An NIH biosketch is the structured, standardized biographical document every senior/key person on an NIH grant application must submit, in a fixed format rather than a free-form CV. For submissions due on or after January 25, 2026, NIH requires the two-part NIH Biographical Sketch Common Form plus a separate Biosketch Supplement, replacing the narrative Sections A–D format used since 2015.
What changed in 2026, and why it matters for how you fill this out
The pre-2026 biosketch was a single narrative document, capped at five pages, organized into Section A (Personal Statement), Section B (Positions, Scientific Appointments, and Honors), Section C (Contribution to Science — up to five contributions, each with up to four supporting citations), and, for fellowship applications only, Section D (Scholastic Performance). NIH replaced that structure with a common form shared across federal research agencies as part of a broader push toward standardized, machine-processable biosketch data (NIH Grants & Funding, Biosketch Format Pages). Two practical consequences follow directly from that change:
- The document is now split in two. A “Biographical Sketch Common Form” (professional preparation, positions, and a list of products) is now paired with a separate “NIH Biosketch Supplement” that carries the personal statement, honors, and contributions to science — content that used to live in one continuous narrative now lives in two linked parts.
- The rigid five-page cap is gone, replaced by per-field limits. Instead of fitting everything into five pages, each section now has its own entry count or character limit (for example, the Personal Statement is capped at roughly 3,500 characters and each Contribution to Science narrative at roughly 2,000 characters). Section D (Scholastic Performance) has been eliminated outright, including for fellowship applicants.
If you are working from an older biosketch template, a departmental boilerplate, or general advice written before early 2026, it is very likely describing the retired Section A–D format. Always cross-check the live instructions and current form template on NIH’s own Biosketch Format Pages before a submission, since NIH updates these forms periodically and this guide cannot substitute for the current, authoritative template.
The current structure at a glance
Part 1 — NIH Biographical Sketch Common Form:
- A. Professional Preparation — degree-granting education and postdoctoral training, in reverse chronological or standard CV order.
- B. Appointments and Positions — academic, research, and relevant professional appointments held.
- C. Products — up to ten total: up to five Products Closely Related to the Proposed Project, and up to five Other Significant Products that illustrate the applicant’s broader contributions to science. “Products” is deliberately broader than “publications” — datasets, software, patents, and other research outputs with a persistent identifier can qualify.
Part 2 — NIH Biosketch Supplement:
- Personal Statement — why this person is well-positioned to lead the proposed role, with room to note ongoing efforts to advance a diverse and inclusive research environment where relevant.
- Honors — a bounded list of awards and recognitions.
- Contributions to Science — up to five narrative descriptions of the applicant’s most significant scientific contributions, each with supporting citations.
Both parts are generated together through SciENcv (Science Experts Network Curriculum Vitae), the NIH-provided tool that has been the required biosketch-preparation method since 2021 — NIH does not accept a biosketch built entirely by hand outside SciENcv. SciENcv pulls publication data from My Bibliography/PubMed and ORCID to reduce manual re-entry, then produces the two linked PDFs NIH’s submission system expects.
Illustrative worked example: a filled-in biosketch
The example below is an illustrative composite created for this guide. “Dr. Alex J. Rivera,” “Meridian State University,” and every credential, award, and publication shown are invented for demonstration purposes only — they do not describe any real person, institution, or funded project. Use this to see how the sections fit together, not as a template to copy verbatim; your own content, credentials, and citation counts must be your own.
Part 1: Biographical Sketch Common Form
NAME: Rivera, Alex J.
POSITION TITLE: Assistant Professor of Biomedical Engineering
A. Professional Preparation
| Institution | Location | Degree | Completion Date | Field of Study |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meridian State University | Riverton, State | BS | 05/2013 | Bioengineering |
| Fictional Institute of Technology | Cascade City, State | PhD | 05/2019 | Biomedical Engineering |
| Northbridge University Medical Center | Northbridge, State | Postdoctoral Fellowship | 06/2022 | Point-of-care diagnostics |
B. Appointments and Positions
- 2022–present: Assistant Professor, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Meridian State University
- 2019–2022: Postdoctoral Fellow, Northbridge University Medical Center, Laboratory of Dr. J. Okafor (fictional)
- 2022–present: Member, Meridian State University Institutional Biosafety Committee
C. Products
Products Closely Related to the Proposed Project
- Rivera AJ, Okafor J. Wearable biosensor arrays for early sepsis-marker detection in ambulatory settings. Journal of Biomedical Instrumentation (fictional). 2024;12(3):201–214.
- Rivera AJ, Chen L, Okafor J. A low-power signal-processing pipeline for continuous physiological monitoring. Journal of Biomedical Instrumentation (fictional). 2023;11(1):45–58.
- Rivera AJ. Sepsis biosensor calibration dataset, v1.0 (fictional dataset). Deposited in a fictional repository; DOI: 10.9999/example.2024.001.
Other Significant Products
- Rivera AJ, Nakamura S. Machine-learning classification of noisy wearable sensor streams. Fictional Journal of Applied Signal Processing. 2021;5(2):88–102.
- Rivera AJ. Open-source firmware for low-cost biosensor prototyping (fictional software product), archived with a persistent identifier.
Part 2: NIH Biosketch Supplement
Personal Statement
My research develops wearable biosensors that detect early physiological markers of sepsis outside the hospital setting, work that sits at the intersection of signal processing, low-power electronics, and clinical translation. During my postdoctoral training I led the development and clinical-workflow validation of a continuous-monitoring sensor array (Product 1 above), and since starting my own laboratory I have extended that work toward a fully ambulatory device. I am well positioned to lead the proposed aim because I have direct hands-on experience across the full pipeline this project requires: sensor hardware design, the embedded signal-processing methods needed to run on low-power devices, and the clinical validation steps needed to move a device from bench to bedside. My laboratory also has an active practice of documenting contributor roles using the CRediT taxonomy on our publications and depositing datasets with persistent identifiers, both of which support reproducibility beyond my own group.
Honors (fictional, illustrative)
- 2023 – Early-Career Investigator Award (fictional), Fictional Society of Biomedical Engineers
- 2019 – Outstanding Dissertation Award (fictional), Fictional Institute of Technology
Contributions to Science
- Wearable sepsis-marker detection. My doctoral and postdoctoral work established a signal-processing approach for extracting early sepsis biomarkers from noisy, continuously-worn sensor data, later validated in a small ambulatory cohort. This work is described in Rivera & Okafor (2024) and the associated calibration dataset (both cited above under Products).
- Low-power embedded signal processing for continuous monitoring. I developed and open-sourced a firmware pipeline that reduced on-device power consumption for continuous physiological monitoring by a substantial margin relative to the lab’s prior approach, described in Rivera, Chen & Okafor (2023) and archived as an open-source product.
Section-by-section annotations: what reviewers are actually checking for
- Professional Preparation and Appointments (A & B) establish continuity and trajectory — reviewers are checking that training and appointment history plausibly supports the seniority and expertise the application claims, not evaluating the entries individually. Gaps do not need to be explained here; that belongs, if anywhere, in the Personal Statement.
- Products (C) is where reviewers assess direct relevance to the proposed work. The “Closely Related” vs. “Other Significant” split exists precisely so applicants can show both direct preparation for this specific project and broader scientific standing — don’t pad “Closely Related” with tangential work just to fill five slots; an honest three-item list is stronger than five weak matches.
- Personal Statement is the one narrative space in the whole document. The most common weakness reviewers flag is a statement that restates the CV instead of explaining why the specific track record maps onto the specific proposed role — write it that way deliberately, and keep it inside the character limit rather than assuming SciENcv will absorb an overage gracefully.
- Contributions to Science narratives should explain the significance of the work, not just summarize it — state the problem, what was found or built, and why it mattered, then cite the supporting products. This section is the closest analogue in the biosketch to a CRediT contribution statement, but it is written at the level of a whole body of work rather than a single paper (see below).
- Honors is bounded (up to 15 entries) — list the entries that carry real signal to a study section, not every departmental certificate.
Biosketch vs. CRediT contribution statements: related, but not the same document
It’s worth being precise about how a biosketch relates to other contribution-documentation formats CASRAI covers, because they are easy to conflate and serve different purposes:
- A biosketch is a career-level, funder-facing document: it summarizes one person’s training, positions, and body of work to justify their role on a specific proposed project, and NIH is the audience.
- A CRediT contribution statement (per the CRediT taxonomy, ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022) is a publication-level, machine-readable record of exactly which of 14 defined roles each co-author performed on one specific paper — readers and indexers are the audience, not a funder.
They connect in one direction that matters for accuracy: the “Products” and “Contributions to Science” claims in a biosketch should be consistent with what a co-author actually did, as documented in that paper’s CRediT statement or equivalent. Overstating a role in a biosketch narrative that a CRediT statement elsewhere records more narrowly is the same category of misrepresentation risk as authorship inflation generally — see CASRAI’s guide on writing an author contribution statement for the publication-level side of this, or CRediT author statement samples for worked examples of that format specifically.
Frequently asked questions
Is the NIH biosketch the same as a CV?
No. A CV is typically comprehensive and self-formatted; the NIH biosketch is deliberately bounded, standardized, and prepared through SciENcv in NIH’s own format so that reviewers can compare applicants consistently across a study section.
Do I have to use SciENcv to prepare an NIH biosketch?
Yes for NIH submissions — SciENcv-generated biosketches have been required since 2021, and the current Common Form/Supplement structure is generated the same way. A hand-formatted document outside SciENcv is not an accepted substitute.
How many Products can I list?
Up to ten total under the current Common Form: up to five “Products Closely Related to the Proposed Project” and up to five “Other Significant Products,” per the current NIH instructions.
What happened to Section D (Scholastic Performance)?
It has been eliminated under the 2026 Common Form, including for fellowship (F-series) applications that previously required it.
Does every senior/key person on the application need a biosketch?
Yes — NIH requires a biosketch for every individual designated as senior/key personnel, not just the Program Director/Principal Investigator.
Is a biosketch the same thing as a CRediT contribution statement?
No — a biosketch documents one person’s career-level qualifications for a funder; a CRediT statement documents specific role contributions to one specific publication for readers and indexers. See the comparison above.
Related CASRAI resources
- Biosketch (NIH-style) — the dictionary definition of this term
- NSF Biosketch (SciENcv) — how NSF’s version differs
- Biosketch — the general concept across funders
- NIH biosketch vs. UKRI R4RI — comparing narrative CV formats internationally
- Current and pending support — the companion disclosure NIH applications also require
- Author Contribution Statement: What It Is and How to Write One
- CRediT Author Statement Samples: Formats for Every Scenario
- CRediT & Authorship Attribution — cluster overview
