1 / 22

Archived File

Archived File. The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated. See the OER Public Archive Home Page for more details about archived files.

yitro
Download Presentation

Archived File

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. Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated. See the OER Public Archive Home Page for more details about archived files.

  2. Should the NIH Grant Application be Shorter?Robert Finkelstein (NINDS) and Don Schneider (CSR)Co-Chairs, NIH Grant Application Committee

  3. The NIH Grant Application Committee • Created by the Extramural Activities Working Group (EAWG) • EAWG Co-Chairs: Story Landis (NINDS Director) and Norka Ruiz Bravo (Deputy Director for Extramural Research)

  4. Charge: to consider whether the length and format of the standard (R01) Research Plan section should be changed

  5. Members • Bob Finkelstein (NINDS) Co-Chair • Don Schneider (CSR) Co-Chair • Mary Custer (CSR) • Ann Hagan (NIGMS) • Craig Jordan (NIDCD) • Sherry Mills (OD) • Philip Smith (NIDDK) • Barbara Spalholz (NCI) • Elizabeth Wilder (NIDDK) • Alan Willard (NINDS)

  6. Background • Many applicants and reviewers believe that the R01 application focuses too much on methodological detail and too little on scientific significance and impact • NIH grant applications are comparatively long and time-consuming to prepare and to review • Increasingly difficult to recruit sufficient numbers of quality reviewers

  7. Committee Activities • Conducted preliminary discussions with extramural scientists - Result: majority supported shortening • Developed / released RFI to solicit feedback from broad extramural community • Prepared similar RFI for NIH Staff

  8. Committee Activities (continued) • CSR analyzed a subset of the results of the RFI • Committee members scanned all the responses and analyzed 500 randomly selected responses in detail • Committee evaluated results of external and internal RFIs and developed recommendations

  9. Models proposed in RFI • 5 pages – 1 for specific aims, 1 for background and significance, and 3 for approach • 10 pages – 1 for specific aims, 1 for background and significance, 3 for preliminary data/progress, 5 for research design and methods • 15 pages - 1 for specific aims, 2 for background and significance, 4 for preliminary data/progress, 8 for research design and methods • 25 pages - 1 for specific aims, 2-3 for background and significance, 6-8 for preliminary data/progress, 13-16 for research design and methods

  10. Application Page LimitPreferences

  11. Would a shorter application affect ability to present scientific ideas?

  12. Would a shorter application take less time to prepare?

  13. Would a shorter application affect ability to judge scientific merit?

  14. Would an equivalent number of shorter applications affect willingness to review?

  15. If application shortened, should review criteria be changed to emphasize ideas/impact?

  16. If application shortened, would any groups be disadvantaged?

  17. Do clinical research plans require more application space?

  18. Additional Comments • Shorter applications will be clearer and will emphasize critical points 93 • Will decrease burden for applicants and reviewers 57 • Shorter will lead to more applications 12 • Shorter will favor well-known applicants 11

  19. Committee Recommendations 1. The application should be shortened • Shorter applications will decrease burden on applicants and reviewers • Shorter applications encourage more focus on critical issues and less on methodological detail • Majority of committee members favored 15 page limit, minority wanted 10 pages or less

  20. Committee Recommendations 2. Instructions to applicants and reviewers should be modified • Emphasize impact, de-emphasize methodological detail 3. Sections of the application should be modified • Align more closely with the review criteria

  21. Additional Comments • Shorter applications may not solve the problem of reviewer recruitment. Most committee members (and many RFI respondents) opposed assigning an increased number of (shorter) applications to each reviewer • Changes to the application and to the peer review process should be made in a coordinated fashion!

  22. Acknowledgements • OER staff, particularly Tom Turley, RFI • Terri Kowalczyk and Don Luckett, CSR, analyses and graphics

More Related