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. 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 implemented a revised review process designed to streamline scoring and enhance the quality of feedback provided to applicants.

Click here to access this document as a PDF

1. Review Committee

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

1. External reviewers
   • submit preliminary written evaluations.
   • present and discuss assigned applications during the review session.
   • may revise their scores following the discussion.
2. amfAR VP and Director of Research
   • reads and evaluates all applications.
   • moderates and contributes to the discussion during the review session, ensuring all perspectives are considered.
   • finalizes the overall impact score for each application.

2. Step-by-Step Review Process 

1. Preliminary review
   • Reviewers independently assess and score each application on 5 different criteria using a whole number 1–9 NIH-style scale, where 1 indicates exceptional merit and 9 indicates significant weaknesses. Scores and written comments are submitted using the amfAR online portal. A weighted average of the 5 scores will result in a final score that will be used to guide the discussion during the review session. For Target and ARCHE grants, special emphasis is placed on the Innovation and Significance criteria; for Krim fellowships, emphasis is placed on the Investigator criterion¹.
   • A day prior to the review session, reviewers will be able to read other reviewers’ scores and comments.
     
     Please note: The use of generative AI is prohibited when reviewing grant applications and writing review comments.
     
2. Review session
   • amfAR staff presents the reviewers’ single scores and weighted average².
   • The presenting reviewer opens the discussion by summarizing the application’s general focus and highlights its strengths and weaknesses.
   • The application is discussed by the review committee at large. Reviewers may then adjust their criterion scores. Applications with an average weighted 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.
   • External reviewers may update their overall comments on amfAR’s online portal. These overall final comments will be shared—anonymously—with applicants, together with the application’s overall impact score. Applications are then ranked by this score, and the top-ranked proposals are selected for funding upon final approval by amfAR’s Board of Trustees.
   • Applications that receive an overall impact score <2, but are not funded, qualify for re-submission and review in the following cycle. Submission of a new Synopsis (for Target grants) or LOI (for Krim fellowships) won’t be required.

3. Feedback To Applicants

1. All applicants receive an evaluation summary, reporting individual scores for each criterion and general feedback from the reviewers.
2. No additional information on individual scores or review rationale will be provided beyond this summary.

4. Feedback To Applicants

1. Scoring scale:
   • amfAR uses the NIH-style 1–9 scoring system for all grant mechanisms:
     
     Table 1: 9-point scoring scale used to evaluate all amfAR grant proposals.

2. Weighting of criteria
   • Although reviewers provide a score for each individual criterion, not all criteria contribute equally to the final score. For certain mechanisms, amfAR places greater weight on selected criteria when computing the weighted average. This helps ensure alignment with amfAR’s strategic priorities.
   • Each criterion is assigned a weighting factor that reflects its relative importance for the specific grant mechanism.
   • The final score is calculated by computing the weighted average of the five individual scores.
     
     Target and ARCHE grants
     • Target and ARCHE grant applications are evaluated based on the following criteria: Investigator, Significance, Innovation, Approach and Environment.
       
       Table 2: Scoring criteria applied to Target and ARCHE grants.
       
       
       • When assigning a score for the Significance and Innovation criteria, the reviewers are requested to evaluate the project’s impact on the field, placing particular emphasis on:
         • Significance: Whether the proposed research addresses an important and unmet scientific or clinical need within the field of HIV and/or related biomedical disciplines; the extent to which the project, if successful, would contribute to advancing knowledge, guiding future research directions, or altering current paradigms.
         • Innovation: The degree to which the application challenges current concepts, approaches, or technologies; whether novel hypotheses, methodologies, or analytical frameworks are introduced; the potential for the project to open new avenues of research or offer original insights not currently addressed by existing studies.
           
           Table 3: Table illustrating weighting factors for each criterion. Example assigned scores are shown. Simple and weighted averages are highlighted in green and blue, respectively.
           
           
   • Mathilde Krim Fellowships in Biomedical Research applications
     • Krim fellowships are evaluated based on the following criteria: Investigator, Significance, Innovation, Approach and Mentorship & Environment.
       
       Table 4: Scoring criteria applied to Krim fellowships.
       
     • When assigning a score for the Investigator criterion, the reviewers are requested to evaluate whether the applicant demonstrates not only 1) a proven track record of impactful research and 2) the ability to execute the proposed project, but also 3) a well-defined trajectory toward independence, specifically, by proposing a line of research that is at least partially distinct from their mentor’s.  
     • The goal of the Krim fellowships is to support postdoctoral researchers as they transition toward independent careers. While it’s natural for postdocs to build upon their mentor’s work, amfAR expects applicants to show how their proposal positions them to develop a distinct and independent research program over time.  
       
       Table 5: Table illustrating weighting factors for each criterion. Example assigned scores are shown. Simple and weighted averages are highlighted in green and blue, respectively.
       

5. Conflict Of Interest Policy 

A Conflict of Interest (COI) exists when a reviewer (or their close family member) has a professional or financial interest that does, or could be construed to, bias their assessment of an application. COIs include, but aren’t limited to, the following situations, when a reviewer or a close family member (now or in the past year): 

1. Collaborates with the applicant 
2. Subcontracts or consults with the applicant 
3. Works at the same institution³ as the applicant 

Please email grants@amfar.org if you have a question about a potential conflict. 

---

¹ Refer to Section 4, Scoring System and Criteria.

² Refer to table showing weighted scores in Section 4, Scoring System and Criteria. In the online reviewer portal, the reviewers will only enter single scores and comments. A weighted average of the scores won’t be immediately visualized but can be easily calculated using the weighting factors in Table 4 and Table 5Works at the same institution1 as the applicant

³ Institutions that are part of a large system are considered separate if they are operationally and financially independent of each other. For example, UCSF and UCLA are considered separate institutions.