In December, NIH announced the finalized rollout of changes to the biosketch for both grant applications and progress reports. As described in NIH Notice NOT-OD-26-018, the Common Form and SciENcv will be required for preparing biosketches for applications due on or after January 25, 2026. These changes affect how biosketches are prepared, structured, and submitted, which carries important practical implications for investigators and applicant organizations.

The goal of switching to the Common Form is to have a standard across federal agencies. The switch to SciENcv in place of Word templates enables individuals to build that standard form in one place. This platform is conveyed as a way to improve efficiency in building biosketches for different applications/agencies. Importantly, the new SciENcv form includes a certification step that requires users to attest to the information in the biosketch. The certification embeds digital identifiers in the PDF download, which is treated like a signature, and so the new form is not editable after download. 

What’s most important to know at this point is that the requirement goes into effect quite soon. The required common form is not just for Biographical Sketches accompanying applications but also for Current and Pending (Other) Support and for Just-in-Time (JIT), progress report (RPPR), and Prior Approval submissions on or after January 25, 2026 (unless new guidance appears). Applications submitted using the incorrect biosketch forms will trigger a warning message. Please note that while you may be able to submit, “failure to utilize the correct forms according to the timeframes specified … will cause NIH to withdraw your application from consideration.” Beginning February 6, incorrect forms will trigger an error message that prevents submission. 

If you have an application submission (or RPPR/JIT) approaching for late January to mid-February 2026, ensure that all senior/key personnel begin working on their SciENcv forms as soon as possible. As we’ll discuss later, there have been numerous technical issues, but for now, the timeline still stands. It may be best not to put off developing yours, as it may take longer than you expect. 

If you’re not already banging your head off of your desk, let me give you a little bit of good news: There’s no longer a page limit! In practice, however, this doesn’t matter a whole lot because there are some section limits now. Below, we summarize key differences and offer recommendations for how to approach the new format. NIH’s NOT-OD-26-018 also provides a helpful comparison table.

The Common Form

The Common Form is a standard across federal agencies; some agencies implemented it earlier than NIH. Beyond basic identifying details, the Common Form captures 3 main content areas:

Professional Preparation

Formerly called Education and Training, the content is similar, but the table has been renamed to align with the Common Form. 

Products

Personnel may include:

• Up to 5 citations or work products most closely related to the proposed project, and
• Up to 5 additional products or other significant contributions

This represents a substantial reduction in the total number of citations allowed in the biosketch, since there is no other space to share work products. Additionally, SciENcv no longer includes a checkbox to “insert my MyBiblography link,” which was previously incorporated in the workflow. (Note: the Biosketch FAQ page contains an answer indicating that a MyBibliography link is allowed but not required; while the question refers to the “new biosketch format,” the response does not refer to SciENcv and therefore may be outdated.) 

Our recommendation: Carefully curate your selected citations. Start with products that best demonstrate your ability to serve in the proposed role. If you’re trying to select Other Significant Contributions from among citations included in Section C in the old format, you could go with a representative publication in each narrative area, since you may retain similar narratives in the NIH Supplement. Alternatively, you could prioritize products that most directly support the proposed work.

Appointments and Positions

Personnel must identify all appointments and positions held within the three years preceding the application. NIH does not explicitly instruct applicants to exclude older positions, so we currently interpret this to mean that positions older than three years may still be included if relevant.

The NIH Supplement

The NIH Supplement is specific to NIH and integrates with the Common Form to produce a single, full, certified PDF. The NIH Supplement captures narrative elements familiar from the old format, but with some important constraints.

Personal Statement

• Narrative format remains
• Limited to 3,500 characters
• Citations are not permitted
• Personnel may refer to items listed in the Products section of the Common Form

Notably, the instructions indicate that SciENcv does not support special formatting (e.g., italics or bold, special characters), but that users may use ALL CAPS and/or line breaks. Do note that line breaks count toward the character limit (as do spaces). Hyperlinks are not supported. 

Our recommendation: As before, use this section to emphasize your suitability for the proposed role. Contextualize work products listed on the Common Form, note co-authors you’ll collaborate with on the award, and highlight prior funding or other experiences that demonstrate your ability to advance the proposed work.

Honors

• Up to 15 honors may be listed (no character limit)

Our recommendation: If you have many possible honors to choose from, consider narrowing by time period (e.g., the preceding 5 years), or choose those that you think best capture your scientific or leadership recognitions.

Contributions to Science

• Up to 5 brief narratives
• Each is limited to 2,000 characters
• Citations are not allowed in these sections, but narratives may refer to Products on the Common Form
• Formatting limitations are the same as for the Personal Statement

Our recommendation: The narratives can remain similar to the old Section C Contributions, but will need to call back to relevant products on the Common Form. Because this section does not directly encompass the work products, it may also be an opportunity to use different framing. For example, if you’ve curated your 10 citations around one or two key themes most relevant to the proposal, then you may have one or more contribution narratives that don’t call out any specific work products. 

Some investigators asked us if they can cite author/journal/date or PMIDs for other publications not included among the 10 allowed work products. We contacted the NIH biosketch help desk to ask whether referring to PMIDs or My Bibliography entries in the Supplement narratives is permitted, or whether this would be considered an attempt to circumvent the number of allowed citations. NIH’s response on Jan. 21, 2026 indicates that citing other publications not included in the 10 allowed work products is not allowed.

Here’s an excerpt from their reply:

“You could have 5 narratives [for Contributions], each with short form reference to one of the 5 products, or 1 narrative with short form reference to all 5 products, Or somewhere in between. But the short form references contained in the longer narratives can only be from those 5 ‘Other Significant’ products, and you cannot include references or citations from any other products (e.g. products not in the Common Form or products from the 5 Products “Most Closely Related” to the proposed project).”

Using SciENcv

NIH’s notice and associated biosketch instruction pages provide a helpful overview of how to use SciENcv. We’ve also prepared a brief video explainer to help investigators get oriented. 

That said, there have been some technical issues with the SciENcv platform. Issues we’ve encountered or heard from others include:

• difficulty logging in;
• problems connecting an ORCID iD;
• information not saving or not appearing in drafts;
• discrepancies between preview drafts and certified PDFs.

Our recommendation: Please allow extra time, and encourage colleagues to do the same. As of January 14, 2026, the January 25th implementation date still stands. If you encounter technical problems, consider submitting a help desk ticket so that there is documentation in case your application later receives an error message. We don’t recommend attempting to create or edit your own template outside of SciENcv; such files will not be certified with the required digital identifiers.

What We’re Watching

These biosketch changes represent a meaningful shift in how investigator information is collected and reviewed. While much of the content is familiar, the mechanics differ. This may influence how reviewers use the biosketch to infer team readiness and expertise. We’ll keep in touch with the community to understand how reviewers are approaching these changes.

We’re also watching how other funders (e.g., foundations) that have historically required using the NIH Biosketch format respond to these changes and whether they adopt the new format and its development through SciENcv. 

We’ll continue to monitor NIH communications and share updates as they become available. NIH posts policy updates here, so do check occasionally for any notices.