The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) has submitted comments to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) opposing a proposal to stop reporting the numerical scores that peer review panels assign to grant applications.
Under the plan, described in a Request for Information released on August 14, NIH would continue to calculate a final overall impact score for each discussed application but would use it only to sort applications into one of three categories: “most competitive,” “competitive,” or “not discussed.” The score and percentile would not be released to applicants, NIH program staff, Institute and Center leadership, or Advisory Councils.
AIBS urged NIH to withdraw the proposal, arguing that removing scores would hinder informed decision-making by program staff and Advisory Councils and reduce transparency to applicants and the public.
“The final overall impact score is the only output that captures the votes of all panel members after discussion,” AIBS wrote. “Eliminating it from the record diminishes, rather than elevates, the role of the peer review panel.”
If NIH proceeds, AIBS recommends continuing to report scores internally to program staff and Councils, adopting a category design comparable to other agencies, and piloting any change before agency-wide adoption.
“AIBS shares NIH’s goal of funding the most meritorious science and recognizes that peer review scores are imperfect,” the comments conclude. “But imperfect information is far more useful than none, and the proposal would remove it from precisely the people responsible for making and overseeing funding decisions.”
The comment period closes October 13, 2026. Read the full AIBS comments.
Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.