[Back to CDMRP's Two-Tiered Review Process graphic]

CDMRP utilizes a two-tiered review process. In doing so, the organization is not necessarily unusual. Rather, the procedures implemented within the two tiers of review that make CDMRP's process unique. These procedures provide the rigor that makes it possible for CDMRP to fulfill its mission of finding and funding the best science.

Tier 1 - Peer Review

Scientist: CDMRP is rooted in partnerships: between the government, survivors and advocates, and scientific clinical communities. These groups have forged a strong and enduring alliance. The two-tiered review process exemplifies these unique partnerships as nowhere else.
In the first level, Peer Review, scientists, clinicians, and consumers come together to gauge the merits of applications submitted to specific funding mechanisms. As equal partners, each vote carries the same weight and each voice is heard during the review.

Clinician: Applications are rated based on a number of explicit, published criteria and scored on a scale of 1 to 10 (in whole numbers). At this level of review, applications are grouped by focus area among the different mechanisms in each program. This allows reviewers with the most appropriate expertise to provide insightful and complete reviews of each application.

Consumer: Panels are not permanent; instead, each year new panels are constituted to best review the applications submitted in response to the mechanism types. One size does not fit all.

Tier 2 - Programmatic Review

Consumer: In the second level, Programmatic Review, a guiding panel for each program, the Integration Panel, convenes. The Integration Panel, or IP, is also composed of consumers, scientists, and clinicians. And again, each member of the panel is selected for their individual expertise and ability to represent their respective communities to aid the program in achieving its specific goals.

Clinician: The overarching goal of Programmatic Review is to "develop a balanced portfolio of scientifically meritorious research aimed toward the Program's vision." During this second-level review, IP members compare applications against each other on a variety of criteria: ratings of the scientific reviewers, programmatic relevance, relative innovation and impact (based on the specific award mechanism), programmatic portfolio balance, and adherence to the intent of the mechanism. IP members recommend applications for funding and potentially for an alternate list, depending on the quality and quantity of the applications under review. These recommendations are reviewed by the CDMRP program staff, and then forwarded to the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (CDMRP's higher headquarters) for approval. Once approved, the Principle Investigators are notified and awards are negotiated.

Scientist: The CDMRP two-tiered review process was originally recommended by the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 1995. It was re-reviewed in 1997 by the IOM, which lauded the CDMRP for its implementation of the process and its success. The results of the entire review process, including lists of awarded applications, identification of IP members and peer review panelists, are all recorded openly on the CDMRP website and in each year's Annual Report (also reported on the website).