NIH Study Section

An NIH study section (formally a Scientific Review Group, SRG) is a peer-review panel — chartered/standing or a temporary Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) — convened by NIH’s Center for Scientific Review (or, for RFAs and some program-specific competitions, by the awarding Institute/Center) to evaluate the scientific and technical merit of grant applications assigned to it, producing a priority score and summary statement as the first of NIH’s two required levels of peer review.

ByCASRAI Editorial Board

· Last updated 30 Jul 2026

Worked examples

Is an instance

An investigator-initiated R01 application is referred by CSR’s Division of Receipt and Referral to a chartered study section whose published scope matches the proposal’s science; the study section scores the application and issues a summary statement before it moves to the funding Institute’s advisory council for programmatic review.

Is an instance

An applicant submits the PHS Assignment Request Form with a new K99/R00 application, naming a specific study section they believe fits the proposal’s methodology and listing two individuals with a conflict of interest who should not review it; CSR considers the request but makes the final assignment based on its own referral criteria.

Looks similar, but isn't

Not an instance

An institutional Scientific Review Committee at an NCI-designated cancer center reviewing a clinical trial protocol’s scientific design and accrual feasibility before it goes to the IRB is not an NIH study section — it reviews an already-funded or funding-pending protocol at the site where it will run, not a competing grant application, and it is not administered by CSR.

Not an instance

An Institute or Center’s advisory council voting on funding priority after reviewing a study section’s summary statement is not itself a study section — it is the second, separate tier of NIH’s dual review process, evaluating programmatic relevance rather than scientific merit.

An NIH study section — formally a Scientific Review Group (SRG) — is the peer-review panel that evaluates a grant application’s scientific and technical merit, producing a priority score and summary statement. Most are convened by NIH’s Center for Scientific Review (CSR), distinct from the generic Scientific Review Committee concept or journal peer review.

Chartered study sections vs. Special Emphasis Panels

CSR organizes study sections into two structural types:

Chartered (standing) study sections review most investigator-initiated applications — R01, R03, R21, R15, and K-series awards among them. A chartered study section has both regular (permanent, formally appointed) members serving multi-year terms and temporary members recruited for a given meeting’s specific expertise needs, and it meets on a recurring schedule, commonly three times a year, aligned to NIH’s standard receipt cycles.
Special Emphasis Panels (SEPs) are temporary panels assembled from ad hoc (temporary-only) members recruited specifically for one meeting’s expertise requirements, with no standing roster. SEPs are used for Requests for Applications (RFAs) and other one-time, tightly scoped competitions — see CASRAI’s NIH RFA guide — and are also the recurring review mechanism for SBIR/STTR applications, fellowship awards (F30/F31/F32/F33), and situations where a chartered study section’s standing roster has a conflict of interest on a particular application.

Study sections are grouped into Review Branches (RBs) that cluster related scientific disciplines; an application is typically routed first to the appropriate branch and then to the specific study section within it whose expertise matches the application’s science.

How CSR assigns an application to a study section

NIH does not let applicants pick their reviewers directly, but the assignment process is not opaque either:

Default (CSR-driven) referral: if an applicant makes no request, CSR’s Division of Receipt and Referral assigns the application to both a funding Institute or Center (IC) and a study section, based on the application’s scientific content matched against each study section’s published guidelines and referral criteria, using referral staff judgment supported by knowledge-based technologies.
Applicant-requested assignment: an applicant may express a preference for a specific study section (and/or a specific IC) using the PHS Assignment Request Form, submitted with the application. The form is optional, not required, though NIH encourages using it — it also lets an applicant flag individuals who should not review the application because of a conflict of interest, and describe the specific expertise the application needs reviewers to have.
Requests are considered, not guaranteed: per CSR’s own guidance, it will “try to accommodate” a requested study section “if appropriate and possible,” but the final assignment decision rests with CSR referral staff, weighed against the fit between the application and the study section’s published scope, current workload, and conflict-of-interest considerations. A cover letter attached to the application is not the right vehicle for an assignment request — NIH guidance is explicit that cover letters should be reserved for other information (e.g., late-submission justification, continuous-submission eligibility), not study-section preferences.
Researching likely study sections before applying: applicants commonly identify candidate study sections by searching CSR’s public study section rosters and descriptions, consulting the relevant IC’s program officer, or searching NIH RePORTER for which study sections reviewed similar, already-funded applications in the same scientific area.

Where study section review sits in NIH’s two-tier system

A study section’s merit review is the first of NIH’s two required levels of review, not the whole process. CASRAI’s NIH Grants Overview guide covers this two-tier (“dual”) review structure in full; in outline:

The study section (or SEP) scores the application for scientific and technical merit and issues a summary statement.
The funding IC’s advisory council or board then performs a second-level programmatic/relevance review, weighing the study section’s score and summary statement against that IC’s mission and funding priorities. Advisory councils typically meet three times a year, which is part of why a funded R01 can take the better part of a year from submission to Notice of Award.

A favorable study section score is necessary but not sufficient for funding — the advisory council step, and the IC’s own payline and funding-priority decisions, still apply after study section review concludes.

Study section vs. Scientific Review Committee: don’t conflate the two

“Scientific review” is used in two genuinely different NIH-and-research-administration contexts, and CASRAI keeps them as separate entries specifically because they are commonly, and wrongly, treated as interchangeable:

NIH study section (this term): pre-award, CSR-administered (or SEP-administered) peer review of a grant application competing for federal funding — evaluating whether a proposed project is scientifically strong enough to fund.
Scientific Review Committee (SRC): an institutional committee — most commonly required at NCI-designated cancer centers as part of the Cancer Center Support Grant program — that reviews an already-funded (or funding-pending) clinical trial protocol’s scientific merit and feasibility at the institution where it will actually be conducted, as a precondition for opening the study to enrollment, separately from and typically before Institutional Review Board (IRB) ethical review.

The two processes share vocabulary but different reviewers, different objects of review (a funding proposal vs. an already-funded protocol), and different points in the research lifecycle.

References

NIH Center for Scientific Review, “Study Sections” — defines the Scientific Review Group, chartered study sections, and Special Emphasis Panels.
NIH Center for Scientific Review, “Request a Scientific Review Group” — the PHS Assignment Request Form process and CSR’s discretion over final assignment.
NIH Grants Policy Statement, section 2.4, “The Peer Review Process” — the two-level (dual) review structure: study section merit review, then IC advisory council programmatic review.
NIAID, “Use the PHS Assignment Request Form” — applicant-facing guidance on requesting a specific study section and IC.

Use in your systems

JATS XML <role> element

xml

<role vocab="credit"
      vocab-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/"
      vocab-term="NIH Study Section"
      vocab-term-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/nih-study-section" />

Schema.org DefinedTerm (JSON-LD)

json

{
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "DefinedTerm",
  "@id": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/nih-study-section",
  "name": "NIH Study Section",
  "identifier": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/nih-study-section",
  "description": "An NIH study section (formally a Scientific Review Group, SRG) is a peer-review panel — chartered/standing or a temporary Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) — convened by NIH’s Center for Scientific Review (or, for RFAs and some program-specific competitions, by the awarding Institute/Center) to evaluate the scientific and technical merit of grant applications assigned to it, producing a priority score and summary statement as the first of NIH’s two required levels of peer review.",
  "inDefinedTermSet": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/domain/funding-finance#set",
  "url": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/nih-study-section",
  "sameAs": [
    "Scientific Review Group (SRG)",
    "SRG",
    "Study Section",
    "Chartered Study Section"
  ],
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
  "publisher": {
    "@id": "https://casrai.org/#organization"
  },
  "dateModified": "2026-07-30T05:46:49",
  "inLanguage": "en"
}