NINDS Payline 2026: No Percentile, 8.6% R01 Odds

Current rules for every institute are compared in the NIH and NSF funding odds tracker.

NINDS Payline 2026: The Director Ended the Percentile Cutoff

NINDS spent its full FY2025 appropriation of $2.69 billion, and then changed how it picks grants. In its November 26, 2025 director's message (opens in a new tab), the institute said it "no longer intends to use a strict payline funding strategy based on the percentile score of applications reviewed," and that it "will not publish a percentile to define a payline."

The message is candid about the cost to applicants. It concedes that without a published payline, investigators will find it harder to judge their odds from a percentile, and argues the new approach matches how NINDS has always funded applications that don't get a percentile. The old NINDS paylines web address now redirects to the FY2026 NINDS funding policy (opens in a new tab) on the NIH grants site.

That policy page names the factors NINDS weighs: scientific merit from peer review, scientific rigor, fit with the NIH and NINDS mission, program balance, career stage, investigator effort, geographic balance and stewardship of funds. NINDS also leans on its advisory Council (NANDS) and on priorities posted in NIH Highlighted Topics, Council presentations, funding notices and the NINDS Strategic Plan. The director's message adds that Highlighted Topics now feed NINDS "Select Pay" decisions, and that NIH's Center for Scientific Review handles all NINDS peer review, since NINDS no longer runs its own study sections.

The change also matches NIH policy. Under the Unified Funding Strategy, NIH's funding decisions page (opens in a new tab) (last revised November 21, 2025) states that institutes "will no longer employ these cutoff points in overall impact scores to determine which applications to fund." The header on the NINDS policy page also notes a continuing resolution (NOT-OD-26-131), which now covers FY2027. So any "NINDS payline 2026" figure on a forum or lab wiki is either an old number or a guess.

The Last Official NINDS Paylines, FY2022 to FY2024

NINDS cut its general R01 payline from the 14th to the 11th percentile in FY2024. The April 30, 2024 director's message (opens in a new tab) explains why: the FY2024 appropriation was $2,689,925,000 (including 21st Century Cures Act funds), a 4.4% drop from FY2023, and the dollars that had funded "up to the 14th percentile payline in FY 2022 and FY 2023" could only reach the 11th percentile that year.

Three exceptions sat on top of the FY2024 number. Early stage investigators got an extended payline (the message doesn't give the percentile). Special Council Review and AD/ADRD applications were also handled outside the general cutoff. And parent R01s requesting $500,000 or more in direct costs per year faced a payline equal to half the general one, under NOT-NS-24-079 (opens in a new tab).

Grantsights checked both director's messages and the FY2026 policy for a FY2025 cutoff and didn't find an official final one. Don't fill the gap by working backward from the FY2025 success rate. A common mistake is treating 8.6% as if it were a percentile; it isn't, and the next section shows why the two numbers never line up.

NINDS R01 Success Rates, FY2021 to FY2025

NINDS's new R01 success rate dropped from 13.6% to 8.6% between FY2024 and FY2025. These figures come from NIH's success-rate tables (opens in a new tab):

Source: NIH Data Book table 206 (R01 and R21 rows) and table 217 (all research project grants). FY2026 isn't in the Data Book yet.

Look at the years with a known payline. In FY2022 and FY2023, with a 14th percentile cutoff, the new R01 success rate ran at 17.7% and 17.1%. In FY2024, with an 11th percentile cutoff, it was 13.6%. The success rate ran a few points above the cutoff each year, but the two aren't the same measure. A percentile ranks an application within its study section, while the success rate divides awards by every application reviewed, with an A0 and A1 from the same fiscal year counted once under NIH's success rate definition (opens in a new tab). NINDS also funded some applications beyond the line, such as ESI applications under the extended payline.

FY2025 broke on both sides of the ratio. New R01 applications climbed from 2,526 to 2,932 while awards fell from 344 to 251. According to NIH Data Book table 206, combined NINDS R01 and R37 funding fell from $257.8 million in FY2024 to $216.5 million in FY2025, yet each award grew on average, from $596,677 to $674,485. Fewer, larger grants: that's the backdrop for the $500,000 rule below.

The $500,000 Rule: Two of Three Criteria

NINDS's FY2026 policy sets the bar for any investigator-initiated research project grant above $500,000 in direct costs per year. NINDS is "unlikely to prioritize" such an application unless it meets at least two of these three criteria:

1. The project directly aligns with current legislative or executive priorities.
2. The project shows exceptional scientific merit.
3. Program staff judge it to have exceptional programmatic merit, based on research gaps, impact or portfolio needs.

A strong score alone covers only one of the three. The second has to come from mission alignment or a program officer's case for the portfolio, which is why a conversation with program staff before submission matters more at NINDS than at institutes without this rule.

The director's message adds a second stringency rule. Investigators who already hold more than $1.5 million in NIH funds face tougher scrutiny on new investigator-initiated grants, under NOT-NS-24-060. If you're near that line, a new R01 needs a stronger case than your score alone.

Applicants who underestimate these rules tend to write the budget first and the justification last. Ask whether the project could run under $500,000 in direct costs per year. Grantsights analysis of NIH RePORTER shows how unusual a larger NINDS award is: in FY2026, 294 of 308 single-year new NINDS R01 and R37 awards (95%) had first-year direct costs under $500,000.

The 20.5% Non-Modular R01 Cut

NINDS applies a 20.5% administrative reduction to every non-modular R01 it funds. The April 2024 message described this as an extra 3% layered on an existing cut, bringing the total to 20.5%, and the FY2026 policy keeps it.

The gap between modular and non-modular R01s is the biggest budget decision an NINDS applicant makes. A non-modular request of $400,000 in direct costs drops to $318,000 after a 20.5% cut, while a modular R01 isn't reduced at all. A red flag in a non-modular NINDS budget is a set of aims that only works at the full requested amount. Show which aim shrinks if the cut lands. The modular budget guide covers where the modular ceiling sits and how to justify each format.

Early Stage Investigators, R56 Bridges and RF1 Awards

NINDS's ESI goal is stated as a success rate, not a percentile: it funds additional ESI R01s "with the aim of supporting early career scientists at a success rate equivalent to that of established investigators submitting new R01 applications." That's a parity target. It doesn't promise a fixed number of points of extra room, and NINDS doesn't publish an ESI percentile. An ESI flag that's missing in eRA Commons can't help you, so check it early; the new investigator guide explains how the flag works.

R56 bridge awards are the other safety valve. The FY2026 policy says NINDS will keep converting some meritorious R01s that fall "just outside of funding limits" into R56 awards as funds allow, and the director's message limits this to investigators without other grant funding. The count has shrunk. According to NIH Data Book table 206, NINDS made 29 R56 awards in FY2023, 14 in FY2024 and 6 in FY2025. NIH's success-rate math treats an R01 converted to an R56 as a win.

RF1 awards are NINDS's multi-year funding route, and they distort the success-rate tables. Table 206 shows 24 RF1 awards on 32 applications in FY2025 (75.0%) and 16 of 16 in FY2024. Those applications were already chosen, so the ratio isn't an open competition rate.

Grantsights analysis of NIH RePORTER found 0 multi-year funded new NINDS R01 or R37 awards in FY2025 and 0 in FY2026, against 4 in FY2024. RF1 carried that role instead:

NIH's FY2025 by-the-numbers post (opens in a new tab) says shifts in award counts "were likely due in part to more awards being forward funded than previous years." At NINDS, the forward funding shows up in RF1 records, not R01 records.

What FY2026 Award Records Show

The Grantsights RePORTER pull counted 308 new NINDS R01 and R37 awards in FY2026, up from 249 in FY2025 and below 359 in FY2024. These are award records. RePORTER doesn't list applications, so this count can't be turned into a success rate.

Timing matters for anyone waiting on a score. In FY2026, the biggest award months were August (79 awards), September (57) and May (52). In FY2025, July led with 76, and 28 awards went out as early as December 2024. A margin score with no notice by June isn't a final no at NINDS.

The winners spread widely. One university in Michigan, the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, led FY2025 with 10 new NINDS R01 and R37 awards. In FY2026, Massachusetts General Hospital, the University of Pittsburgh and UT Southwestern each had 9. By state, Massachusetts (36) and California (32) led FY2026. Search past NINDS winners in your area on NIH RePORTER (opens in a new tab) before you pick a study section, and use the R01 winners and award history data for cross-institute context.

NINDS Fellowship and Career Award Odds

NINDS's F31 success rate rose to 27.3% in FY2025 even as its R01 rate fell. The fellowship and career rows below are from NIH Data Book tables 203 and 204:

These mechanisms also carry no NINDS administrative cut. The F32 drop is real but rests on small numbers, and the K01 rows are too small to plan around. To see where NINDS ranks for trainees, line these rows up against the F31 success rate by institute table and the K award success rates by institute.

What NINDS's Policy Page Doesn't Tell You

NINDS lists 8 factors in its FY2026 policy and weights none of them. Each official source answers part of the question:

Three gaps matter most. First, nobody outside NINDS knows how far beyond the old cutoff Select Pay now reaches. Second, the ESI parity goal publishes no target number, and the overall new R01 rate, ESIs included, was 8.6% in FY2025. Third, the half-payline rule for $500,000 parent R01s was replaced by the two-of-three test, which has no number at all.

The practical result: your percentile still tells you where you stand in your study section, but your program officer's read of mission fit and portfolio need now carries weight that a percentile can't show. An application can score well and still miss, and when that happens it can fail because program staff see too much overlap with work NINDS already funds.

Next Action Table for NINDS Applicants

NINDS's 8.6% new R01 rate in FY2025 means most fundable-looking applications missed. Find your row:

Planning an A1 at NINDS starts with the summary statement guide, then the resubmission guide; the NIH score explainer shows how a percentile is built. NCI still posts numbers, covered in the NCI payline guide, and NIDDK's approach is in the NIDDK payline guide. Neighboring institutes: NIA payline and NIMH payline. To find neuroscience funding beyond NINDS, including foundations, use Grantsights grant search.

Sources

• NINDS FY2026 funding policies and considerations (opens in a new tab)
• NINDS director's message, November 26, 2025: funding approach for 2026 (opens in a new tab)
• NINDS director's message, April 30, 2024: FY2024 budget and paylines (opens in a new tab)
• NOT-NS-24-079 (opens in a new tab)
• NIH funding decisions and the Unified Funding Strategy (opens in a new tab)
• NIH Data Book success-rate tables (opens in a new tab) (tables 203, 204, 206 and 217)
• NIH success rate definition (opens in a new tab)
• NIH, Fiscal Year 2025 By the Numbers (opens in a new tab)
• NOT-OD-26-059, fiscal policies for FY2026 (opens in a new tab)
• NIH RePORTER (opens in a new tab)

Related Guides

• NIH paylines explained
• NIH R01 grant success rate data
• NIH K99/R00 winners and award history
• NIH R21 grant guide
• NIH new investigator guide