My grant application was "Not Discussed" - what does that mean?

It can be disheartening to wait months for your NIH grant proposal to be reviewed, only to find out that it has been designated as Not Discussed. This designation has also historically been referred to as "unscored" or "bottom-halved". A more detailed description is provided on the NIH Peer Review site.

What does it mean when my grant proposal is not discussed?

There can be many reasons why a proposal is not discussed. In many cases, there are significant weaknesses in the proposal which may or may not be easy to address. 

What should I do with a proposal that has not been discussed? 

It is a good idea to contact the assigned NIH program officer, who may have additional insights and guidance. In some cases, it can be advantageous for proposals that are not scored to be significantly revamped and submitted as new, rather than as resubmission proposals. The rationale for this is that you will be able to make significant changes and address reviewer concerns without having to show the reviewers that you were not scored the first time. However, there may be circumstances in which a resubmission is strategically beneficial, even for a proposal that was Not Discussed. The NIH program staff will likely be able to provide insights that will help you to make this decision.

What does it mean when your NIH grant application is "Not Discussed"?

Although it is a few years old, this helpful article from NIAID provides an overview of the proposal review process that explains what it means for a proposal to be classified as Not Discussed.  This designation is also referred to by some of the old-school folks as "unscored" or "bottom-halved".  Interestingly, the article advises that, in some circumstances, it is a good idea to resubmit a Not Discussed proposal.  This is contrary to a common notion that proposals that are not scored should be significantly revamped and submitted as new.  As the article advises, it is important to contact the appropriate staff member from the relevant Institute/Center to discuss the application and your next steps.

No more Palatino Linotype or italicized text on your resubmission

In a recent notice, NIH  has changed the policy regarding marking new or significantly changed text in revision (a..k.a. resubmission) applications.  You will no longer need to identify changes in text using brackets or other types of text. Instead, all substantial changes, edits, deletions, and responses to reviewer comments must be summarized in the Introduction to the Application. Also, as a reminder, you should address all weaknesses outlined by reviewers - not just the ones you agree with. This change will minimize the headaches involved with submission of revised applications.
Oh, happy day!

What does that "Status" tab mean in the era commons?

This video does a great job explaining what the Status tab is from the PI perspective.  If you are working on an R01 resubmission for the July 5th NIH deadline, this will help you understand how to find your previous submission so you can make sure to adequately address all of the reviewer comments.

Grant Proposal Resubmissions - How do you plan to mark changes in your revision?

If you are working on your revised application of an R01 for the July 5th deadline or R03 or R21 for the July 16th deadline, how do you plan to mark the text showing revisions from your previous version? Are you currently italicizing revisions, putting them in bold, or making them a different color? If so, you need to go back and re-read the SF 424 instructions regarding resubmission (A1) applications. The instructions clearly state:

The substantial scientific changes must be marked in the text of the application by bracketing, indenting, or change of typography. Do not underline or shade the changes. Deleted sections should be described but not marked as deletions. If the changes are so extensive that essentially all of the text would be marked, explain this in the Introduction. The Preliminary Studies/Progress Report section should incorporate work completed since the prior version of the application was submitted.

One of the most effective, space-saving methods of marking your changes is to use Arial 11 for your font setting for all unchanged text, and Palatino Linotype 11 (in italic or bold) to mark all of your changes. The fonts are similar enough that they won't give the reviewers a headache, but different enough to meet the NIH requirements and clearly mark your revisions. Don't forget to also include an introduction page that provides an overview of your changes to the application and responses to major reviewer comments.

NIH Grant Proposal Appeal: The Double-Edged Sword

So, you successfully submitted your first grant application and- miraculously!- it wasn't bottom-halved or unscored (look up those old school terms here). Congratulations! What's that, you say? A terrible score? A reviewer who clearly didn't "get" your application? He/She doesn't seem to understand your project? Before you fire off an angry email to the program officer requesting an appeal, stop and take a breath.

NIH recently revised its appeal policies. All principal investigators do have the right to appeal reviewer decisions on certain specific grounds. However, just because you have the right to do it, it is not always the best choice.

Before proceeding with any contact with the program officer, clear your head and pull out the original application. Read it critically, keeping in mind the reviewer's specific criticism of the project. If, after reading the appeal guidelines, you feel that the reviewer made an error that can be the basis for appeal, call your program officer and speak to him/her calmly and rationally. You will get more direct, better advice on the phone than by communicating via email with the PO, and it will help to ensure that your tone is not misconstrued as whiny, angry, or otherwise. If the program officer believes you may have grounds to appeal, discuss the impact of the flawed reviewer on your overall score. Ask for a direct assessment of whether he/she believes that an additional review would result in a fundable score. If this is not likely to happen, an appeal could be a waste of time. In addition, it may create a bias in reviewers' minds that causes them to be more critical in your additional review. I once worked with a PI who appealed successfully and was granted a review at the next round. In the second review, reviewers were critical of things that were not even mentioned in his first review, and the new score was even higher (i.e. worse) than the old one.

If you are in this situation, you may be best served by preparing a resubmission. In your Introduction section, you can address any concerns that were brought up by the "flawed" reviewer and explain your reasons for not addressing them.