The NIH Peer Review Process and Grant Writing - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

The NIH Peer Review Process and Grant Writing

Description:

The NIH Peer Review Process and Grant Writing Denise Wiesch, Ph.D. Scientific Review Administrator Epidemiology of Cancer SRG Health of the Population IRG – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:506
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 74
Provided by: wie90
Learn more at: http://www.ph.ucla.edu
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: The NIH Peer Review Process and Grant Writing


1
The NIH Peer Review Process and Grant Writing
  • Denise Wiesch, Ph.D.
  • Scientific Review Administrator
  • Epidemiology of Cancer SRG
  • Health of the Population IRG
  • Center for Scientific Review
  • NIH/DHHS

2
Outline
  • NIH Infrastructure
  • From Submission to Funding
  • Electronic submission
  • Grant Mechanisms
  • Reviewers
  • Study Section Meeting
  • Role of NIH Program vs. Review staff
  • NIH Advisory Councils
  • Grant Writing

3
NIHThe Big Picture
4
National Institutes of Health
  • Much of the biomedical research in the United
    States is supported by the Federal Government,
    primarily the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

5
National Institutes of Health
Office of the Director
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
National Institute of Arthritis
and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
National Cancer Institute
National Institute on Aging
National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive
and Kidney Diseases
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Rese
arch
National Institute on Drug Abuse
National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences
National Institute on Deafness and
Other Communication Disorders
National Eye Institute
National Human Genome Research Institute
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
National Institute of Mental Health
National Institute of Neurological Disorders
and Stroke
National Institute of General Medical Sciences
National Institute of Nursing Research
National Library of Medicine
National Center for Complementary and
Alternative Medicine
National Center on Minority Health and Health
Disparities
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and
Bioengineering
Fogarty International Center
National Center for Research Resources
Center for Information Technology
Center for Scientific Review
Clinical Center
6
NIH Extramural Awarding Components
  • National Cancer Institute (NCI)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and
    Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
  • National Library of Medicine (NLM)
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human
    Development (NICHD)
  • National Institute of Deafness and Other
    Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health
    Sciences (NIEHS)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and
    Stroke (NINDS)
  • National Institute on Aging (NIA)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
    Diseases (NIAID)
  • National Institute of Arthritis and
    Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)
  • National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial
    Research (NIDCR)
  • National Eye Institute (NEI)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences
    (NIGMS)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
  • National Institute for Nursing Research (NINR)
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
    Alcoholism (NIAAA)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
  • National Center for Complementary and Alternative
    Medicine (NCCAM)

7
A Typical Institute/Center
Office of the IC Director
National Advisory Council
Board of Scientific Counselors
Extramural
Intramural
Scientific Programs
Laboratory Studies
Clinical Studies
Grants
Contracts
8
FY 2005 NIH Funding (dollars in billions)
TOTAL BUDGET 28.8 Billion
16 NIH In-House 6,000 Scientists
Spending at NIH 4.7
84 Outside NIH - Supports over 212,000
Scientists Other Personnel - Supports over
3,000 Institutions Nationwide
Spending Outside NIH 24.1
9
NIH Funding in FY 2004 By MechanismTotal 27B
10
NIH Referral and Review Process

Program and Policy Considerations
NIGMS
NIA
NINDS
NIAAA
NIAID
NEI
Referral
NIDCR
NIAMS
CSR
NINR
NIMH
NHLBI
NIEHS
NCHGR
NIDCD
Funding Decisions
Review
NICHD
NLM
NIDDK
NCRR
Scientific
NCCAM
NIDA
FIC
Management
11
Receipt of Grant Applications at CSR
12
CSR ReferralApplications Are Assigned to
  • Scientific Review Groups based on
  • Specific referral guidelines for each scientific
    review group
  • NIH Institutes or Centers based on
  • Overall mission of the Institute or Center
  • Specific programmatic mandates and interests of
    the Institute or Center

13
Number of Applications Reviewed by NIH
14
Where are Applications Reviewed?
  • CSR
  • Research Projects
  • Academic Research Enhancement Awards
  • SBIR STTR
  • Shared Instrumentation
  • Career Awards
  • Small Grants
  • Fellowships
  • RFAs
  • Institutes/Centers
  • Contracts
  • Program Projects (most)
  • Institutional Training Grants
  • Conference Grants
  • Centers
  • Career Awards
  • Small Grants
  • Fellowships
  • RFAs

15
CSR Review Divisions
Division of Molecular and Cellular
Mechanisms Donald Schneider, Ph.D.
Division of Biologic Basis of Disease Elliot
Postow, Ph.D.
Division of Physiology and Pathology Michael
Martin, Ph.D.
Bioengineering Sciences and Technologies IRG
(BST) Sally Amero, Ph.D.
AIDS and Related Research IRG (AARR) Ranga V.
Srinivas, Ph.D.
Cardiovascular Sciences IRG (CVS) Joyce Gibson,
D.Sc.
Biology of Development and and Aging IRG
(BDA) Sherry Dupere, Ph.D.
Digestive Sciences IRG (DIG) Mushtaq Khan, Ph.D.
Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular
Biophysics IRG (BCMB) John Bowers, Ph.D.
Hematology IRG (HEME) Joyce Gibson, D.Sc.
Immunology IRG (IMM) Calbert Laing, Ph.D.
Integrative, Functional and Cognitive
Neuroscience IRG (IFCN) Christine Melchior, Ph.D.
Cell Biology IRG (CB) Marcia Steinberg, Ph.D.
Genes, Genomes and Genetics IRG (GGG) Richard
Panniers, Ph.D
Musculoskeletal, Oral, and Skin Sciences IRG
(MOSS) Daniel McDonald, Ph.D.
Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Neuroscienc
e IRG (MDCN) Carole Jelsema, Ph.D.
Renal and Urological Sciences IRG (RUS) Daniel
McDonald, Ph.D.
Respiratory Sciences IRG (RES) Mushtaq Khan, Ph.D.
16

Health of the Population (HOP) IRG
Community-Level Health Promotion
Community Influences on Health Behavior
Division of Clinical Population-Based Studies
Behavioral Genetics and Epidemiology
Social Sciences and Population Studies
Health Services Organization and Delivery
Biostatistical Methods and Research Development
Brain Disorders Clinical Neuroscience
Epidemiology of Cancer
Cardiovascular and Sleep Epidemiology
Health of the Population
Kidney, Nutrition, Obesity, Diabetes Epi
Risk, Prevention Health Behavior
Infectious Diseases, Reproductive Health, Asthma
and Pulmonary Epidemiology
Neurological, Aging and Musculoskeletal Epi
Surgical Sciences, Biomedical Imaging
Bioengineering
Nursing Science Children Families
Nursing Science Adults Older Adults
17
From Submission to Funding
18
From Submission to Funding THE PROCESS FOR A
RESEARCH GRANT
NIH
School or Other Research Center
  • Principal
  • Investigator

Center for Scientific Review

Assign to IRG and IC
Initiates Research Idea
Submits application
Review Group
Institute
Review for scientific merit
Evaluate for relevance
Advisory Council or Board
Recommend
Action
Allocates Funds
Institute Director
Conducts Research
19
Timeline for Submission to Potential Award
New RO1 Application
May 10
June 24-25
July 8
August 1
September
Dec. 1
March 15
Feb. 1
AssignmentNotification Sent to PI
Mail to Reviewers
Study Section Meeting
Review Notification Sent
Summary Statement Sent
Council Meets
Earliest Award Date
Send Appl. to CSR New
Revised/Competing Continuation/ Supplemental RO1
Application
May 10
June 24-25
July 8
August 1
September
Dec. 1
March 1
April 15
Send Appl. To CSR Revised or Continuation
Assignment Notification Sent to PI
Mail to Reviewers
Study Section Meeting
Review Notification Sent
Summary Statement Released
Council Meets
Earliest Award Date
20
Who / What Determines which Study Section Reviews
your Application?
  • Grant Mechanism
  • CSR Referral Staff determine broad scientific
    area
  • Scientists, most of whom also serve as
    Scientific Review
  • Administrators (SRAs) of CSR Study
    Sections.
  • Initial Review Group (IRG) Chiefs and SRAs
  • IRGs Clusters of scientifically related
    study sections
  • IRG Chiefs are also SRAs with own Study
    Section(s)
  • Past review history (if any) of application
  • Principal Investigator
  • Letter attached to application
    self-referral

21
Cover Letter
  • Request study section (optional)
  • Be familiar with the study sections and what they
    review
  • CSR website with study section descriptions and
    rosters (http//www.csr.nih.gov/)
  • Ask peers
  • Contact SRA
  • Do not recommend specific reviewers (expertise
    required is OK).
  • Request an NIH Institute (optional)

22
Assignment Notification
  • Study Section or Special Emphasis Panel
  • Scientific Review Administrator
  • Address, telephone number, etc.
  • Institute Assignment
  • Primary and any dual
  • General contact number
  • Unique Identifier (1 R01 CA123456-01 A1)
  • Request change if assignment is wrong
  • Contact SRA if assigned to the wrong study
    section
  • Contact Referral office if grant is wrong (is
    it really a new application or competing
    continuation). Is the NIH Institute assignment
    correct.
  • more efficient to include a request in cover
    letter at submission.

23
Sample Application Number
  • Individual
    Serial Amended
  • Research
    Number
  • Grant
  • 1 R01 CA 123456 01 A1
  • New National
    Grant
  • Application Cancer
    Support
  • Institute
    Year

24
Receipt DatesDepend on the Type of Application
  • Jan 10, May 10, Sept. 10
  • Institutional Training Grant Applications
  • Feb 25, June 25, Oct 25
  • Academic Research Enhancement awards
  • Feb 1, June 1, Oct 1
  • New Research Grant Applications
  • Mar 1, July 1, Nov 1
  • Revised, Competing Continuations, Supplemental
  • April 1, Aug 1, Dec 1
  • Small Business (sbir/sttr)
  • April 5, Aug 5, Dec 5
  • Fellowship applications
  • May 1, Sept 1, Jan 1
  • AIDS applications

25
Electronic Grant Submission!
  • Soon will be REQUIRED
  • Phased in dates by grant mechanism
  • Grant opportunities will be posted on Grants.gov
  • download and begin working on application
    package after grant mechanism transition -
    SF424(RR) form
  • Until a grant mechanism is transitioned - submit
    on paper PHS 398 forms.
  • As mechanisms are transitioned, Funding
    Opportunity Announcements (PAs, RFAs etc.) will
    be issued in the NIH Guide for Grants and
    Contracts (http//grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-f
    iles/) and posted in Grants.gov.

26
Electronic Submission Transition Dates
GRANT TYPE Submission DATE
Small Business (SBIR/STTR) R41, R42, R43, R44 Dec. 1 05
Conferences Scientific Meetings R13 Dec.15 05
Academic Research Enhancement Award (AREA) R15 Feb. 25 06
Small Grant Programs Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant Awards R03, R21 June 1 06
Research Project Grant Program R01 Oct. 1 06
Remaining grant mechanisms   May 2007
27
Where to go for Help
  • General information on Electronic Submission and
    the SF424 (RR)
  • http//era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt
  • Forms transition and questions on NIHs overall
    plan for electronic receipt
  • NIH GrantsInfo.gov
  • E-mail grantsinfo_at_nih.gov
  • Phone 301-435-0714
  • eRA Commons registration and post submission
    questions on Commons functionality
  • Support Page http//era.nih.gov/commons/index.cfm
  • Help Desk
  • E-mail commons_at_od.nih.gov
  • Phone 1-866-504-9552 OR 301-402-7469
  • Grants.gov registration and submission questions
  • Visit http//www.grants.gov/CustomerSupport
  • Grants.gov Customer Service
  • E-mail support_at_grants.gov
  • Phone 1-800-518-4726

28
Grant Mechanisms
29
Unsolicited vs. Solicited Applications
  • Unsolicited R01s Investigator initiated
  • Program Announcement (PA)
  • Funding announcement for grants relating to areas
    of increased priority and/or emphasis on
    particular funding mechanisms for a specific area
    of science. Applications are usually accepted on
    standard receipt dates on an on-going basis.
  • PAR
  • A PA for which special referral guidelines apply
    (usually special receipt date), as described in
    the PAR announcement.
  • PAS
  • A PA that includes specific set-aside funds, as
    described in the PAS announcement.
  • Request for Applications (RFA)
  • Funding announcement for grants that identifies a
    more narrowly defined area for which one or more
    NIH institutes have set aside funds for awarding
    grants. An RFA usually has a single receipt date,
    as specified in RFA announcement.
  • Request for Proposals (RFP)
  • Solicits contract proposals. An RFP usually has
    one receipt date, as specified in RFP
    solicitation.
  • Request for Applications (RFAs)
  • PARs (program announcements with special receipt
    dates)
  • Success Rates

30
R01
  • Can submit without PA etc.
  • Need preliminary/pilot data
  • Up to 5 years of funding
  • Need to obtain approval from program staff prior
    to submission of proposal costing 500,000 or
    more in direct costs in any one year

31
Mechanisms for Preliminary Studies
  • R21 - Exploratory/Developmental Grants
  • Feasibility/New Technology/ Innovative High Risk
  • Pilot studies
  • Preliminary data for a R01
  • 2 years with a maximum of 275K total
  • Need Program Announcement specific to appropriate
    funding Institute

32
Mechanisms for Preliminary Studies
  • R03 Small Grants
  • Feasibility (for those without preliminary data)
  • Development of pilot / preliminary data
  • 2 years with a maximum of 50,000 per year
  • Need Program Announcement specific to appropriate
    funding Institute

33
Other Grant Mechanisms
  • Grant mechanisms supported by different NIH
    Institutes
  • http//grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/n
    ot94-003.html
  • General information about different grant
    mechanisms
  • http//grants2.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/inst
    ructions2/p3_general_info_mechanisms.htm

34
for
GrantsNIH GUIDE and
ContractsU.S. Department of Health and Human
Services
  • Announces NIH Scientific Initiatives
  • Provides NIH Policy and Administrative
    Information
  • Available on the NIH Web Site http//grants1.nih.g
    ov/grants/guide/index.html
  • (can search for grant mechanism and specific
    NIH Institute using Advance Search)

35
Reviewers
36
Criteria for Selection of Peer Reviewers
37
Criteria for Selection of Peer Reviewers
  • Active and productive researchers
  • Demonstrated scientific expertise
  • Mature and impartial judgment
  • Work effectively in a group context
  • Breadth of perspective
  • Interest in serving
  • Adequate representation of women and minority
    scientists

38
Process for Nominating Chartered Study Section
Members
  • SRAs solicit names from ICs, societies, former
    and current members
  • Try out potential nominees as temporary members
  • Contact potential members to see if they are
    willing to serve if nomination is approved
  • SRA drafts nomination package
  • Submission to IRG Chief and Division Director
  • CSR CMO sends copies to ICs for concurrence
    (3-week hold)
  • CSR Directors approval
  • NIH Directors approval
  • New members start July 1 and typically serve a
    four-year term

39
Study Section Meeting
40
CSR Study Sections
  • Each CSR standing study section has 12-28 regular
    members who are primarily from academia
  • Ad Hoc members
  • CSR standing study sections convene face-to-face
    meetings
  • As many as 60-100 applications are reviewed by
    each study section

41
Pre-Meeting Activities
  • Reviewers receive applications and assignments
    4-6 weeks prior to meeting
  • Identify conflicts of interest
  • Generally assigned between 8-14 applications
  • Write critiques prior to the meeting
  • Post preliminary scores and critiques on secure
    meeting website
  • Read written critiques of other reviewers a few
    days before the meeting

42
What Happens at the Study Section Meeting
  • Closed Meeting
  • Orientation
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Confidentiality
  • Developments of interest to the study section
  • Changes in policy or procedure
  • Roles of the persons present
  • Chair and other Reviewers
  • Program Officers (Observers)
  • SRA
  • Streamlining
  • Application by Application review

43
Certification of No Conflict of Interest
  • This will certify that in the review of
    applications and proposals by (study section) on
    (date), I did not participate in the evaluation
    of any grant or fellowship applications from (1)
    any organization, institution or university
    system in which a financial interest exists to
    myself, spouse, parent,child, or collaborating
    investigators (2) any organization in which I
    serve as officer, director, trustee, employee or
    collaborating investigator or (3) any
    organization which I am negotiating or have any
    arrangements concerning prospective employment or
    other such associations.
  • __________________ __________________
  • __________________ __________________
  • __________________ __________________
  • __________________ __________________

SIGNATURES
44
Confidentiality
  • Review materials and proceedings of review
    meetings represent privileged information to be
    used only by reviewers and NIH staff.
  • At the conclusion of each meeting, reviewers will
    be asked to destroy or return all review-related
    material.
  • reviewers should not discuss review proceedings
    with anyone except the SRA.
  • Questions concerning review proceedings should be
    referred to the SRA.

K185pp.46
45
Streamlining
  • The process by which applications judged by the
    reviewers to be in the worse half are not
    discussed at the the study section meeting
    (identification of unscored)
  • Purpose is to allow more time for discussion of
    more meritorious applications
  • Shortens meeting time from 3 days to 1.5 days
  • Pre-meeting - identification of unscoreds
  • Meeting unanimous voting of unscoreds (any
    member can object to streamlining an application)
  • Unscored applications receive written critiques
  • Unscored vs. NRFC

46
Review of Each Application
  • Reviewers with conflicts leave room
  • Assigned reviewers state preliminary scores
  • Discussion of scientific and technical merit
  • Based on the 5 review criteria
  • Assigned reviewers first then open discussion to
    whole committee
  • Discussion of Protection of Human Subjects and
    Inclusion criteria
  • Assigned reviewers state final score range of
    scores is set
  • Every member scores each application
  • Budget and Administrative concerns
  • Ideal time for each application - 15 to 20
    minutes

47
Review Criteria
  • SIGNIFICANCE Does the study address an
    important problem? How will scientific knowledge
    be advanced by the proposed project?
  • APPROACH Are design and methods well-developed,
    appropriate, and feasible? Are problem areas
    addressed?
  • INNOVATION Are there novel concepts or
    approaches? Are the aims original and
    innovative?
  • INVESTIGATORS Is the investigator appropriately
    trained? Is the investigative team strong in
    necessary areas?
  • ENVIRONMENT Does the scientific environment
    contribute to the probability of success? Are
    there unique features of the scientific
    environment?

48
Inside the NIH Grant Review Process Video
  • CSR has developed a video of a mock study section
    meeting to show how NIH grant applications are
    reviewed.

http//www.csr.nih.gov/video/video.asp
49
Post Meeting Results of Review
  • Unscored (approximately bottom half)
  • Score (generally between 100 and 300)
  • Percentile ranking (if scored)
  • Deferral (rare)
  • NRFC - Not Recommended for Further Consideration
    (very rare serious concerns)
  • Notification of Principal Investigator
  • NIH Commons
  • Summary Statement
  • NIH Commons

50
Summary Statement
  • Study Section Recommendation Score, Unscored
  • Resume and Summary of Discussion (if scored)
  • Description (Abstract)
  • Essentially unedited comments of reviewers
  • Organized by review criteria
  • Administrative notes
  • Budget Recommendations
  • Coding for human subjects, animals, gender,
    minorities, children
  • Institute/Center contact information Program
    Director

51
Role of Program vs. Review Staff
52
Separation of Funding and Review
  • Program Staff
  • Identify and promote research priorities
  • Recommend projects for funding (based on score,
    budget, priorities)
  • Manage portfolio of projects
  • Work with applicants up to review and after review
  • Review Staff
  • Manage study section meetings to evaluate
    scientific and technical merit
  • Provide a fair, thorough and competent review for
    each application
  • Work with applicants before review

53
Review Process for a Research Grant
Study Section Meeting
Not Funded
N I H
Application
Grant
Program
Referral
Review
Principal Investigator
54
Review Staff Scientific Review Administrators
(SRA)
  • Designated federal official responsible for
    ensuring that the grant applications are reviewed
    in an impartial environment.
  • Responsible for overseeing the scientific peer
    review of applications
  • Managing study section meetings
  • Prepare summary statements
  • Communicate with program staff on review issues
  • Discuss review issues and policies with applicants

55
Program Officers (PO)
  • Interface between NIH funding Institute and the
    extramural research community
  • Serve as a resource and advocate
  • Monitor research progress via annual reports
  • Discuss other research opportunities (e.g.
    competing supplements, minority supplements)

56
PO Assistance Pre-Application
  • Point of contact for investigators
  • Assist with identifying appropriate mechanism of
    support
  • Clarify policy requirements
  • Discuss budget plans

57
PO Assistance - After the Review Meeting
  • Review summary statement with PI
  • Obtain additional information regarding
  • gender / minorities / children
  • human subjects
  • budget
  • Explore funding opportunities with other
    Institutes / Centers
  • Work with grants management to make award

58
Role of Program vs. Review
  • Program Officers
  • Contact for scores and other funding issues after
    SS meeting
  • Advocate
  • at Council meetings - Funding for borderline
    applications in some ICs
  • Observe study section meetings
  • Help with revised application
  • Contact after grant is funded
  • Progress reports
  • Oversight of funded grants
  • Review SRAs
  • Contact for review issues before SS meeting
  • (e.g. study section assignment, supplemental
    review material)
  • Unbiased treatment for all PIs
  • Assure a fair, thorough, competent review of all
    applications
  • Supplemental data for applications

59
NIH InstituteAdvisory Councils
60
Dual Review System for Grant Applications
  • First Level of Review
  • Scientific Review Group (SRG)
  • Provides Initial Scientific Merit Review of Grant
    Applications
  • Scores Applications and Makes
    Recommendations for Appropriate Level of Budget
    Support and Duration of Award
  • Second Level of Review
  • Council
  • Assesses Quality of SRG
  • Review of Grant Applications
  • Makes Recommendation to
  • Institute Staff on Funding
  • Evaluates Program Priorities
  • and Relevance
  • Advises on Policy

61
Council Actions
  • Concurrence with study section action
  • Modification of study section action
  • Deferral for re-review

62
STUDY SECTIONS DO NOT FUND
INSTITUTES FUND!
  • Study sections judge applications scientific and
    technical merit
  • Institutes take these evaluations very seriously
  • Institutes also consider relevance of application
    to the Institutes research priorities

63
What Determines Which Awards Are Made?
  • Scientific merit (score)
  • Program considerations
  • Availability of funds

64
Grant Writing
65
When Preparing an Application
  • Read PHS398 instructions
  • Consider the review criteria
  • Consider your primary audience - Reviewers
  • Never assume that reviewers will know what you
    mean
  • Refer to literature thoroughly and update when
    submitting revised application
  • Clearly state rationale of proposed investigation
  • Include well-designed tables and figures
  • Present an organized, lucid write-up
  • Obtain pre-review from other faculty at your
    institution

66
Common Problems in Applications
  • Lack of new or original ideas
  • Absence of an acceptable scientific rationale
  • Lack of experience in the essential methodology
  • Questionable reasoning in experimental approach
  • Uncritical approach
  • Diffuse, superficial, or unfocused research plan
  • Lack of sufficient experimental detail
  • Lack of knowledge of published relevant work
  • Unrealistically large amount of work

67
Additional Considerations
  • Research involving human subjects
  • Protection from risks
  • Inclusion of women, minorities, children
  • Animal Welfare
  • Biohazards
  • Data Sharing Plans
  • Appropriateness of Budget

68
Revised Applications
  • 2 amendment limitation (no time limit any more)
  • Must have received summary statement
  • Cycle designed to submit every other round
  • (this may change- see NIH Guide notice on pilot
    study to shorten cycle for New PIs
    http//grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NO
    T-OD-06-013.html )
  • Be calm and respectful of reviewers
  • Be responsive to reviewers specific critiques
  • Need to include Introduction and clearly mark
    text to show changes
  • Next review usually the same study section.
  • Continuity of review is goal.
  • Dont give up!

69
Other Grant Writing Tips
  • Follow format rules (dont squeeze, dont cheat!)
  • At least 11 pt font smallest allowed
  • No more than 15 characters per inch and 6 lines
    per inch
  • At least ½ margins
  • Take time
  • avoid sloppy errors
  • Give to colleagues for feedback
  • Write clearly for whole review committee (they
    are your main audience as well as judge and jury)
  • Well-written applications are noticed and
    appreciated
  • You are not anonymous dont embarrass yourself
    with a sloppy application.

70
Pilot Study to Shorten the Review Cycle for New
Investigator R01 Applications
  • To qualify for this expedited resubmission all of
    the following conditions must all be met
  • The PI must meet the NIH definition of a new
    investigator (see webiste below).
  • A new or first resubmission of an R01 application
    must be submitted for the February 1 or March 1,
    2006 date.
  • The application must be reviewed in one of the
    participating Study Sections listed in the Notice
    at website below.
  • The Summary Statement must have the special note
    indicating eligibility to participate in the
    pilot.
  • The Principal Investigator must determine that it
    is reasonable to prepare a resubmission
    application in a short time.
  • The Principal Investigator must agree that the
    resubmitted application be assigned to the same
    Study Section no change in review venue is
    permitted for the resubmission.
  • The July 20, 2006 receipt date must be met late
    applications will not be considered.
  • http//grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NO
    T-OD-06-013.html

71
Volunteer To Review!
  • Junior Investigators
  • Ad hoc reviewer
  • Learn process dos and donts
  • Senior Investigators
  • Contribution is vital to peer review process
  • Consider the debt to the scientific community
  • Be constructive instead of complaining
  • You are the Peer in Peer Review!

72
The NIH Commons
  • https//commons.era.nih.gov/commons/
  • Register in the Commons
  • Individual Profile
  • Obtain priority score, summary statement, notice
    of grant award
  • Reviewer can post critiques

73
Websites
  • WWW.NIH.GOV
  • NIH homepage directories information
  • gateway to parts of NIH
  • WWW.NIH.GOV/ICD
  • Information about Institutes
  • WWW.CSR.NIH.GOV/REFREV.HTM
  • Application forms, rosters, policies
  • www.csr.nih.gov/review/irgdesc.asphop
  • Information about HOP IRG
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com