Search Search. For Reviewers Reviewers are critical to our mission to see that NIH grant applications receive, fair, independent, expert, and timely scientific reviews.
Read about our outreach programs and publications. Review Panels Review Dates. Home Study Sections. Filter Results:. Stacey Williams. CSR Home. Robert Gersch. Elyse Schauwecker. Benjamin Shapero. Kristen Prentice. Inese Beitins. Brian Scott. Natalia Komissarova. Marci Scidmore. Ashlee Lane. Biochemistry and Biophysics of Membranes Study Section.
Nuria Assa-Munt. Thomas Beres. Bryan Crenshaw III. Andrew Louden. Alexander Yakovlev. Shivani Sharma. Liliana Berti-Mattera. Mark Vosvick. Victoriya Volkova.
Behavioral Neuroendocrinology, Neuroimmunology, Rhythms, and Sleep. Michael Selmanoff. Robert Elliott. Geoffrey Schofield.
Sara Hargrave. Khalid Masood. Manzoor Zarger. Lawrence Ng. Clinical Integrative Cardiovascular and Hematological Sciences. Margaret Chandler. Cardiovascular Differentiation and Development Study Section. Sara Ahlgren. Bernard Srambical Wilfred. Shivakumar Chittari. Sarita Sastry.
Juraj Bies. Denise Wiesch. Ramona Gianina Dumitrescu. Paul Hewett-Marx. Pia Peltola. Cancer Immunopathology and Immunotherapy Study Section. Zhang-Zhi Hu. Tami Kingsbury. Sung-Wook Jang. Lauren Fordyce.
Mohammad Alam. Liying Guo. Anthony Chan. Laurent Taupenot. Tatiana Cohen. Aleksey Kazantsev. Clinical Neuroscience and Neurodegeneration Study Section.
Alessandra Rovescalli. Clinical Neuroplasticity and Neurotransmitters Study Section. Suzan Nadi. Malaya Chatterjee. Karen Seymour. Svetlana Kotliarova. NIH expects applicants to describe the general strengths and weaknesses of the prior research being cited by the applicant as crucial to support the application.
It is expected that this consideration of general strengths and weaknesses include attention to the rigor of the previous experimental designs, as well as the incorporation of relevant biological variables and authentication of key resources.
Review Criteria: Reviewers evaluate scientific premise as part of the Significance criterion for research grant applications and assess whether the applicant has discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the foundational data and described how the proposed research will address the identified weaknesses or gaps.
Description: Scientific rigor is the strict application of the scientific method to ensure robust and unbiased experimental design, methodology, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of results.
This includes full transparency in reporting experimental details so that others may reproduce and extend the findings. Review Criteria: Reviewers assess scientific rigor as part of the Approach criterion and the overall impact score.
The reviewers will evaluate the experimental design, including descriptions of experimental controls, plans to reduce bias blinding, randomization, subject inclusions and exclusion criteria, etc. Description: Biological variables, such as sex, age, weight, and underlying health conditions, are often critical factors affecting health or disease. In particular, sex is a biological variable that is frequently ignored in animal study designs and analyses, leading to an incomplete understanding of potential sex-based differences in basic biological function, disease processes and treatment response.
Review Criteria: Reviewers assess the applicant's plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, as part of the Approach criterion score and the overall impact score. If the applicant proposes the use of only one sex, reviewers will assess the justification provided by the applicant.
Review Criteria: Reviewers discuss the adequacy of the plan for key resource authentication after scoring; thus, comments on key resource authentication should not affect scores. Nonetheless, if the authentication plan is inadequate or missing from the application, it will be reflected in the written critiques.
Toggle navigation. Search Search. For Reviewers Reviewers are critical to our mission to see that NIH grant applications receive, fair, independent, expert, and timely scientific reviews. Read about our outreach programs and publications. Review Panels Review Dates.
0コメント