Competitive, but not discussed

We are starting to see the first #NIHGrant review outcomes of competitive but not discussed. So of course it’s time to bench race strategy.

This new designation is supposed to be applied to the ~middle third of proposals based on average preliminary impact score. This was created at the same time as the move to triage ~70% of proposals in a study section, instead of the prior ~50% rate. In theory this permits broader* latitude for Program staff to pick up a ND, competitive for funding via exception pay**.

Of course your number one strategy is to contact your PO after you get your summary statement. This seems to me to be increasingly important in the very near future of no published NOSI and increased permission for Program to ignore the order of review.

I would suggest that contacting Program is super important for those experienced PIs who happen to qualify for the sole remaining broad quota based affirmative action policy, i.e., “geographical diversity”. Red state institutions will be prioritized for awards in some way.

I thought I saw it stated somewhere that the designation would not be on the summary statement. Some recent tweetage suggests it will be.

If it does end up on the summary statement, reviewers of the amended version will have this info. This may or may not change anything. Reviewers have been able to see criterion scores for many years now, from which they can draw pretty decent assumptions about the likely overall impact scores. And to therefore get a rough idea of where an application stood within the less-good half of proposals.

This new designation was launched in context of the two review rounds with enhanced triage of 70%. So maybe it will also only be used briefly?

Me, I think CSR will decide 70% triage is the new normal and so is the new competitive/ND designation.

---

*I have always thought Program could, technically, fund anything that did not get a Not Recommended for Further consideration. And that not funding ND proposals was more of a culture/tradition than a legal prohibition. I may have been mistaken on that.

**Under the new regime’s approach, perhaps the term of “exception pay” will no longer be used, since they are trying to break the idea that funding should go in order of peer review outcomes.