SUMMARYBeginning in 2011, NCI adopted a new approach to the selection of grant applications for funding. Rather than establish an absolute payline, individual consideration of a broad range of applications were the hallmark of NCI's selection process for all competing applications.
In 2013, most applications with scores up to the 9th percentile were funded. Funded applications with higher scores were subject to divisional and Scientific Program Leaders (SPL) review. The NCI awarded 1,095 competing Research Project Grants (RPGs), resulting in a final success rate of 14%. The graphs below summarize the overall funding patterns for R01s and R21s in various categories of investigators.
- - FY 2013 R01
- - FY 2013 R21
- - Table 1: Fiscal Year 2013: Success Rates (unsolicited R01's and R21's)
- - Table 2: Fiscal Year 2013 vs. 2012: All Competing Research Project Grants
- - Comments
Funding Patterns for R01 Applications
The graph in Figure 1 summarizes the number of R01 applications received and grants funded at each percentile, among all investigators. As is evident, the number of grants funded decreased in direct proportion to the percentile ranking. Nevertheless, 39% of the grants funded had rankings beyond the 9th percentile.
Similar displays are shown below for experienced investigators (applicants who have received a prior RPG and were applying for a new grant or a competitive renewal - Figure 2); new investigators (applicants who have never received an RPG - Figure 3); and early stage investigators (new investigators within 10 years of receiving their highest degree - Figure 4). Similar patterns are observed in all cases, although success rates are not plotted for new and early stage investigators in view of the small numbers of applications at each percentile score.
NCI FY2013: "Percentiled" R01 Applications, Awards and Success Rates
Figure 1: All Investigators: Experienced, New and Early Stage
NCI FY2013 Competing R01 Applications and Awards
Figure 3: New Investigators (Includes Early Stage Investigators)
Figures 1-4: Excludes applications that did not receive a percentile ranking. When an amended application is considered in the same fiscal year as the original, only the one with the better ranking is counted.
Funding Patterns for R21 Applications
The funding patterns for R21 grant applications differ markedly from those of the R01. This difference is explained by the fact that NCI receives a disproportionate number of applications relative to the number of R21 grants that can be funded (see Table 1). 21% of the grants funded had rankings beyond the 9th percentile.
In contrast to the case with the R01 funding patterns, success rates for R21 funding of applications from new investigators are significantly lower than for established investigators (8% versus 13% success rates, respectively - Table 1). The difference in success rates for R21 compared to R01 applications from new investigators is striking: 8% compared with 12%. This disparity results from the fact that R01, but not R21 applications, from new investigators are given preferential consideration.
Similar displays are shown below for experienced investigators (applicants who have received a prior RPG - Figure 6) and new investigators (applicants who have never received an RPG - Figure 7).
NCI FY2013: R21 Applications, Awards and Success Rates
Figure 5: All Investigators: Experienced and New
Figures 5-7: Excludes applications that did not receive a percentile ranking. When an amended application is considered in the same fiscal year as the original, only the one with the better ranking is counted.
Table 1: Fiscal Year 2013: Success Rates (unsolicited R01's and R21's)
|Total Applications||Number With Percentiles
Of 25 or Better
|Number With Percentiles
Of 10 or Better
|R01 - All Investigators||3,998||973||405||582||15%|
|Experienced Investigators - Total||2,806||743||319||436||16%|
|New Investigators - Total*||1,192||230||86||146||12%|
|Early Stage New Investigators**||506||136||58||92||18%|
|R21 - All Investigators||2,334||510||207||241||10%|
Total applications include all new and competing renewals that received a percentile, those with just an impact score as well as triaged or not recommended for funding. Competitive supplements are excluded.
When an amended application is considered in the same fiscal year as the original, only the one with the better percentile is counted. NCI funded an additional 272 grants for a total of 1,095 competing Research Projects which includes Program Projects, Small Grants, Requests for Applications and other funding mechanisms.
* Includes Early Stage Investigators
** Included in New Investigators
Table 2: Fiscal Year 2013 vs. 2012: All Competing Research Project Grants
|FY 2013||FY 2012|
|Funded||Success Rate||Funded||Success Rate|
|R01 - Unsolicited||582||15%||620||15%|
|R21 - Unsolicited||241||10%||200||11%|
|Total Competing RPGs:||1,095||14%||1,085||14%|
* Other RPGs include R15, P01, U01 and UM1.
In FY 2013 there was a 6.1% decrease in R01 (Investigator Initiated) awards attributed to fewer new investigator applications. The R21 awards increased by 21%, a direct result of the new NCI Omnibus Program Announcement PAR-12-145.
 A percentile is a score that ranks competing applications against others in the same study section in the past year. It is intended to allow a comparison of impact scores of applications across all study sections. The impact score is given by scientific reviewers based on the overall impact that the project is likely to have on the research field(s) involved.
 The success rate is the percentage of applications received that are funded. It is calculated by dividing the number of funded grants by the number of applications received. When an amended application is considered in the same fiscal year as the original, only the one with the better score is counted in the number of applications received.
 Since the NIH does not report the R21 grants in terms of experienced and new investigators, the NCI applied the R01 rules to the R21 grants to extract, and generate the data that distinguishes the two groups in these graphs.