Recent NIH guidance under Notice NOT-OD-26-012 outlines big shifts in how applications will be reviewed and what kinds of feedback applicants can expect. The changes arise from a backlog of reviews caused by a prolonged government shutdown and aim to keep the review calendar on track while preserving fairness and funding opportunities.
Your TL;DR: NIH peer review feedback will look very different for most applicants starting with the January 2026 Council round. Only the top ~30–35% of applications will be discussed and receive full summary discussion, while the middle third will be labeled “competitive but not discussed” and still eligible for funding, and the bottom third will be deemed not competitive with limited feedback. NIH will simplify summary statements and provide reviewer critiques, but narrative discussion will be reduced. This is part of emergency modifications following cancelled meetings and will persist through May 2026.
What’s changing
Review meetings will now group applications into three tiers:
Top third (approximately 30-35%) — will be discussed openly and receive full consideration for funding.
Middle third — designated *competitive but not discussed*; remains eligible for funding but won’t be discussed in the meeting.
Bottom third— considered not competitive and will not be discussed at all. This grouping shifts away from the roughly 50% discussed in the traditional review.
Feedback format will change
Summary statements will no longer use paragraph discussion. Instead, you’ll see a sentence on committee consensus plus bullet points explaining key scored elements, alongside the written critiques from your three assigned reviewers. For the discussed applications, overall impact scores will still be reported.
Why This Matters to Applicants
If your application falls into the competitive but not discussed band, you still have a chance of securing funding; NIH Institutes and Centers will consider those applications alongside those that have been discussed. The not competitive category will limit visibility and may mean less actionable feedback unless you make strategic moves in future submissions.
The Real Impact
NIH’s stated goal is to maintain review quality while clearing review backlogs and making reviewer recruitment and scheduling easier. By simplifying meeting structure and feedback, NIH preserves fairness and continues peer review cycles without creating additional delays.
Learn More Here https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-26-012.html
What Applicants Should Do Next
Don’t wait if your proposal didn’t make the top tier. You still may qualify in the competitive band, and institutes often weigh programmatic priorities alongside raw scoring.
Consider these practical steps:
🎯 Use the written critiques to sharpen your resubmission before the next round.
📊 Align with NIH strategic interests to increase competitiveness even without discussion.
🔍 Ask program officers for guidance on next steps and interpretation of feedback.
By treating NIH’s new feedback structure as a road map for improvement rather than an obstacle, you can strengthen the next submission and potentially move into the discussed tier.
You want clear, actionable feedback from NIH now that merit review criteria and feedback pathways have shifted. Getting tailored guidance can help you interpret critiques and target improvements deeply rooted in review priorities.
Ready To Take the Next Step?
We assist our clients in locating, applying for, and evaluating the outcomes of non-dilutive grant funding. We believe non-dilutive funding is a crucial tool for mitigating investment risks, and we are dedicated to guiding our clients through the entire process—from identifying the most suitable opportunities to submitting and managing grant applications.