Peer Review at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Why Peer Review Matters

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), conducts and funds research to enhance health and reduce illness and disability.

Fiscal Year 2024 Highlights

  • NIH awarded $37.4 billion (79% of its budget) in grants and contracts.

  • Funding supported more than 400,000 jobs.

  • Every $1 spent returned $2.56 to the U.S. economy.

  • NIH-supported discoveries contributed to 99% of FDA-approved drugs in the 21st century.

  • NIH-supported research helped prevent 1.3 million deaths per year.

  • NIH supported discoveries by 174 Nobel Laureates.

Federal law establishes how NIH research is reviewed and funded. Under 42 C.F.R. Part 52h, NIH must use a competitive peer review process to ensure that research with the highest potential to improve health is supported.

Breakthroughs in cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, and other conditions can often be traced to research proposals first evaluated through NIH peer review.

How the Peer Review Process Works

1. Application Submission

Scientists and research institutions submit grant applications proposing research projects, resources, clinical trials, and training or career development programs.

NIH receives over 80,000 applications annually.

2. First Level of Review: Scientific Peer Review Panels

Applications are assigned to initial peer review panels composed of experts who assess scientific and technical merit.

  • More than 25,000 experts volunteer annually.

  • Reviewers are recruited for subject matter expertise.

  • NIH review staff screen all reviewers for conflicts of interest.

  • Reviewers with a real conflict must recuse themselves (42 C.F.R. § 52h.5).

  • Reviewers receive $200 per day per meeting.

  • Most meetings (2020–2025) are held by videoconference.

Reviewers spend dozens of hours evaluating applications before meetings. The honorarium does not cover this preparation time. Compared to private sector consulting fees that may total thousands of dollars, this process represents strong stewardship of taxpayer funds.

Review Criteria

  • Importance of the research

  • Rigor and feasibility

  • Expertise and resources

Each application receives a written summary statement, which:

  • Guides NIH program staff in funding recommendations

  • Provides feedback to applicants to improve and resubmit

3. Second Level of Review: Advisory Councils

Applications recommended for further consideration undergo a second level of review by an NIH Advisory Council.

  • Councils include scientific experts and public representatives.

  • Councils assess scientific merit and public health priority.

  • Each NIH Institute or Center (IC) has its own advisory council or board.

4. Funding Decisions

Institute and Center Directors make final funding decisions based on:

  • Peer reviewer assessments

  • Advisory council recommendations

  • Institute and Center staff input

Stewardship of Public Funds

Both levels of review ensure responsible management of taxpayer dollars.

Peer review provides the scientific expertise needed to allocate limited funds to research that improves health and advances biomedical discovery. It plays a central role in NIH’s effort to produce the greatest return on investment in biomedical research for the American people.