NIH proposes replacing grant scores with broader peer-review categories
The National Institutes of Health is considering replacing the numerical overall-impact scores and percentiles reported for grant applications with three broader peer-review categories.
NIH released the proposal, Notice NOT-OD-26-088, on August 14, 2026, and published a public explanation on August 18. The agency is accepting comments through October 13, 2026. Nothing changes immediately: the document is a request for information and proposal, not an adopted policy.
What NIH is proposing
Under the proposed system, applications would be reported in one of three categories based on the final overall-impact scores generated during first-level peer review:
- Most Competitive: applications in the top 25% of final overall-impact scores.
- Competitive: applications in the 26%-50% range.
- Not Discussed: applications with scores below the top half.
Applications currently in the top half of a review group are generally discussed by the full panel. Under the proposal, discussed applications would receive either the Most Competitive or Competitive label, while applications below the top half would be reported as Not Discussed.
The category would be communicated to principal investigators, applicant institutions, NIH program staff, institute leadership and the relevant NIH advisory council. The final numerical score and percentile used to assign the category would not be released to those groups.
The scoring process would remain
NIH would not eliminate grant scoring. Reviewers would continue to enter individual overall-impact scores for discussed applications, and NIH would still calculate a final score internally for purposes of assigning an application to a category.
Peer-review meetings would continue. Applicants would still receive written critiques from assigned reviewers, individual criterion or factor scores and, for discussed applications, a summary of the panel’s discussion. Those materials could become more important because applicants would no longer receive the final numerical benchmark traditionally used to compare applications and plan revisions.
Why NIH says it wants the change
NIH says numerical scores can create a false sense of precision and encourage applicants and institutes to rely too heavily on paylines. The agency’s Unified Funding Strategy calls for its institutes, centers and offices to consider peer-review information alongside scientific priorities, strategic plans, budgets, workforce needs and the balance of their broader research portfolios.
NIH says broader categories would help program officials evaluate applications more holistically instead of treating small differences in scores as decisive. The agency also says the approach would put greater emphasis on substantive reviewer comments and panel discussions and would align NIH reporting practices more closely with those of other federal research funders, including the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy and Department of Agriculture.
What applicants could lose
For researchers and universities, the practical change would be less access to a common numerical measure of an application’s standing. A category such as Competitive would not guarantee funding, while Not Discussed would not mean that a proposal was scientifically invalid. The labels would describe a proposed peer-review reporting outcome, not a final award decision.
Applicants would instead have to rely more on written critiques, discussion summaries and conversations with NIH program officials to understand how a proposal performed and what changes might improve it. Institutions could also find it harder to compare results across applications or evaluate how funding decisions relate to peer-review outcomes.
The accountability debate
Independent specialist reporting and research-community reactions have raised concerns that withholding final scores could reduce transparency and give administrators more discretion in funding recommendations. Critics have also called for safeguards to promote consistency and fairness when institutes weigh priorities and budgets alongside peer review.
Those concerns describe a potential risk, not a finding that political interference has occurred. NIH says the proposal would preserve the underlying scientific review process while allowing funding officials to use broader judgment about which research ideas best fit agency and institute priorities.
How NIH funding decisions work
NIH uses a two-level review system. First, scientific experts evaluate an application’s scientific and technical merit. A second level considers the proposal’s relevance to an institute’s mission through national advisory councils. Institute directors then make final funding decisions in the context of program priorities and the existing research portfolio.
Comments on the reporting proposal are due October 13, 2026. NIH says the feedback will inform a final recommendation, including any future implementation or communication steps.
Sources
- NIH notice NOT-OD-26-088
- NIH Extramural Nexus explanation
- Nature report on the proposed grant-review overhaul
Look for updates to this story
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.