Update: Due to the level of interest in this effort, NIH just extended the closing date of this RFI to September 7.
The NIH is seeking comments regarding NIH’s support of the biomedical and behavioral research, including peer review, with the goal of examining the current system to optimize its efficiency and effectiveness. The NIH is especially interested in creative suggestions, even if they involve radical changes to the current approach. Responses will be accepted until SEPTEMBER 7, 2007 online or via e-mail (PeerReviewRFI@mail.nih.gov). The form will limit the length of each response to the number of characters identified. The collected information will be analyzed and may appear in reports. Although the NIH will try to protect against the release of identifying information there is no guarantee of confidentiality.
The NIH is especially interested in creative, concrete suggestions to the following questions, for strengthening over the long term any and all aspects of our system for identifying the most meritorious and innovative research for support:
1. Challenges of NIH System of Research Support. Please describe any specific challenges presented by NIH’s support of biomedical and behavioral research such as the current array of grant mechanisms, number of grants awarded per investigator, and the duration of grants.
2. Challenges of NIH Peer Review Process. Please describe any specific challenges presented by the current peer review process at NIH.
3. Solutions to Challenges. Please concisely describe specific approaches or concepts that would address any of the above challenges, even if it involves a radical change to the current approach.
4. Core Values of NIH Peer Review Process. Please describe the core values of NIH peer review that must be maintained or enhanced.
5. Peer Review Criteria and Scoring. Are the appropriate criteria and scoring procedures being used by NIH to evaluate applications during peer review? If not, are there changes in either that you would recommend?
6. Career Pathways. Is the current peer review process for investigators at specific stages in their career appropriate? If not, what changes would you recommend?
Knock yourself out, Drugmonkey!