EditverseResubmitting an NIH application: the Introduction page and the summary statement
How to read a summary statement, turn each weakness into a recorded change, and write the one-page Introduction that an NIH resubmission requires.
Key points
- NIH accepts one resubmission (A1) of an unfunded new, renewal or revision application (A0). It must be submitted within 37 months of the application it follows, and only after the summary statement has been received.
- A resubmission must include an Introduction of one page or less that summarises substantial additions, deletions and changes and responds to the issues and criticism in the summary statement.
- Since 25 May 2024, changes must not be marked anywhere in the application. No brackets, bold, italics, highlighting, coloured text or margin lines. The Introduction is the only place where changes are described.
- An unfunded application can also be submitted again as a new application, without an Introduction. A change of activity code, or a switch between a program announcement and a request for applications, requires a new application.
- The working document behind a good Introduction is a critique-to-change table. The Introduction is a compressed version of it.
The rules, as NIH states them
The facts in this section come from NIH's Resubmission Applications policy page, the Guide notice on marking changes, the page-limit table and the PHS 398 Research Plan instructions.1234 The funding opportunity always takes precedence over the general rule.6
| Question | Rule |
|---|---|
| What counts as a resubmission | An unfunded application that has been modified after initial review and submitted again. It can follow a new, renewal or revision application, including one that was not discussed at the review meeting. |
| How many | One. Only a single A1 is accepted for each A0. |
| Time limit | Within 37 months of the application it follows. After that it must go in as a new application. |
| Precondition | The PD/PI must have received the summary statement from the previous review. |
| Funding opportunity | "Resubmission" must be listed under Application Types Allowed. A different PA, PAR or PAS that accepts resubmissions may be used if eligibility is met. |
| When a new application is required instead | When switching between a program announcement and a request for applications, or changing activity code, subject to the exceptions NIH lists in NOT-OD-18-197. |
| Form entry | Select "Resubmission" as the Type of Application in box 8 of the SF424 (R&R) form. |
| Introduction | Required. One page or less unless the funding opportunity or the page-limit table says otherwise. |
| Marking changes | Not permitted in any attachment. Changes are outlined only in the Introduction. |
| Cover letter | Optional. |
| After an unsuccessful A1 | The idea may be submitted as a new application. |
| Timeline | The same as any other application, roughly nine months to award. |
Three further points catch applicants out. For multi-project applications the Introduction is required in the Overall component and optional in the others. If the resubmission moves from a single PD/PI to multiple PD/PIs, or changes who the PD/PIs are, the rationale goes in the Introduction and a Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan is required. Career development and fellowship applicants must arrange for the three reference letters to be submitted again.14
Reading the summary statement before writing anything
The summary statement is the only evidence of what the reviewers thought. Under the simplified review framework that applies to most research project grants for due dates on or after 25 January 2025, reviewers assess three factors: Importance of the Research, scored 1 to 9; Rigor and Feasibility, scored 1 to 9; and Expertise and Resources, rated as sufficient or as having gaps. All three inform the overall impact score.5 Sorting comments by factor shows where the score was lost.
Work through the document in this order:
- Resume and summary of discussion, if the application was discussed. This is the panel's view after debate, and it outranks any single critique.
- Each reviewer's weaknesses, copied into a table one row per point, with the reviewer number and the factor.
- Agreement across reviewers. A weakness raised by two or three reviewers is a required change. A weakness raised by one may be a misreading that clearer writing can fix.
- Strengths. List them too. They show what must not be cut when space is needed for new material.
- Administrative notes on human subjects, inclusion, vertebrate animals or budget. These have to be resolved before an award can be made, whatever the score.
Then speak to the program officer named in eRA Commons. NIH itself encourages applicants to discuss resubmission questions with the scientific contact at the Institute or Center.1
The critique-to-change table
Every weakness gets a row, a decision and a location. The table is an internal document; it is not submitted. It does three jobs: it stops any point being missed, it forces a real change for each accepted criticism, and it gives the text of the Introduction almost ready-made. The rows below are illustrative, written for an invented R01 on a pharmacist-led deprescribing intervention in older adults.
| # | Raised by | Factor | Weakness, paraphrased | Decision | Change made, and where |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | R1, R2, resume | Rigor and Feasibility | Sample size rests on an effect seen in a 40-patient pilot; likely overestimated. | Accept | Effect size replaced by the minimal important difference from published literature; sample recalculated; attrition allowance added. Approach C.4 and Statistical Design and Power attachment. |
| 2 | R2, R3 | Rigor and Feasibility | Recruitment of 15 clinics not shown to be feasible. | Accept | Twelve months of screening logs from six clinics added; four clinics added with letters of support. Approach C.2; Recruitment and Retention Plan. |
| 3 | R1 | Importance | Unclear how the trial differs from two recent deprescribing trials. | Accept in part | New comparison paragraph and table in Significance A.2. Design unchanged; difference lies in the outcome (falls with injury) and the setting. |
| 4 | R3 | Rigor and Feasibility | Aim 3 depends on Aim 1 succeeding. | Accept | Aim 3 rewritten to use trial data from both arms whatever the Aim 1 result. Specific Aims; Approach C.6. |
| 5 | R2 | Expertise and Resources | No geriatric pharmacology expertise on the team. | Accept | Co-investigator added at 10 percent effort; biosketch and letter included. |
| 6 | R1 | Rigor and Feasibility | Suggests a stepped-wedge design. | Decline, with reasons | Parallel cluster design kept. Reasons given in Approach C.1: secular trend in prescribing, and no site unwilling to be randomised. |
Two rules keep the table honest. "Accept" must point to changed text, not to a promise. "Decline" must carry a scientific reason that a reviewer could check, stated without irritation.
The one-page Introduction: structure
NIH specifies what the Introduction must do: summarise substantial additions, deletions and changes, and respond to the issues and criticism raised in the summary statement.12 It does not prescribe a layout. The structure below fits one page and leaves room for five to seven points.
Opening, two or three sentences
Identify the application as a resubmission, acknowledge the review, and state the previous outcome in neutral terms. Name the strengths the panel recognised in one clause.
Summary of substantial changes, one short paragraph
The three or four changes that alter the science: design, sample size, aims, team, new preliminary data. A reviewer who reads only this paragraph should know what is different.
Point-by-point responses, most of the page
Group related critiques under a short bold label. For each: the concern in a few words, what was changed, and the section where the change sits. Lead with points raised by more than one reviewer or in the resume.
Points not adopted, one or two sentences each
State the reason and where it is argued in full.
Closing line
One sentence on new preliminary data or progress since the first submission, if there is any. No general statements of gratitude or enthusiasm.
Formatting inside the Introduction, such as bold labels for each concern, is a normal part of writing it. What NIH prohibits is markup used to identify changes in the application itself, for example in the Research Strategy.2 Because nothing in the body can be flagged, section references in the Introduction are the reviewer's only guide to where the new material is.
Worked example: an illustrative Introduction, condensed
The text below is illustrative and corresponds to the invented table above. A real Introduction would run to a full page; this version shows the pattern at about half length.
Illustrative text
This is a resubmission of an application reviewed in the previous cycle. We thank the reviewers, who judged the question important and the pharmacist-led model practical, and who identified weaknesses in rigor and feasibility that we have addressed. The principal changes are a recalculated sample size based on a published minimal important difference, documented recruitment capacity from 19 clinics, an Aim 3 that no longer depends on Aim 1, and an added co-investigator in geriatric pharmacology.
Sample size (Reviewers 1 and 2; resume). The effect size no longer comes from our pilot. We now power the trial to detect the smallest difference in falls with injury considered clinically important, allow for clustering and 15 percent attrition, and enrol 1,140 participants in 19 clinics (Approach C.4).
Recruitment (Reviewers 2 and 3). Twelve months of screening logs from six clinics show 2.3 eligible patients per clinic per week. Four clinics have been added (Approach C.2; Recruitment and Retention Plan).
Dependence of Aim 3 (Reviewer 3). Aim 3 now analyses mediators of prescribing change in both arms and yields results whatever the outcome of Aim 1 (Specific Aims; Approach C.6).
Expertise (Reviewer 2). A geriatric clinical pharmacologist joins as co-investigator.
Stepped-wedge design (Reviewer 1). We considered this carefully and have kept the parallel cluster design, because prescribing is changing over calendar time and all sites accept randomisation (Approach C.1).
Resubmit, or submit as new?
NIH allows an unfunded application to be submitted again as a new application without using the resubmission route.1 A new application carries no Introduction: the Research Plan instructions state that an Introduction is not allowed for new or renewal applications unless the funding opportunity asks for one.4 The choice depends on what the summary statement shows.
| Situation | Usual choice | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Discussed; weaknesses are specific and fixable | Resubmit | The Introduction lets you show each fix. |
| Not discussed, but critiques agree on a small number of design problems | Resubmit | A not-discussed application may be resubmitted, and the fixes can be documented. |
| Reviewers doubted the importance of the question itself | New application | The aims need rebuilding; a one-page response cannot carry that. |
| Aims or approach have changed so far that the old critiques no longer apply | New application | The Introduction would have little to respond to. |
| Moving to a different activity code, or between a PA and an RFA | New application | Required by NIH policy, with listed exceptions. |
| More than 37 months since the A0 | New application | Required by NIH policy. |
| The A1 was unsuccessful | New application | Only one resubmission is accepted. |
One further rule applies to renewals. After an unsuccessful renewal, a renewal resubmission is possible, but a second renewal application is not; after that the only option is a new application.1 NIH also will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time, apart from limited exceptions, so the resubmission and a new version of the same project cannot be sent together.
What to send a writer, and what comes back
- You provide
- The full A0 application as submitted, the summary statement, notes from the program officer conversation, new preliminary data, and the funding opportunity number.
- What is done
- Critique-to-change table drafted and agreed with you; affected sections revised; Introduction written to one page; page limits and the no-markup rule checked across all attachments.3
- You receive
- The table, the Introduction, revised Specific Aims and Research Strategy, and a list of every other attachment that needs a matching change, such as the human subjects forms, budget justification and letters.
- Outside scope
- Decisions on scientific direction, which stay with the investigators, and submission through the institution's system.
Editverse Medical handles resubmissions within its research grant proposal service; where only the aims need rebuilding, the specific aims and concept note service is the smaller starting point. The grant writing page sets out the method.
How long can the Introduction to an NIH resubmission be?
One page or less, unless the funding opportunity or NIH's table of page limits specifies otherwise. The table lists one page for the Introduction to resubmission and revision applications for all activity codes.
Can I highlight or bracket the changed text in the Research Strategy?
No. NIH guidance effective 25 May 2024 says that bracketing, indenting, highlighting, bolding, italicising, underlining, margin lines, font or colour changes, or any other markup should not be used to identify changes. Changes are outlined only in the Introduction.
My application was not discussed. Can I still resubmit?
Yes. NIH's policy states that a resubmission can follow an application that was not selected for funding, including applications not discussed in review. You still need the summary statement before you can submit.
Do I have to respond to every reviewer comment?
NIH requires the Introduction to respond to the issues and criticism raised. With one page, group related points, answer everything raised by more than one reviewer or in the resume, and give a reasoned sentence for any suggestion you did not adopt.
References
- National Institutes of Health. Resubmission Applications. Page last updated 3 September 2024. grants.nih.gov
- National Institutes of Health. NOT-OD-24-061: NIH Guidance on Marking Changes in Resubmission Applications. NOT-OD-24-061
- National Institutes of Health. Page Limits. Page last updated 30 September 2026. grants.nih.gov
- National Institutes of Health. G.400: PHS 398 Research Plan Form. SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, FORMS-I. grants.nih.gov
- National Institutes of Health. Simplified Peer Review Framework. Page last updated 28 April 2026. Policy notice NOT-OD-24-010. grants.nih.gov
- National Institutes of Health. How to Apply: Application Guide, SF424 (R&R) FORMS-I. grants.nih.gov