.
Criteria to Improve NRSA Fellowship Review
Currently, the overall impact score (scored 1-9) reflects the scientific and educational merit of the application and assesses the likelihood that the fellowship will enhance the applicant’s potential for an independent, productive research career. However, NIH is proposing to restructure the five scored criteria (significance, investigator, innovation, approach, and environment) into the following three scored criteria.
Criterion 1: Scientific Potential, Fellowship Goals, and Preparedness of the Applicant
Evaluate the breadth and depth of scientific understanding the applicant conveys in their statements. To what extent does the candidate articulate the importance of their science and demonstrate an ability to study that problem in a rigorous scientific manner.
- Evaluate the preparedness of the applicant to undertake the proposed training and their capacity to benefit from the fellowship. Evaluate their accomplishments in the context of their stage of training and the scientific opportunities they have had.
- Evaluate the applicant’s scientific potential. Consider their trajectory in the context of their opportunities. Also consider other factors that bear on their potential to succeed, such as determination, persistence, and creativity.
Criterion 2: Science and Scientific Resources
- Evaluate the quality of the proposed science. Assess the depth of understanding of the scientific background and the scientific rigor and feasibility of the approach.
- Evaluate the extent to which needed technical, scientific, and clinical resources are specified and are realistically available to the applicant.
- Assess whether the scientific expertise of the mentorship team is appropriate for the proposed science and whether the role of each mentor is clearly defined.
- Evaluate how well the proposed scientific project serves the applicant’s training goals.
- Note that peer review of financial support for the proposed research will be eliminated.
Criterion 3: Training Plan and Training Resources
- Evaluate whether the applicant clearly defines their career goals and whether the training plan is linked to them.
- Evaluate whether the applicant has clearly defined areas of needed growth. These could include specific scientific skills, knowledge, and other professional needs such as communication, teaching, and mentorship skills.
- Evaluate the training environment for applicants. Assess whether the necessary institutional training resources are well-specified and available, specifically the practical availability of resources.
- Evaluate whether the trainee articulated a coherent and cohesive plan for interacting with sponsors and mentors.
- Assess whether the sponsor presents a strong pedagogical plan appropriate to the needs and goals of the applicant. Include an evaluation of the sponsor’s training philosophy, their approach to training, time commitments, and accessibility.
- Evaluate and comment on the impact that training plan completion will make in meeting the scientific development needs of the applicant and aid them in achieving their career goals.
Note that the Additional Criteria (Protections for Human Subjects and Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Individuals Across the Lifespan) would remain the same, as would the Additional Review Considerations (e.g., Applications from Foreign Organizations, Select Agents, Resource Sharing Plans, Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources, Budget & Period of Support).
Deadline and Contact Information
Submit your input through the RFI website by June 23, 2023. Refer to the RFI linked above for complete details about the proposed changes. Do not include any private or personally identifiable information that you do not want to make public.
If you have any related inquiries, contact NRSAreview@mail.nih.gov.