amfAR receives hundreds of proposals each year from researchers around the world and funds the highest quality projects. In evaluating these proposals, amfAR employs a peer review process modeled closely on those used by other major scientific research institutions, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The scientific peer review process ensures the quality and relevance of research activities and helps maintain the scientific objectivity and credibility of amfAR’s grant-making programs.

Starting with the June 2025 cycle, amfAR has implemented a revised review process designed to streamline scoring and enhance the quality of feedback provided to applicants.

Review committee composition

Each application is evaluated by three independent scientific reviewers and amfAR’s Director of Research. This committee ensures a balanced and expert assessment of every proposal:

• External reviewers
  • Submit preliminary written evaluations.
  • Present and discuss assigned applications during the review session.
  • May revise their scores following the discussion.
• amfAR Director of Research
  • Moderates and contributes to the discussion during the Review Session.
  • Ensures all perspectives are considered.
  • Finalizes the overall impact score for each application.

Step-by-step review process

1. Preliminary review: Reviewers independently assess and score each application using a 1–9 NIH-style scale, where 1 indicates exceptional merit and 9 indicates significant weaknesses. For Target grants, special emphasis is placed on Innovation and Significance.
2. Review session
   • A presenting reviewer summarizes the application’s strengths and weaknesses.
   • The application is discussed. Reviewers may adjust their scores.
   • Applications with an average score above 5 may be triaged at this stage.
3. Post-review scoring and ranking
   • Based on the discussion and revised evaluations, amfAR finalizes a single Overall Impact Score for each application.
   • Applications are ranked by this score, and the top-ranked proposals are selected for funding.
   • Applications receiving a final score below 2, even if not funded, qualify for re-review in the following cycle. No new Synopsis submission will be required.
4. Applicant feedback
   • All applicants receive an Evaluation Summary, reporting individual scores for each criterion and general feedback from the reviewers.
   • No additional information on individual scores or review rationale will be provided beyond this summary.