Direct comparison
Competing vs. Noncompeting Renewal (NIH)
NIH Type 2 competing renewal needs full peer review; Type 5 noncompeting continuation just needs an annual RPPR. Here is the difference.
Side-by-side comparison
| Dimension | Competing Renewal (Type 2) | Noncompeting Renewal / Continuation (Type 5) |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | A new, fully competing application requesting support for a project period beyond the current one | The routine continuation of an already-awarded project into its next budget year, within the same already-competed project period |
| When it applies | The current competitive segment (project period) is ending and continued support is wanted | The current competitive segment has budget years remaining -- this is the normal annual step in most of those years |
| Peer review | Full scientific/technical merit review at a study section, developed as though applying for the first time | None -- administrative review of the progress report by program/grants management staff |
| Competes for funding | Yes -- competes against Type 1 applications and other Type 2 renewals in the same review cycle | No -- funding for the competitive segment was already committed, subject to appropriations and satisfactory progress |
| What is submitted | A full competing application: Specific Aims, Research Strategy (e.g. 12 pages for R01), budget justification, via the standard FOA/receipt date | A Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) via eRA Commons: progress narrative, personnel/participant updates, coming year's budget -- no Specific Aims or Research Strategy |
| Mechanism-dependent? | Yes -- renewal eligibility is set by the activity code; e.g. available for R01, not available for R21 | Applies whenever a competing award has more than one budget year -- not mechanism-restricted the way Type 2 is |
| Grant-number digit | Leading "2" (e.g. 2 R01 CA123456-06A1) | Leading "5" (e.g. 5 R01 CA123456-04) |
| Not to be confused with | A Type 5 noncompeting continuation, or a No-Cost Extension (neither involves competitive peer review) | A Type 3 administrative supplement (adds funds within the current budget period without a new RPPR cycle) or a competing Type 2 renewal |
Common questions
FAQ
Does a noncompeting renewal require a new proposal?+
No. A noncompeting continuation (Type 5) is supported by a Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) filed through eRA Commons -- a progress narrative and coming-year budget, not a new Specific Aims or Research Strategy, and not peer-reviewed.
Can NIH deny a noncompeting continuation?+
NIH can withhold or reduce a noncompeting continuation if progress is judged insufficient or funds aren't available, but that is an administrative program decision, not a competitive peer-review decline the way a Type 2 competing renewal can be.
Which NIH activity codes have no competing renewal mechanism?+
Renewal eligibility is set per activity code. R21 (Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant), for example, has no Type 2 competing renewal mechanism -- once its project period ends, the PI must submit a new Type 1 application rather than a renewal.
Where does the type code show up on an award?+
As the leading digit of the NIH grant number, before the activity code -- for example the "2" in 2 R01 GM123456-06A1 (competing renewal) or the "5" in 5 R01 GM123456-04 (noncompeting continuation, fourth year).
