End Of The Score? The National Institutes Of Health Proposes Significant New Grant Review Framework

Researchers who apply for NIH grants take notice.

On Aug. 14, 2026, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued a Request For Information (RFI) proposing a significant change to how peer review outcomes are reported and used in funding decisions. Specifically, NIH is considering replacing the release of final overall impact scores and percentiles with three categories: “most competitive,” “competitive” and “not discussed.” NIH says the change would reduce reliance on numerical rankings and give program officials greater flexibility to weigh peer review alongside agency priorities, scientific opportunities, funding availability, workforce needs and portfolio considerations. Potential drawbacks include reduced transparency and meaningful benchmarking for applicants, an increase in the NIH's discretion in funding decisions, and the perception that funding outcomes are influenced more by programmatic or policy considerations than by peer-review rankings alone. Comments are due Oct. 13, 2026.

Current NIH Grant Review Process

NIH’s grant review process currently relies on a two-stage evaluation system. First, scientific peer reviewers assess each application’s scientific and technical merit, providing written critiques and assigning preliminary overall impact and criterion scores. Applications ranking in the top half of a review group are generally discussed, after which all panel members assign final overall impact scores that are averaged into a single score.

Review outcomes are reported in a summary statement that includes reviewer critiques, criterion scores, discussion summaries and the final overall impact score from all voting members of the panel. The applicant, applicant institution, NIH program staff and the members of the funding Institutes, Centers, and Offices’ (ICO) advisory council have access to these review outcomes.

Second, NIH program staff use these materials, along with percentile rankings where applicable and agency priorities, to develop funding recommendations for leadership approval.

Proposed Change

Under the proposal, NIH would replace reported overall impact scores and percentile rankings with three categories: "Most competitive" (based on the top 25% of final overall impact scores), "Competitive" (based on the 26-50% of final overall impact scores), or "Not discussed" (scores >50%, or ND).

While peer reviewers would continue to provide written critiques, criterion scores and overall impact scores, the key change is that final numerical scores and percentiles would no longer be reported or disclosed. Instead, applicants, institutions, NIH staff, leadership and advisory councils would receive the application’s assigned category only.

Potential Drawbacks of No Impact Score

Less transparency. Applicants would no longer see their final overall impact scores or percentile rankings, making it harder to understand how their application performed relative to others.

Less useful benchmarking. Institutions and applicants often use scores and percentiles to assess competitiveness, guide resubmissions and evaluate grant-making trends. The proposed categories provide less granular feedback.

Greater discretion in funding decisions. By eliminating numerical rankings from reported outcomes, NIH program staff and leadership could have more latitude to weigh factors beyond peer review scores when making funding recommendations.

Potential for increased perceptions of political influence. Fewer objective metrics could make funding decisions appear more susceptible to policy priorities or political considerations rather than scientific merit alone.

Key Takeaways and Recommendations

If the NIH ultimately adopts the proposal, grant management will likely become less score-driven and more relationship-, portfolio- and strategy-driven. The proposal would not change peer review itself, but it would change how review outcomes are communicated and used in funding decisions.

1. Submit a comment by Oct. 13, 2026. Submit a comment on the NIH website here if your institution has concerns regarding transparency, benchmarking or applicant decision-making.
2. Inventory current uses of NIH scores and percentiles.
3. Identify business processes that depend on those metrics.
4. Strengthen program officer engagement practices.
5. Increase faculty training on NIH programmatic priorities.
6. Build analytics around funding outcomes and NIH priorities, not percentile target

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.