Q. What do I do if I disagree with a grant reviewer?

If your proposal was discussed by the NIH study section, as the PI, you will receive a Summary Statement that outlines key information related to the review of your proposal, including the reviewers’ written comments. If you’re lucky, you will see the merit in every point of the reviewers’ critique and will be able to use the comments to make substantive improvements in your proposal. However, you may find that you disagree emphatically with one or more of the reviewers’ comments. How should you proceed?

• First, what you should not do: do not overreact. Resist the urge to immediately fire off an emotional email or phone call to NIH personnel or reviewers.
• Instead, consult with collaborators and key colleagues on the project, as well as any other trusted colleague whose experience might be helpful (e.g., someone who has served on a study section or has been very successful at obtaining NIH research funding). Meet with the group to go through each point in depth, discussing the group’s reactions to it and developing a strategy for responding to that point.
• After you and your project team have completed your analysis of the reviewers’ comments, contact the Program Officer named on the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA). The Program Officer is typically present at the study section meeting and will be very familiar with the reviewers’ comments and other comments that did not make it into the Summary Statement. A call to the Program Officer might solidify—or change—your thinking about how to respond to the reviewers’ comments. If you continue to believe that you must challenge one or more of the reviewers’ comments, the Program Officer may be able to offer tips that will increase the likelihood that this challenge will be successful.
• After you’ve talked to the Program Officer, finalize your ideas for changes to the research plan, including how you plan to address the reviewer comment(s) you disagree with. Revise the research plan to incorporate these changes.
• Write the Introduction to the resubmission. For most NIH grants, this is a single page that summarizes your response to each reviewer comment. Resist the urge to ignore the comments you disagree with. It is essential to respond to every major comment.
• If, after careful analysis and discussion, you still disagree with a reviewer’s critique, it is essential that you present a strong, logical, and persuasive justification for doing so in the Introduction. Be courteous and nonconfrontational.
  • Acknowledge the reviewer’s concern.
  • Be clear and polite; avoid apology, argument, and emotion.
  • • • Avoid defending your experience, expertise, credentials, or qualifications.
      • Describe any revision you made in response to the comment, citing the scientific reason for your position; if you made no change in your research plan in response to the comment, indicate that.
      • Do not use cost or logistics as a reason for not addressing a comment. 
• Finally, always ask one or two trusted colleagues to review the Introduction before submitting the resubmission application. Confirm that you have addressed the reviewers’ comments in a rational and non-argumentative way. 

Read more of The Write Stuff