1 / 83

Disclosure I do not have any relationship(s) with commercial interests.

LSU School of Medicine-New Orleans (LSUSOM-NO) is the provider of Continuing Medical Education for this activity. The planning and presentation of all LSUSOM-NO activities ensure balance, independence, objectivity and scientific rigor.

david-riggs
Download Presentation

Disclosure I do not have any relationship(s) with commercial interests.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. LSU School of Medicine-New Orleans (LSUSOM-NO) is the provider of Continuing Medical Education for this activity. The planning and presentation of all LSUSOM-NO activities ensure balance, independence, objectivity and scientific rigor. The LSU School of Medicine-New Orleans designates this educational activity for a maximum of 1.5 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s) ™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  2. Disclosure Idonothave any relationship(s) with commercial interests. A commercial interest is any entity producing, marketing, re-selling, or distributing health care goods or services consumed by, or used on, patients. LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  3. The NIH Peer Review Process LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  4. Welcome • Presenter: • Nicole G. Hammill, MBA • Coordinator of Grants and Development • Office of Research Services • 433 Bolivar Street, Room 206E, New Orleans, LA 70112 • Nbarro@lsuhsc.edu • (504) 568-4970 tel • (504) 568-8808 fax • http: http://www.lsuhsc.edu/administration/academic/ors/grants_contracts_processing.aspx LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  5. Office of Research Services Director: Dr. Kenneth E. Kratz Staff: Nicole G. Hammill – Pre-award (Grants and Contracts) Rose Castay – IACUC and IBC Dyan Melson – IRB Lynn Arnold – IRB Amy Tassin – IRB Anissa McDougle – Conflicts of Interest Responsibilities: • Pre-award, sponsored project activity; this includes evaluation and routing for signatures all grant applications, research agreements, and clinical trial agreements. • Conflict of Interest Program based upon Chancellor’s Memorandum #35 “Individual and Institutional COI in Sponsored Projects”. • The AAHRPP “Fully Accredited” Human Research Protection Program and Institutional Review Board (IRB) which provides oversight for the protection of human subjects participating in research. • The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) which provides oversight for the welfare of animals used in research. • The Institutional Bio-safety Committee (IBC) which in collaboration with the Office of Environmental Health and Safety provides oversight of bio-safety issues and recombinant DNA research. LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  6. Helpful Administrative Information • Most of the numbers, dates, names, and titles commonly needed for the completion of grant applications can be found here: http://www.lsuhsc.edu/administration/academic/ors/docs/Helpful_Administrative_%20Information.pdf Updated frequently! LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  7. Two-Tiered Process • Mandated by law – PHS Health Act • Defined in federal regulation – 42 CFR 52h • Further defined in NIH policy • Per year: • Nearly 80,000 applications • Over 18,000 reviewers LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  8. Two-Tiered Process • First Tier: Initial peer review • Recommendations on scientific and technical merit • Scientific Review Groups (“SRGs” or “Study Sections”) • Second Tier: Advisory Council or Board • Recommendations to the Institutes/Centers (“ICs”) on funding, appeals, program priorities • “Council” • Final funding decisions – IC Director LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  9. Referral of Application • Application is received at the NIH Center for Scientific Review (“CSR”). • First Tier assignments include: • Scientific Review Group (SRG) • Study Section • Institute/Center (IC) • Scientific Review Officer • Second Tier assignments include: • Advisory Council or Board LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  10. Referral of Application, con’t. • Funding considerations include: • Specific ICs (each IC has its own budget, priorities, and paylines) • Dual assignment (to more than one IC) is possible • Input from Program Officer • Funding decisions • Ultimately made by the director of the IC LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  11. Referral to a Scientific Review Group CSR Review • Most R01s, fellowships, and small business applications • Some Program Announcements (PAs, PARs) • Some Requests for Applications (RFAs) IC Review • IC-specific features • Program projects • Training grants • Career development awards • RFAs The review locus is stated in the Funding Opportunity Announcement (“FOA”) LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  12. Sample Review Loci LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  13. Requesting Referral to a Specific SRG • Include in the application’s Cover letter: • Application title • FOA # and title • Request: • Assignment to particular SRG or study section • SRG rosters are posted 30 days before the SRG meeting: • http://era.nih.gov/roster/index.cfm • http://www.csr.nih.gov/committees/rosterindex.asp • Assignment to particular IC for funding consideration • Provide: • Disciplines involved, if multidisciplinary • Explanation for late application, if necessary Not all requests can be honored LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  14. The Scientific Review Officer (SRO) • First level of peer review • Designated Federal Official • Extramural scientist administrator • Identifies and recruits reviewers • Manages conflicts of interest • Oversees arrangements for review meetings • Presides at review committee meetings • Prepares and releases summary statements LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  15. Peer Reviewers • Recruiting Criteria include: • Expertise • Stature in field • Mature judgment • Impartiality • Ability to work well in a group • Managed conflicts of interest • NIH attempts to ensure: • Balanced representation • Gender • Geography • Diversity • Seniority • Availability LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  16. Types of Scientific Review Groups (SRGs) • “Chartered” SRGs • Multi-year terms • Formal appointment process • May include temporary members for special expertise • Special Emphasis Panels (SEPs) • Ad hoc membership • Often meet only once LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  17. Types of Reviewers • Regular reviewers – permanent and temporary • Preliminary impact/priority scores, criterion scores, written critiques • Final impact/priority scores • Other Contributing Reviewers (“mail” reviewers) • Written critiques, criterion scores, preliminary impact/priority scores • Cannot submit final impact/priority scores LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  18. Reviewer Assignments • For each application: • ≥ Three qualified reviewers are assigned (“2 + 1”) • Assignments are made by the SRO • Based on the scientific content of application • Expertise of the reviewer • Suggestions from the PI on types of expertise – • not names! • Suggestions from Program staff • Suggestions from SRG members • Managing conflicts of interest • Balancing workload • Assignments are confidential LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  19. Reviewer Conflicts of Interest (COI) • Potential COIs between a reviewer and an application: • Financial • Employment • Personal • Professional • SRG membership • Other interests Two COI vouchers are submitted by each SRG member. LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  20. Scientific Review Groups (SRGs) • Make recommendations on merit - not funding! • Scientific and technical merit • Budget and project duration • Protection of human subjects, inclusion plans, vertebrate animals, biohazards • Resource Sharing Plans • Other administrative factors • Provide: • Impact/priority scores • Criterion scores • Written critiques LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  21. Confidentiality • All confidential materials, discussions, documents are deleted, retrieved, or destroyed • Reviewers sent guidance with applications • Application information provided on secure websites or protected portable devices • All questions must be referred to SRO • SRG meetings are closed to the public • Program staff may observe SRG meeting Do not contact reviewers directly! LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  22. Application Scoring • Overall Impact: • Likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved • In consideration of: • At least five scored criteria • Receive individual, numerical scores • Additional criteria in certain announcements • Additional review criteria • As applicable for the project proposed • Do not receive individual, numerical scores • Additional criteria in certain announcements LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  23. Scored Review Criteria • Applications for: • Research Grants • Cooperative Agreements • Significance • Investigator(s) • Innovation • Approach • Environment • (FOA-specific criteria) • Other review criteria apply to other mechanisms • See “Review Criteria at a Glance” (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/reviewer_guidelines.htm) LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  24. Review Criterion: Significance • Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? • If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? • How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field? LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  25. Review Criterion: Investigator(s) • Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? • If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? • If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? • If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project? LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  26. Review Criterion: Innovation • Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? • Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? • Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed? LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  27. Review Criterion: Approach • Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? • Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? • If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  28. Review Criterion: Approach (con’t.) • If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed? LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  29. Review Criterion: Environment • Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? • Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? • Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements? LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  30. Additional Review Criteria • As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers: • Consider in determining scientific and technical merit • Do not give separate scores for these items • FOA-specific criteria • Protections for Human Subjects • Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children • Vertebrate Animals • Resubmission Applications • Renewal Applications • Revision Applications • Biohazards LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  31. Additional Review Considerations • As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers: • Address each item • Do not give scores for these items • Should not consider them in providing an overall impact/priority score • FOA-specific considerations • Select Agent Research • Applications from Foreign Organizations • Resource Sharing Plans • Budget and Period Support LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  32. NIH Scoring System • Numerical scores • 1.0 (exceptional) to 9.0 (poor) • Final impact/priority score - average of individual scores x 10 • Individual criterion scores • Ranked by percentile for certain mechanisms • Not Discussed (ND) – streamlining • Other designations (DF = Deferred, AB = Abstention, CF = Conflict, NP = Not Present) • Final impact/priority scores range from 10 through 90. LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  33. NIH Scoring System (con’t) • Preliminary scores (before the SRG meeting) • Entered by assigned reviewers and discussants in secure website • Made available to other SRG members • Final overall impact/priority scores (at the SRG meeting) • Voted by private ballot • All eligible SRG members vote • Reviewers are instructed to revise their criterion scores after the meeting. LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  34. Score Descriptors LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  35. Streamlining • Allows discussion of more meritorious applications • Less meritorious applications tabled at the SRG meeting, designated Not Discussed (ND) • Requires full concurrence of the entire SRG • Summary statement: • Reviewer critiques • Individual criterion scores • No numerical, overall impact/priority score LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  36. Streamlining (con’t) • Score order of review • SRG discusses most meritorious applications first • Entire SRG decides when to stop, which applications will not be discussed in panel • Other order of review (e.g., IC assignment, mechanism) • SRO prepares a list of average preliminary scores • Distributes to SRG • Entire SRG decides which applications to discuss LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  37. Pre-Meeting SRG Procedures • SRO • Performs administrative review of applications • Recruits reviewers, arranges for meeting date and site • Assigns 3 SRG members to each application • Makes applications available to reviewers • Internet Assisted Review (IAR) site or on CDs • Usually about six weeks before the SRG meeting • Instructs reviewers in review procedures • Monitors posting of initial scores and critiques in IAR • Documents for Reviewers are available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/reviewer_guidelines.htm#general_guidelines LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  38. Structured Critiques • New summary statement format • Bulleted comments from reviewers, less text • Criterion scores from assigned reviewers • Decreases variability • Increases quality of information in critiques • More succinct, better organized • Encourages evaluative statements • Ensures that reviewers address all review criteria and considerations • Reviewers also write a paragraph summarizing the factors that informed their overall impact score to supplement the bulleted critiques. • Critique templatesare availableat: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/reviewer_guidelines.htm#general_guidelines LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  39. Templates for Reviewers LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  40. Templates for Reviewers (con’t) LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  41. Templates for Reviewers (con’t) LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  42. Templates for Reviewers (con’t) LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  43. Templates for Reviewers (con’t) LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  44. Templates for Reviewers (con’t) LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  45. Templates for Reviewers (con’t) LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  46. Templates for Reviewers (con’t) LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  47. Templates for Reviewers (con’t) LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  48. Templates for Reviewers (con’t) LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  49. Templates for Reviewers (con’t) LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

  50. Templates for Reviewers (con’t) LSUHSC-NO ORS Training Series

More Related