NIH Proposes to Stop Reporting Peer Review Scores: What NOT-OD-26-088 Means for Applicants

What NOT-OD-26-088 Actually Proposes

The RFI asks whether NIH should replace the numeric final overall impact score — the one applicants currently receive on their summary statement — with a category label. Under the proposed system, every application that goes through peer review would emerge with one of three designations: "Most Competitive," "Competitive," or "Not Discussed." The most competitive tier would encompass roughly the top quarter of final impact scores among discussed applications. The competitive tier would cover approximately the next quarter. "Not Discussed" would remain as it functions today — applications that did not receive individual scores because they were not reached at the panel meeting.

Critically, reviewers would still assign individual numeric scores during the meeting. A final impact score would still be calculated. NIH institutes and centers would still see that number internally. The change is about what gets reported to you, the applicant, on your summary statement — and what eventually appears in NIH data systems like RePORTER.

If this goes into effect, you would know whether you landed in one of the two positive tiers. You would not know whether you scored a 20 or a 39, whether you ranked sixth or forty-second in your group, or whether your resubmission moved meaningfully closer to funding. Your program officer conversation would become your only reliable signal about how you actually fared.

Why NIH Says This Fits the Unified Funding Strategy

When NIH eliminated institute-level paylines earlier in 2026 and replaced them with the Unified Funding Strategy, the official rationale was that a fixed numeric threshold was too blunt an instrument for making portfolio decisions. The Unified Funding Strategy explicitly asks institutes and centers to weigh scientific merit alongside career stage, geographic balance, scientific opportunity, and portfolio gaps.

The argument for removing the exact score follows from that framing. If your institute is no longer making a funding decision at a fixed percentile cutoff — if it is instead balancing a dozen portfolio factors — then reporting that you scored a 27 versus a 32 implies a precision the system no longer delivers in practice. NIH's position appears to be that a category label more honestly represents what the score means under the new decision framework: competitive enough to be actively considered for funding, or not.

There is a coherent internal logic to this argument. Applicants have historically over-indexed on numeric scores in ways that led to poor resubmission decisions — submitting A1s when a single program officer conversation would have revealed there was no realistic path to funding, or not submitting when a modest score improvement was well within reach. But accepting the rationale still leaves a separate set of problems unaddressed.

What Applicants Lose If Scores Disappear

The practical losses are real, and they fall hardest on applicants who do not already have well-connected program officer relationships. That skews, not coincidentally, toward early-career investigators, researchers at smaller institutions, and scientists from groups that are historically less represented in senior NIH networks.

The most immediate loss is resubmission signal quality. Right now, when you receive a 25 and a colleague who submitted the same cycle received a 35, you have a concrete anchor for the A1 decision. You know roughly where you need to land, and you can have a calibrated conversation with your program officer about the gap between where you are and where you need to be. With three categories, you know you were "competitive." You don't know whether you were barely competitive or near the top of the tier. That ambiguity makes the resubmission decision considerably harder to make well.

A second loss is portfolio-level transparency. Researchers and institutions use score distributions to understand how study sections behave across cycles — whether scoring is inflating or deflating, whether certain review groups are systematically harder in ways not reflected in the science. That signal disappears when scores become categories. The third loss is accountability for the Unified Funding Strategy itself. If institutes are supposed to weigh scientific merit alongside portfolio factors, the community needs a way to verify that merit is still the leading input. Removing scores from public data makes that kind of external audit harder to perform, not easier.

What the Scientific Community Is Saying

Coverage in Science describes the proposal as drawing sharp concern from researchers, who worry that removing score transparency creates conditions where non-scientific influences on funding decisions become harder to detect. The argument is not that NIH has corrupt intent — it is that transparency is a structural protection against drift, and that removing it is a meaningful institutional change even if nothing about reviewer behavior changes on day one.

A related concern is the interaction between this proposal and the wave of peer review modifications NIH has introduced since late 2025. Scoring calibration, triage thresholds, study section assignments, and now score reporting are all changing more or less simultaneously. Each change may be individually defensible; the cumulative effect is a system that is harder for applicants to read, harder for institutions to benchmark against, and harder for researchers to study systematically.

Mentors of early-career investigators have raised a specific practical concern. If a junior faculty member receives an A0 outcome in the "competitive" tier, the mentor's conversation about next steps becomes substantially harder without a number. Does "competitive" mean revise and resubmit, or does it mean the science needs more development before a resubmission stands a chance? A numeric score does not answer all of those questions, but it gives you a starting point that a category label does not.

What Stays the Same Under the Proposal

To be clear about what the RFI is not proposing: reviewer assignments, study section procedures, and individual panelist scoring would all continue as they do today. Your application would still be reviewed by three assigned reviewers. Unassigned panelists would still vote on an overall impact score in real time. A summary statement with reviewer critiques would still be generated and released to you. The change is specifically about the final aggregate number — whether it appears on your summary statement and enters public data systems.

Program officer conversations after review would still happen. Your PO would still know the underlying score distribution and could still give you relative positioning information in those conversations, if they choose to share it. This is an important nuance: the information does not disappear from NIH. It becomes more gatekept, moving from a document you receive automatically to something you have to ask about and that individual POs may or may not be willing to discuss.

Whether to Comment and What to Say

NIH RFI comment periods are genuine solicitations, and agencies are required to consider responses. NOT-OD-26-088 closes October 13, 2026. If you feel strongly about score transparency — in either direction — this is the window to say so.

If you object to the proposal, the strongest comments are not general expressions of concern. They are specific accounts of how you have used numeric score information to make concrete decisions — the resubmission you did or did not pursue, the mentee conversation that turned on a specific number, the way your institution uses score data for internal review of applications before re-submission. Concrete examples carry more weight than abstract arguments about transparency principles.

If you are neutral or cautiously supportive, it is useful to explain what would make the category system workable in practice — whether that means structured program officer reporting requirements, regular publication of score distributions with category thresholds, or other accountability mechanisms. NIH does not need a simple up-or-down vote. It needs information about what researchers actually use scores for and what alternative signals would serve the same purpose.

What to Do Now While This Is Still Being Decided

Nothing in the current submission process has changed. Your summary statement will still include a final impact score for any application reviewed before this policy takes effect — if it takes effect at all. NOT-OD-26-088 is an RFI, not a notice of policy change. NIH is asking a question. The answer from the scientific community will shape whether and how this moves forward.

That said, it is worth preparing for a world where numeric scores become harder to access. The most important step is building an active relationship with your program officer before you submit, not after you get a result. If the summary statement is currently your primary feedback document, your position would weaken materially if score data becomes less accessible. Start those conversations earlier in the cycle than you might have otherwise.

The deeper shift here is not really about the number. It is about whether NIH sees peer review as primarily a communication tool for applicants or primarily an internal sorting mechanism for funding decisions. Those two purposes have coexisted for decades, but NOT-OD-26-088 forces a choice between them. The research community has until October 13 to make the case for which purpose should win.

Frequently Asked Questions