Effects of Early Career Peer Review Service on Subsequent Grant Submission Outcomes&nbsp

Peer reviewers provide a critical service to NIH by evaluating the scientific and technical merit of grant applications. While the tangible rewards for this service are limited, many reviewers feel review service makes them better applicants, improving their grant competitiveness. However, empirical evidence for this claim is limited. This study evaluates relationships between early career peer review service and subsequent application behavior and funding outcomes. Using NIH administrative data, applicants who served as Early Career Reviewers (ECRs) during the 2020 - 2021 council years were compared to a matched group of ECR-eligible applicants who had not served as reviewers (n=1,120 per group). To address non-random selection of ECRs, propensity score matching was used to balance groups on research field, demographics, productivity, career stage, and institutional resources. Outcomes, assessed over a three-year follow-up period, included submission volume, peer review scores, and funding outcomes for R01 and R01-equivalent applications. ECRs submitted more applications, were more likely to have their applications discussed, and were more likely to receive a high review score than matched controls. They were also more likely to receive R01 funding. While peer review scores do not solely determine award outcomes, these findings indicate that peer review service among ECRs is associated with improved grant application outcomes.