On August 14, 2026, the National Institutes of Health released NOT-OD-26-088 Request for Information (RFI) on Proposed Changes to Reporting Outcomes from NIH Peer Review. The comment period ends on October 13, 2026.
The proposed change in reporting outcomes of NIH peer review are linked to the Unified Funding Strategy that was released in November 2025. The new proposal recommends that investigators be notified of the results of peer review of their applications with one of three overall impact categories: (1) Most Competitive (corresponding to the top 25% of final impact scores), (2) Competitive (corresponding to the applications falling into 26-50% of final impact scores), or (3) Not Discussed (corresponding to applications that are not discussed and those falling below 50% of final impact scores).
The ASIP Research and Science Policy Committee (RSPC) has discussed the implications of the proposed change and have developed a list of significant concerns:
We have a number of concerns with the proposal:
Lack of transparency on NIH funding decisions. ASIP members are concerned that if these proposed changes are implemented it will become harder to determine how the NIH and each institute is reaching funding decisions. This would contribute to a lack of transparency overall on who, how, and why NIH funding decisions are reached, which is contrary to the stated goals of NIH leadership to increase transparency across NIH centers and institutes.
Undermining the role of peer review in determining scientific merit. Our major concern is that scientific merit, as determined by peer review scoring of each application, will not be a primary driver of funding decisions. The proposed changes would enable NIH funding decisions to be increasingly divorced from the assessment of scientific merit and innovation as judged by the greater scientific community of peer review experts. The proposed reporting changes will not only increase opacity of decision-making, but also may weaken the ability of federal funding to advance the best proposals that will have the highest impact on scientific knowledge and on improving the health of all Americans.
Risk of politicization of funding decisions. Our research community is concerned that the lack of transparency and decreased focus on scientific merit will lead to more funding decisions based on political priorities that do not reflect the current state of knowledge in scientific fields. It would be detrimental to scientific progress overall if important funding decisions and scientific direction is not guided by political opinion rather than scientific fact.
Reduced feedback to investigators on their applications. The currently reported impact scores for applications discussed in study section are important indicators for investigators to gauge the overall scientific merit and potential concerns of the peer reviewers as a whole. Understanding the score and how this has affected funding decisions is key to allowing investigators to realign, refocus, and revise their applications in order to improve them to a level that merits NIH funding. The proposed reporting changes will severely impact the ability to get feedback from the study section peer group, and NIH program officials.
We encourage all ASIP members living and working in the United States to provide feedback on the proposed changes. The comment period ends on October 13, 2026.
We also encourage all ASIP members living and working in the United States to contact members of Congress to alert them to your concerns about this proposed change in reporting peer review results. Individuals can use the tool provided in the FASEB Legislative Action Center to easily contact members of Congress. Be sure to include “NOT-OD-26-088” in the subject line.
