Review Outcomes of R03s in CSR

1
Review Outcomes of R03s in CSR

• Valerie L. Durrant, Ph.D.
• SRA, Health of the Population IRG Center for
  Scientific Review

2
Key features of R03s

• Small research projects
• pilot/feasibility studies
• secondary analysis
• small projects
• development of research methods/technologies
• Budget Up to 2 years 50K/year. Modular.
• 10 page research plan
• Must be submitted in response to a PA
• PA 06-180 (replaced 03-108) is the parent PA

3
Other features of R03s

• SF424all electronic submission (6/1/2006)
• 2 revisions allowed 1 page introduction
• Preliminary data not required
• No competing continuations
• Appendix limitations (only graphics, survey
  questionnaires)
• Used for a variety of research projects and goals
  (e.g. Fogarty international cooperative projects,
  data archiving, etc).

4
Number of R03s reviewed in CSR and ICs, 2001-2006
5
R03s are a relatively small percent of
CSR-reviewed applications
Percent of applications reviewed by CSR by
mechanism (January 2006-October 2006 council
rounds)
N50,801
Percent of R03s (CSR-reviewed) increased from
2.1 to 3.2 between 2000 and 2006.
6
CSR-reviewed R03s are concentrated in DCPS and
specific IRGs
Distribution of R03s applications by Division of
review (Oct 2005 May 2006 councils)
IDM 9
BDA 13
HOP 16 RPHB 10
7
More likely to have new investigator as PI
R03 applications have other unique characteristics

• Less likely to beresubmitted

8
Most R03 applications are reviewed in standing
study sections
9
R03 review in CSR

• Review guidelines instruct reviewers to focus on
  conceptual framework and general approach, place
  less emphasis on methods
• Review challenges
• Avoiding R01 expectations keeping reviewers
  focused on mechanism
• Keeping budget out of review
• When there are few R03s how to determine a fair
  review
• Who are peers of R03s?

10
Review Outcomes

• Does the score distribution of R03s differ from
  that of R01s?
• Does the score distribution of R03s differ when
  they are reviewed in different types of review
  groups?

11
Description of analysis

• Limited to Type 1 applications
• Looking at raw score distributions
• 5 categories lt150, 151-175, 175-200, 200,
  unscored
• Many R03s do not receive a percentile
• Comparison groupType 1 R01s in standing study
  sections (excluding study sections with a primary
  focus on a non-R01 mechanism)
• Excludes ICP1 study section (which only reviews
  Fogarty International Research Collaboration R03s)

12
R03 review outcomes are similar to Type 1 R01
applications
Percent of Type 1 R01 and R03 applications
reviewed in standing study sections in score
categories (October 2005-January 2006 council
rounds)
Excludes a few study sections with a primary
focus on a non-R01 mechanism
13
R03 review outcomes are similar in different
review forums
Percent of Type 1 R01 and R03 applications
reviewed in standing study sections and R03
applications reviewed in small mechanism SEPs in
score categories (Oct 2005-Jan 2006 council
rounds)
14
Conclusions

• Review outcomes of R03s are similar to Type 1
  R01s
• No systematic differences in score distributions
  for R03s reviewed in different review venues
• Shows robustness of peer review
• No differences in outcomes despite differences in
  application characteristics, PI characteristics,
  and low overall numbers of R03s
• Reviewers following guidelines SRAs keeping
  reviewers focused on mechanism

15
Acknowledgements

• Teresa Lindquist, Program Analyst, CSR and OER
  data analysts
• Andre Premen, Assistant Director, Division of
  Receipt and Referral, CSR
• Elliot Postow, Director, Division of Biological
  Basis of Disease, CSR

16
(No Transcript)
17

• Additional slides

18
Where are R03s reviewed?

• Depends on Institute, substantive topic, and the
  PA to which an application responds.

Note EY, MD currently do not accept R03s.
19
Review criteria same as for R01s, with some
guidance provided.
The NIH R03 small grant is a mechanism for
supporting discrete, well-defined projects that
realistically can be completed in two years and
that require limited levels of funding. Because
the research plan is restricted to 10 pages, an
R03 grant application will not have the same
level of detail or extensive discussion found in
an R01 application. Accordingly, reviewers should
evaluate the conceptual framework and general
approach to the problem, placing less emphasis on
methodological details and certain indicators
traditionally used in evaluating the scientific
merit of R01 applications including supportive
preliminary data. Appropriate justification for
the proposed work can be provided through
literature citations, data from other sources, or
from investigator-generated data. Preliminary
data are not required, particularly in
applications proposing pilot or feasibility
studies. (PA 06-180)
Few exceptions such as PA 05-072 05-073
20
Majority of CSR-reviewed R03 applications come in
response to PA 03-108 (recently replaced by PA
06-180).
Percent of CSR-reviewed application by mechanism
(October 2005-January 2006 Council rounds)
21
R03 applications have other unique characteristics

• More likely to have human subjects