Archive for Grantsmanship
May 20, 2009 at 8:22 am
· Filed under Grantsmanship, NIH Advice, Research News
I had a conversation some time ago with my Division Chief here at BICO explaining why he could not budget (DC) for someone to handle the ARRA reporting and administrative requirements (special admin costs may become direct when the science itself requires them, such as for large survey research – not when the terms of award do). More recently, the NIH has come out with a clear statement for all those other PIs trying to sneak some ARRA reporting support into their grant personnel costs:
Can ARRA grant budgets include direct costs to address ARRA administrative and reporting requirements?
No. It has been determined that ARRA requirements do not provide sufficient justification to support the provision of direct costs for administrative support in addition to the Facilities and Administrative (F&A) costs in the awarded budget.
NIH staff will continue to evaluate direct costs requested for administrate support using the guidance provided in OMB Circular A-21 F.6.b.(2). However, ARRA requirements will not be considered in this determination, because they are incorporated within the core administrative support for the project, which is reimbursed to the institution through the provision of F&A costs.
When direct costs have been requested to address ARRA administrative and reporting requirements in requested budgets, NIH staff will make appropriate adjustments. Revised budgets submitted solely to remove administrative costs will not be accepted.
Permalink
April 14, 2009 at 12:24 pm
· Filed under Grantsmanship, NIH Advice, Research News
Update: CSR has confirmed in the May Peer Review Notes that they will use the 2-phase editorial board approach for the RC1s, as noted in the comment below.
NIH has posted a tentative timeline for the Challenge Grant review process, which will likely follow the Transformative path of a two-stage editorial board review (so assume Stage 1 reviews completed in June, probably via IAR, with editorial boards discussing applications in July):
NIH is using an innovative peer review format—editorial board reviews—to help identify research that has the potential to transform biomedicine. Two groups of reviewers play key roles: specialized experts assess the applications for scientific merit and submit written critiques; experienced reviewers with a broad understanding of the science further critique the applications. This second group functions as the editorial board and meets face-to-face or electronically to discuss the initial assessments and score the applications by focusing on their overall significance and impact.
CSR is using this type of review to assess new Transformative R01 applications in an effort to support extraordinarily innovative, high-risk, original or unconventional research projects that hold promise to revolutionize a broad area of biomedical or behavioral research: http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/T-R01/. Editorial board reviewers will conduct an initial review and select a reasonable number for further review.
CSR initiated an evaluation of the quality and effectiveness of editorial board reviews in spring 2008. The pilot involved a range of SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) and Bioengineering Research Partnership applications. Preliminary data show that editorial board reviews may improve the quality of reviews for complex, multidisciplinary applications.
A majority of reviewers, some 64%, said they would choose this type of review for their own applications; of the experts who submitted written critiques considered by the editorial boards, about 38% said they would prefer these reviews for their own applications.
No matter what, you’ll receive back critiques and criteria scores (and an impact score if your application is “discussed”), which will be useful for converting RC1s into R21s or R01s as appropriate … or not if the comments and scores suggest you not pursue this line of work.
Permalink
April 2, 2009 at 9:26 pm
· Filed under Grantsmanship, NIH Advice, Research News
JIT for their implementation of the new review and scoring procedures, the NIH has posted guidelines for study section reviewers and chairs as well as guidelines and critique templates for various grant mechanisms.
You can also view two training videos (PPTs available as well) at Enhancing Peer Review, which has been expanded considerably:
Indeed, the Training & Communications Resources page has quite a number of valuable, well, you know, resources.
Have I looked at any of this yet? Hell no. Way too overstimulated. But I will most certainly mosey over soon and though yinz might want to sooner.
Permalink
January 12, 2009 at 10:24 pm
· Filed under Grantsmanship, NIH Advice
The January 2009 edition of Peer Review Notes is hot off the PDF press, though disappointedly lacking in substance considering how many substantive questions we all have about the upcoming spring round of study sections, which will inaugurate, so to speak, the new scoring and review/summary statement procedures. As Jon Stewart might say, “Ewwwwh, the new scoring system is based on a 9-point rating scale using only integers.”
Permalink
December 16, 2008 at 2:59 pm
· Filed under Funding Opportunities, Grantsmanship
Blagojevich tactics aside, the brains at Stanford brainstormed about how to generate research funding for the School of Medicine in an era of declining federal support. I have to say, I’m a little underwhelmed, but these summary suggestions in the 5 categories discussed may be of interest to some folks:
Increasing diversification of funding sources
Improve department-based faculty access to philanthropy
Team-up with School of Engineering programs: better coordination with all Stanford schools
Better response to RFAs
Sustaining existing programs
Create collaboration incentives
Improve clinical trials approval process and infrastructure
More investments to promote clinical and populations-based research
Enhancing faculty and institutional competitiveness
Enhance competitiveness of MCL for research (recruitment, time, resources)
Loosen restrictions on PI status
Pre-submission peer review of proposals
Creating incentives for collaborative or interdisciplinary research
Incentives for brainstorming at early stages
Improve access to consultation resources (biostatistics, etc.)
Improve focus of institutes
Using research funding and space more efficiently and cost effectively
Identify options to outsource core services
Rethink hotel space
Off-site storage space (freezers, biospecimens, etc.)
Permalink
December 11, 2008 at 10:11 am
· Filed under Grantsmanship, NIH Advice
CSR (Center for Scientific Review) has “updated and enhanced” its chartered study section descriptions, which I trust you all use to select the appropriate review group for your applications. These descriptions are intended to be “more transparent and reflective of the types of applications actually reviewed,” as indicated in a recent notice on this enhancement. Updated descriptions of recurring special emphasis panels will be posted in early 2009.
Caveat emptor … I suspect they need to tweak their search function a tad. Or more. Instead, I would recommend you do your first level screening using the one-line descriptors given on the study section roster page. Once you start looking through them, you will find a much simplified and more user-friendly presentation of who wants to read about what.
Permalink
December 2, 2008 at 4:54 pm
· Filed under Grantsmanship, NIH Advice
Update: NIAID, per usual, has an excellent table comparing the old and new review processes.
Here is the official updated implementation timeline for enhancing peer review:
January 2009 Due Dates
Early Stage Investigator and New Investigator Policy
New NIH Policy on Resubmissions
May 2009 Review Meetings
9-Point Scoring System
Enhanced Review Criteria
Formatted Reviewer Critiques
Scoring of Individual Review Criteria
Clustering of New Investigator Applications During Review
January 2010 Due Dates
Shorter Applications for R01s and Other Mechanisms
Restructured Applications to Align with Review Criteria
The enhanced scoring procedures will use a whole-number, 9-point scale (1=exceptional; 9=poor), with percentiles starting from scratch from the May 2009 cycle on. Each application, including those not discussed, receives a score for all 5 core review criteria (see below). For discussed applications:
Before the review meeting, each reviewer and discussant assigned to an application will give a preliminary impact score for that application. The preliminary impact scores will be used to determine which applications will be discussed. For each application that is discussed, a final impact score will be given by each eligible committee member (without conflicts of interest). Each member’s impact score will reflect his/her evaluation of the overall impact that the project is likely to have on the research field(s) involved, rather than a weighted average applied to the reviewer’s scores given to each criterion (see above).
The overall impact score for each discussed application will be determined by calculating the mean score from all the eligible members’ impact scores, and multiplying the average by 10; the overall impact score will be reported on the summary statement. Thus, the 81 possible overall impact scores will range from 10 – 90. (Overall impact scores will not be reported for applications that are not discussed.)
Funding Decisions. The new scoring system may produce more applications with identical scores (“tie” scores). Thus, other important factors, such as mission relevance and portfolio balance, will be considered in making funding decisions when grant applications are considered essentially equivalent on overall impact, based on reviewer ratings.
And about those enhanced review criteria … Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
November 27, 2008 at 2:36 am
· Filed under Grantsmanship, NIH Advice, Research News
An update on the transition to Adobe-based application forms from the latest NIH Extramural Nexus:
January 2009 Receipt Dates
Electronically submitted applications must use Adobe-based forms (not Pure-Edge)
So, if you have started a PureEdge application for the February cycle, you’ll need to download the Adobe version before submitting. The new Adobe-based application packages will be available at the start of December. The exceptions to the January 1, 2009 transition date are the SBIR and R13/U13 mechanisms for which Adobe-based forms will be available in February 2009. Anyone working on these forms must use Adobe Reader version 8.1.3 or later (available at no cost from Grants.gov). Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
November 14, 2008 at 1:55 pm
· Filed under Grantsmanship, NIH Advice
The PRAC met earlier in November and covered a smörgåsbord of topics: electronic submissions, COI, EUREKA review, CSR realignments, new investigator initiatives, a Roadmap update, enhancing peer review update (focuses on the wonders of AED – asynchronous electronic discussions), review of F award applications, and more. Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
October 31, 2008 at 5:36 pm
· Filed under Funding Opportunities, Grantsmanship, NIH Advice
The NIH released a notice addressing its Revised New and Early Stage Investigator (ESI) Policies. I normally wouldn’t pull this out for emphasis except the NIH finally gives clear guidance on the mechanism of choice for new investigators: the R01.
The NIH strongly encourages New Investigators, particularly ESIs, to apply for R01 grants when seeking first-time NIH funding.
I have always given this advice for a range of reasons, some of which we discussed previously in reviewing the presentation by an NCI program officer. Some ICs, specifically NIDDK, make it clear they don’t want to see new investigators turn to mechanisms like the R21 as a starter grant, while others, like NINR, set aside the R03 mechanism for new investigators. Two years? Restricted budgets? Not renewable? Who could possibly advise a new investigator with limited time (tenure clock ticking) and resources to invest in applications that face stiff competition yet do little to advance said new investigator on the road to independence? The notice provides a little data to back up this advice:
However, recent analyses indicate that a smaller proportion of individuals with initial R21 or R03 grant support subsequently apply for and obtain R01-equivalent funding. In addition, the initial success rate for R21 applications often is lower than for R01 applications. Since R03 and R21 grants are limited in scope and period of support, they may not be the most effective way to launch an independent research career.
According to the notice, for FY09, NIH expects to support New Investigators at success rates equivalent to that of established investigators submitting new applications. The majority of New Investigators supported in FY09 are expected to be ESIs. SROs will be asked to cluster applications from New Investigators during initial peer review to the extent possible, depending on reviewer availability. The expectation is that these applications will be more effectively evaluated when judged against other applications from individuals at the same career stage. We’ll see.
Permalink
Older Posts »
