Scientific Reviewer

Position Information

The Contractor shall provide qualified scientific and operational services to support the planning, coordination, conduct, and documentation of NIH peer review activities in accordance with applicable NIH and CSR policies, procedures, guidance, and established review schedules. Collaborate with SROs, CSR leadership, reviewers, and review support staff to ensure assigned review activities and deliverables are completed accurately, consistently, and within established requirements and deadlines.

Deliverables

• Provide documentation and operational support for NIH application scientific reviews, including panel formation, reviewer recruitment and training, administrative compliance screenings, critique quality control, and meeting documentation
• Prepare and finalize summary statements for all applications and deliver ad hoc support as required
• Ensure critique and summary deliverables are clear, objective, and accurately reflect key evaluation factors
• Maintain effective, professional collaboration with Government leadership and reviewers while upholding strict ethics and confidentiality standards

Ad-Hoc Statement of Work Details

• Identify the administrative and scientific issues in grant applications or contract proposals, including hypotheses and rationale
• Identify and select reviewers by matching reviewer expertise with the specific science in research grant applications and recommend potential reviewers
• Perform a thorough review of the content of each application and its relevance to the scientific interests of the Institute
• Ensure that high-quality written reviews are obtained
• Perform administrative review of research grant applications
• Manage the scientific peer review of grant and cooperative agreement applications and contract proposals assigned for primary merit review
• Serve as an internal authoritative source of information on application receipt, referral, and grants management policies and procedures
• Identify specific areas of expertise for peer review panels, search databases and resources, and prepare lists of potential reviewers
• Make initial determinations regarding appropriate assignment of all grants and resolve conflicts in assignments based on knowledge of the scientific interests of the Institute
• Prepare preliminary drafts of summary statements and synthesize reviewer comments into final documents
• Provide critical review of literature and evaluate research concepts, proposals, protocols, and reports
• Validate and enter information into databases
• Enter reviewer data into the Committee Management system to prepare peer review rosters
• Assign applications to reviewers and determine appropriate meeting type (face-to-face, teleconference, Internet-Assisted meeting, etc.)
• Identify involved persons who must be on a conflict-of-interest list and deficiencies that must be addressed prior to review
• Assess reviewers against applications for potential conflicts of interest and consult with program staff to identify potential reviewers
• Examine key personnel, institutional affiliations, and letters of support to determine potential conflicts of interest
• Attend peer review meetings to take notes for preparing final summary documentation of meeting proceedings
• Capture the results of committee deliberations during the review meeting
• Obtain, evaluate, and coordinate written critiques from expert reviewers and evaluate incoming reviews for completeness and accuracy
• Ensure summary statements and technical evaluation reports are compiled and edited to produce high-quality documents
• Analyze scientific content of grant applications and apply scientific knowledge related to the mission and NIH peer review process
• Evaluate scientific aspects of concepts, proposals, protocols, and reports for research
• Mentor and train staff on scientific peer review processes and procedures
• Assess organizational need and develop training programs to improve accuracy and performance of peer review processes
• Develop training materials, job aids, and instructions for use by peer reviewers
• Mentor and coach peer reviewers in the performance of reviews