So you’ve submitted your NIH grant application and received your GRANT number that looks something like this: GRANT00553159

What should you expect next?

At this point, your application has officially been received by the system and is now moving through the review process. NIH provides applicants with a complete image of their electronic submission for review. Take advantage of this step! Download and view the application image and double check that the application contains all necessary elements.

After final submission, three things will happen to the application:

👉 Checked for completeness 

👉 Matched with a SRG and an IC 

👉 Reviewed and considered for funding

1. Completeness Check

In the completeness check, the system and administrative staff ensures that all required forms have been submitted and administrative requirements are met.

This process includes three layers of validation:

Grants.gov Validation

This checkpoint is handled by the grants.gov system and it ensures:

• • Your organization has an active SAM registration.

  • The submitter is authorized to act on behalf of the organization.

  • Submission was made within the correct funding opportunity window.

  • The correct and active application package was used.

  • No attachments contain viruses.

  • Attachment filenames only include allowed characters (A-Z, a-z, 0-9, underscores, hyphens, spaces, and select symbols).

eRA Commons Validation

NIH also checks your application through eRA Commons. Here, the system looks for:

• Every person listed on the R&R Sr/Key Person Profile has their Commons ID included.

• All attachments are in PDF format and follow page limits.

• Multiple PD/PI applications include the required leadership plan.

• Appropriate Human Subjects or Vertebrate Animals attachments are included, if relevant.

NIH Staff Validation

Finally, NIH staff manually checks requirements that automated systems can’t catch. This stage ensures:

• The project fits NIH’s mission and the mission of participating institutes/centers.

• The applicant and organization meet eligibility requirements.

• All critical sections are included and in the correct format.

• Submissions are on time, without duplicated content already under review.

• Funding opportunity-specific instructions are followed (e.g., reference letters, formatting rules, budget permissions).

• Any restrictions, such as human embryonic stem cell use, are properly addressed.

2. Assignment to SRG and IC

Once your application passes the completeness check, usually takes 2–3 days, it gets assigned for peer-review. First, a study section gets assigned to review the scientific and technical merit of your proposal. This study section is managed by the Scientific Review Group (SRG), and comprises a panel of professionals and experts with deep knowledge in the field relevant to your proposal. Explore NIH study sections here!

Additionally, your application gets assigned to one IC that best aligns with the proposed work. In most cases, a primary IC is assigned, but some multidisciplinary applications may receive a dual assignment. Dual assignment gives multiple ICs access to review the application for funding consideration. Explore NIH ICs here!

3. Moving to Peer Review

Once your application is checked for completeness, it officially moves to the peer-review process. Like all federal agencies, NIH has a structured, two-tiered review system:

First-level peer review, where expert reviewers evaluate the scientific and technical merit of your proposal, followed by a second-level IC National Advisory Council review, where the IC Advisory Council considers the recommendations and ensures alignment with IC priorities.

First-level peer review 

Study sections review applications according to criteria stated in the funding opportunity. They discuss each application in detail, culminating in:

• An impact score (10 = best, 90 = worst) that reflects factors like innovation, significance, approach, and feasibility.

• A summary statement, which includes reviewers feedback on each scoring criterion and provides guidance for improvement.

Second-level Advisory Council review 

The IC National Advisory Council assesses how well the application aligns with the IC’s mission and evaluates the potential impact of the proposed work, such as its relevance to public health. Based on this assessment, the council makes recommendations regarding funding.

In this stage, the IC may request additional information to clarify or justify aspects of your proposal, ensuring it aligns with NIH standards, policies, and priorities. Examples of what may be requested include:

• Other support details for investigators

• Human subjects and animal welfare assurances

• Budget clarifications

The full process of evaluation can take a few months from start to finish. It is important to keep an eye on your submission and promptly respond to the reviewers.

Application Not Discussed? Here’s What to Do

Due to a number of factors, such as specific NIH priorities, the number of competing applications, or the relative impact scores of other submissions, your application may not be selected for discussion during peer review. In this case, the review panel does not provide a full summary statement or assign a priority score.

If your application is not discussed, don’t be discouraged and do the following instead:

• Connect with your NIH Program Officer to gain insight into how your application might aligns with IC priorities.

• Identify ways to strengthen your application for a resubmission.

NIH encourages applicants to resubmit their applications even when an application is not discussed.