Merit review

Merit review is the American evaluation process: independent external reviewers, usually working scientists or practitioners, score applications against the criteria published in the notice. A programme officer then makes a funding recommendation, and a designated official makes the decision.

The criteria are in Section E and are frequently weighted with explicit point values. That transparency is a real advantage. You can allocate effort in proportion to the marks, and you know before writing exactly what the reviewer's score sheet will say.

Mechanics differ sharply by agency. The National Institutes of Health uses standing study sections, scores on a nine-point scale where LOW is good, converts to percentiles, and funds to a payline that is published and moves with the budget. The National Science Foundation uses ad hoc panels, rates against two statutory criteria (intellectual merit and broader impacts) and publishes no numeric score. Learn the agency's process before writing for it.

Reviewers' written comments are returned, and they are more candid than European summary reports. They are also, crucially, expected to inform a resubmission: several agencies invite a formal response to previous reviews, and ignoring that opportunity in a resubmission is treated as not having engaged.

The programme officer's role has no European equivalent. They see the reviews, understand where an application fell short, and will usually discuss it with you afterwards. That conversation is the most valuable feedback available in the American system and it is available for the asking.