1 / 14

NIH Submission Cycle

NIH Submission Cycle. Choosing a Study Section. Ask Program Officer for advice Review rosters: http://www.csr.nih.gov/Committees/rosterindex.asp Review paylines : http://writedit.wordpress.com/nih-paylines-resources/ Include cover letter Check Commons to determine review group.

wesson
Download Presentation

NIH Submission Cycle

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. NIH Submission Cycle

  2. Choosing a Study Section • Ask Program Officer for advice • Review rosters: • http://www.csr.nih.gov/Committees/rosterindex.asp • Review paylines: • http://writedit.wordpress.com/nih-paylines-resources/ • Include cover letter • Check Commons to determine review group

  3. Scientific Review Group • Prior to meeting • Each application assigned two or more reviewers • Post preliminary scores (1.0 to 9.0) for each of the review criteria and overall impact score • At meeting • Applications discussed in order of preliminary scores • Primary reviewer presents application • Other assigned reviewers offer comments • Discussion among entire group • Each member assigns impact score

  4. Scoring rubric

  5. http://public.csr.nih.gov/aboutcsr/contactcsr/pages/contactorvisitcsrpages/nih-grant-review-process-youtube-videos.aspxhttp://public.csr.nih.gov/aboutcsr/contactcsr/pages/contactorvisitcsrpages/nih-grant-review-process-youtube-videos.aspx

  6. Summary Statement • Scientific Review Officer prepares • Impact score: How likely this project will “exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field involved.” • Not average of scores for five criteria • Calculate mean of all eligible members’ impact scores and multiply by 10: range from 10-90 • Percentile=match application’s overall impact/priority score against all applications assigned to study section during last three review cycles.

  7. Responding Revise and resubmit if Do not resubmit if No enthusiasm for the whole project. If don’t think it’s significant or innovative. You or your team is not qualified. PI has no track record in an area, decent publications. • Ask someone unbiased to interpret summary statement. • Wait a week. • If you get a score. • What things were bothering reviewers? • Review SRO’s summary for overall temperature. • Can add the right team member.

  8. An R01 NOT Resubmitted (no impact score) • Although the investigators may be able to demonstrate a change in the adduction moment at the knee with the use of the novel foot wear, they will not explain how that foot wear accomplishes it. Little or no theoretical explanation was offered for the use of the foot wear nor is there an attempt to explain how it might work. As such, the significance of the study is severely reduced. • The use of “sham” footwear is valuable, but additional control conditions should be included to better indicate the possible effects of footwear on knee OA, moments, etc. The investigators should seriously consider including some type of “standard” footwear and barefoot conditions.

  9. A K23 resubmitted successfullyImpact score: 20 However, the Review Committee identified some weaknesses that reduced their enthusiasm. While the research area is important, there are some issues related to the research design. For example, there is a concern that the research proposal is based on a large VA database which has complete focus on men when glucocorticoids are major drugs used by women with rheumatic diseases. In addition, there are some concerns about the proposal presentation and discussion. Furthermore, the reviewers note that a closer mentors’ involvement in the candidate’s application preparation will be helpful. Overall, the Review Committee is positive about the candidate’s commitment, mentors’ expertise, career development plan and institutional environment and support.

  10. Response to Reviewers We have done additional work to verify the number of expected women and men in this study. In VA fiscal year 2005, we identified 225,841 patients who received a GC prescription at least once. 14,914 were women. This estimate is for a single year whereas our study will encompass eight years. Though women are certainly less prevalent than men, this is an older and relatively high risk population; therefore, the rate of CV diseases in both sexes is expected to be high. Thus, there should be enough women to be able to perform sex-specific analyses.

  11. Research Project Grants Competing applications, awards, and success rates

  12. 2011 N.I.H. Funding Success Rates by Submission No. of Type 1 Grants* *Type I grants are new grants, as opposed to renewals

  13. NIH Submission Schedule • Cycle 1: Feb • Reviewed June/July • Council in Sept/Oct • Start December • Cycle 2: June • Reviewed Oct/Nov • Council in Jan/Feb • Start April • Cycle 3: October • Reviewed March/April • Council in May/June • Start July

More Related