Responding to the Top 10 Most Common Reviewer Critiques on Rejected NIH & NSF SBIRs

Rejection hurts, but it's also one of the most valuable parts of the SBIR journey. When NIH or NSF reviewers return your proposal with a long list of "strengths and weaknesses," it's not the end. It's your blueprint for how to turn a good submission into a winning one.

At Scout, we've analyzed hundreds of reviewer comments and resubmissions. Across agencies, industries, and technologies, the same 10 critiques show up again and again and nearly all can be fixed with clearer storytelling, better strategy, and stronger alignment between R&D and commercialization.

Here's what reviewers commonly flag and how to address each in your next submission.

🧠 Top 10 Most Common Reviewer Critiques (and How to Fix Them)

#	Reviewer Critique	What It Means	How to Address It in Resubmission
1	Market need is not large enough	Reviewers doubt there's enough demand for your innovation.	Clearly define your target market, quantify affected populations, and include TAM/SAM/SOM metrics. Use data to show commercial potential.
2	Design specs of the innovation are unclear	Reviewers don't understand what your product actually does.	Rewrite the innovation section with a clear, one-sentence summary, list of unique features, visuals, and a strong value proposition.
3	Roles and responsibilities are unclear	It's not clear who's doing the work or if your team can deliver.	Define key personnel's roles in biosketches, describe contributions in the narrative, and include letters of collaboration from third parties.
4	Regulatory pathway not discussed	For health-related innovations, reviewers want to see FDA readiness.	Summarize your regulatory pathway in both the summary and narrative; for Phase II, include detailed plans and a regulatory expert.
5	Gender breakdown missing in animal or human studies	Reviewers need assurance your study reflects real-world populations.	Specify male/female ratios, justify the mix, and update Human Subjects documentation accordingly.
6	No clear intellectual property (IP) strategy	Reviewers need to see how your innovation will stay protected.	Mention current and planned patents, trade secrets, or trademarks. Identify your IP counsel and describe long-term portfolio strategy.
7	Commercialization plan is unclear	Reviewers can't see how your R&D leads to revenue or impact.	Present one focused commercialization pathway tied to your Phase I/II goals. Avoid multiple "maybe" scenarios.
8	No quantitative metrics for success	Reviewers can't tell how you'll measure progress.	Define clear, data-driven success metrics (e.g., 25% efficiency gain, 2x delivery speed) for each experiment.
9	Technology isn't innovative	Reviewers don't see what's new or different.	Explain the competitive landscape, emphasize your unique value proposition, and directly state "This technology is innovative because…"
10	Proposed timeline is overly ambitious	The work plan looks unrealistic within SBIR timeframes.	Simplify: focus on 2–3 critical experiments, extend duration if possible, and realign budget and milestones accordingly.

**#**: **1**

**Reviewer Critique**: Market need is not large enough

**What It Means**: Reviewers doubt there's enough demand for your innovation.

**How to Address It in Resubmission**: Clearly define your target market, quantify affected populations, and include TAM/SAM/SOM metrics. Use data to show commercial potential.

**#**: **2**

**Reviewer Critique**: Design specs of the innovation are unclear

**What It Means**: Reviewers don't understand what your product actually does.

**How to Address It in Resubmission**: Rewrite the innovation section with a clear, one-sentence summary, list of unique features, visuals, and a strong value proposition.

**#**: **3**

**Reviewer Critique**: Roles and responsibilities are unclear

**What It Means**: It's not clear who's doing the work or if your team can deliver.

**How to Address It in Resubmission**: Define key personnel's roles in biosketches, describe contributions in the narrative, and include letters of collaboration from third parties.

**#**: **4**

**Reviewer Critique**: Regulatory pathway not discussed

**What It Means**: For health-related innovations, reviewers want to see FDA readiness.

**How to Address It in Resubmission**: Summarize your regulatory pathway in both the summary and narrative; for Phase II, include detailed plans and a regulatory expert.

**#**: **5**

**Reviewer Critique**: Gender breakdown missing in animal or human studies

**What It Means**: Reviewers need assurance your study reflects real-world populations.

**How to Address It in Resubmission**: Specify male/female ratios, justify the mix, and update Human Subjects documentation accordingly.

**#**: **6**

**Reviewer Critique**: No clear intellectual property (IP) strategy

**What It Means**: Reviewers need to see how your innovation will stay protected.

**How to Address It in Resubmission**: Mention current and planned patents, trade secrets, or trademarks. Identify your IP counsel and describe long-term portfolio strategy.

**#**: **7**

**Reviewer Critique**: Commercialization plan is unclear

**What It Means**: Reviewers can't see how your R&D leads to revenue or impact.

**How to Address It in Resubmission**: Present one focused commercialization pathway tied to your Phase I/II goals. Avoid multiple "maybe" scenarios.

**#**: **8**

**Reviewer Critique**: No quantitative metrics for success

**What It Means**: Reviewers can't tell how you'll measure progress.

**How to Address It in Resubmission**: Define clear, data-driven success metrics (e.g., 25% efficiency gain, 2x delivery speed) for each experiment.

**#**: **9**

**Reviewer Critique**: Technology isn't innovative

**What It Means**: Reviewers don't see what's new or different.

**How to Address It in Resubmission**: Explain the competitive landscape, emphasize your unique value proposition, and directly state "This technology is innovative because…"

**#**: **10**

**Reviewer Critique**: Proposed timeline is overly ambitious

**What It Means**: The work plan looks unrealistic within SBIR timeframes.

**How to Address It in Resubmission**: Simplify: focus on 2–3 critical experiments, extend duration if possible, and realign budget and milestones accordingly.

How to Use Reviewer Feedback Strategically

If your proposal wasn't funded, it doesn't mean your idea isn't strong. It just means it wasn't communicated clearly enough. NIH and NSF reviewers evaluate risk, feasibility, and commercial alignment. Each critique you receive is a signal for where your story fell short.

Here's how to turn reviewer comments into progress:

Prioritize fixes by impact. Market, technical clarity, and team credibility matter most.
Update your 1-page summary to highlight how each critique was addressed.
Rewrite key sections (don't just patch sentences). Reviewers will notice genuine improvement.
Back every claim with data. Measurable impact wins confidence.

💡 The Bottom Line

Every "no" gets you closer to a "yes."

The best SBIR founders treat reviewer critiques as free consulting from federal R&D experts. Whether you're resubmitting to NIH or NSF, focus on clarity, credibility, and commercial logic.

A strong resubmission shows not just that your idea is fundable, but that you as a founder are coachable and capable of turning feedback into innovation that lasts.

🧠 Top 10 Most Common Reviewer Critiques (and How to Fix Them)

How to Use Reviewer Feedback Strategically

💡 The Bottom Line

Get opportunities Sent to your Inbox