Jeremy Berg--Director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences--just posted this scatterplot of impact score versus percentile for hundreds of R01s assigned to NIGMS at his blog:
Overall Impact Score is the average final score from 1-9 given to the grant application by all the members of the study section, x10, and rounded (up?) to the nearest whole number. The percentile is the percent of applications reviewed by that same study section over the current round and the previous two that had better impact scores than that, and rounded up to the nearest whole number.
For those of us fascinated by inside NIH grants baseball, this is some serious fucken catnip, as there is a fuckton of interesting stuff in there. One of the most fascinating to me is the differences it reveals in scoring behavior for different study sections.
For example, looking at "milestone" impact scores of 20 and 30 reveals dramatic differences in "score inflation" in different study sections. One study section only scored 3% of its grants better than 20, while another study sections scored 20% of its grants better than 20. And one study section only scored 10% of its grants better than 30, while another scored 38% of its grants better than 30.
What would be truly fucken fascinating would be to redraw this scatterplot, with the dots representing funded grants drawn in green (for money!) and the dots representing unfunded grants in brown (for poop!).