Every NIH grant application is evaluated against five criteria—Significance, Investigator(s), Innovation, Approach, and Environment—but the reality is that reviewers are asking three overarching questions:
- Does this matter? This boils down to Significance. Does your research address a critical gap in the field? Is the potential impact substantial? Many applications fall short here because the problem is either too narrow or too poorly framed. You need to convince reviewers that this isn’t just a scientific curiosity—it’s something the NIH needs to fund.
- Can you do it? This is about Investigator(s) and Environment. If you’re early in your career, your productivity and collaborations will come under close scrutiny. It’s not enough to have the right training; reviewers want to see evidence that you’ve translated training into impactful science. For senior investigators, this question pivots to your track record of sustained funding and successful project execution.
- Is the science airtight? This is where Approach comes into play. It’s the single most important criterion for most reviewers. A strong rationale and preliminary data are table stakes, but the devil is in the experimental details. Reviewers will pick apart poorly justified sample sizes, vague contingencies, or over-ambitious aims. You need to strike a balance between being detailed enough to inspire confidence and concise enough to maintain clarity.
The NIH review process is complex, but it’s not arbitrary. Reviewers genuinely want to fund good science. By understanding their perspective and addressing their concerns directly, you can write applications that stand out.