Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit based on the following criteria, influencing the 'overall impact score':
Scored Review Criteria (Factors 1, 2, and 3 contribute to overall impact and receive separate factor scores):
- Factor 1. Importance of the Research (Significance and Innovation):
- Assesses the project's potential to exert a powerful influence on the research field.
- Considers the significance of the research question and the innovativeness of the approach.
- Factor 2. Rigor and Feasibility (Approach):
- Evaluates the soundness of the research design, methods, and analyses.
- Assesses the feasibility of the proposed work and the management of potential risks.
- Factor 3. Expertise and Resources (Investigator(s) and Environment):
- Examines the qualifications, experience, and track record of the Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) and the research team.
- Considers the adequacy of the institutional support and resources available for the project.
Additional Review Criteria (considered for overall impact, but not separately scored):
- Protections for Human Subjects: Assessment of safeguards for participants in research involving human subjects.
- Vertebrate Animals: Evaluation of proposed procedures involving animals, justification for their use, and measures to minimize discomfort.
- Biohazards: Assessment of hazardous materials/procedures and proposed protection measures.
- Resubmissions: Review of the updated application, considering previous feedback.
- Renewals: Evaluation of progress made during the prior funding period.
- Revisions: Assessment of the appropriateness of proposed project expansion.
Additional Review Considerations (considered, but not scored or included in overall impact):
- Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources: Plans for identifying and ensuring the validity of essential resources.
- Budget and Period of Support: Evaluation of whether the budget and requested project duration are justified and reasonable.
Selection Criteria and Priorities
- Scientific and technical merit, as determined by peer review.
- Availability of funds.
- Relevance of the proposed project to the program's priorities (e.g., current topics in AD/ADRD, recommendations from Research Summits).
- Compliance with data management and sharing policies.
Cross-Cutting Themes and Impact Expectations
- Inclusivity and Diversity: Strong emphasis on proposals that involve understudied populations and address NIH-designated Populations with Health Disparities in recruitment and retention plans.
- Social Impact: Projects are expected to contribute to understanding and addressing health disparities related to AD/ADRD.
- Innovation: Explicitly evaluated as a scoring factor. Proposals should demonstrate innovative and proactive recruitment strategies.
- Quality Thresholds: Applications must meet the quality and ethical standards for human subjects research and data management as outlined by NIH and other federal regulations.