NIH asks public how to reward research that can be replicated
The National Institutes of Health has opened a public comment period on how biomedical research should be measured and rewarded, with 15 days remaining before the August 19, 2026, deadline.
NIH issued Notice NOT-OD-26-087 on June 18. The request for information asks researchers, trainees, institutions, patient advocates and others to suggest measurable ways to recognize rigorous, transparent and reusable science.
The notice is a consultation, not a new evaluation system. It does not change NIH funding rules, grant-review standards, promotion requirements or tenure decisions. Any future policy changes would come later.
What NIH says current measures miss
NIH says biomedical research has become more collaborative, interdisciplinary and dependent on shared data and software. Traditional measures such as publication counts, citation rates and grant totals remain common, but the agency says they do not fully capture how modern scientific work produces value.
A researcher may contribute through a team project, a shared dataset, software, replication work, mentorship or infrastructure that supports other investigators. Those contributions may be less visible than a highly cited paper but can still affect whether findings are reliable and useful.
What the agency wants measured
NIH is seeking specific indicators and possible incentives in several areas:
- Rigor, reproducibility and replication of existing findings;
- Sharing data, software and research models;
- Training and mentorship across career stages;
- Contributions to collaborative and team-based science;
- Entrepreneurship and translation of discoveries into products or clinical uses;
- Basic and other foundational research, including high-risk projects; and
- Broader public impact, including health outcomes, accessibility, public trust and societal benefit.
The agency also asks commenters to address how proposed measures could work across different disciplines, career stages and types of institutions. That matters because a system designed around one field or one kind of research institution could disadvantage early-career scientists, smaller organizations or work that takes longer to produce results.
Why research integrity is part of the discussion
NIH links the request to its agency-wide Replication and Reproducibility Initiative and broader efforts to strengthen research integrity. The agency defines research integrity around honest and verifiable methods, accurate reporting, transparency and accountability.
Replication and reproducibility are related but not identical. Reproducibility generally concerns whether researchers can obtain consistent results using the same data, methods or code. Replication concerns whether a finding can be supported when a new study tests it, often with new data or under different conditions. Neither is a guarantee that a conclusion is correct, but both can provide important checks on scientific claims.
NIH says trustworthy research matters beyond laboratories. Scientists depend on reliable findings to build new work, while taxpayers and research participants support the biomedical system. The agency also says failures of integrity can damage public confidence and cause public harm.
What happens next
Comments are voluntary and may be submitted anonymously through NIH’s electronic response form through August 19. Respondents may include their names and contact information, but NIH warns that responses may later be posted publicly without redaction.
NIH advises commenters not to include confidential, proprietary, classified, sensitive or other personal information they do not want made public.
For now, researchers and institutions should not assume that publication counts, citations or grant totals are being eliminated. The agency is asking whether additional measures should complement those indicators and how any new approach could improve reliability without creating excessive paperwork or unfairly shifting career incentives.
The eventual effect, if NIH adopts changes after the consultation, could reach researchers, reviewers, institutions and the public through decisions about recognition, resources and the kinds of work encouraged in the federally funded biomedical system. But the only action in effect today is the request for input.
Sources
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
