Dear SRS Members,
The NIH is considering significant changes to the information investigators receive following peer review of their grant proposals. The SRS opposes this change and urges its members to submit comments opposing this proposal by October 13, 2026. You can read more about the proposal and post your comments at https://rfi.grants.nih.gov/?s=6a2b1c22c3fcfda46e0badd2.
Currently, investigators receive an impact score ranging from 10–90 (with most scores that would fall in the 50-90 range simply labeled as “Not Discussed”). These scores help NIH Institute Advisory Councils prioritize applications for funding. In the proposed change, investigators would be notified that their grant falls into one of only three categories: “Most competitive” (top 25% of impact scores); “Competitive” (26-50% of impact scores); or “Not discussed” (scores >50%). The proposal is described in detail in the Request for Information (RFI) at the link above.
The SRS opposes this proposed change because it would have several adverse consequences for scientists:
First, it would substantially reduce the information investigators receive about how their grants fared in review. For example, a proposal that scored in the top 2% of impact scores would be indistinguishable from one that scored in the top 25%; both would simply be classified as “most competitive.” Without a numerical impact score, investigators would have far less ability to gauge the level of enthusiasm expressed by the review panel. In times of scarce funding and increasingly competitive paylines, such information is critical to investigators’ knowledge about the likelihood of funding and to decision-making related to grant resubmission.
Second, replacing impact scores with broad categories would significantly increase NIH programmatic discretion in funding decisions and reduce transparency about the degree to which scientific experts’ judgment was being used. This decrease in transparency would pave the way for the politicization of funding decisions, allowing them to be made on political and ideological bases, rather than on the scientific grounds reflected in the results of peer review–which have historically been communicated by the impact score.
Third, by removing impact scores and lumping grants into three broad categories, the proposed change would limit the information available to NIH Advisory Councils about the relative rankings of grant applications within those categories. This loss of granularity would make it more difficult to determine the merits of one application vs. another. This is particularly problematic when funds become more limited, making careful consideration of the relative scientific merits of applications even more important when making funding decisions.
Finally, the uncertainty that scientists have about where their application “stands” is likely to increase the number of application resubmissions to NIH. Currently, an applicant who receives an Impact Score of 13 can feel fairly confident that they do not need to resubmit. Knowing only that they are in the most competitive 25%–50% is likely to make more applicants resubmit their applications. Such an outcome would undermine the efficiency of applicants, who will spend more time resubmitting applications and less time actually doing science; review panels, which are likely to see an increased number of applications; and NIH staff, who would need to process those resubmissions.
The time to act is now!
The SRS urges its members to post comments opposing this change here. When posting comments, please be brief and provide clear examples of how this change could affect the scientific integrity of the funding of American research and how it would affect you in your professional life. The latter can include statements about your experience serving on NIH study sections that may be relevant to the proposed changes.
Below is a comment template you can customize:
I strongly recommend that NIH retain numerical overall impact scores rather than replacing them with the broad categories of “Most Competitive,” “Competitive,” and “Not Discussed.”
First, the proposed approach would substantially reduce the information available to investigators. Applications with meaningfully different peer-review outcomes could receive the same designation. Numerical impact scores provide important insight into reviewers’ assessments and help investigators make informed decisions about whether and how to resubmit an application.
Second, eliminating numerical scores could reduce transparency in NIH funding decisions. Impact scores provide a visible connection between scientific peer review and subsequent funding decisions. Broad categories would make it more difficult for applicants and the scientific community to understand that relationship. Maintaining transparency is essential to confidence that federal research funding decisions reflect scientific merit.
Third, broad categories would provide NIH Advisory Councils with less information for distinguishing among applications within a category. This loss of granularity is particularly concerning when resources are constrained and NIH must make difficult choices among many meritorious applications.
Finally, providing applicants with less information may unintentionally increase resubmissions. Investigators who cannot adequately determine where their application stands may resubmit unnecessarily, increasing workloads for investigators, peer reviewers, and NIH staff.
I support efforts to improve NIH peer review, but simplification should not come at the expense of transparency and useful information. I urge NIH to preserve numerical overall impact scores alongside qualitative feedback. Doing so will help investigators make informed decisions, support Advisory Council deliberations, and maintain confidence in a rigorous, transparent, and scientifically grounded funding process.
