Applications are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through NIH's peer review system, with an emphasis on novel scientific ideas and significant impact.
Scored Review Criteria
Reviewers will provide an overall impact score based on the following three factors, with separate scores for Factors 1 and 2:
-
Factor 1. Importance of the Research (Significance and Innovation): Assesses the potential for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field. Projects should exploit novel tools or technologies, address intransigent barriers or substantially exceed the state-of-the-art in cellular maturation and integration, and aim to improve assay fidelity to
in vivo neural circuit structure/function.
-
Factor 2. Rigor and Feasibility (Approach): Evaluates the soundness of the research plan and methodology.
-
Factor 3. Expertise and Resources (Investigator(s) and Environment): Assesses the qualifications of the investigator(s) and the adequacy of institutional resources. Specifically, projects should engage expert collaborators (e.g., developmental neurobiology, stem cell biology, circuit and systems level neuroscience, materials science, engineering, bioethics) appropriate for the assay optimization needs.
Additional Review Criteria (Considered, but not scored)
- Protections for Human Subjects: Evaluation of justification for involvement and proposed protections, if applicable.
- Vertebrate Animals: Evaluation of justification for use, interventions to minimize discomfort, and euthanasia methods, if applicable.
- Biohazards: Evaluation of proposed protection measures, if applicable.
- Resubmissions/Renewals/Revisions: Assessment of previous application's progress or scope expansion, if applicable.
Additional Review Considerations (Considered, but not scored or impacting overall score)
- Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources: Plans for identifying and ensuring validity.
- Budget and Period of Support: Justification and reasonableness of the requested budget.