Policies and Procedures

The primary scientific peer review is conducted by the NCIPC Initial Review Group (IRG) along with ad hoc members. This is a closed meeting which involves a rigorous process where the methods and scientific quality of applications are evaluated to identify proposals most likely to successfully contribute to the research priorities of the announcement. The review process is modified from the National Institute of Health (NIH) peer review process. Applications may be subjected to a preliminary evaluation (streamline or triage review) by the IRG to determine if the application is of sufficient technical and scientific merit to warrant further review. NCIPC withdraws from further consideration applications judged to be noncompetitive and the principal investigator/ program director’s notified in a timely manner. Applications judged to be competitive will receive further evaluation by the IRG. These applications are reviewed for scientific merit using the criteria outlined in the announcement and the NIH scoring system (a scoring system of 100 - 500 points; where 500 is the worst).

The criteria used to assess the application’s scientific merit include but are not limited to: significance; approach; innovation; investigator; environment; protection of human subjects from research risks; plan for inclusion of women, minorities, and children; and measures of effectiveness. Each application is evaluated on its own scientific merit and not in comparison to other applications submitted in response to the program announcement or request for applications. Information related to this project not provided in the application cannot become a part of the panel discussion. Panel members can only evaluate information in the written proposal. All competitive applications are thoroughly evaluated by three assigned reviewers followed by an in-depth discussion by the entire panel. Each panel member votes individually on the applications. Upon completion of this process, an aggregated score of the panel is used to determine the priority score for the summary statement that will be sent to each applicant that also outlines the strengths and weaknesses of the application. Applications with a score from 100 to 350 proceed to Secondary Review where they are assessed for programmatic relevance and balance by the Science and Program Review Subcommittee of the NCIPC Advisory Committee for Injury Prevention and Control (ACIPC). After the peer review meeting is completed, applicants should correspond with the scientific program administrator or project officer assigned to the announcement for the status of the application.

At the Director’s Briefing, the results from the review processes are presented in the form of staff analysis. All awards are determined by the Director of the NCIPC based on priority scores assigned to applications by the primary scientific review panel (IRG), recommendations by the secondary review committee of the Science and Program Review Subcommittee of the ACIPC, consultation with NCIPC senior staff, and the availability of funds.

NCIPC project officers (PO) are responsible for monitoring awards. The PO is responsible for the continuous monitoring of the programmatic performance of the particular project. Monitoring is accomplished through the review and assessment of information gathered from audit reports, progress reports, financial reports, site visits, correspondence and peer review. The PO may also visit the institution to evaluate scientific progress, especially when problems or weaknesses are identified. When problems or weaknesses are found, the PO works with the recipient institution to resolve or begin the resolution of the troublesome issues. When additional scientific expertise is needed invite for monitoring, review of reports or site visits, it may become necessary to appropriate intramural scientists to provide assistance with this task.