On August 14, 2026, NIH published a Request for Information, NOT-OD-26-088, on proposed changes to how peer review outcomes are reported to applicants. Under the proposal, the final overall impact score and the percentile would no longer be released to the principal investigator, the applicant institution, NIH program staff, Institute, Center and Office (ICO) leadership or the relevant Advisory Council. Each discussed application would instead be placed in one of three categories. Comments closed on October 13, 2026. As of November 12, 2026, I found no NIH notice adopting the proposal or giving an effective date.
What the notice proposes
According to the notice, reviewers would still enter individual scores and NIH would still average them internally, but only to assign a category. The notice says the score or percentile behind the categorization would not be released to any of the parties above. The categories are:
- Most competitive: the top 25% of final overall impact scores.
- Competitive: 26–50%.
- Not discussed (ND): below the 50% line.
Summary statements would otherwise stay the same: discussed applications would still get a resume of discussion, and all applications would still receive the assigned reviewers’ written critiques and individual criterion scores. So the proposed loss is the single summary number and percentile, not the written critiques. Responses were voluntary and submitted through NIH’s RFI page.
Why this is a separate development from the 2025–2026 review changes
This is not the same as the temporary modifications NIH adopted after the 2025 funding lapse, which changed how many applications get committee discussion. Those are covered in NIH’s Emergency Peer Review Overhaul, Explained. They were extended by NOT-OD-26-114 (released September 8, 2026), which keeps them in place through the January 2027 Advisory Council. Under that notice, roughly 30–35% of applications are discussed in most meetings, applications in the middle third are labelled “competitive but not discussed”, the lowest third “not competitive and not discussed”, and only discussed applications receive an overall impact score. Summary statements drop narrative discussion paragraphs but keep the three assigned reviewers’ critiques. Separately, NIH has reshaped review of fellowship, career development and training awards; see NIH Overhauls Peer Review for Fellowship (F), Career Development (K), and Training (T) Grants.
The RFI proposal is about what applicants are told after review, and it would apply on top of whatever discussion model is in force. NIH’s notices do not state how the two would interact, and neither notice gives an end date for the reporting proposal.
How stakeholders have responded
The AAMC, which submitted its response on October 5, 2026, urged NIH to use five categories rather than three (top 5%, 6–15%, 16–25%, 26–50% and over 50%), suggested releasing impact scores after notices of award are issued, and asked NIH to monitor and publish the effects of any change. It also stressed giving investigators and institutions strong feedback. Other societies, universities and academies also filed responses; I have not summarized positions I did not read.
What it could mean for researchers, universities and research offices
This section is editorial interpretation, not NIH guidance, and applies only if the proposal is adopted as written.
- Researchers: A “most competitive” band covering the top quarter would hide the difference between, for example, a 3rd and a 24th percentile application. Resubmission decisions would rest more on the written critiques and on program officer conversations than on a score trend. Applicants whose summary statements are the main evidence should read critiques closely for consistency across reviewers.
- Universities and research offices: Internal tracking of scores and percentiles, pre-award dashboards and mock-review calibration that depend on the released number would need a different basis. Offices may want to plan for tracking category outcomes and for more program-officer outreach.
- Everyone: No action is required now. Watch the NIH Guide for any follow-up notice, and note that RFI responses do not themselves change policy.
Sources
- NIH, NOT-OD-26-088, Request for Information on Proposed Changes to Reporting Outcomes from NIH Peer Review (released August 14, 2026; read November 12, 2026)
- NIH, NOT-OD-26-114, Continuation of Modifications to Peer Review Practices (released September 8, 2026; read November 12, 2026)
- AAMC, comments on proposed changes to reporting outcomes of NIH peer review (October 9, 2026; read November 12, 2026)
