In August 2026 the NIH introduced proposed changes to its peer review reporting outcomes that would limit the amount of information reported to applicants in the first-level peer review process. As such, it was posted for public consultation in this RFI.
In its response ORFG shared concerns with the proposed changes and offered alternative approaches that could be considered that would better serve changes in the NIH’s grant peer-review practices.
Concerns:
Withholding final overall impact scores and percentiles from program staff, ICO leadership, and Advisory Councils is highly consequential.
Grouping first-round review outcomes into broad categories introduces significant unintended consequences.
Coarser reporting formats will create a pronounced information asymmetry across the research community.
It is unclear how programmatic factors outlined by the Unified Funding Strategy will be weighted and documented alongside peer review.
The NIH should publicly release the supporting evidence used to develop these proposed changes.
Alternatives:
Transparently report score uncertainty.
Experiment with partial randomization and award lotteries.
Pilot policy changes prior to agency-wide implementation.
Finally, ORFG’s response pushed for both the adoption of open peer review models and for formal recognition of grant reviewers.
ORFG maintains that broader reform should be considered by the NIH for grant review that increases review transparency and reinforces and incentivizes open behaviors and practices.