The National Institutes of Health has proposed a controversial overhaul of how it reports peer-review scores for grant applications, replacing precise numerical ratings with three broad categorical bins: "most competitive," an intermediate tier, and a lower tier.
The proposal, detailed in a Request for Information published last week and covered by Science on Monday, has drawn fierce pushback from researchers, university administrators, and science advocacy groups who warn it would dramatically reduce transparency in a system that distributes more than $45 billion annually in biomedical research funding.
Currently, NIH grant applicants receive detailed numerical scores and percentile rankings that allow them to understand exactly how their proposals were evaluated and how they compare to competitors. Under the proposed system, applicants would only learn whether their application fell into one of three broad categories — losing the granular feedback that researchers say is essential for improving resubmissions and understanding funding decisions.
Critics argue the change would make it harder for scientists at smaller or less prestigious institutions to compete, since they often rely on knowing their precise standing to make strategic decisions about whether to resubmit, revise, or seek alternative funding. The change could also obscure patterns of bias in the review process, some researchers warned.
NIH officials have framed the proposal as a way to reduce the outsized influence that small differences in numerical scores can have on funding decisions. Under the current system, applications can be separated by fractions of a percentile point, leading to what some consider arbitrary distinctions between funded and unfunded research.
The proposal comes amid broader changes at NIH, which has already eliminated rigid paylines based on peer-review scores across all 27 institutes and centers starting in January 2026. The agency is accepting public comments on the binning proposal through September.
