Emergency Modifications to NIH Peer Review

Blog by Dr. Bruce Reed, Acting Director, Center for Scientific Review, NIH.

NIH plans to review all applications submitted for the January 2026 Councils (e.g., applications that were submitted to due dates in summer 2025) and maintain the quality of review (NOT-OD-26-012).

Over 370 peer review meetings were cancelled between October 1, 2025 and November 14, 2025. These meetings had enlisted more than 11,000 reviewers to review more than 24,000 applications. We are currently rescheduling these study sections, as peer review of applications is required before making awards. In doing so, we:

• Remain committed to accomplishing three full rounds of peer review this fiscal year. We strongly believe canceling a round of review would be harmful to applicants and the research enterprise.
• Will maintain high quality peer review. Though some changes are needed to review the nearly 100,000 expected applications this fiscal year, those changes will not substantially degrade the peer review processes.

In order to address the backlog of applications scheduled for peer review, emergency modifications to NIH review processes and policies will be made. Because the review of applications submitted for January 2026 Council deadlines will overlap with the review cycle for applications submitted for May 2026 Council, these modifications will remain in place through the May 2026 Advisory Council:

• Reduce the percentage of applications discussed in most meetings.
  • Committees will vote for which applications to discuss in three groups:
    • The top third (30 to 35 percent) will be discussed in the review meeting and considered for funding.
    • The middle third will be designated as “competitive but not discussed” and considered for funding.
    • The lowest third will be designated as “not competitive and not discussed.”
  • This change will allow nearly all review meetings to run within one day and make recruiting reviewers and rescheduling meetings easier.
• Simplify summary statements will continue to provide the necessary information regarding applications’ scientific merit to advisory Councils and IC program staff. Summary statements will have:
  • A sentence describing the degree of consensus in the committee vote.
  • Bullets describing the main score driving points.
  • Written critiques from the three assigned reviewers.
  • For discussed applications, the overall impact score.
• NIH will release summary statements later in the Council round, while continuing to release scores within three business days of the meeting

What this means for your application:

• Your application’s likelihood of funding is not affected. By designating the top and middle thirds of applications as competitive, it opens the possibility of funding in cases where applications in the middle third align with high program priorities. Institutes and Centers will consider for funding all applications that are discussed plus all designated as competitive.
• Reviewers’ full critiques will continue to be available and program staff will remain available to provide advice to applicants.

How You Can Help

Researchers in the extramural community are critical for rigorously evaluating grant applications submitted to NIH for funding and service is important to the broader scientific community. If you are invited to participate in an NIH review panel, please consider saying “yes.” There are also many benefits to serving in NIH peer review, including flexibility in submitting applications, intellectual stimulation, interaction with colleagues, and an opportunity to give back.

Resources:

• Become a Reviewer
• Information for Reviewers
• NIH Early Career Reviewer Program