Peer Review
Peer Review
Scientific Community Responds in Force to OMB Proposed Rule
More than 340,000 public comments have been submitted in response to the proposed rule, Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, that seeks to make major changes to the Uniform Guidance governing federal financial assistance, including federal research grants. The deadline for comments was July 13. Organizations and individuals used their comments to register deep concerns about the proposed changes and their potential impacts on the U.S. research enterprise and our diminishing global competitiveness. COSSA’s comments, which have not yet been posted officially to regulations.gov, is available here. According to the proposed rule, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) set an implementation date of…
House Science Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Federal Research Funds
On June 24, the House Science, Space, and Technology (SST) Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight held a hearing titled, Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee Hearing – Safeguarding Federal Research Funds: The False Claims Act’s Role in Combating Grant Fraud. Witnesses included Robert Steinau, Senior Official Performing the Duties of Inspector General, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Office of the Inspector General; Jennifer Springmann, Special Agent in Charge, National Science Foundation (NSF) Office of the Inspector General; and Brenna Jenny, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Commercial Litigation Branch, Department of Justice (DOJ). Chairman Rich McCormick (R-GA) began the hearing by expressing concern…
Resources for Commenting on OMB Proposed Rule
As previously reported, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a proposed rule in late May that would make major changes to the Uniform Guidance governing federal financial assistance, including federal research grants. The rule seeks to implement proposals made by the Trump Administration through various executive orders and other actions taken since January 2025, many of great concern to the research community. Public comments are being accepted through July 13. COSSA is holding a members-only webinar on July 1 at 2:00 pm ET to provide guidance to members planning to comment. As of this writing, more than 70,000 public comments have been submitted. Many scientific…
NSF Seeks Comment on Grant Policy Revisions, Due Aug. 24
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is seeking public comment on proposed revisions to its grant policies. The changes are intended to bring NSF’s policy in line with the White House Office of Management and Budget’s sweeping proposed revisions to federal grant regulations released in late May (see related article). The draft would revise grant termination provisions, prohibit charging publication costs to awards, and eliminate references to fixed-price awards. It also clarifies that recovery of indirect costs on NSF awards is subject to the availability of funds, meaning organizations may not be able to recover their full negotiated indirect cost rates if award…
Research Community Organizing Around OMB Proposed Rule
As previously reported, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a proposed rule in late May that would make major changes to the Uniform Guidance governing federal financial assistance, including federal research grants. The rule seeks to implement proposals made by the Trump Administration through various executive orders and other actions taken since January 2025. Public comments will be accepted through July 13; public requests that the 45-day comment period be extended have been denied by OMB. As the research community prepares to respond, scientific and higher education groups are providing guidance to help make sense of the more than 400-page proposed…
White House Proposes Sweeping Changes to Federal Grant Rules – Comments Due July 13
At the end of May, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a proposed rule, Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, that would make major changes to the Uniform Guidance governing federal financial assistance, including federal research grants. The rule would implement proposals made by the Trump Administration through various executive orders over the last year, including the Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking order and Restoring Gold Standard Science order, among others. Among the changes are, but not limited to: Proposed changes to the Uniform Guidance have been anticipated for several months. Still the sweeping nature of the changes, if implemented, would fundamentally alter the…
National Science Board Releases Anticipated Merit Review Report
As previously reported, the National Science Board (NSB), which is the policy-making body of the National Science Foundation (NSF), created a Commission on Merit Review in 2023 to take a fresh look at NSF’s current merit review criteria and make recommendations for potential improvement or modernization. After several delays, the Commission released its report on December 17. The report, Merit Review for a Changing Landscape, contains an in-depth evaluation of NSF’s longstanding review process and makes several recommendations, including: The release of the NSB report comes on the heels of new Merit Review rules that took effect December 15, 2025. Among the changes announced…
ICYMI: NIH Modifies Funding Strategy, Moves Away from Paylines
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued a notice on November 21 outlining a framework for “Implementing a Unified NIH Funding Strategy to Guide Consistent and Clearer Award Decisions.” The notice follows on an August statement from the NIH Director. The framework describes a need to “balance many competing and dynamic factors when determining the most meritorious research ideas to support,” such as peer review, availability of funds, and health priorities, among others. Starting with the January 2026 Councils, all NIH institutes and centers (ICs) will be expected to follow the same funding policies, including the following core tenets: In addition, the notice…
NSB to Revisit NSF’s Merit Review Process
The National Science Board (NSB), the policy-making body of the National Science Foundation (NSF) that also serves as an independent advisor to the President and Congress on federal science policy issues, met on May 9-10. Among the topics discussed was the establishment of a commission to review NSF’s merit review process and criteria. The NSB-NSF Commission on Merit Review (MRX) was formally created in February and is now getting started on its review and engagement with external stakeholders. The Commission was created in response to language included in the CHIPS and Science Act passed in 2022 that called on NSF…
NSF Issues New Framework for Identifying Broader Impacts; NSB Seeks Additional Guidance
On March 18, the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate (SBE) released a Dear Colleague Letter (NSF 21-059) offering guidance to proposal writers for shaping their broader impacts arguments. The notice makes no changes to NSF’s existing merit review criteria, which currently considers a project’s intellectual merit and broader impacts potential. Rather, it offers a framework for SBE researchers to consider “to develop and communicate their projects’ broader impacts more effectively” and “for connecting fundamental research outcomes to quality of life improvements for others.” The framework includes three guiding questions for principal investigators to consider: Who…
National Institute of Justice Seeking Peer Reviewers
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the research and evaluation agency of the Department of Justice, is seeking to expand its pool of peer reviewers. NIJ’s grant making process relies on scientists and criminal justice practitioners to provide expertise and feedback on the scientific rigor and merit of applications. NIJ is specifically seeking research and technical experts in the following areas: human trafficking, firearms violence, mass shootings, school safety, terrorism, gangs, persistently violent communities, and hate crime. More information about becoming a peer reviewer can be found on the NIJ website. Back to this issue’s table of contents.
Rand Paul Introduces Bill to “Reform” Federal Research Grant System
On October 18, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Chair of the Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hosted a hearing entitled “Broken Beakers: Federal Support for Research.” Following the hearing Sen. Paul introduced the BASIC Research Act (S. 1973) to “reform” the federal research grant system. The bill would alter how grant proposals at all federal research funding agencies are reviewed by adding non-expert members of the public to review panels and requiring all applications for federal research grants to be made public. The bill also proposes the elimination of the Inspector…
Coalition to Promote Research Launches Petition Drive: “Advancing Principles of Scientific Stewardship”
On June 12, the Coalition to Promote Research (CPR), which is co-led by COSSA and the American Psychological Association (a COSSA member), launched a petition drive, Advancing Principles of Scientific Stewardship. The effort is designed to make evident the support of the general public as well as the scientific community for America’s premier federal research enterprise, including the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The organizers hope to showcase the enormous unseen support for the peer/merit review process. The CPR petition highlights the general public’s and scientific community’s recognition that “Effective policy planning and appropriate, stable…
Video Shares Insights into NIH Grant Application and Peer Review Process
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Center for Scientific Review (CSR) recently posted a video compiling insights from individuals who have participated in the NIH’s peer review process, including peer reviewers, study section chairs, and NIH staff. The video is designed to guide applicants in planning and writing a competitive grant application, including writing the summary and specific aims sections of the application; explaining why the research is essential; and the importance of explaining proposed techniques, among other suggestions. The video is part of CSR’s Insider’s Guide to Peer Review for Applicants. Back to this issue’s table of contents.
CPR Briefing Highlights NIH Peer Review Process
The COSSA-led Coalition to Promote Research (CPR) recently organized its second congressional briefing of 2015 (see Update, March 24, 2015) designed to provide an overview of the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) peer review process for congressional staff. The briefing, NIH Priority Setting: How Peer Review Assists the NIH in Selecting the Best Science, highlighted the process used by the NIH’s Center for Scientific Review (CSR) with the help of scientific experts from around the country. Briefing speakers included CSR director Richard Nakamura and Danielle Li of Harvard University. Felice Levine, executive director of the American Educational Research Association (AERA),…
COSSA/CPR Sponsor “NIH 101” Congressional Briefing
On February 27, the COSSA-led Coalition to Promote Research (CPR) organized a Congressional briefing designed to provide an overview of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) peer review process and the types of grants funded by the agency. The briefing’s speaker, Keith Yamamoto, vice chancellor for research and executive vice dean of the School of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, is a leading molecular biologist and has served on the NIH’s Center for Scientific Review’s advisory committee, as well as other NIH advisory panels and peer review committees. Using contemporary biology, Yamamoto discussed the NIH priority-setting process…
Scientific Community Expresses Support for NIH and Its Peer Review Process
On December 2, the Coalition to Promote Research (CPR) sent letters to Congress expressing its “continued and strong support for the competitive peer review process used by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).” The letter, signed by 128 diverse organizations, noted that the scientific community is “extremely concerned about the recent criticism of the NIH’s funding decisions and the accompanying mischaracterization of NIH-supported research in the media and by some in Congress. The ongoing targeting of specific grants produces a chilling effect across the entire scientific community. These attacks inhibit the very scientific progress the critics claim to support. Our…
NIH Center for Scientific Review to Host Peer Review Webinars for New Grant Applicants
In early November, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Center for Scientific Review (CSR) plans to host four Meet the Experts in NIH Peer Review webinars designed to provide new NIH grant applicants and other interested individuals with valuable insights into the submission and review processes. CSR is NIH’s gateway for grant applications and their review for scientific merit. It organizes the peer review groups, or study sections, that evaluate the majority of the research grant applications sent to the agency. The webinars will address the various types of grant mechanisms supported by NIH: Academic Research Enhancement Awards (R15), Fellowship…
PCORI Seeks Public Comment on Draft Peer Review and Public Release Proposal
On September 15, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute’s (PCORI) Board of Governors approved the release of the Institute’s draft plan for peer review and public release of its research, Getting the Word Out: PCORI’s Proposal for Peer Review of Primary Research and Public Release of Research Findings. The Institute is seeking comments from the public on the proposal, which may be submitted on its website through November 7, 2014. PCORI will also hold a public forum to discuss the proposal on Monday, September 29 (the event will also be available as a webinar). PCORI’s authorizing legislation mandates that the Institute…