NIH Peer Review
Peer Review Critiques, by Fiscal Year and Type of Review

Skip Navigation Links
Chart Page URL:  Email chart link 

Legend Regular Mail % Regular Peer Review Critiques, by Fiscal Year and Type of Review
X=2015;Y=98 X=2016;Y=98 X=2017;Y=98 X=2014;Y=97 X=2011;Y=97 X=2012;Y=96 X=2013;Y=94 X=2015;Y=5,596 X=2016;Y=5,705 X=2017;Y=4,261 X=2014;Y=7,384 X=2011;Y=6,615 X=2012;Y=9,343 X=2013;Y=14,056 X=2015;Y=250,885 X=2016;Y=252,379 X=2017;Y=250,176 X=2014;Y=226,694 X=2011;Y=239,411 X=2012;Y=226,131 X=2013;Y=230,009 Peer Review Critiques, by Fiscal Year and Type of Review
The analysis counts written critiques submitted on formatted templates to the NIH Internet Assisted Review (IAR) system during summary statement preparation. Because summary statements for certain complex applications are assembled outside of the IAR system, some critiques are not captured in this analysis. Therefore, the numbers reported here are intended to reflect the flow through the IAR system only.

"Mail" reviewers refers to those reviewers who served only as Mail reviewers during the given time period. Therefore, a reviewer who came to two different review meetings and participated in a third meeting as a Mail reviewer would be counted as a "Regular" reviewer. A reviewer who participated as a Mail reviewer for three different review meetings, but not as a Regular reviewer, would be listed as a Mail reviewer. [A Mail reviewer provides written critique(s), criterion scores, and an initial overall impact score(s) on a particular grant application(s), by some form of mail, electronic, or internet-assisted communication to the Designated Federal Official, but does not attend the meeting or participate in the discussion of the application(s) and does not provide a final overall impact score(s).]

The analysis does not include critiques for reviews of R&D contract proposals or Loan Repayment Program applications.