|Policy & Guidance|
|Compliance & Oversight|
|Research Involving Human Subjects|
|Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW)|
|Animals in Research|
|Peer Review Policies & Practices|
|Guidance for Reviewers|
|Intellectual Property Policy|
|Acknowledging NIH Funding|
|Invention Reporting (iEdison)|
|NIH Public Access|
Frequently Asked Questions
Initial Peer Review Conflict of Interest Policy
Initial Posting: October 19, 2011
Last Revised: April 2, 2013
Technical evaluations of R&D contract proposals are subject to federal rules for acquisitions that do not apply to grant reviews.
Generally speaking, conflicts of interest in initial peer review or technical evaluation result from one or more of the following scenarios:
Reviewers are responsible for declaring COI, and SROs are responsible for explaining the rules to their reviewers and screening for COI to the extent possible.Unlike members of NIH Advisory Councils or Boards, reviewers in the initial level of NIH peer review are not appointed as Special Government Employees and do not submit financial disclosure forms. Therefore, SROs are not in the position to collect financial information from reviewers, but can ask about professional relationships and roles and make determinations about potential bias in the initial peer review process.
An individual with a Major Professional Role contributes to the scientific development or execution of the project in a substantive, measurable way, whether or not compensation is requested. In addition, the fact that an individual is named in an application can create a COI.