FASEB Urges NIH to Keep Impact Scores and Percentiles in Peer Review Reporting

By: CJ Neely
Wednesday, October 14, 2026
On October 2, FASEB submitted comments to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on its Request for Information (RFI) on Proposed Changes to Reporting Outcomes from NIH Peer Review (NOT-OD-26-088). NIH proposes replacing final overall impact scores and percentiles with three categorical designations. Scores and percentiles would be withheld from applicants, institutions, program staff, Institute, Center, and Office (ICO) leadership, and advisory councils.

FASEB shares NIH’s commitment to scientific merit. It also recognizes that small differences in impact scores may not be meaningful in isolation. Its position is that the answer to imprecision is more context, not less information. The letter offers seven recommendations across four areas.

Program staff workload. Program officers use scores and percentiles to compare applications across a council round. Without them, staff would need to rebuild rankings from written critiques that were not designed for comparison. This would add significant work during a period of reduced NIH staffing. It could also delay funding decisions. Staff might fall back on informal rankings that lack documentation and quality controls. FASEB urges NIH to keep reporting scores and percentiles to program staff, ICO leadership, and advisory councils. FASEB also asks NIH to publish an operational impact analysis before making any changes.

Feedback for applicants. The score is the only calibrated feedback applicants receive on how their proposal compared with others. Early career researchers have the most to lose. The proposed “Competitive” category would span the 26th through 50th percentiles. It would not distinguish a near miss from an application that needs fundamental redesign. For an early career investigator, that distinction determines whether to resubmit, restructure, or redirect a line of work. The loss would fall hardest on researchers at less well-resourced institutions. Institutions also use scores for bridge funding, startup extensions, protected time, and reappointment. FASEB urges NIH to keep reporting scores and percentiles to applicants and institutions. As an alternative, FASEB recommends reporting categories alongside scores and percentiles, with guidance that small differences may not be meaningful. FASEB also asks NIH to explain how its comparison with NSF, DOE, and USDA accounts for differences in review structure, staffing, and resubmission practice.

Transparency. Scores and percentiles now let NIH leadership, Congress, and oversight bodies trace how merit review informs funding decisions. FASEB recommends that NIH maintain an auditable record, accessible to advisory councils, Congress, and oversight bodies, that retains scores, percentiles, and categories. This record would let the agency show it funds the most meritorious science.

Implementation. The RFI does not say whether category cutoffs would be set by study section, review cycle, or agency. It also does not address effects on Early-Stage Investigator (ESI) policies or certain K and F awards. FASEB asks NIH to answer these questions and publish full guidance in advance. FASEB also asks for at least one full application cycle between final guidance and the effective date.

FASEB and its member societies will continue to work with NIH to strengthen peer review.