Applications submitted to this NIH grant are rigorously evaluated for their scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system. Reviewers will assign an
Overall Impact Score based on several factors, assessing the likelihood of the project to have a sustained, powerful influence on the research field.
Scored Review Criteria:
These three factors will directly influence the scientific merit and receive separate criterion scores:
- Importance of the Research (Significance and Innovation): How significant and innovative is the proposed research? Does it address critical gaps in knowledge or advance scientific understanding in a meaningful way?
- Rigor and Feasibility (Approach): How well-designed and rigorous is the proposed research approach? Are the methods, analyses, and experimental design sound and feasible?
- Expertise and Resources (Investigator(s) and Environment): Do the investigators possess the necessary experience, qualifications, and collaborative arrangements? Is the research environment suitable for conducting the proposed work, with access to appropriate resources?
Additional Review Criteria (Not Scored, but Impact Overall Score):
Reviewers will consider these aspects during evaluation, contributing to the overall impact score, but they do not receive separate numerical scores:
- Protections for Human Subjects: Assessment of the adequacy of plans for the protection of human subjects, particularly important given the clinical trial requirement.
- Vertebrate Animals: If applicable (though human studies are prioritized, procedures involving animals might be considered in certain contexts, though the NOFO states 'human studies only' for the clinical trial component, so this might be for supporting foundational work, if any, that informs the clinical trial but is not the core focus of the funded project. For this grant, it's explicitly stated preclinical animal studies are not allowed).
- Biohazards: Evaluation of potential hazards and proposed protection measures.
- Resubmissions: Assessment of the revised application in light of previous reviews.
- Renewals: Evaluation of progress made during the previous funding period.
- Revisions: Assessment of the appropriateness of any proposed expansion of the project's scope.
Additional Review Considerations (Not Scored, No Impact on Overall Score, but provide context):
- Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources: Plans for validating resources.
- Budget and Period of Support: Evaluation of whether the requested budget and project duration are justified and reasonable for the proposed research.
Competitive Advantage Factors and Quality Thresholds:
To stand out, applications should demonstrate:
*
High Scientific Merit: Strong evidence of significance, innovation, and a rigorous approach.
*
Alignment with NIAAA Priorities: Research areas of high interest to NIAAA include medications development, behavioral therapies, recovery, translational research, and innovative methods/technologies for AUD treatment. Explicitly addressing these areas will be advantageous.
*
Focus on Special-Emphasis and Underserved Populations: Proposals addressing health disparities, age, sex, race/ethnicity, co-occurring disorders, military populations, women, adolescents/young adults, and older adults are highly valued.
*
Strong Team and Environment: Clear demonstration of investigator expertise and access to suitable infrastructure for conducting clinical trials.
*
Comprehensive Data Management and Sharing Plan: Adherence to the NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing.
Cross-Cutting Themes:
While not explicitly scored as separate criteria, the grant's stated interest in addressing issues related to:
*
Health Disparities
*
Age
*
Sex
*
Race and Ethnicity
*
Co-occurring disorders
*
Military populations
...suggests that proposals integrating these considerations into their research design, especially for target populations and potential impact, would be viewed favorably.