NIH Paylines & Resources

I update this page as ICs revise their funding strategies. I’ve also included links to “cleared concepts” (i.e., potential funding initiatives approved by the IC’s Advisory Council for future development into PAs or RFAs) and to IC program contacts (program officers). Those ICs that traditionally do not publish payline or percentile guidance are indicated by “no payline data available” (& none probably ever will be). You can find details on the scoring procedure and interpretation as well as reviewer guidelines by mechanism at the Enhancing Peer Review Website.
Last updated: 7 Oct 2014

NIH Institutes & Centers
(descending order of budget, percentiles for established/new PIs)

NCI ($4.92B): FY15: pending [FY14: 9th percentile for R01s & R21s (applications at higher percentiles considered on a case-by-case basis to fill gaps & address high priority needs, with special consideration to new/ESI applications); priority score of 25 for R03s & R15. 17%/10% reduction in Type 1/Type 2 budgets]
NCI cleared concepts
NCI program contacts

NIAID ($4.36B): Interim FY15: 1oth/14th percentile for established/new PIs for R01 [Final FY14 paylines: 9th percentile for established PIs, 13th percentile for new/ESI PIs for R01; impact score of 23 for R03 & R21; impact score of 20 for R15;  impact score of 33 for R41/R42; impact score of 32 for R43/R44; impact score of 25 for Ks except K99; impact score of 13 for F30, of 30 for F31, and of 25 for F32; impact score of 17 for T32]

NIAID cleared concepts
NIAID program contacts
NIAID Paylines (historic data by year and mechanism)

NHLBI ($2.99B): FY15: pending [FY14 payline: 12th percentile for established PIs/20th percentile for ESI PIs/20th for AIDS/HIV R01s; 12th percentile for R21s; impact score of 20 for R15s, 28 for R41/R42, 28 for R43/R44, 25 for Ks, 15 for F30, 15/25 for P01/P01 subproject, and 25 for T32 {FY13 payline: 11th/21st percentile for established/ESI R01s; 11th percentile for R21s; impact scores at 20 for R15, 20 for R41/42, 29 for R43/44, 15 for P01s and 25 for P01 subprojects; 25 for Ks; 25 for T32/35s; 15 for F30s; and 30th percentile for F31/F32/F33s.}]
Translating NIH Peer Review Changes into Funding Policies
NHLBI cleared concepts (click on most recent Council minutes, see proposed initiatives)
NHLBI program contacts
New Investigator Policy Change: “The applications from New investigators (NI) who do not qualify as early stage investigators (ESI) are no longer considered for special funding as of FY 2010. This policy continues into FY2011.”
Duration of RPGs: “Beginning in FY 2014, it is anticipated that NHLBI policy will be to fund investigator-initiated R01 competing applications, regardless of percentile or priority score, for a period of 4 years [see policy for exceptions … [therefore] researchers are encouraged to submit for review only applications with a project period of 4 years or less.”

NIGMS ($2.36B): No specific payline – explanation of how funding decisions are made by Program Staff and Council
NIGMS cleared concepts (click on most recent Council minutes)
NIGMS program contacts

NIDDK ($1.74B): FY15: pending [FY14 payline of 13th percentile for established and new investigators (8th percentile for annual DC of $500K or more), 18th percentile for ESI applicants {FY13 payline of 11th percentile for R01s (Type 1 or 2) from established investigators (7th percentile for R01s with budgets >$500K), 16th percentile from ESI investigators}]
NIDDK cleared concepts (click on most recent Council minutes)
NIDDK program contacts

NINDS ($1.59B): FY15: pending [FY14 payline: 14th percentile for R01s]
NINDS cleared concepts
(click on most recent Council minutes)
NINDS program contacts

NIMH ($1.45B): FY15: pending [FY14: most applications to the 10th percentile, case-by-case up to the 20th percentile; FY13: 10th percentile for R01s (special consideration of new/ESI applicants but no stated payline break)]
NIMH cleared concepts
NIMH program contacts

NICHD ($1.28B): FY15: pending [FY13 paylines (FY14 never posted): 9th/13th percentile for established/new-ESI investigators; 7th percentile for R03s & R21s; 8th percentile for P01s; 16th percentile for Fs; priority score of 30 for R13/U13, 24 for R15s, 20 for R34s, 33 for STTR, 38 for SBIR, 18 for Ks, 17 for T32s]
NICHD cleared concepts
NICHD program contacts

NIA ($1.17B): FY15: pending [FY14 paylines: 11th percentile for RPGs below $500K, with new investigator applications considered up to the 14th percentile and ESI to the 16th percentile; R01s above $500K at the 8th percentile, with new investigator applications considered up to the 11th percentile and ESI up to the 13th percentile; priority score of 13 for P01s & NIA-reviewed RPGs (some R01s, R34s, U01s, & U19s)]

NIA program contacts and priorities (click through most relevant division)

NIDA ($1.03B): Fiscal policy but no paylines
NIDA program contacts (click on relevant Division)
NIDA cleared concepts (click on latest Council minutes)
Funding priorities & policies

NIEHS ($665M): Fiscal policy but no paylines
NIEHS cleared concepts (click on latest Council minutes)
NIEHS program contacts

NEI ($682M): Fiscal policy but no paylines
NEI cleared concepts (click on latest Council minutes)
NEI program contacts

NCATS ($633M): Fiscal policy but no paylines

NCATS cleared concepts (click on latest Council minutes)
NCATS program contacts

NIAMS ($520M): FY15: pending [FY14: 14th/19th percentile for established/new PI R01s, 14th percentile for R21s, impact score of 20 for R03s & R15s, 30 for SBIR, 23 for STTR, 22 for F31/F32/F33, 24 for F30, 20 for T32, 24 for K99, 30 for K01/K08/K25, 33 for K23/K24]

NIAMS cleared concepts (click on latest Council minutes)
NIAMS program contacts (click on relevant scientific area)
FY10 Budget Request

NHGRI ($498M): Fiscal policy but no paylines (funding priorities listed)
NHGRI cleared concepts (click on most recent meeting agenda & documents)
NHGRI program contacts (click on relevant program)

NIAAA ($446M): Fiscal policy but no paylines
NIAAA cleared concepts (click on most recent Council minutes)
Training & Career Development Contacts
Division Contacts (check organizational chart as well)

NIDCD ($404M): Fiscal policy but no paylines
NIDCD cleared concepts
NIDCD program contacts

NIDCR ($399M): Fiscal policy but no paylines
NIDCR cleared concepts
NIDCR program contacts

NLM ($328M): FY15: For experienced investigators, applications with scores 30 or better are the most likely to be funded. For Early Stage Investigators and New Investigators seeking their first R01 research grant, and for K award applicants, applications with scores of 35 or better will be considered for funding
NLM cleared concepts
NLM program contacts

NIBIB ($329M): FY14 payline at 9th/14th percentile for established/new investigator R01s; 9th percentile for R21s; impact score at 20 for R03s &amp R15s; 9th percentil for U01s; impact score of 24 (interim) for SBIR.]

NIBIB cleared concepts (click on most recent minutes)
NIBIB program contacts

NIMHD ($268M): Fiscal policy but no paylines

NINR ($141M): Fiscal policy but no paylines
NINR program contacts

NCCAM ($124M): Fiscal policy but no payline data
NCCAM cleared concepts
NCCAM program contacts

FIC ($68M): No payline data provided
FIC program contacts

Other Resources

NIH Advisory Council Meeting Dates (all ICs)
NIH Funding Strategies
NIH Paylines & Percentiles explained
NIH Success Rates
NIH Budget Allocation by Disease/Disorder
IC Strategic Plans (priorities)
Einstein College of Medicine Paylines-Success Rates Page

Please note that because this page attracts so many comments (and becomes very slow to load/refresh as a result), I am moving comments by calendar year onto archived pages, which has the added benefit of making them searchable.

389 Comments »

  1. LNS said

    I have a question about ESI/NI status. Let’s say I submit 2 separate R01s as an ESI/NI. R01#1 gets funded while R01#2 is still under review. Does my ESI/NI status remain intact for R01#2? (I know that I have seen a thread related to this somewhere on this site, but I have searched and searched and haven’t found it. Sorry!)
    Thank you so much!

    • writedit said

      I have checked, and there is no way for me to tag comments to make it easier to search – it’s very frustrating to me to have this huge wealth of experience presented in sequence without any means of organizing it to be more useful. Thanks for your patience and effort in searching first. Your status at the time of application is what is considered. If the same IC would be making both awards and does not have a hard payline for ESI/NI, they might use some of their programmatic discretionary leeway in deciding on the second, but if both applications are distinct and of scientific interest to them, there is no reason they would not make both awards. And yes, someone asked on the blog about a year ago about receiving 2 ESI/NI awards, but they were reviewed (and awarded, as I recall) in the same cycle. You can check with the PO for your funded R01, but to the best of my knowledge, the applicant status policy carries through to the award decision in your case, too.

      • LNS said

        Thanks so much for the quick and very helpful reply!

  2. Richard said

    I have a 48% unobligated balance for my RO1 this year because there was a significant delay in recruiting qualified postdocs. Any negative impact on my next year’s funding? As noticed in the NOA, the grantee can automatically carry over the unobligated balance.

    • writedit said

      It won’t affect your overall award, but with that much carryover (>25%), you’ll need to explain what happened in your progress report and that you need the $ to complete the project.

      • Richard said

        Thank you for your prompt response. I have recently added three new postdocs to my lab. Is it sufficient to justify that I need the $ to complete the project?

      • writedit said

        Yes, just saying there was a delay in hiring will be sufficient. The GMS makes the judgment that the spending is delayed (vs unnecessary) based on the reason for the carryover (post doc hired later than planned).

  3. Psyance said

    It’s been a long road, but I received my NGA today! Below is my timeline. My start date was not until 6/1/14, which is why (I’m told) it took so long to get the NGA. It seems applications are prioritized by start date, which makes sense. Still the time from pending to awarded seemed like a long three months. Best of luck to others!

    05/07/2014 Application awarded
    05/01/2014 Award prepared
    02/05/2014 Pending administrative review
    01/24/2014 Request for JIT from GMS
    12/10/2013 Scientific Review Group review completed
    07/18/2013 Scientific Review Group review pending
    07/15/2013 Application entered into system (submitted)

  4. newbie said

    Dear Writedit,

    Am I allowed to directly contact the SRO of a study section, even before submitting an application, to ask if my research fits their study section?

    • writedit said

      Absolutely. You don’t want to request a specific SRG on your cover letter only to have the application sent elsewhere, and whether your aims are scientifically appropriate for the study section is an acceptable question for the SRO.

  5. jrresearcher said

    HI,
    I recently submitted a K23 which is still pending. I have been asked to be a co-investigator on an R01. 1) Is it okay for me to participate as an R01 co-investigator (not PI)? 2) If I did not request salary support, would that make a difference?

    Many thanks!

    • writedit said

      If you only requested 75% time on the K23, the remaining 25% effort can include time on an R01, though I assume, this being a K23, that you will have clinical obligations that take a good chunk of this remaining effort. You should probably talk with your mentor about this, in terms of whether it is even a good idea to get involved in another project, if you should instead be concentrating on getting your own research program going. And no, effort is effort, whether salary is requested or not.

  6. Julie said

    Hi, All, I resubmitted my F31 to NIDA [Impact score 26, percentile 25] and recently noticed that my eRA Commons status changed from ‘Pending Admin Review’ to ‘Award Prepared’ post Council meeting and I’m wondering if anyone could help clarify what this means? Does this mean the F31 will be funded/not funded or is this part of the process as it moved through administrative review? I’m so nervous about lack of funding for another year! I know that the F series is different than standard grants and I’m not sure how the process works.
    Thank you!

    • writedit said

      Congratulations and best wishes for success with your training and your career in academic research! You are definitely receiving an award and should have a notice any day now.

      • Julie said

        Thank you and I truly hope it’s a done deal. I emailed the grant specialist today and she said the grant is still in administrative processes and couldn’t give any additional information at this time. Should I be concerned with this response? Do grants that don’t end up getting funded also receive this change in status?

        I can’t thank you enough for this blog and how much I’ve learned about the process from you. Thank you so much for helping us decipher this complicated process. :)

      • writedit said

        If your eRA status says Award prepared, you’ve made it through the administrative review and now just need to wait for the bureaucratic process to unfold. Don’t worry about the GMS comments – she is being conservative and probably really doesn’t know when your award will be issued.

  7. talaci said

    Dear Writedit, is the published payline inclusive of the payline value itself? My NIAID K award impact score is right the payline value itself (JIT request from the GMS was just responded too). Also, if I can be awarded, can I take it to another institution that does not have the mentoring resources (maybe some) like my current place but geographically not too far away (3hrs driving though)?
    Thank you very much for all your helpful comments!

    • writedit said

      Scoring at the payline means you will receive an award (payline is ≤ # percentile), which is why you received a JIT request from your GMS. You can take the award with you so long as the new institution has the proper resources and a qualified mentor (your current mentor would remain part of your mentoring team no matter how far you went). Now, I assume this is not a K99/R00 – you must stay the full year for the K99 portion. For other Ks, you are free to move, but you want to talk with your PO as soon as you know whether/when you will be moving. He/she has to help with this and won’t have a problem with your moving, again, so long as the research can be done at the new institution.

  8. newbie said

    Dear Writedit, if I get scored (but not funded) for a PAR, but the PAR expires before the next NIH resubmission date, will I be allowed to resubmit, or am I SOL? Given the high likelihood of a resubmission these days, I am wondering whether to even apply for this about-to-expire PAR.

    • writedit said

      You need to download the electronic application for the PAR, so if it expires before the next submission, you won’t be able to apply again (as an A1 or an A0). However, you can check with the PO to see if they plan to reissue the PAR and, if not, whether he/she knows of any other current or planned FOAs that would be appropriate for your application. You can always submit the proposal to a parent announcement, though with no mention of the prior review (so you would be starting from scratch).

  9. HopefulePI said

    I received a 10% at NIDDK for R01 (below the payline). What is soonest I should look for NOA, council met today.

    • SGS said

      Hi, HopefulPI

      Did you receive JIT or not?

      Thanks

      SGS

      • HopefulePI said

        Yes

      • writedit said

        Within the next 6-8 weeks, hopefully sooner, since they should be about caught up on backlogged awards by now. You can watch your eRA Commons status change as the award processing progresses. They will contact you if there is any administrative problem that needs to be addressed. If you need to start spending now, you can confirm with the PO that you are within 90 days of award and let your grants administrator know. Congratulations and best wishes for success with the research.

  10. SGS said

    Hi, Writeedit

    My eRA commons status is Council Review Completed on May 7 (NIDDK). My Percentile is within the payline. Do you know what it means? In addition, I still did not receive JIT.

    Thanks

    SGS

    • writedit said

      Council review completed is the status of any application that has gone before Council for consideration and has been judged acceptable for funding (within the NIDDK mission, no administrative bars, not a PI with too much money, etc.). If your application is within the payline, the JIT request should come soon (it is okay that it comes after Council). You can check with the PO or GMS about JIT, especially if you need to know for planning purposes. If you have not communicated with the PO recently, you would certainly be okay to ask about the status of the application.

  11. Julie said

    Thank you Writedit for all your help. I wanted to give an update that I just received my FoA this morning after my eRA status changed from “Pending. Award Prepared” last Friday.

    If at all helpful for others, my timeline for my F31 was:

    12/09/13: Application Submitted (resubmission)
    3/11/14: Scientific Review Group Meeting
    4/21/14: Pending Admin Review
    5/6/14: Council Mtg (although I don’t think they review F’s at the council, unsure)
    5/9/14: eRA status changed to “Award Prepared: refer questions to GMS”
    5/15/14: Notice of Award

    Thank you again for this wonderful blog, and good luck to all.
    Happy researching,
    Julie :)

    • writedit said

      Congratulations again – glad you can relax with the award in hand now. And yes, you are correct that F applications are not reviewed by Council (second level of review is within the IC). Happy researching indeed!

  12. Richard said

    I am a PI for a NIH RO1 subcontract. We are now preparing progress report for this grant and was requested to send information to primary institution. I cannot find any NIH guideline for progress report related to subcontract PI and don’t know what information I should send to the PI. Please help.

    • writedit said

      You should send the same information as is requested for the PI in terms of accomplishments, changes, etc. specific to the Aim(s) or component(s) of the study for which you are responsible, and the overall PI will incorporate your material in the RPPR. You can see what is requested on the RPPR here: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/rppr/ It’s really not much of a burden. Was it due today?

  13. comprenew said

    Hi writedit — another couple of questions re: a competitive renewal application.
    (1) NHLBI is granting a 5% benefit for the first competitive renewals of those who were ESI at the original submission time.I was an ESI at the time I received this award (picked up by NHLBI). Should I send the renewal application to the same study section where I was funded? I have mixed feelings about this — the application might be a better fit for the profile of another study section, but I anticipate the “old” study section (that funded me) would like to see how I did. At the same time, the “new” study section has funded many grants that were picked up by NIDDK. If my proposal is selected by NIDDK, I lose the 5% benefit that (only) the NHLBI would grant me. The direction of my proposal is roughly a 50-50 split between the two institutes missions. What do you advise?
    (2) Does the title of a renewal R01 application have to stay the same as in the original one?

    • writedit said

      Your competing renewal will be referred back to NHLBI. Another IC won’t pick it up, as in take it away, from NHLBI. You can avoid any mystery in which IC will consider your future applications for funding by writing a cover letter that request assignment to a specific institute (and you presumably would have been talking with a PO there in advance, who would also be named in the letter). If you want to change study sections, you need to include a cover letter (just request reassignment to NHLBI) in which you state the SRG you would like to have review your application and a brief sentence giving rationale for that selection. The study section has nothing to do with the IC assignment (this is made at the same time as the study section assignment and independent of it). Now, the original study section will have completely new members by now, so check the roster to see if they are the right reviewers. If not, and if this new study section looks more appropriate, that’s fine – just ask for the study section you want by name (and abbreviation). I would suggest you talk with your PO at NHLBI about study section selection, as he or she probably knows all the SRGs you might consider. If NIDDK has not co-funded the application thus far, they probably won’t be involved in the renewal, but you could ask your PO whether to request them in the cover letter for secondary assignment.

      The title of the competing renewal does not need to be the same as the original application (the grant number stays the same, which is how the link is kept, not the title). You will have new aims for the renewal, and the title should reflect the new aims and how your science has progressed.

      • comprenew said

        This is extremely helpful, writedit —- many thanks!

  14. tcgal said

    Did NCI’s May council meet yet? trying to get a sense of when we might see an award coming for my mentee’s K01

    • writedit said

      If you know for certain that your mentee is receiving the K01 award, it could take up to 6-8 weeks after Council for the award to be processed. If your mentee needs to start spending sooner, he/she can ask the PO for confirmation that the application is within 90 days of a notice of award (to allow pre-spending). However, NCAB is scheduled to meet June 22-24 (eRA Commons lists a generic May Council meeting date, not specific to the assigned IC), so don’t look for the eRA status to change any time soon.

  15. judy2014 said

    First, writedit, thanks so much for your great contribution here. I have a question about my NCI/K99 application. My application was submitted in Nov, 2013 and I got the impact score of 12 in March 2014. At the end of April, the PO asked me to submit the JIT and then I did it. In the eRA system, it is said the council meeting will be held in May 2014. I am wondering when I can receive the final notice of the decision. Now I looked at the eRA system everyday and found the status unchanged (pending council meeting). I appreciate your answer.

    • writedit said

      Okay – this is easy. eRA Commons uses a generic Council date (in this case, May 2014 for all IC spring Council meetings). The NCAB doesn’t meet until June 22-24, so you would be refreshing your status for a long time before any changes occurred. If your PO asked for JIT, you can be cautiously optimistic about your award – especially if the PO also used those terms. If you need to know the likely award date for spending purposes (probably the July 1 start date, but maybe later, depending on the award processing queue), you can ask the PO when you will be within 90 days of the notice (and whether he/she advises pre-spending), so you can set up an account at your institution.

      • judy2014 said

        Your answer is really helpful. I don’t need to refresh the page everyday. Thanks, writedit.

  16. Emily said

    Dear Writedit,
    I enjoy reading your blod very much and want to thank you for these very helpful insights!
    I recently received a KO8 from NIHLBI, and I was wondering if it is allowed to rebudget especially the salary portion, e.g. can I use that part of the fund to pay a technician, postdoc, or supply?
    Thanks again and best regards..

    • writedit said

      With the K08, you need to maintain a minimum percent effort (75%), so you can’t rebudget below that certainly. I would be surprised if your department wanted you to give up salary, either (they’re usually happy to have the NIH pay your way). I realize the Ks don’t give much in the way of research support, but this is supposed to be a time of mentored training, not a mini-R01. If your K08 is covering more than 75% of your salary, you could ask the GMS about rebudgeting, but I am guessing they would not like to see you give up effort (except later in your K, when you are allowed to apply for an R01), and I don’t expect there would be a lot of $ to rebudget even if you were allowed.

  17. goggu said

    Dear Writedit,

    I am in 2nd year of the K99 phase. My mentor asked me to write an NIH research grant. Am I eligible for R21 or R01 ? He (my mentor) told me I can bring it with me when I get a job.

    • writedit said

      Hmm. You can hold another NIH award during your R00 phase. You must devote at least 75% of your time to research, but it doesn’t need to all be paid by the R00. So, if you were 100% research (no clinical), you could be 70-75% effort on the R00 and 25-30% effort on another RPG award (R21 or R01) – or, if you could only commit 75% effort, then say 50% on the R00 and 25% on the other RPG (or another breakdown to ensure the aims could all get done). You will need to have a faculty position secured to activate the R00, so you want to be sure you have enough time for your applications and interviews, if you don’t have anything lined up yet. Of course, getting a second award would make even more marketable. And, here I am assuming your mentor means for you to be the PI – not to write it for him as PI (with a piece of the budget for you).

      • goggu said

        It seems that R21 or R01 can be awarded to someone with K99 then. Thank you so much.

      • writedit said

        It can be awarded during the R00 phase. If you are just applying now, you won’t have an award until after your K99 ends though.

  18. jojik said

    My score is beyond the NIA K01 payline, however I found that my status is “council review completed” what does this mean…?

    • writedit said

      It just means your application went to Council. The status will never change again if you aren’t funded (and you will not receive formal notice that you are not receiving funding).

      • jojik said

        Thanks for the quick reply – a few more curiosities I would like to ask:

        1. Are our impact scores normally distributed…?

        2. After finding the summary statement, I tried to contact PO (contacted 2 times so far to further discuss the statement) however no reply so far .. I understand that he does not quickly reply to everyone. However not this long, Any suggestion in this kind of situation…?

        3. I am a bit embarrassed to share this however the summary statement (13 pages) largely is about my lower productivity/publications (quoted) as a K01 candidate. Actually, the review score on the candidate part is poorer than any other sections…. I am not sure whether this means that I just need to present more publications when to resubmit, OR due to this lower publications (quoted), they did not mention about much weaknesses of my research plans. Please share…
        (note : all they mentioned about my plans are about “more detailed explanations are needed”)..

      • writedit said

        1. I don’t have data for impact scores by study section, so it is hard to say whether they are evenly distributed (at least the preliminary scores – the final scores, for those applications that are discussed, might still skew to the lower end of the scale, despite SRO efforts to get reviewers to spread the scores – but I don’t have data on this, just a guess). In theory – in a perfect review world – they would be (both preliminary and final).

        2. I assume you are communicating with the K-assigned PO. You can see if other POs are assigned to other K mechanisms and ask if they can offer help or a referral to someone who can. If you know the PO at your IC who would be closest in terms of science (and if not, track one down), you could contact this person for advice. Alternatively, your mentor could contact his/her PO at the IC to check into why this PO hasn’t been responsive.

        3. Many K applications forget that this is a career development award rather than a mini R01 so give short shrift to the candidate/career development plan section, so your mentoring/training/development plan might need work, too. However, K01 applicants are increasingly competitive – you essentially need a facutly position (vs postdoc with promise of job if awarded) and good publication record to be taken seriously. If you were cited specifically for lack of productivity/publications, then you do need to publish more before you resubmit. Of course, now you have as many chances as you need to reapply, but you don’t want to waste their time if you have not become a more competitive candidate in the meantime. You don’t mention whether the research or career plans need more details, but you would want to attend to this criticism as well before resubmitting. They want milestones and shifting effort distribution over the years (training, research, RCR, grants/manuscripts prepared/submitted, teaching, etc.) that clearly point to your ending up well positioned to launch your independent research program at the end.

  19. LNS said

    My PO told me that she has defended my proposal for funding by exception at several levels. Now, she said the Division Director has to present it to NCI Leadership. Will that step be what is referred to as “council?” Many thanks, as always, for your help!

    • writedit said

      No, she is talking about the SPLs (Scientific Program Leadership), which I guess could best be described as a program-level study section. They review individual applications that score above the payline (9th percentile last year – no update in over a year) and have been selectively put forward by individual POs, who in turn need to justify (defend) each application above the payline that they nominate for funding. The SPLs give Harold Varmus their recommendations on which applications scoring in the 9-15th percentile range (or whatever range they use this year – I don’t know) should receive awards. Harold makes the final decisions. The NCAB (Council) approves, sometimes with adjustments, the list of applications nominated for funding that Harold sends to them. The NCAB meets later in June, so the SPL review is taking place now, I assume. I don’t know how many applications are presented to the SPLs or the percentage of those presented that are recommended for awards, but you’ve made a huge cut and can be grateful to your PO for all she has done.

      • LNS said

        Thank you very much for clarifying this process. Yes, I am very grateful to my PO. She has been extremely helpful, responsive, and supportive of my research.

      • LNS said

        Related to the proposal referenced above, the last I heard from my PO (on 6/13) was that presentation to the SPLs had not happened yet. Since NCAB meets 6/22-24, wouldn’t the SPLs and Dr. Varmus have approved or rejected the proposal by now? Or can that level of review still take place after council somehow? Thanks!

      • writedit said

        While I would have assumed that the SPLs would meet in advance of Council (mainly since NCAB meets so late), they can meet and make their decisions before or after Council. Council members can weigh in on individual applications, so perhaps that is why they wait for their discussions. Waiting until after the NCAB meeting just means the GMS folks will be very busy getting all the awards processed before the end of the FY, not that your chances are diminished.

      • LNS said

        My PO said that my application was approved for exception funding by the NCI leadership. She requested that I submit JIT. Still, she qualified “this is not a formal notice of funding as only the Notice of Award fits that category.” Commons still only says “council review completed.” Based on this information, do I have any reason to worry? Many thanks as always!

      • writedit said

        No need to worry – congratulations. Your PO is correct that only a formal Notice of Award guarantees an award, but assuming your JIT does not have any problems, you can anticipate a NoA in a month or so. Your status won’t change until the administrative review process begins.

  20. Grantseeker said

    Dear Writedit,

    I recently received a R21 award. I am planning on submitting a R15 grant with no overlap with the R21. My question is whether a PI with a active R21 can receive a R15 even if there is no overlap between the two grants.

    Thanks.

    • writedit said

      The issue is not scientific overlap – the issue is having any other NIH award. The R15 could not start until after the R21 ended. If you just received the R21, you should probably wait until later in the award period to submit the R15, since I do not think they would delay the R15 start beyond the FY in which it was awarded (so, if you received an FY15 award, start date would need to be before Sept 30, 2015). You could ask the R15 contact for your IC (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/contacts/parent_R15.html) for clarification on how long they could delay the R15, but I expect you will be asked to wait and submit for FY16 (so, Feb in 2015 or later). You could submit another R21 or R01 at any point, of course. It’s just that the AREA awards are intended to be the sole award for a PI, since the program is intended to stimulate research at schools and institutions that have not secured large portfolios of NIH funding (rather than serve as low-hanging fruit for successful researchers looking for additional rather than sole funding).

  21. Stressful Life said

    FYI …this was the timeline for my application. Literally a year from submission. It was super helpful to me to know some time frames that were posted by others:

    05/27/2014 Application awarded.
    05/20/2014 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management
    Specialist.

    04/23/2014 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to
    Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.

    02/05/2014 Council review completed.

    11/20/2013 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review
    pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.

    06/13/2013 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any
    questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.

    06/04/2013 Application entered into system

  22. New R1 Asst Prof said

    My timeline as a New Investigator for those interested (NIH-NIAID):

    1. R01 A0 submitted 11/13/13

    2. Reviewed on 3/07/14

    3. Summary Statement Released 3/21/14 (18 Impact, 8 %tile)

    4. Early Electronic Council Review Completed 4/07/14

    5. JIT request from GMS 5/19/14

    6. NOA 5/29/14

    7. Start Date 6/01/14

    This was my second R01 submitted. The A0 and A1 for the first were both submitted back in 2012. It missed the payline by 1 percentile.

    Many thanks to writedit and all of the commenters for keeping me informed and sane through out the process.

    • writedit said

      Congratulations and thank you so much for sharing all the details on your grant application trajectory. Best wishes for success with the research!

  23. JuniorPI said

    I am a newbie faculty, and I was wondering whether there are strict rules about proposing aims/experiments in junior faculty private foundation grants that overlap with R00 aims. Does the NIH frown on R00 overlapping with other funding sources the same way they do for R01 aims? Is the R00 more like seed-money to help the new faculty or like a mini-R01 given to fund the actual experiments proposed? Grateful for any input, thanks!

    • writedit said

      The NIH won’t care, but the Foundation might, since you are often asked about current funding and potential overlap. If you can tailor the foundation application to collect additional, complementary data supportive of your R00 work (that, combined with the R00 data, will make you competitive for an R01), that would be best.

      • JuniorPI said

        What if the scientific aims overlap, but not the budget? For example, the R00 is clearly not enough money to support the PI’s salary plus the costs of conducting the experiments proposed. A private foundation grant could provide the salary support, and the R00 could provide the experimental costs. Is that still considered overlap?

      • writedit said

        You’ll need to review the Foundation guidelines or talk with someone there. Often they are fine providing additional support for a project, but you’ll want to clarify this with them if the guidelines are not clear.

  24. Yiki said

    First of, I want to say that your blog is excellent and has answered many of my questions in the past. Great work!

    I have recently applied for a mentored K01 and got a score of 13. I figured that it is pretty high but since there was no percentiles and my mentor kept on asking I started looking around and found your blog. I did that because my PO is not very responsive. He does answer questions but in a sort of yes/no way which does not really answer much. Hence after trying about three times I figure I did not want to anger him and waited instead. Your blog helped me wait for the right time and after the council date I got an email from another guy asking for my JIT which I gave the next day. He was very supportive of the fact that we sent it quick and said that it will go to Dr. Varmus and then get a NOA. He also said it could be a couple of weeks but didn’t specify whether to give an NOA or to tell me if I even got it. His email made it look like a got it but I figure asking him directly is not going to lead to answers based on my experience so fat. I am truly at a loss of knowing what is going on with the application and I am hoping that it got funded but if not I want to start getting ready for the re-submission since I guess getting all the reference letters again is not going to be an easy task.

    What I want to know is:
    1.- Is there an NCI “payline” for K01? (obviously not percentile). If so what is it or where can I find it?
    2.- What question should I ask my PO or the other gentleman about my award? Are they allowed to tell me more or less what it means or are they assuming I am supposed to know something? If so…what? I couldn’t find anything that specific on the NIH K kiosk and pretty much says to contact them. I read a from many of the posters here and they seem to have talked at length with their PO so I am worried I did something wrong.
    3.-My supposed start date is July 1st. How does that fit into these delays? If awarded will the date change? is it because of the shutdown back in November?

    Any help will be welcome!

    • writedit said

      Congratulations! NOA = Notice of Award. The gentleman who asked for the JIT information is the Grant Management Specialist (GMS) assigned to your application, and he is indicating that you will get an award – probably in time for your July 1start, but if the award processing takes longer, don’t be worried – the award can start after the date on your application. There really isn’t anything you need to ask now – just wait for the NOA (sent to your university). The GMS can answer questions about the award itself (budget related etc.).

      On your specific questions, there is no percentile for K awards, and no published payline, but you have an exceptional score. Some POs are not responsive – you are not doing anything wrong. Since this is probably the K award PO, you should ask your mentor about a regular PO appropriate for your science (who would work with you on your R01 applications). You can also search Reporter for research similar to yours and check the FpOs assigned (look at NCI website to see which are most appropriate).

      Best wishes for success with your project and your career in academic research!

      • Yiki said

        So we are in mid July now and I still haven’t heard much. This is my status so far apart from the previous discussions:

        10/23/2013 Application entered into system
        04/02/2014 Scientific Review Group review completed
        06/26/2014 Council review completed

        By following your blog I knew when the council was scheduled to meet so it kept me “calm” without much worries. However, a week after council review completed nothing happened so I asked the guy that asked for the JIT (he is not a grants administrator but has the same title as my PO?). I asked for the status or if it was not going to be approved? As usual, nothing specific, other than to say be patient its going to be a couple more weeks. I saw some of the timelines in this blog and people that got reviewed/applied at the same time as me got their NOAs already or at least a “processing” something? Can you give me some insight as to what this means? I know is probably just wait but knowing how much would really allow me to focus on other things. Again any input would be greatly appreciated!

      • writedit said

        All the ICs are not the same, and NCAB (NCI Council) met later than most, so award processing will be later, too. If you check some of the timelines, you’ll see weeks pass after Council – and even after the status changes to Administrative review or other signs of award processing. Your PO and GMS (might be GMO – Grants Management Officer – and they might both sign off as Health Science Administrator) are not being cautionary or negative, so you do just need to be patient. Awards are made into August and September, so don’t worry that the July 1 date has passed or that it has been a couple of weeks since Council. Hopefully you will hear something or at least see a status change by August – but if not, since your NCI contacts already told you to sit tight, I think you can rest assured they will get in touch with you if they need something. Easier said than done, I know …

      • Yiki said

        Thank you so much. I just wanted to make sure that I am not sitting tight for the wrong reason hehe. It is just hard for a newbie like me to figure out what’s going on. I truly appreciate your help and support.

      • Yiki said

        Latest update:

        7/17/14 Received an email from NIH grant manager letting me know that the award was processed with effective data of 8/1/14. Yay

        Apart from thanking you and giving people that need it a timeline of events, I just wanted to post to let people know how “silent” on the NIH process can be. There was really no change in era until the next day when the processing started! Plus no other email either. Hopefully they will have a better system someday in the future that lets applicants more aware of the process (specially for noobs like me) but in the mean time I am very grateful for this blog!

      • writedit said

        Hooray – glad you can finally rest easy knowing when your award will start. eRA commons generates email about major developments in an applicant’s account status, but there is no way to send out explanations about the absence of or delays in award processing activity, since each IC is different (going in, all applications go through the same referral & review procedure, so the timing is consistent through these steps – then differs for each application). Perhaps some interim standard eRA messages could be created for extramural staff to use as they move applications along the award process, but until then, applicants whose applications are under consideration for an award should just check in with POs and GMSs at reasonable intervals, recognizing that the wheels of the federal bureaucracy turn slowly.

  25. Emaderton3 said

    Are new investigators treated the same as ESI when it comes to special consideration for funding? Along those lines, my ESI status just expired. I saw that you can ask for an extension under certain circumstances. Under the rules of the K25 award that I currently have, I was not allowed to apply for a R01 for the first three years. Would something like that qualify?

    • writedit said

      Most ICs treat new investigators the same (or roughly the same) as ESI, but not NHLBI or NINDS – and perhaps others now (that is, ESI get a break, NI do not). You can check your IC’s policy to see whether they extend their ESI consideration to NI applicants. As far as I know, the K award restriction on delaying R01 applications until the 4th year does not count as a valid reason to extend ESI status (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-09-034.html), but there is no harm in asking (ESINIH@od.nih.gov).

      • Emaderton3 said

        I guess I will wait and see what kind of score I get on my recently reviewed R01. It turns out that ESI status is assigned upon submission of the grant and not the review date. So, I am ok for now.

        As for the K, I was just wondering since I did have classes that I took as part of my training (and extension policy includes didactic work although sounds like it needs to be a lot). I don’t want to lose the curved score!

      • writedit said

        Ah – I thought you were asking about an application still to be submitted. Yes, ESI status at submission is what counts. You could still ask about future submissions, but if you did not complete a formal degree program, I don’t think you’ll get far with your request for an extension.

      • Emaderton3 said

        Thanks. It may be worth a shot to at least ask as you say.

        Alternatively, I have a scored R03 that was in response to an Institute-specific announcement for new investigators only. The PO told me they are going to use the general R03 payline for this specific grant as well. Interestingly, when I spoke with the PO about select pay, he said that first submissions at his Institute do not usually get supported for select pay since they figure you have one more shot to make it better. Is that common? Also, he said each division usually pushes one or two applications for select pay instead of pooling them all together and just taking top scores which I thought was interesting.

      • writedit said

        In previous years, ICs would not recommend A0s for select pay due to the opportunity for resubmission – that was pretty standard practice. We’ll see how this might change now that every application is (or could be) an A0. And yes, the select pay is not just top scoring unfunded applications – if you look at the ICs that show funding trend data (e.g., NCI, NIGMS, et al.), you’ll see applications funded way above the payline, up to the 20th & 30th percentiles (even 40th). Very few at that level, but only with a committed PO & then Division/Branch chief enthusiastically pushing for its award. Only R01s get special consideration for ESI/NI, so no surprise there, either. I assume you are at an IC that offers has the special R03 opportunity for K awardees – nice.

      • Emaderton3 said

        It is just a R03 for new investigators. While the K awards limit your ability to apply for R funding, there are easy ways around it. I have heard of people getting R01s within the first three years of a K. My understanding is that the trick is to put your effort down as running concommitant with your K such that you don’t take salary from the R until years 4 and 5.

  26. Red said

    Dear Writedit:

    I have a very senior postdoc that is submitting an R21 as a PI. Can s/he put down 100% efffort or does that look bad? Should it be less, say 75%?

    Thanks!

    • writedit said

      Well, if the postdoc has no other responsibilities, it might be feasible, but usually the assumption of reviewers is that he/she has responsibilities to your research as well (especially since he/she is not faculty so not in charge of his/her own time). A letter from you and the chair supporting this unusual level of effort might help (& in fact should be included even at 75% effort), but I expect this would still be tough for a review committee. If his/her biosketch is strong enough to support being a PI, then the question would be why the university doesn’t invest in him/her as faculty (at least research assistant prof) – same thing as with K applications from postdocs (or at least I assume the same sort of hurdle might be faced).

  27. Psyance said

    I’m not sure if this is an admissible post or not, but there isn’t a page for LRP related questions/discussion. I have an LRP renewal under review (assigned to NIDA), but have not heard if I am being recommended for funding. A number of people have heard about their LRP applications over the last few weeks, though they have all been assigned to different institutes (as far as I can tell). I’m just wondering if anyone out there has received any news on a NIDA assigned LRP application.

    • writedit said

      I have helped with loan repayment applications but have not interacted with the NIH side of things, so I am not familiar with how these are handed internally. However, renewals do very well, and I assume you can check with the PO about when you will hear (soon, I assume)

      • WCsoccer said

        Hi,
        Can anyone please point me to how to search for LRP award information in Reporter or anywhere?
        Thanks.

      • writedit said

        You should find anything you need to know here: http://www.lrp.nih.gov/databook/index.aspx

      • WCsoccer said

        I am sorry; I meant individual LRP award information such as awardees, project description, etc, as available in RePorter.

        Another related question: are LRP awards included in “Notice of Grant Awards issued within the last 90 days” list? If so, what is their award code?

        Thanks much.

      • writedit said

        To the best of my knowledge, LRP funding does not show up in either place, since the applicant does not submit a formal proposal, and there is not an award issued (NIH sends payments to lenders).

    • clueless noob said

      I recently received notice that my LRP renewal app with NIDA had passed the first level of review, but that email said that funding decisions would be made in late July.

      • writedit said

        Cool – thanks for chiming in with this intel. Good luck with your LRP renewal.

      • Just to update, I’m still awaiting any official notice on my renewal. The timeline at http://www.lrp.nih.gov/timeline.html indicates that LRP funding decisions go out by 8/7 (tomorrow). If nothing pops up online tomorrow I might contact them on 8/8.

      • writedit said

        Sounds like a good plan – good luck again.

  28. Heliotron said

    I just got an email from my PO saying that he’s cautiously optimistic that my grant will be funded and have a question about this wording. Has anyone been told to be cautiously optimistic and then not had their grant funded in the end? Or is this wording always a good sign and the PO just has to wait until it is official before they can say anything else?

    • writedit said

      You PO cannot guarantee an award until the notice is actually issued, but this is as close as he can get to saying you should be funded (if your JIT/administrative review does not turn up any bars). In other words, he knows of no reason you won’t be, but that does not mean one might not exist he doesn’t know of. I do not know of any instance of unwarranted cautious optimism – perhaps someone else here does.

    • Morrissey said

      heliotrope,
      can you let us know the institute and %ile you were at? is this ESI A1 application or A0 or ?
      thanks

      • Heliotron said

        NIGMS R15, no percentile, priority score only (low 20s)

  29. SD said

    For those who are interested in SBIR applications to NIGMS, here is the timeline for our award (10 months from submission to award):

    06/09/2014 Application awarded.
    06/03/2014 Award prepared.
    03/28/2014 Pending administrative review.
    01/30/2014 Council review completed.
    11/06/2013 Scientific Review Group review completed.
    08/05/2013 Application entered into system.

    This is a Fast Track grant (Impact score: 23) where Phase I and II are submitted within the same application.

    • writedit said

      Congratulations and thank you so much for posting your timeline of submission and award! Sadly, those delays are within reason (first due to lack of appropriation, second due to administrative catch-up once funds were finally actually released to GM). Best wishes for success with the R&D.

      • SD said

        Thank you writedit. Do you know whether the ICs have caught up? I submitted another application in December 2013 which passed council review in late May. I figured I might not be up for administrative review until August.

      • writedit said

        No, the delay until late March for the administrative review was NIGMS waiting for Congress to pass an appropriation bill. Then, with 2 cycles of awards to process, it took another 2 months to get to your award. Now that they’ve caught up, awards should be processed pretty much in time for a July start date. I assume you have been asked for and submitted your JIT by now.

      • SD said

        I had not received a JIT request until your comment prompted me to ask my PO directly. It was my understanding that it is better to wait until asked rather than act on the emergence of the JIT link in ERA Commons, which is automatically issued for applications receiving an impact score of 40 or less (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/jit.pdf). The wheels are in motion now. Thanks for the advice.

      • writedit said

        You should only submit the JIT if the PO or GMS requests it. I assume you mean the PO did give you the green light to submit when you asked (and the PO had intended to request this but had not gotten around to it). The automatically issued link does not constitute a “real” request.

      • SD said

        You are correct. He requested it after I asked.

  30. Emaderton3 said

    I just got my first R01 scored. Unfortunately, it did not do very well. I got a priority score of 45. What I was curious about was the percentile which was a 35. I know NIH is pushing reviewers to spread out the scores and use the entire range. So, theoretically, an impact score of a 45 would be the 50th percentile. However, in reality, I know the scores are getting bunched up, and most reviewers don’t give anything worse than a 6 or so. That being said, I would expect that my score of a 45 would actually put me at a worse percentile if the scores only spanned the range of let’s say 10-60. Any insight on this? I guess what I am getting at is whether a resubmission and an improvement of 10-15 points on my score would dramatically get me into a much higher percentile.

    • writedit said

      It depends on when the SRG was recalibrated and whether, now that the new era of unlimited submission has begun, reviewers are spreading scores even farther, both since it is not anyone’s “last chance” any more and since they may want to push some applicants to make significant changes (or not come back). You’ll know better about what to do next when you have the critiques and can talk with the PO about how to interpret them (in the context of how the entire meeting went and your discussion in particular).

    • LIZR said

      You should keep in mind that the bottom 50% or so of R01 applications are typically triaged and are not discussed. Those grant applications do not receive a priority score and are not given a percentile. Therefore, just by making it into the pile of grants that get discussed, you should be in the top 50%. Different study sections may behave differently in how effectively they spread their priority scores.

      • Emaderton3 said

        Thanks for the replies. 2 of 3 reviewers gave me criteria scores that when averaged would have put me in a fundable range. Even the 3rd reviewer, whom had significant issues with a few things, did not score me down that low (but probably helped to bring about the discussion that did lower my priority score). I know, I know, criteria scores are not indicative of the priority score . . .

      • writedit said

        You said it yourself. Criteria scores do not necessarily reflect the priority score (I wish folks would stop making themselves crazy by trying to “calculate” priority score based on criteria scores), and reviewers do not always go back to update their initial comments or scores. After the discussion, obviously someone set a higher scoring range than would be reflected by what they marked during their initial review.

      • Emaderton3 said

        Why don’t reviewers go back and update their critiera scores then? I know they cannot change their individual priority scores, but they can adjust their reviews. Interestingly, the biggest problems with the grant were in the Approach, yet the PO summary at the beginning said the Approach was a strength. Anyway, I will know more after I get the chance to speak with the PO.

        Also, how are POs assigned? I always assumed they were related to the study section, but in this case the PO’s background was in line with my assigned institute and not the expertise of the study section.

      • writedit said

        Oh gosh – you should be picking your own PO in advance of submitting the application. POs work in the ICs – SROs (who run the study sections & write the Resume & Summary of Discussion – not the PO) mostly work in CSR. I’ve written a book about this that you can buy on Amazon …. If you did not talk with a PO in advance (and if you had, you would have wanted to name him/her in your cover letter), then it is like cold calling when CSR makes the referral. The CSR referral officer guesses the best IC to select, if you did not include a cover letter requesting an assignment – but even if you did request an IC but not name a PO with whom you had worked, then there is a quick check at the IC end as to whose portfolio your work best matches – or matches closely enough for assignment anyway. You want to make contact with this PO, who would have attended the study section meeting, to have your questions answered, as you surmised. Some – perhaps many – reviewers do go back to update their criterion scores and reviews (some do this during the study section meeting – it’s all online) – but they don’t have to, and not all do (especially, I would guess, ad hoc reviewers and of course anyone not at the meeting).

      • Emaderton3 said

        Wow, ok. I have never contacted a PO ahead of time, just a SRO to determine if a specific study section was a good match. In this case, the PO’s background is perfect. And in my case in which the work is interdisciplinary and could have gone to a completely different study section, I think this particular PO will be able to advise me on this possibility.

        I never understood this. If the SRO runs the study section and writes up the summary, why aren’t they the ones to answer questions concerning the discussion of your grant?

        I may check out that book!

      • writedit said

        The SRO does summarize the discussion among the reviewers – but he/she does not review any applications themselves so cannot answer any questions about the applications.

        You should absolutely introduce yourself to the PO, ask about your review (POs attend study section meetings but even though they might know your research from talking with you in advance of submission, they cannot speak up during the discussion), and ask about your plans for revising. The PO also helps with portfolio placement – what about your application & science is of most interest to the IC (& can you tweak it to fill a specific niche so you’re not overlapping with similar funded projects).

        And, although I hate to tout my own book, it really would be beneficial for you … I described it in a post on the main blog: https://writedit.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/how-the-nih-can-help-you-get-funded/

        Essentially, I tried to summarize the most important information (about how the NIH works) and advice (about how to fine tune your applications) I give on this blog (and to researchers here at BICO) in one place.

      • Emaderton3 said

        Thanks. I have always talked to POs after the reviews were in to get help with a possible resubmission. I noticed that there is an extended submission date for each cycle so that new investigators can get more time but resubmit so that the proposal is reviewed in that current cycle. Are they expectations any different with a short turnaround?

      • writedit said

        That’s good that you always communicate with the PO after the review. You do not get any special consideration for going back in early, which is why you should only do so if you can submit a competitive application that soon after receiving the summary statement.

      • Emaderton3 said

        I have consolidated my review down to 11 major points. Of them, only 3 would require new data/experiments. Fortunately, I already have the data. Thus, the rest would be writing, so I am considering the quick turnaround . . .

      • writedit said

        Sure – sounds appropriate in your case. You can always submit again, thanks to the change in NIH policy (used to be a bigger consideration if you only had one more chance to submit, but I still would not advise anyone to submit an application that was not ready so as to avoid wasting the time of and possibly irritating reviewers on the panel you will inevitably go back to again).

  31. I applied the NCI K99 last October.
    I just got the notice from PO asking me to submit JIT. the PO said that there is very high likelihood that my application will be in the funding range, and they should know more in early July.
    My questions are:
    1. Does it mean that my application will surely be granted?
    2. If I am granted K99, in order to receive the 100 K/per year, do I need to ask my PI to change my title to sth like “instructor” to remove the salary cap?

    Thanks!

    • writedit said

      Although it would be easier to comment if you had included your K99/R00 score, if your PO is requesting JIT and indicating a high likelihood of funding, then you probably will receive an award – though this is not a guarantee. There is no certainty with any award until the NoA has been issued – but your PO is being as confident as he can at this point, which is good, since they are usually very conservative in expressing their opinion about funding chances. On your second point, I am not sure I understand. The amount you budgeted in the application submitted will determine your salary. Your institution would have needed to approve the level in the application budget before you submitted the application, which indicates they are willing to pay you as much as was listed there. If you did not request $100K/y in salary, then you cannot do so now. Your sponsored programs office will know if you need a change in appointment status in order to receive the salary level approved in the award.

      • Thanks a lot for your reply. My score is only 24. Thus I am curious why the PO is very optimistic about my funding opportunity.

      • writedit said

        The PO has probably been advocating for your application, and they could be moving further down the paylist than they anticipated. I would not be surprised if many of the best-scoring applicants have since secured faculty positions, which renders them ineligible for the K99 under the new policy (at least 1 year of K99 required).

    • CancerDx said

      Hi whiteorblack, have you heard anything else from your PO or GMS? I also got a score of 24 on my NCI K99. I was asked for JIT information twice (the second time was about 2 weeks ago) and haven’t heard anything else. Thanks

      • writedit said

        A second JIT request is a good sign. You can just check with your PO to see what’s up, if you haven’t been in touch recently.

      • CancerDx said

        Thanks for the advice writedit. I emailed my PO and he told me that the OEP cleared the human subjects section of my application and that:

        “The NCI Office of Grants Administration (OGA) is currently reviewing your application – we should have more information in 4-6 weeks.”

        What does this mean, exactly? Any insight as to whether this is a good sign that the proposal will be funded or whether this happens with many proposals that ultimately aren’t funded?

        Thanks for maintaining this great forum!

      • writedit said

        This is good news, though still not a guarantee. The application has been cleared for administrative review and processing, which they usually do not want to do unless an award is likely. However, since we are getting close to the end of the FY, and given his estimate of 4-6 weeks before anything would be known, it could be they want to review all applications that could potentially receive an award now rather than wait, since they might not have time to complete the review later. That is, they want to be sure your application is all set, just in case there is funding. But, it is good news that your application has been moved further down the process. At this point, you’ll just need to wait and check back in with the PO if you haven’t heard back by late August.

      • CancerDx said

        Thanks so much for the interpretation and insight. In a previous email he did say “Your application is being considered for funding.” Does that change anything? I’ll just keep waiting for now and see what happens. Thanks again!

      • writedit said

        The administrative review confirms you are being considered for an award – no guarantee until a Notice of Award is issued, though, so yes, you’ll need to wait (nothing you can do in the interim).

  32. sgs said

    Dear Writeedit

    First, many thanks for your kindness for these researchers here. I am still waiting for my R01 grant. The following is the detailed information.

    My R01 was submitted to NIDDK and received a 15% percentile and the payline for ESI was 18%. The council meeting was finished on May 14 and the current status of my grant is Pending Administrative Review. On April 21, I received an email from PO and asked me to provide the comments on issues raised in my summary statement. Please see the email.

    In reviewing your summary statement for the above reference grant application, I was wondering if you would like to comment on some of the issues raised. In particular, I would like to gain your perspective on the comments regarding the budget for your application.
    Best regards,

    The start date of this grant is July 1, but I still do not receive JIT from PO. On May 21, I send an email to Grants Management Specialist on JIT, and she replied to me one sentence ” I am working on it.

    Would you please give me some advice what I should do?

    Thanks

    sgs

    • writedit said

      Please don’t worry about your award – it is coming. It does not need to start by July 1 (that is the requested/estimated start date) – if July 1 comes and your award has not been processed yet, everything will be fine still. If you look at some of the timelines that others have posted here for the administrative review of their applications and processing of awards, it often takes 2 months. You do not need to do anything else, and you should not contact the GMS again. She is working on it, and she cannot make the process go any faster. You may have your award by July 1, but, again, don’t panic if you do not.

      • sgs said

        Hi, Writedit

        Thank you very much for your timely reply. I will follow your advice.

        Have a good day

        sgs

  33. NINDSapplicant said

    As everyone says, this is an amazing blog for discussion – thanks for maintaining it. I’m including my timeline below for what it’s worth. But, I have a question about wording that is raising some anxiety, though I should probably just relax. I just received a change in status to “Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.” But when you search for official NIH documentation regarding these status messages http://era.nih.gov/docs/era_status_codes.pdf, the IMPAC II description for this is “Award prepared, not funded”. I don’t know what IMPAC II is, or what the implications of “not funded” are — I’m hoping its just administrative language.

    Timeline for NINDS K23 – A0
    10/23/2013 Application entered into system
    10/31/2013 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
    02/26/2014 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
    Priority Score 26
    I discussed with advisors who all thought it was a good score, but not great. Percentiles are not published by NINDS for Ks as far as I know
    03/17/2014: Summary Statement Released — most of the issues seemed addressable so I contacted the PO about submitting a revision. The PO responded and was positive about the score and asked that I prepare a Response to Reviewers and send directly to the PO, which I did in about 2 weeks.
    The JIT link opened at some point in this timeframe and an automated JIT request was sent out.
    05/29/2014 Council review completed.
    05/30/2014 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist. — Although this the statement in the Status History, the Status that I see in my list of grant applications is simply “Pending”
    06/09/2014 NINDS Training Office sent an email invitation to the K Award Training Seminar. When I asked, they explained that they could not legally tell me if the grant was awarded but for those who would be awarded they wanted to advise them early enough that they could make travel arrangements for October 2014.
    06/10/2014 My institution received a K23 specific JIT request with form that was forwarded to me.
    06/17/2014 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist (status on Status Result – List of Applications/Grants page is still “Pending”)

    • writedit said

      That’s a mighty unhelpful document (e.g., “Pending”=”Application pending”), but you can relax and accept congratulations for your award. Your institution should be receiving a NoA soon. Thank you so much for posting such a thoughtful and complete timeline – investigators like you are what makes the site so helpful to others. Best wishes for success with your research!

  34. Quynh T said

    hello, I applied for F32 at NHLBI in Dec, got 29th percentile and based on the current update from the NHLBI website, the cut off is at 30th percentile. The council met on June 11 and since then I have not heard anything from them or seen any further update on their website. Does anyone know how long it takes for my status getting updated after the council met (whether I will get funded or not)? Thanks

    • writedit said

      F applications (fellowships) do not go to Council, so you are not waiting for a post-Council update. If you check the timelines posted by others here, you’ll see it will be weeks before things start to happen. You can ask the PO what the rough timeline will be until your application is processed for an award.

    • smc said

      Hi Quynh T, did you happen to find out if you were funded? If you don’t mind me asking, did you submit to the regular FOA or the diversity/minority one? Thank you.

      • Quynh said

        Yes I finally got the award. I submitted to NHLBI, regular FOA. I found out the final decision around the 2nd week of July. My award is not activated till December since I still have some support from the PI till then.

      • writedit said

        Congratulations and best wishes for success with your project and your career in academic research.

  35. JNJ said

    Hi Writedit,
    It is a wonderful blog. I need your suggestion. I got 12% on my RO1 grant (NHLBI). I am a new investigator but not an ESI. what would be my chance of getting funded. With new budget is there any hope? What I should do? please advice.

    • writedit said

      Unfortunately, as you know, NHLBI only extends payline breaks to ESI applicants, not new investigators. However, if you were just reviewed, your application will be funded in FY15, and we will not know those paylines until next spring, probably (I do not expect a federal budget until after the midterm elections, and then it may be delayed until after the new Congress is sworn in in January). The NIH appropriation will likely go up, though whether enough to move paylines up a percentile is hard to say at this point. You can talk with your PO about what might happen with this application, in terms of both the potential for the payline to creep up 1 percentile and the potential for your application being tapped for select pay. What I would definitely recommend is that you get an application ready for October for a different project, though you can also ask your PO if any changes you might make to this application would be able to drop the score down a few more points (if PO attended study section discussion, he/she will know what, if any, issues were a concern). You can submit the A1 in November (or an A0 in October) and have this application remain under consideration (if the 12th percentile application is funded, the subsequent submission would be administratively withdrawn).

      • JNJ said

        Thank you Writedit. Very helpful.

  36. Summer breeze said

    Hi, I have a general question about K99. Is it possible to take on a faculty position (non-tenure track) in a different institution during the K99 phase? and then the tenure starts when the R00 phase starts? The current institution only offers a postdoc type position, but if I want to transfer to another school to be a faculty member, is this allowed by NIH policy? Thank you.

    • writedit said

      This seems like a pretty specific question, though I am not sure what the problem is with your current institution only offering a post-doc type position, since that is what is required for the K99 portion (and many if not most K99 awardees move to a different institution to take a faculty position for the R00 portion of the award). If you are a current K99 awardee or you are waiting to hear about a possible award, you should ask whether the initial appointment at the new institution, assuming there is an appropriate mentor there, would still count as a postdoc/trainee position. My guess is not, since they want you to complete a year of mentored training, which would be difficult if you move in the middle of it (changing not only locations and labs but possibly also projects), but the PO would make that call.

      • Skyline said

        Thanks for your reply, I mean if the position in the different institution starts one year after the K99 starts. Does it have to be two years?

      • writedit said

        No, you only need one year in the K99 postdoc position (and two years is the limit for the K99 portion).

      • Skyline said

        Thanks! That clarifies my puzzle. If this works out, will they fund R00 for 3 years or can be extended to 4 years if there is only a one year K99

      • writedit said

        Just 3 years for the R00. The full 5-y K99/R00 is for 2 y K99, 3 y R00. You’ll be working on applications during the R00 period to continue funding as an R01.

  37. BigMac said

    Hi, I just received an Impact score of 18 on a K99 grant to NIAID. Since NIAID do not publish their paylines for K99’s, I was wondering if you had a gut feeling what its chances are??? I’m now past 4 years, so I only have this one shot and am obviously a little anxious. Curiously, the phone number for my PO is not working and am dying to know how I stack up. Any insights here?

    • writedit said

      Your PO can tell you how you would have ranked this year (FY14), but I assume that would be a fundable score. Unfortunately, the paylines for FY15 probably won’t be available until spring 2016 due to the mid-term elections, so you have a long wait for anything definitive. The FY15 paylines should be similar to FY14, though, so go ahead and talk with the PO if you need to know for planning purposes.

      • Matthew Macauley said

        Sorry to sound naive, but I am struggling to make sense of the timelines you have mentioned and what my PO told me:

        -Advisory Council meeting 10/2014, which is the beginning of fiscal year 2015.
        -My application is in FY2014, we have to wait to receive the budget for that fiscal year.
        -decision for funding of K99 is late within the fiscal year after all K99 application are reviewed.

        Given all this, what is the best case/worst case start date if I got the award?

      • writedit said

        I am not sure what your PO told you, but I assume you applied in Feb 2014 (since you mentioned receiving your score in June), which means you will be considered for funding in FY15. The best case scenario would be a start date of Dec 1, 2014, but it is more likely that you will be funded in early 2015 since the federal budget will likely be delayed due to the mid-term elections in November (this means the NIH will be operating under a continuing resolution, during which time the paylines will be very conservative).

    • Jackie said

      NIAID’s extramural group is relocating and their phone numbers are changing. You can try email, but as Writedit says, paylines won’t be known for some time.

  38. New Player said

    Hi,
    Thanks for this great blog. We have got 14th percentile on our resubmitted R21 from NCI. I am a new investigator, will that help? It is way beyond NCI payline 9th percentile. What are our options? We replied in response to an RFA, does that give some extra credit? Can we ask them to change to another institution such as NIGMS (although we did not list it in our application?
    Thanks again.

    • writedit said

      New/ESI status only comes into play for R01 applications – no other activity code. However, program thinks about investigator status generally (new/ESI, no other support, prior track record, facing tenure decisions, etc.) when considering applications for select pay. The fact that you applied to an RFA means that the standard payline is less rigidly applied – they will select the best applications that are responsive to their priorities for the RFA and ensure the portfolio will be diverse (e.g., if all applications below the 9th percentile took the same approach/same general hypotheses, it would not be a good investment to fund them all). You cannot ask for a different IC – especially with an RFA, but never for an application that has already been assigned and reviewed. You ask for dual assignment in your cover letter, though, again, with an RFA, this is not appropriate. You can submit this proposal again in October as a new R21 and ask for NIGMS as the IC; you will want to communicate with an appropriate PO at NIGMS first, to ensure they are interested in your science. In the meantime, you can ask your PO about your chances and whether you should submit this work as a new investigator-initiated application to NCI in October (either R21 or R01, if you have enough preliminary data and perhaps a publication by then).

      • New Player said

        Many thanks for great suggestions.

  39. NEMO said

    Dear Writedit, do you know the fundable score range for a K99 application to NIDCR? They don’t publish payline, so what would be a guaranteed/most likely fundable score?
    Thank you!

    • writedit said

      NIDCR hasn’t told me either, but I imagine you would be in good shape if your score is below 20, possibly the low-mid 20s. They funded 5/15 applications in FY11, 10/19 applications in FY12, and 3/14 applications in FY13, so it’s hard to say if they are scaling back on this program or they just didn’t get that many applications that they wanted to fund last year. Your PO should be able to give you some insight on what scores have been funded for FY14; while this may not apply to FY15, the NIH should get a small increase and at least not a decrease in appropriation (FY16 is another story).

  40. jojik said

    What if PO continues to ignore(?) my emails since I received the review statement in late April..?.
    Can you please help me figure out what this signifies? On my 3rd email, I have listed some specific questions, yet no answer. (Before I submit, I had a chance for a phone conference with the PO which was helpful).

    After this Wed, I probably need to contact other persons to move forward. If that is the case, who would be a person that I can reach out to further understand my score and the review statement?

    I discussed with my primary mentor regarding this matter as you previously suggested. He said that the PO is always very slow; and will try to talk to him at a conference in person in this coming Nov….!!?; in the mean time, just go ahead and prepare for re-submission.

    I agree that the PO is slow in general, but this time I feel odd. I also do not want to just jump into another submission … Any suggestion ?

    • writedit said

      Your mentor is correct that you should just start preparing a resubmission – that is the advice you will get from your PO if your score is anything but below the payline. You can look at the division or branch in which your PO is based and contact the chief to politely ask, since you have not heard from him since April, if your PO is traveling or otherwise unavailable (possible) and if another PO could help you in the meantime. Alternatively, if you know of another PO in the same group who covers similar research in his/her portfolio, you could contact them to see if they have advice (about your PO and/or your application).

  41. Hoping said

    Hi all,

    Does anybody have info on NIDA paylines for R01s? Does anyone know how much the new/ESI break is worth at NIDA?

    Thanks much for any info.

    And thanks for this wonderful site!

    • writedit said

      If you were just scored, the FY15 paylines won’t be known until next spring (2015), but they should be about the same as FY14, which your PO might be willing to divulge. A lot of ICs do not have a specific payline break for new/ESI applicants but will pick from a variety of scores/percentiles above the payline. You should wait for your summary statement, if I am guessing correctly that you were just reviewed, before getting in touch with the PO.

      • Hoping said

        Yes, my A1 was just scored. 9th percentile.

        thanks for response

      • Stressful Life said

        I would imagine a 9th percentile would really be in range especially with ESI and NI. I know many people that were funded at NIDA above that percentile score as new investigator.

        I can attest to the pain and agony of waiting for congress to pass budgets.I got caught up in the shutdown mess. It is a long wait but just be patient. There is nothing you can do.

      • writedit said

        Yes, I would agree that an NI/ESI 9th percentile at NIDA should receive an award, though don’t be surprised if your PO is just cautiously optimistic.

      • writedit said

        Thanks for chiming in to help folks here – both directly like this and previously by posting your application award history. Congratulations again – I hope the research is going well.

        cheers Michelle (writedit)

  42. Charlene said

    Thanks for a great blog! I’m getting a bit confused reading a few comments though. I just got my score for my F31, which at a 20 my PO said was “very likely” to be fundable, but that she’d know with more certainty in September. However, some of these responses/comments on the blog seem to suggest that with the midterm elections, determinations about funding may actually come much later than that. Is my PO being overly optimistic about being able to say if this will be funded after September, or are F31s somehow different? Thanks for any clarity that can be offered!

    • writedit said

      This is curious. F applications do not go to Council, but the IC still needs to see what the budget will look like. It could be that your score is low enough the PO is confident it will likely be funded during a CR (all awards do not go on hold – and the Fs are relatively low budget obligations). Also, it almost looked like we could have had some appropriation bills passed this summer, but the Senate just put the brakes on that process, so your PO might have been thinking a budget would be shaped up by September or that a better guesstimate of the NIH appropriation would be known then.

  43. judy2014 said

    Thanks so much for this excellent site and I learned a lot from it. I listed the timeline of my NCI/K99 application, in case it can provide useful information to any of you.

    2013/2/12: 1st submission

    2013/6/14: 1st submission: not discussed.

    2013/7/10: 1st submission comments available in the eRA. All the reviewers thought the preliminary data were poor, so the proposal part scored 4~5. Other parts were fine (1~2).

    2013/9: Decided to use another project to submit a new application, as there were still no much data for the 1st project.

    2013/10/30 (delayed due to NIH shutdown): 2nd submission using a different project (still A0).

    2014/3/13: 2nd submission impact score 12

    2014/3/17: 2nd submission comments available in eRA.

    2014/4/28: JIT request from PO

    2014/6/2: 2nd JIT request from GMS

    2014/6/25: eRA status changed “Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.”

    2014/7/1: eRA status changed “Application awarded”.

    • writedit said

      Congratulations and thank you for posting such a detailed timeline – very helpful for so many applicants! Best wishes for success with your project (great job recognizing the need to cut your losses and change focus) and your career in academic research.

    • MJ said

      Congratulations. I am also in the same boat but I did not get any Letter of intent to commit funds. Did you get LOI from Meininger Jennifer or Kramer Arina

  44. judy2014 said

    Thank you writedit for your great efforts! Yes, the 1st failure, even not discussed, was actually so helpful for me to prepare the 2nd submission. I then knew what I should focus for each part, as I had no sample applications for reference. Thanks again.

  45. goggu said

    Hello Writedit,
    If I move to a new job (another institute) early next year, and if I submit an R grant (R21 or R01) this summer in my current institute, what would happen to my application? Would NIH still fund the project even if I would be in a new institute? Would I be able to re-submit it in the next round?
    Thank you in advance.

    • writedit said

      Assuming the new institution has the facilities and resources needed to perform the research, you can take the award with you. Your current institution will need to relinquish it, but that is usually not a problem. However, if you submitted the application in June or July (or will submit to an RFA on another date this summer), the award would not come through until next spring in all likelihood, in which case you might be able to delay the notice until you move (so long as you do so before Sept 30).

  46. Waiting said

    Hello Writedit,

    Thank you for keeping this informative blog going!

    My question is what is happening between GMS satisfactory review of JIT and NoA?

    Thanks,
    Waiting

    • writedit said

      If you know you are getting an award, then you are waiting for standard bureaucratic processing of the award, which can take weeks. It’s the federal government. If you are still not sure, then once your application has cleared administratively, it will probably wait in line on the pay list to see how far the money goes.

      • Freedomtrail said

        Thanks!

  47. curious said

    Hi Writedit,
    I submitted my NCI K99 proposal last October and got an impact score of 20. Do you know the payline for this calender year from NCI. I emailed my program director and got a reply that the OGA is still reviewing my application. Not sure what “OGA” means. Could you please clarify.

    thanks!

    • writedit said

      OGA = Office of Grants Administration Your application is being reviewed to be sure it is administratively eligible for funding. You can see the experience of Cancer Dx (http://writedit.wordpress.com/nih-paylines-resources/#comment-52099), which is similar to yours, but at a score of 24. I suspect neither of you will know anything until August, so you’ll mostly need to hurry up and wait some more.

  48. Feri said

    Dear Writedit,
    If you remember my A0 RO1 submission last Oct/ Nov with the 18% score was assigned to NICHD. Although I got JIT request and then the PO asked me to send her an administrative rebuttal so she could submit her recommendation to the council, it seems that my A0 will not be funded at NICHD because of budget restrictions. I resubmitted my revised RO1 for this July and asked in my cover letter for a change in my primary institute from NICHD to NIMH as I was told by several colleagues involved with NIMH that NIMH funded RO1s up to 20% for new investigators. I just checked my resubmitted grant in my commons and my primary institute is again NICHD. Like my first submission, NIMH and NIDA are my secondary. I am going to speak with my PO next week. Although I know my revised grant is certainly better and I responded all the reviewer’ comments, I worry who gets to review my revised grant and what if my score doesn’t get better than 18% and I am still stuck with NICHD. Is it possible to change the institute now before the study section meets? any advice how to talk with my PO to make this transfer.
    Thanks a million again for this wonderful blog and your extremely helpful advice!

    • writedit said

      Sorry that your A0 was not funded by NICHD. Did you talk with the NICHD PO before requesting NIMH in the cover letter? If not, it could be she assumed there was a mistake in the referral and asked that NICHD be kept primary. She might also know that she can advocate even more strongly for your application this time around and wanted to keep it for that reason. Even if you did talk with her about switching primary ICs and she was okay with that, you can certainly talk with her again now about moving it to NIMH. Do you have a program officer at NIMH? You absolutely want someone there advocating for your application like your NICHD PO did. If you talked with someone at NIMH, you can see if your NICHD PO will talk with the NIMH PO about switching IC assignments, if the NICHD PO is not certain she can push your application for funding this time. It’s not too late – but they would have had some discussion about this at the time of referral.

      • Feri said

        Thanks so much Writedit for your great advice. No I didn’t because she was unreachable and I went ahead and did my resubmission. I am going to talk to my PO at NICHD next week and I also sent an email to an NIMH PO that her interests include my kind of proposals.

      • writedit said

        Sounds good – and it would be a good idea to get a relationship going with NIMH, if not for this application, then one for this fall or other future submission. It’s always best to be working on applications to different ICs (and study sections) in parallel) to diversify your portfolio of funding.

      • Feri said

        Definitely a great suggestion as always! I am also submitting a new RO1 for Oct.

      • grant sub said

        Hello Writeedit and feri,

        Just curious, when a new institute asks a grant be transferred to it for award consideration, will the grant be assigned a new grant number and will you be able to see what happens in your eRA Commons? We are looking at a similar situation with a different institute and just curious on what happens in this process.

        Thanks!

      • writedit said

        Yes on both accounts, I believe. The application identification number reflects the administering IC, so unless the original IC is still involved, I think that should change, and you would receive a change of status notice from eRA Commons (and see the change there, probably when the award is issued). Hopefully an NIH official will jump in if I am in error about the change to reflect the administering IC, but no matter what, you will know the application status and identification number through eRA Commons.

  49. New Player said

    Does request for JIT indicate any thing? Our percentile is 14th for NCI so we were not positive then we get request for JIT. Should we be hopeful?
    Thanks.

    • writedit said

      If the JIT request came from your PO, then you are at least on the paylist. I assume this is for an application submitted last year (vs one just reviewed). You can check in with your PO to see what the status is, whether the SPLs approved your application for select pay.

  50. New Player said

    Thank you, Write edit. It came from era commons. Also it is for our revised A1 application. So far we have not got a chance to call PO. We are waiting for her to give us time. So thankful to you for this blog, and thanks for being there for all of us. Have a great weekend.

    • writedit said

      Okay – if the request came from eRA Commons, check with the PO before you send anything. If was for an application that was just reviewed, then you won’t know about funding until next year. And if the application was just reviewed, you probably want to wait until you have the summary statement to contact the PO. You can submit this proposal again as a new application, but you’ll want to talk with the PO about strategy if he/she recommends this (and you need the summary statement to discuss strategy).

  51. Korey said

    Hi Writedit,

    I’m trying to gauge my chances for receiving a NRSA. I submitted a F31 to NIGMS, which does not publish a payline. My impact score was 29. Is there somewhere that I can go to see what the fundable range was for F31’s submitted to NIGMS in previous years? Any info would be appreciated.

    • writedit said

      The best way to gauge where you stand is to ask the PO. If your application was just reviewed, wait until you have the summary statement, and then ask about how your score might do next year and what strategy to take in revising the application (which will require the summary statement first).

      • laghs said

        As a separate but related question, my PO said: We are unlikely to fund your application at the beginning of the fiscal year, but it is possible we may fund it in the summer of 2015. I was wondering how serious he is committed. I am preparing a resubmission anyway, as suggested by the PO. Thanks for your input.

      • writedit said

        Your application will still be active and eligible to be funded (even if a resubmission goes in), and I have heard of applications being funded the subsequent FY, so he is genuine in saying this is possible – especially since the appropriation will likely go up at least somewhat. However, subsequent FY funding is rare and cannot be counted on, so you should definitely get a resubmission ready (& submitted) in the meantime.

      • Jane said

        Hi Writedit, Finally, NCI made their funding policies for 2014. You may talk a look.

      • laghs said

        Just to clarify… my application is for the first cycle of FY2015, with a start date of Dec 2014. A resubmission will also be for FY2015. Hope could make at least some improvements.

      • writedit said

        Aha – that makes sense. No awards will be start Dec 1. You didn’t mention your score. If it’s not 9th percentile or less, it sounds like your PO will advocate that the SPLs recommend your application for an award – but he can’t guarantee anything, of course, since he does not know what the SPLs will be of a mind to fund next year. You should certainly get the resubmission in in the meantime … and whatever other applications you might have ready to go. Submitting for FY15 is a good idea (I’ll be doing a post soon on the risks of FY16 and beyond).

        And thanks, Jane, for the heads up on the NCI fiscal plan for FY14 … same as FY13.

      • laghs said

        Thanks, writedit. Look forward to your new post.

  52. Jane said

    Thanks, Writedit for posting it. Although type 1s have a 17% of reduction as 2013, type 2s may only have 10% of reduction this year.

    • writedit said

      Yep – thanks for pointing out the distinction (clarified above).

  53. SI said

    My company has developed a topical analgesic formula, and we are interested to submit a Phase I SBIR. Does anyone know the appropriate NIH institute to submit to?

  54. Waiting22 said

    Hello writedit,
    I applied for an F32 (start date July 1) and have received word from my PO that it falls within the Institute’s payline (NICHD). But so far no NOA. My PO sent a formal letter detailing my funding status, saying that they expect to be able to fund my award but “that the NIH budget has not yet been approved, and many government agencies are operating under a Continuing Resolution. The Institute is therefore limited in its ability to issue awards at this time. We expect to start processing your award when funds become available.”
    I am quite anxious about it at this time because I will have to prepare to move and as it stands I do not have any idea when I should expect the NOA. Do you know of any other information that could help me gain a better sense of when this could be? Or when at the latest I would receive notice?
    Thanks!

    • writedit said

      When did you last communicate with your PO? This sounds like a message that you might have received last spring. You should check in with your PO again for an updated time frame. The start date doesn’t matter – it’s fine that July 1st has passed with no award. If you know the GMS, you could contact him/her for an update, too.

      • alsoWaiting22 said

        Just thought I’d leave a message here saying that I’ve received the same letter from NICHD. I also inquired with my PO about when NOAs would be issued. She responded that they are a bit behind schedule and that they expect to issue NOAs mid July. Hope this helps!

      • writedit said

        Very helpful – thank you so much for sharing your experience. Best of luck to you both with your projects and careers in academic biomedical research!

      • Waiting22 said

        The PO communicated this information to me at the end of June. The council meeting was in June and she informed me that everything went fine. The most recent update on eRAcommons was June 30th: “Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.”

        At this point does it make more sense to contact the GMS?

      • writedit said

        At this point, you should just wait and be patient (no need to contact anyone). The award should be coming soon. Congratulations again.

  55. Waiting22 said

    Thanks to you both! That helps a lot. I will patiently wait for the NOA :)

    • alsoWaiting22 said

      I forgot to mention in my previous post that I also looked up some past NOA dates for NICHD postdoc fellowships from previous years, and they were issued July 22nd, so hopefully it will be around that same date again this year.

  56. July Sunday said

    I find it very disturbing to find out a K99 application to NEI got a score of 17 and left unfunded. How difficult do they want to make this? Apparently an outstanding-exceptional application cannot be funded! Is NEI particular challenging to support K99 compared to other institute of similar funding size? What about NIDCR, would it be more or less difficult for K99 applications?

    • writedit said

      For any funding mechanism and activity code, you can check the success rate (applications reviewed & funded) to get an idea of the degree of competitiveness, though you should only use success rate as one factor in deciding to which IC to send an application. You should discuss the IC success rate for a given activity code with your PO to see how your idea would fare. If you check these data (http://report.nih.gov/success_rates/index.aspx), you would see that NEI funds 4 K99 applications per year for the last 3 FYs (out of anywhere from 12-28 applications submitted); I believe past applicants have posted that even a score of 10 is not a sure thing due to this limit in the number of applications funded. NIDCR funded 3 applications in FY13, 5 in FY11, and 10 in FY12, so a conversation with the PO would be important to know where the NIDCR K99 budget is going.

  57. OG said

    Thanks again for this excellent blog. I’ve found it extremely helpful to get a feeling for NIH funding idiosyncrasies. I applied for an NCI K22. Even on this comprehensive forum that seems to be a rare beast so I thought I would share my experience. I prepared my first submission for an Oct 12, 2013 deadline. Unfortunately, this coincided with the Oct 1-17, 2013 government shutdown. We did not know until close to the last minute what this would mean for the deadline but in the end it resulted in a new deadline of Nov 12. The extra time was perhaps helpful but overall this added a lot of extra stress and stretched out the period of lost productivity due to focus on grant preparation. In early April scientific review was completed and about a week later I received my impact score of 18. I happened to be at AACR and was able to meet in person with my NCI PO, who was there for information sessions. She told me that she was “cautiously very optimistic” and should not work on a resubmission, but instead start planning for job interviews to get the tenure-track offer that a K22 requires. She talked with me for about 30min and gave me a lot of useful advise on this. Council review completed end of June. One week later I received an email from PO congratulating me on a successful application and one week after that got a LOI to commit funds from the grants officer. ERA commons system still just says “Council review completed”.

    Timeline:
    Oct 12, 2013 – original deadline for submission – delayed due to government shutdown
    Nov 12, 2013 – extended deadline for submission after government shutdown
    Nov 12, 2013 – Application entered into system
    Nov 15, 2013 – Scientific Review Group review pending.
    Apr 3, 2014 – Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending.
    Apr 7, 2014 – Impact Score appears in ERA commons
    Jun 26, 2014 – Council review completed. (Last status change)
    Jul 2, 2014 – PO emails to notify me that application was recommended for funding in FY2014
    Jul 15, 2014 – Received letter of intent to commit funds

    • writedit said

      Congratulations and thank you so much for sharing both your timeline/application experience and your great interaction with the NCI PO. Last year, doggeroo experienced a similar timeline with the K22 (letter of intent on July 10 – award promised by Sept 30), so you might have a little wait still but can be confident in the award: https://writedit.wordpress.com/nih-paylines-resources/#comment-34313 Best wishes for success with the project and your career in academic biomedical research.

    • MJ said

      Congratulations. I am also in the same boat but I did not get any Letter of intent to commit funds. Did you get LOI from Meininger Jennifer or Kramer Arina

      • OG said

        No. It was from someone else. Did you get an email from your PO saying that an LOI was on its way? If so, when? My PO said to be patient. The LOI came in about 1 week. They sent it to me and my institute simultaneously.

  58. Feri said

    Hi Writedit,
    Just wanted to update you about the transfer of my first RO1 submission from NICHD. I met with my PO at NICHD and she brought up the idea of transferring my grant to NIDA or NIMH as she wasn’t optimistic that the 18% would be funded even in FY15 at NICHD. Of course I was very happy that she brought it up and told her that I had also requested this in my resubmission. She was extremely supportive and started to contact the POs from NIDA and NIMH. Especially the PO at NIDA showed a lot of interest and wanted a transfer. My PO at NICHD started the process but also requested to stay as my secondary institute. I am assuming not only my first submission but the resubmission will also be reassigned to NIDA?
    Thanks so much again for this extremely helpful blog, I have learned so much about this process and I am following your blog to learn more!
    Very best,
    Feri

    • writedit said

      Wow – this is a fantastic update! You have a real gem of a PO at NICHD, so you should continue to consider how to develop new applications for her portfolio (she might be able to help suggest ways to tweak your ideas to fill gaps that are a high priority at NICHD). Your competing renewal for this 18th percentile R01 would, unless your NIDA PO suggests otherwise in 4 years based on renewal aims, request NIDA as the primary IC and NICHD as the secondary IC, but you don’t need to submit all your applications from here on to NIDA. You should also keep the information for the NIMH PO, in case funding opportunities issued by that institute match your area of research. You want to develop multiple projects that are of interest to different ICs and study sections to keep your own “portfolio” balanced.

      • Feri said

        Writedit,
        Thanks so much for the great advice here as always! I am also aiming to work with her closely to prepare another application. My PO at NICHD is a real gem and the PO at NIDA is fantastic too! I will wait and see what happens to my resubmission that I sent in July.

      • writedit said

        Aha. I thought you were talking about your renewal – I didn’t realize you in fact meant that you sent in an A1. If the A0 is funded, the A1 will be administratively withdrawn. The POs can have the IC assignments changed for the A1 if that needs to happen (I assume they all know you submitted the A1). You’ll know if the IC assignments should be changed before the A1 is reviewed, since the A0 would need to receive its award by Sept 30.

      • grant waiting said

        Hello Feri,

        Just curious, is your grant finally awarded by NIDA? I am asking because we also have a grant that is undergoing a transfer to a different institute for award consideration. So I wonder how this type of transfer works out. Thanks.

  59. airmonkey84 said

    I am trying to determine when the best timing is to submit an F32 resubmission to NIAMS to be considered for funding starting August 2015. Would you recommend submitting this August, or is submission by the December deadline also an option?

    • writedit said

      You could submit either deadline to start then (just delay start of cycle II submission – put your requested start date on the application). Waiting until December would give you more time to collect data, publish, and polish the application, whereas submitting in August would allow you to resubmit, if necessary, sooner (next April, for Decemberish start, though probably later).

  60. NINDS R21 said

    Hello WriteEdit and everyone,

    Does anyone know the payline information of NINDS for R21? I saw at the top of this blog the payline for NINDS’ R01, but it seems the institute does not have any payline information for R21(?).

    Thanks,

    • writedit said

      Generally the R21 payline is about the same (or lower than) the R01 payline – R21s are as or more competitive. If you were just reviewed, you can check with your PO about funding likelihood based on FY14 paylines (FY15 will not be known until next year) – but you should wait until you have your summary statement, so you can also talk about resubmission strategy if needed.

  61. NINDS R21 said

    Hello writeedit and everyone,

    I have a perhaps tricky question. Say you have an A0 R01. The review comments requested big changes. Then in what scenarios does it make more sense to revise the A0 as much as possible but send it back as a new A0 instead of as an A1? Is it allowed? For example, if I keep 2 of the 3 specific aims unchanged but completely change the 3rd aim in the revision, should I submit the grant as an A0 (assuming it is allowed by the NIH)?

    • writedit said

      It depends in part on whether you were discussed. If you were not discussed, I would suggest resubmitting as an A0. The new NIH policy means you are not required to change anything – but you should incorporate any appropriate advice from the reviewers to improve the proposal. If you received a score out of funding range, you might ask your PO how the discussion went, and you should decide whether addressing the reviewer concerns in an introduction is the better strategy than starting over with an A0.

  62. LNS said

    I have been informed that my R01 should be funded by 9/1 (per PO). I submitted JIT on 7/17 with no additional word from the GMS. There were budget concerns expressed during scientific review so I expect cuts will be larger than the standard. Is there anything I can do at this point to find out what budget I can expect? Email the GMS? I haven’t felt comfortable making plans yet (e.g., job postings) because I don’t know how much money will be awarded. Many thanks for your advice!

    • LNS said

      FYI, for some reason, new posts seem to be posting out of order on the page (at least, on my end). My post I just sent is showing up between posts from 7/27/14 and 2/15/14. When I scroll to the bottom of the page, the most recent post is 7/2/14. The actual most recent post is in the middle of the page, and it was not a comment on a previous post. Just thought I would let you know. Thanks!

    • writedit said

      You should talk with your PO – but simply to ask what the budget will be (not to say you anticipate cuts) so you can get job postings ready and make other plans. If the cuts are severe, you might be able to negotiate for a reduction in the specific aims (so at renewal time you are not held to accomplishing your originally proposed work with insufficient funding), or you might be able to make a case for something closer to your original budget, if you can explain why the reviewers’ concerns are not relevant to what you proposed (and if you padded the budget because you anticipated a cut – well, hopefully you only go back to what you were hoping to receive).

      • LNS said

        Thanks so much for this advice. I really appreciate it.

      • MMKIM said

        I was wondering if on U01 grant mechanism we get scores only or percentiles as well. My U01 was scored recently at 39 but the percentile has not been posted yet. After how many days the percentile are posted ?

      • writedit said

        You will probably only get a score (percentiles usually follow within a few days) since the U01 activity code is used only when there will be substantial IC involvement, and the limited submission dates and/or response means there are usually not enough applications received consistently over time to calculate a percentile.

  63. Kate said

    What an amazing resource–thank you writedit! I have looked to see if the answer to my question is buried here but can’t find it. I received SRG scores from my NIH NRSA (F32) application a few days ago (impact=20, percentile=15). There is neither a summary statement nor a JIT link in my account, although a statement at the top of the page says the link is automatically available for those who have scores in this range, so I assume there is nothing I currently need to do. My IC is NICHD and after reading your blog I looked up council dates for NICHD. The next meeting is January, 2015 (while future years do list a Sept. date, no Sept. meeting is listed for 2014). Does this mean that I will need to wait until at least January, 2015 to hear about funding? Then, if funded, the money might not appear until mid-2015, according to other timelines on this blog? This seems strange and particularly so because I am now exactly two years into my postdoc (I had another fellowship until now) and did not plan to stay more than four years total. Am I missing something about how the process works? Thanks!

    • writedit said

      The next NICHD Council meeting date is Sept 18, 2014, but fellowship applications do not go to Council. Your PO can probably give you an idea of your funding likelihood now, though if you have not received your summary statement, you might want to wait to contact the PO until you do; by waiting, you can then also ask about resubmission strategy, if he/she feels this would be a good insurance plan. I say this because, although your score is very good and likely fundable, the federal budget will not be known until 2015 in all likelihood, which means NICHD will not know their appropriation until next year. During the continuing resolution, they will be very conservative in making awards, so even though you may have had a start date of Dec 2014 listed, this probably won’t happen.

      Don’t worry about the JIT link at all – your PO will ask you for JIT when the time is right (which may be in mid-Sept – or may not be until much later). If you need any IACUC or IRB approvals, though, you get those in order soon.

      Now, I assume you mean you had a predoc fellowship before your postdoc position. You can only receive up to 3 years of NRSA support as a postdoc (either on T32 or F32), which means, if the first 2 years of your posdoc have been paid by an NIH NRSA, you could only get one more year of your postdoc funded (by the NIH) no matter how much longer you stay in your current position.

  64. Kate said

    Thanks very much writedit. Luckily, the first two years of my postdoc were funded through a private foundation so I am, indeed, already two years into the postdoc. I had applied for two additional years of support with the F32. I suspect there won’t be time for resubmission given my position and the apparently very long timelines of funding of these fellowships, so I’ll hold out hope that this application will be funded. However, is there going to be a payback issue if they do fund me? Will they fund two years starting mid-2015 and, if I accept it, will I then have to pay back if I exit the postdoc before two years has passed? Thanks again.

    • writedit said

      Good news on the non-NIH support of your first two years. If you resubmit in December, you would still be funded in FY15, next July or so. Depending on what you do after your current postdoc, payback could be an issue (and I do not believe they will issue partial-year F32 awards, but that would be a discussion for your PO). If you cannot extend your postdoc to complete the two full years of your F32 funding, payback would be required but should not be a problem if you plan to stay in research or academics (http://grants.nih.gov/training/payback_faqs.htm#529).

  65. Waiting said

    I just received news that my A01 R21 to NCI scored 9th percentile on the review 2 days ago. This was submitted to a PAR. What do you think are my chances? Will I have to wait until the new FY15 budget comes out to find out if this will get funded?

    • writedit said

      You should be fine, though you won’t know for sure probably until next year. The FY15 budget should be the same or slightly higher than FY14 though, but the payline could be affected by the number of low-scoring applications. When you receive your summary statement, you can check in with the PO, who can at that point make any suggestions regarding resubmission strategy (if needed).

      >

      • Waiting said

        Okay, thanks for your reply. I’ll wait for the SS.

  66. PNKS said

    Hello writedit, your website is by far the most helpful grant writing resource out there. I was notified that my K01 will mostly likely be funded but with a major budget cut (3 years instead of 5). I was wondering if there is a way to appeal that? I must say that PO has been extremely nice and responsive.

    • writedit said

      If your application is selected for an award, you can talk with the PO to see if you can negotiate another year (probably can’t get back to 5 years). You will want to demonstrate that you’ll need that time to complete any additional training you proposed and/or collect enough preliminary data for an R01 or other RPG. You might want to be thinking of how to reframe your aims in a 4-year timeframe in the meantime and show the PO how this would work so he/she can make your case with higher ups (but brace for 3 years, if that’s all you can get).

      >

  67. Tree said

    Hi, I was reading some grantsmanship instructions. It appears NIH is discouraging ESI to apply for R03 or R21. What should an ESI try then? directly apply for an R01? Can one submit an R01 application during the phase of K99? Thanks!

  68. Tree said

    can one apply an R01 during the phase of K99? or would it be better to try an R21 or R03 first? Thanks!

    • writedit said

      You’ll need to wait until you have a faculty position (i.e., when the R00 is activated) – most universities do not allow postdocs to submit RPG applications (just fellowship & career development applications), and the K99 portion should focus on the transition from your mentored work to your independent research. You can apply at any time during your R00. The R01 is the only activity code that offers a review and payline break to ESI/new investigator applicants. The R03 and R21 are only 2 years and are not renewable, so you would probably do better to focus on securing an R01 while you have R00 funding. The R03 is only useful if you have very specific preliminary data to collect or a model to develop.

    • writedit said

      I explained in my response to your other query why the NIH does not encourage ESIs to apply for R03 or R21 (only 2 years, limited budget, not renewable, no payline breaks) and that you would apply during the R00 phase.

  69. GT Chemist said

    Does anyone have any experience with the American Cancer Society Research Scholar Grant? I recently had a grant recommended for funding consideration, but I was curious to know what that means exactly? Are most grants considered for funding after peer review, or just the top 20%, etc? I will note that my primary reviewers gave me a score of “good”, which is below the ranks of “outstanding” and “excellent”, but above “fair” and non-competitive.

    • LNS said

      I was told ACS rarely funds anything except “Outstanding,” but I don’t think they would have said it was recommended for funding consideration if they weren’t seriously considering funding the proposal. When I applied for the ACS MRSG, my first submission was “Excellent” but not recommended for funding consideration. My resubmission was “Outstanding” and recommended for funding. I hope that helps!

    • dngrant said

      Wow! You are lucky GT Chemist. I got review of excellent and still they said not recommended for funding…

    • dngrant said

      BTW, i also had applied for RSG in last April…

  70. Sunnie Park Kim said

    It is very troubling to learn how NIH grant is awarded. The initial ranking to fund is based on the average of overall impact scores NOT based on the average of 5 criterion scores (Significance, Investigator, Innovation, Approach, and Environment) from all the reviewers of the application. In fact there is no calculated formula between the two. The initial ranking is based on the average of overall impact scores from 3-4 assigned reviewers (e.g., average score 5, from three reviewers with scores of 4, 5, 6). If initial score of 5 is below 50% of all applications, then it is not to be discussed (designated as ND) and not funded no matter how good the criterion scores ranked and what details were provided on the Summary Statement to the PI. Rather Overall Impact is based on reviewers assessment of “the likelihood/probability of a project to exert a powerful and sustained influence to the field of research”. So the funding seems can be/is ultimately decided based on reviewers’ personal opinion and who They Like to Fund or Want To Fund.

    • writedit said

      Reviewers assign scores based on the scientific merit of the proposal. I would suggest you focus less on the scores and more on the comments. If your proposal does not clearly convey your research (reviewers can only read what is given to them to read) and/or if your research is judged as scientifically lacking in terms of its importance (significance) or approach, then the burden is on you to improve the proposal and/or your research. You should discuss with your PO what to do next based on the summary statement (i.e., whether to modify your aims/approach, work to improve the proposal itself, change research directions, etc.).

      • Sunnie Park Kim said

        If I may refocus on the point, that is, doesn’t overall criterion score based on Significance, Innovation, and Approach reflect scientific merit of a proposal? If so, why use Overall Impact score to select applications to be discussed and ranked for funding which has no clear formula to the criterion scores. Instead Overall Impact is based on reviewers assessment of “the likelihood/probability of a project to exert a powerful and sustained influence to the field of research” (which seems a lot like the Significance criterion). I think one expects overall criterion score and overall impact score to be one of the same or very close to the same but that might not be always true.

      • writedit said

        No, there is no need for the criterion scores to be used to calculate the overall impact score. Many, many applications are triaged that have one or more reviewer assign excellent criterion scores (see https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/2012/02/why-overall-impact-scores-are-not-the-average-of-criterion-scores/ and http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2011/03/08/overall-impact-and-criterion-scores/). I am sorry you are unhappy with your overall score, which you obviously do not believe reflects the ability of your work to have a sustained influence on your field. You should talk with your PO about strengthening the proposal rather than worry about how applications have been reviewed and scored since 2008 (and which you cannot change). Since you seem to be a small company, my guess is that you could also do with the help of someone who is experienced in developing NIH grant applications.

  71. PNKS said

    Hello, I was wondering whether you have any information about the DP2 success rates (or payline)? Also, do you know of a good resource (or guide) on the web for how to prepare my application? Thank you.

  72. dngrant said

    Hi Writedit,

    What do you think of new changes in terms of granting money to researchers based on their portfolio (similar to HHMI) rather than allocating money for projects. I feel that following this will just lead to “rich gets richer” syndrome. Only very few researchers will benefit. That approach is probably good if there is tons of money available and then you want to distribute. In this climate, i am not sure why these big guys are thinking it will help…

    • writedit said

      The key will be in the implementation. If they do as they say, NCI and NIGMS will not be providing additional money to well-funded researchers but rather consolidating funding and providing some stability to permit exploratory research as well – and these people-based awards will be made to ESI and mid-career investigators as well. I am sure GM will take a close look at non-GM funding sources, and hopefully NCI will as well. I believe there are talks afoot with HHMI to address overlap among funding to these investigators as well, but we will see down the road how this actually pans out.

  73. AKsquare said

    Hi, I applied for a K99 at NIAID in the Feb/March 2014 cycle (a resubmission), and got an impact score of 17. My eRA status changed to “Council Review completed” in late July, although the Council Meeting is supposed to be in September. I haven’t heard anything more, even though I emailed the PO a week back. Do you know what this means? Thanks a ton !

    • writedit said

      Your application received early electronic concurrence in advance of the meeting (routine for applications scoring within the payline). However, your PO probably won’t know anything about when you might receive an award, since this will depend on when Congress passes a budget. There will be a continuing resolution until December, and my guess is that the budget (& NIH appropriation) won’t be passed until after the new Congress takes office (following midterm elections). Some ICs will issue a few awards, but I am not sure whether yours is a sufficiently low score to be paid under the CR. You might be looking at a Feb or March 2015 start date. Your PO will probably know more in November whether NIAID might issue a NoA for a K99 application with that score under the CR. Otherwise, you’ll need to watch the headlines about what Congress is doing with the budget to gauge when you might receive funding.

      • AKsquare said

        Thanks a lot ! I thought it might be expedited review, but wasn’t sure what that meant practically for the award… I’ll keep my fingers crossed, I guess !

  74. R21 resub said

    Hi writeedit,

    I have a question. I have a R21 that has gone from A0 to A1 and its score had greatly improved but the A1 missed the payline by 1%. So I will revise the A1 and submit as a new A0. My question is, when submitting the new A0, can I ask the NIH to possibly assign the same reviewers of the previous A1 to review the A0? I certainly will ask the A0 be assigned to the same study section but not sure if it is appropriate to ask for the same reviewers, sth like “can you assign the reviewers of R21CA1234567A1 to review this application?”

    Thank you!

    • writedit said

      You cannot refer to the prior application anywhere in the new A0, of course. In thinking about whether you could indicate in the cover letter, which is only read by the CSR referral officer and SRO, that the reviewers of R21CA1234567 have the proper expertise to review your new application and that anyone on the panel with a similar area of interest would be appropriate, I think even this generic recommendation might still come across as requesting specific reviewers, which is not allowed, and it might annoy the SRO. Also, there is no reason to assume these prior reviewers would lower their scores a few more points – it could be that they would assign roughly the same score upon seeing the application again, if they feel that their priority score reflects the impact of your proposal (& nothing you do will lower it further). I would suggest listing bullets with the expertise needed (i.e., cancer-associated fibroblasts, invasive lobular carcinoma, patient-derived tumor xenograft, etc.) – use the same list that you gave for your original A0 if it is still appropriate for the new A0 – and assume that the SRO will consider the prior reviewers anyway, since the SRO will recognize your name and the title, if you keep it the same (which is allowed). The SRO may know of a new reviewer on the panel who would be even more appropriate, and you would not want to interfere with the SRO’s judgment by trying to direct review assignments.

  75. DTJQ said

    Hi Writedit, How to understand the description in my commons page: “The NIH provides the JIT (Just in Time) link in the Commons for applications receiving a percentile of less than 30 or for applications receiving a priority score of between 10 and 60 if no percentile is provided.” ? Since one of applications was not discussed, but it also shows JIT in the page. Thanks.

    • writedit said

      I think an automatically generated email about the JIT link only occurs when the application hits one of those thresholds, but yes, the JIT link in eRA Commons itself is always available, even for Not Discussed applications (until they are administratively withdrawn). In either case, unless you receive an email from a program official, you shouldn’t submit JIT info (though if you have a potentially fundable score, you should get any approvals underway, just in case).

  76. SGS said

    Dear Writedit
    First thank you a million for your kind help for these research scientists here. I just received NOA for my RO1.

    This is my timeline:

    Oct 22, 2013: Submitted NIDDK
    Feb 11, 2014: Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
    April 21, 2014: PO requests the comment on some of the issues raised in the summary statement
    May 7, 2014: Council review completed.
    May 23, 2014: Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
    July 22, 2014: JIT requested
    Aug 7, 2014: Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
    Aug 16: NOA

    Hope this will be helpful for other investigators.

    • writedit said

      Congratulations and thank you so much for posting this detailed and informative timeline. Best wishes for success with your research.

  77. Venkateswaran Subramanian said

    Dear Writedit,
    I have a question. My R01 grant application with ESI eligibility (A1) was scored in Feb 2014 (24th percentile) under the institute of NHLBI – VCMB study section. That was the last chance for me under the category of ESI. The Council review was completed in June 2014. My grant was 2 percentile away from the funding rank (NHLBI – 22 percentile for ESIs). I was advised to discuss with my PO to request for a possible funding for a shorter duration of 3 or 4 years instead of 5 years given the situation of my ESI eligibility is finished. In addition, I was told that council may have some left over money of their annual budget, which they may use to fund grants with shorter duration. I need your advice whether it is appropriate to request my PO for a possible shorter period of funding (e.g. 3 years).
    Thank you.

    • writedit said

      Yes, you can ask your PO if this is a possibility, especially since we are coming upon the end of the FY. Usually your PO would have suggested this on his/her own, but there is no harm in your asking whether a shorter/smaller award might be possible – perhaps even an R56 for one year (after which you would apply again for an R01, but with additional preliminary data collected with support from the R56 – you would need to give a specific plan for what data would/could be collected in that time that would support a subsequent R01 application). At the same time, you can ask the PO, if neither a reduced R01 nor an R56 is possible, for advice on preparing the next A0 application to lower the percentile further.

    • anxious777 said

      I am also in the same situation, 22 percentile although different study section under NHLBI. I have not heard from the PO. But I just got an email showing STTR payline increase from 24 to 28…… Hope the same increase in R01……

      • writedit said

        The R01 payline won’t be increased like that. If you are ESI, you should be okay. If not, you’ll need to submit again unless your PO pushes for select pay. Now, if you just received your score (i.e., submitted in Feb 2014), then you will be considered under the FY15 paylines, which won’t be known until next year.

      • anxious777 said

        My mistake. I received 24 percentile on my R01 early this year……..

  78. Venkateswaran Subramanian said

    Thank you so much for your suggestion.

  79. MAVS said

    Dear Writedit, would a K99 recipient be eligible to submit an R21 application during the K99 phase, if the recipient is appointed as a non-tenure track faculty member during K99? Thank you.

    • writedit said

      You should first ask about the non tenure track appointment, to be sure that is allowed. I do not believe it is during the K99 year, since the point of the K99 portion is to provide a final year of mentored training, but you can ask the PO what the policy is at your institution. You can apply during the first year of the R00, once you have a tenure track position & activate the award.

      >

      • MAVS said

        Thank you for your quick reply. I know quite a few K99 recipients who are appointed as instructors, clinical APs etc.

      • writedit said

        The K99 policies recently changed, so you should still check with your PO on both matters.

        >

  80. LNS said

    Many thanks for all your help through this application process. I finally received the NOA from NCI last week. I always found others’ timelines very helpful so here is mine for anyone interested. Thanks again!
    9/30/13: Submitted R01 to NCI (A0 and ESI)
    2/12/14: SRG review completed
    6/26/14: Council review completed
    7/10/14: JIT request from GMS
    7/17/14: JIT submitted
    8/12/14: Award prepared
    8/18/14: Awarded

  81. Richard said

    Can anybody tell me how to transfer a NIH grant subcontract from one institution to another? I knew how to transfer RO1 but don’t know how to transfer a subcontract. Thanks!

    • writedit said

      You yourself don’t transfer the subward. The PI’s institution is the prime award recipient and will arrange to redirect the sub award, assuming you can complete the research at your new institution (i.e., you have the right resources, equipment, etc. available). The PI will want to contact the PO about the change, too. I am not sure if formal PO approval is needed for any $ amount or only at a certain threshold, but the PO needs to know.

      • Richard said

        Writedit, thank you for your advice. Could the PI take this chance to keep this portion of funding to himself if he feels they don’t need me anymore because the grant is funded?

      • writedit said

        No, he/she would need to renegotiate the terms of the award with the funding IC, and they would need to confirm they they could do work they needed to subaward out in the original proposal. You can contact the PO for advice if you are concerned about how your sub award might be handled.

      • Richard said

        Thank you so much for your help.

  82. Richard said

    Dear Wrtiedit, I have another question: What can I do if my current institution refuse to release the equipment purchased from my NIH grant when I move?

    • writedit said

      This can be a sticky wicket, though not always. The award is to the institution, not to you, of course, but the equipment was deemed necessary at peer review for the completion of the proposed research so should stay with the project. If you need the equipment to complete NIH-funded research (and you will take the NIH $ to complete the research with you), then you should have a clear case. Taking equipment purchased with NIH funds (vs start up or dept funds) is usually not a problem, but leaving on less than amicable terms could strain the transfer negotiations, especially for equipment purchased with awards that have since been closed out. If this equipment was purchased with the same award as you mentioned previously, you can ask the PO about taking the equipment as well. Again, this is assuming the new institution has the infrastructure to accommodate and support the equipment and complete the research in question.

      • Richard said

        Thanks, Writedit! The equipment were purchased with my own RO1s, some of them are still active and one of them has been closed out recently. While I would like to leave with amicable terms, taking my funding from current institution alone would make it less than amicable and might stain the transfer negotiations, I guess. Thanks again.

      • writedit said

        Taking your awards should not be a problem – most institutions do not interfere since they do not want faculty whom they recruit to have their awards interfered with. No university likes to lose faculty with funding, but they know that is what makes you attractive to other institutions, and that you have your own reasons for wanting to relocate (better collaborators, family situation, leadership position, etc.). And your institution may not care about the equipment – I have known people here at BICO to take everything with them without any problems (though I also hear of cases where some equipment must be left behind, which is why I cannot say how it will go for you). I assume you’ve already talked with all the relevant POs about transferring your awards, and they can offer good advice on the equipment.

  83. Confused Team said

    Thanks Writedit for hosting this wonderful site! We are hoping that you and others can help us with this confusing situation.

    Our R01 A1 application received an impact score of 1.1 and 1st percentile. Needless to say, we were very happy about the score and expected that it would highly likely get awarded. Then, we have been contacted by the primary institute, who would like to fund this as a preclinical R34 at the substantially lower the funding level. They are asking us to change our application from R01 to R34 with a set of different Aims and study design. We are really confused about this. Our understanding is that the scientific review panel decided that the study is highly meritorious as a clinical trial study, yet the institute wants to change the funding mechanism for the application. Our questions are 1) is this a common practice? Has someone experienced something like this? 2) would it be reasonable for us to contact the secondary institute to see if they would pick up our R01? We would appreciate any comments on this.

    • writedit said

      Some ICs (NIDDK comes to mind) require submission of an R34 or U34 (multisite clinical trial planning grant) prior to the submission/receipt of a R01/U01 for a multisite clinical trial. However, NIDDK program officials were willing to entertain skipping the R34/U34 step for a trial colleagues here at BICO were planning, but mainly because the trial would have built on existing infrastructure from a previously NIDDK-funded multisite trial among the same (or most of) sites. You should check the policy at each IC, as they both may require the R34 prior to the trial itself (in which case, there is no use considering the secondary IC). You should also get clarification on whether you would need to resubmit the R01 after completing the R34 preparation year; the application will still be active, so it could be they will just delay that award without forcing you to reapply (in fact, I would assume this would be the case, conditional on successful establishment of the trial infrastructure during the R34). A lot of ICs have gotten burned on funding large clinical trials that wasted a year or more getting organized, preparing uniform data collection forms and protocols, setting up a data coordinating center, training study coordinators & nurses at each site, etc., which is why they decided to enforce the R34-R01 sequence. If you have already established much of this infrastructure, have an operations manual and data collection forms/protocols/database established, then you may be able to convince the PO to bypass the R34 phase. If you need to do this anyway, then you should ask about how the reviewed R01 will be handled once you complete the R34 phase. It is ultimately up to the IC director, who wants to make the best possible investment when funding a large trial and can indeed set aside an application, even one with a nearly perfect score, if there are any concerns about logistics. The secondary IC cannot take over the application without the primary IC relinquishing it to them, so you can’t move the application on your own; if the secondary IC has a different policy, you feel you do not need the planning/prep year, and the primary IC won’t budge, you can certainly ask the PO at the primary IC about a change in assignment (but be aware that the secondary IC may not have the $ to fund the trial in any case).

      • Confused Team said

        Dear Writedit,

        Thank you for your thoughtful comment. This will help us further discuss the situation and respond to the PO. Many thanks from our team.

  84. KPE said

    Thank you so much for the information and service provided! Here is my timeline:
    6/17/13: Submitted R21 to NIMH (NICHD was secondary)
    10/14: Originally planned SRG–Cancelled due to Govt. shutdown
    12/10/14: SRG review completed at PDRP (28 score; 19th percentile)
    1/28/14: Council review completed
    2/26/14: JIT request from GMS
    3/14-8/14: Long, drawn out negotiation over IRB
    8/7/14: Award prepared
    8/15/14: Awarded

    Between 3/14 and 8/14:
    3/13/14: Revision of R21 Submitted
    6/11/14: SRG review completed at PDRP (13 score; 4th percentile)
    8/14/14: Administratively Withdrawn

    • writedit said

      Congratulations and thank you so much for posting such a detailed, informative timeline! Congratulations on the exceptional A1, score, too. Glad you worked out the IRB issues. Best wishes for success with the research!

  85. Jeff said

    Hello, writedit. I have a question regarding a pending R15 application to NIMH. Following initial review, I received a priority score of 30 and a percentile or 18. PO says this is on the edge, but that I have a “non-zero” chance of getting funded this round. Subsequently, she has asked for a preliminary reply to reviewers, and gave me a number of extremely helpful tips on preparing this, concluding with the comment that she thought I was “ideally positioned,” in terms of the scientific content of the grant being in line with her take on NIMH priorities, etc.

    So, I prepared the reply and submitted it a few weeks ago, and yesterday I received an email from my PO inquiring about some possible overlap between my R15 project, and a pilot project I am currently working on (funded as an administrative supplement to a P20 COBRE award). I informed her of a small amount of overlap, and she replied that we should work on eliminating this by modifying the current pending proposal. I made a suggestion re. how to do this, and she replied that she liked the idea, and that she would email me next week to let me know how to go about documenting this change to the project.

    The council meeting date is listed as 9/18 in the commons, so I was wondering what might be going on, and if I should be reading much into these requests etc. at this point? Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

    Cheers, and thanks for the great service you provide to all of us anxious would-be funded scientists!

    Jeff

    • writedit said

      You have a fantastic PO, obviously. You didn’t mention when you submitted the application. If it is for FY14, she is scrambling for a last-minute award in September – the fact that she is asking for documentation on why the projects don’t overlap means she is getting ready for a fast administrative review and approval (before Sept 30). I don’t think she would have done this if she wasn’t reasonably confident the $ was there. If this is for FY15, then I guess she just wants to be sure you are on the paylist, but these awards won’t be issued for many months (federal budget for FY15 won’t be passed until sometime next year). Either way, excellent news, and you can be cautiously excited.

      • jsoon71 said

        Thank you for your reply. Yes, she has been incredibly helpful thus far. I submitted this as a new submission on February 25th, so I guess this would be FY14? The earliest start date is listed as September or December. Either way, it’s nice to be in the mix, and to be in a good position for the revision, if one is required.

      • writedit said

        Usually a Feb submission would be an FY15 award, but maybe your PO is trying to get it in for FY14. Either way, it’s good news, and if she can’t push your application through for an award, she will definitely have good advice on the A1.

      • zhu70 said

        Dear Writedit,

        I just found this very helpful website. I have a question regarding my pending R01 grant application. I submitted my A1 early this year as an early stage investigator. My application got an impact score of 30 and was ranked at 10th percentile. The status of my application was changed to “Pending administrative review” after we submitted JIT over a month ago in response to a request from era-notify@mail.nih.gov. In the JIT, I indicated that there is a partial scientific overlap between the Aim1 of my R01 application and my March of Dimes Basil O’Connor starter scholar research award, which was just awarded right before I submitted my A1. Now the PO is asking me to delineate the overlap part and if I have taken any steps with MOD to eliminate the overlap. I did not take any steps yet with MOD to eliminate the overlap because I even did not know if my R01 would be funded or not. My questions are how this partial overlap would affect PO’s final decision whether or not to fund my R01 grant and what I should do regarding the elimination of the overlap. Would the overlap be a big problem?

        Thank you very much for your advice!

      • writedit said

        Congratulations on both awards. You will be able to work out the overlap issue – you won’t lose the R01. If you have a mentor who could look at both specific aims pages and budgets, he or she can probably help you with this, since it really requires knowing both applications/awards to give good advice. Someone in your sponsored programs (research) office should be able to give advice, too, and your program contacts at both your IC and the MOD will likely help – they want you to succeed (they just want to be sure you aren’t being paid twice for the same work). I assume from the name that the MOD award is smaller and would at best overlap with only one (or part of one) aim in your R01. If any of the aims or sub aims are identical, then you want to think whether you can modify the overlapping aim in the MOD award and get their permission to pursue something slightly different (additional, since your R01 will cover the overlapped work). Since the NIH wants to make an award by the end of September, renegotiating with MOD to eliminate overlap would probably be easier, and they are probably more flexible. Now, if you don’t have any direct duplication in the two applications but just a similar scientific focus, you can point this out and indicate how the work (specific experiments) with MOD funding will be distinct from (& complementary to) that done with NIH funding.

  86. talaci said

    Dear writedit, I want to let you know that my K25 has been funded with NIAID. The score was 25, right at the FY 14 payline. Thank you for all your help along the way!
    A question i have now is that I am planning a R21 with a collaborator. Can I serve as a contributing co-PI in the R21? My PO said yes but she would like to double check on that, and I have not heard back from her yet.

    • writedit said

      Congratulations! You cannot be a PI as part of a multiple PI submission, but you can participate as a co-investigator. I assume the K25 only covers 75% of your effort, so you could only include as much effort on the R21 as you have available, depending on the % effort you need to set aside for any clinical, teaching, or administrative responsibilities. The effort on the R21 would count as additional research activities in the 25% (or whatever %) not covered by the K25. If the K25 covers 100% of your effort, you might be able to provide effort with no salary requested on the R21, again as part of your research training, but that your PO would indeed need to confirm. If you need to know for an October submission, you can remind your PO again that you need to know by email or phone, if you have called her before. Best wishes for success with your projects and your career in academic research!

  87. HopefulPI said

    Hello writedit. I submitted a revised A1 almost a year ago (for FY14). I received a decent score, but it was just outside the payline and did not seem likely to be funded. Just recently, I got an e-mail from the GMS saying that the application is currently under administrative review and they needed confirmation of the amounts budgeted. My commons status hasn’t changed. Do you think this is good news? Or will I just have to wait through the end of the fiscal year to see what happens? Thank you.

    • writedit said

      This is absolutely good news, and you should reply immediately if you have not already. September is the month that ICs make last minute award decisions based on how much $ they have left. If your GMS is asking for this information, it means they have gotten far enough down the pay list to reach your application (and/or it might have been flagged for extra consideration due to programmatic interest). If you had been in touch with the PO earlier in the year, he or she probably would have told you that your application might be considered at the end of the year. This is a good reason not to make any assumptions about a borderline score. In this case, you seem likely to get an award, and you’ll know soon. I would suggest you also contact the PO an update on what is happening and what you can expect.

  88. zhu70 said

    Thank you so much for your advice! My MOD award is only for two years and the direct cost is only $130K in total, which is mainly to cover a postdoc’s salary. My MOD grant partially overlaps with only one aim of my R01 grant. I will talk with program contacts at both IC, which is NINDS, and MOD. It would be great if MOD can have some flexibility. Thanks again!

    • zhu70 said

      Dear Writedit,

      Again, thank you very much for your suggestion! I renegotiated with MOD and requested to change the overlapping part of my MOD grant based on your suggestions. Now MOD has approved my proposal changes and the overlapping part between my MOD grant and NIH grant has been eliminated. As you said, it was much easier to renegotiate with MOD and they are more flexible. Thank you very much for your help!

      • writedit said

        Perfect – I’m so glad this worked out for you. Foundations want to see their supported investigators go on to get NIH funding (larger awards for longer project periods), which they can claim as a positive outcome – and evidence that they know how to pick solid science (since NIH peer review agrees). Co-funding your research falls into the same category, since supporters of the Foundation want to see this research move ahead rapidly and effectively, which the joint funding will facilitate.

  89. Sambad said

    HI Writedit,
    I am moving to a different school with my mentor. My F31 application (NCI) is under second revision. Do I need to withdraw my application and resubmit it? or is there any other way to fix this? (since training plan and application has to be changed completely)

    • writedit said

      You can’t substitute a new training-research plan. You can ask the PO for guidance about your situation, but if both the training and research plans must be reworked, you should probably withdraw the application to avoid wasting reviewer effort (study section won’t be happy about reviewing you two rounds in a row if you should have withdrawn the current application) and submit a new application from the new institution in December.

  90. AA said

    Hi, I thought to hope for some answer or relief here. The impact score of my revised F32 (appl. deadline Aug 8th, 2013) was 30 and I basically gave up. But few weeks ago I found out that some info was requested (e.g. year I got my PhD and clarification of the budget). I checked the status on eRA and it changed to the ambiguous “Award Prepared; refer questions to GMS”. I wonder if anyone got this and then never obtained funding? I emailed to GMS but they were very vague in their response, basically saying that awards will not go out until 9/15/14 if that helps.

    Here is my timeline:

    11/03/2014: Awared Prepared, refer questions to GMS
    11/20/2013: Scientific Review Group review completed. Refer any questions to Program Official.
    08/16/2013: Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
    08/08/2013: Application entered into system

    What do you guys think it all means?

    • AA said

      correction: 9/03/2014: Award Prepared….

      • writedit said

        You should absolutely check with your PO – he or she won’t mind explaining what is going on. The award prepared status precedes the actual notice of award (sometimes by days to weeks), and as Quynh pointed out, fellowships need to be activated. All FY14 awards must be made by Sept 30th, and it could be that the GMS knows award notices will be going out next week but might not know about yours specifically. Congratulations are in order – best wishes for success with the project and your training.

  91. Quynh said

    Hello what Institute were you applying to? In my understanding, if your percentile or impact score is at the funding range, you will be likely to get it. At NHLBI they posted the funding percentile and they do update their website and funding score occasionally. Based on what they posted at your eCommons, it looks like you are getting the fellowship. However, it could take longer than what they posted regarding the expected date of the award. Also later they could ask you to submit a form to declare what date you want the award activated. My F32 fellowship that I just got from NHLBI stated that the award will be in July. But the whole process was not done till the end of July. Then I requested them to activate my award in December. You could email your PO and ask what is really going on. But my bet is you will get it eventually but it takes some time for them to prepare everything.

    • AA said

      Thanks guys (and you too writeedit!). I just got the Notice of Award. You were right, it took more here than for others in the past. I did contact the PO and he did inform me that my application was funded. Thanks so much for wishing me success on the project!

      • writedit said

        Woohoo! Congratulations again – have fun.

  92. NK said

    If you feel there is a reviewer on the study section roster who is biased against your work, is it possible to ask the SRO that this person not review the application. Roster was published on September 9 and review if October 9. Will the person know that you asked they not review?
    Thanks

    • writedit said

      It’s too late at this point, since the reviewers were assigned some time ago. When you are submitting an application, you can name reviewers you do not want assigned as long as you can provide objective evidence that they could be biased (e.g., publish and/or receive grant funding for similar work – not just that they were obnoxious to you at your poster). Only the SRO knows you have requested that they not be assigned – reviewers do not see the cover letter. If you need to reapply, in your next cover letter, you can ask that this reviewer not be assigned (whether or not you think he/she was assigned to your original review).

  93. GAR34 said

    Hi everyone, I’ve been silently following this blog for close to two years now and have learned a lot about the application process from reading the responses. Writedit… thank you so much for maintaining this page. I am providing my F31 NRSA application timeline, in case anyone out there might find it useful. Don’t give up!

    Funding Opportunity: F31, Ruth L. Kirchstein National Research Service Award
    FOA Number: (PA-11-112)
    Funding Agency: National Institute on Aging (NIA)

    4/12/2013 1st submission

    6/27/2013 SRG review

    07/02/2013 SRG review results available in eRA Commons; Impact Score 33
    07/24/2013 Summary Statement available in eRA Commons. Reviewers criticized the training plan, which they felt was generic and not trainee specific. They liked the rest.

    12/13/2013 2nd submission (A1)

    12/29/2013 Received an email stating my application was dead due to a missing document. Heart stopped. However, this was resolved after contacting the Division of Receipt and Referral in the Center for Scientific Review, NIH, where I explained all documents were indeed submitted. They double-checked and found the document. Heart beat again.

    02/24/2014 SRG review

    02/27/2014 SRG review results available in eRA Commons. Impact Score 30
    03/12/2014 Summary Statement available in eRA Commons. Reviewers noted the application was substantially improved, though surprisingly the impact score did not change much. Biggest critique was the project timeline/funding period, which they felt should be longer.

    08/22/2014 Received an email requesting IACUC numbers and approval/expiration dates from NIA. No change in eRA Commons status. *** over 5 months of having heard nothing!***

    09/02/2014 Current Application Status in eRA Commons for A1 changed to “pending”. In General Grant Information, status changed to “Award prepared; refer questions to GMS”.

    09/15/2014 Received NoA via email. eRA Commons status changed to “Fellowship awarded”.

    • writedit said

      Congratulations and thank you so much for posting such a detailed, informative, and entertaining application timeline! Glad normal rhythm was restored. I am not surprised about the radio silence at NIA, though you probably would have been told your application was under consideration still if you’d checked with the PO. What a happy surprise. Best wishes for success on your doctorate and career in biomedical research!

  94. random PI said

    My status changed to “Application awarded” >24 h ago, but I haven’t received any email yet. There’s a PDF of the Notice on eRA Commons. It would really help for me to be able to say now (to prospective grad students, the chair, etc.) that I’ve got this in the bag, but I’m paranoid it’s not really official yet. Should I write my PO at the end of business tomorrow if I haven’t received an email?

    • writedit said

      Congratulations – you are receiving an award, no need to check with your PO. If you are saying there is a PDF of the NoA on eRA Commons, this is your official Notice of Award (email would just point you to this PDF), and you can check the PDF for the terms of the award if you need to know what you can promise in terms of $ etc.. If you do not have a NoA PDF yet, up to a week can pass between “Award prepared” and the NoA, so don’t worry – it’s coming.

  95. NP said

    Hi Writedit,

    At the end of each fiscal year, NIH will use the fund left in the budget to fund applications in the gray zone. I am wondering if you know when the decision will be made, by the end of this month? Thank you.

    • writedit said

      All FY14 awards must be made by September 30th (last day of the fiscal year), so I imagine all final decisions have been made, since they need time to process the awards. If you have been waiting to hear but have had only radio silence from your PO, you could check in as to whether anything is in the works for a late September award – or you could wait until Oct 1, at which point you’ll know for sure.

  96. researcher said

    Quick question: I have a R01 at NCI that was reviewed and got as A1 an Impact of 20 and a percentile of 6. Current status says Council review completed. A buddy of mine got a grant reviewed at around the same time and just got his award notice. Do I still need to be nervous about this…?

    • writedit said

      Depends on if your buddy submitted for an RFA or PAR or a regular program announcement (parent or NCI) and when you submitted the applications. If your application was submitted last year for FY14, then you should touch base with your PO. If you submitted this year to standard submission date (Feb 5), then you will be considered for FY15, in which case you’ll be waiting a while due to the delay in the federal budget. Applications submitted earlier this year to RFAs and PARs could be funded in FY14.

  97. Brad said

    NIAID just posted interim paylines for FY2015 R01s and much to my surprise they are higher than FY2014 final paylines.

    2014: 9/13 (ESI/NI)
    2015: 10/14 (ESI/NI)

    Any insight into why the interim payline may so “relatively” high?

    • writedit said

      They’re expecting a little more money than in FY14, and it could be that NIAID is ending some big programs that will free up $ for FY15 (that otherwise would have been obligated). Paylines can be adjusted down, though (NIDCR did that last year), if the bottom falls out on the anticipated appropriation.

      • tcgal said

        is this universal at NIH (i.e. expecting a little more money than in FY14)?

        my NCI R01 (A1) was just reviewed this week and we got 8th percentile. I’m cautiously excited!

        NCI’s hard payline was 9th percentile last FY- and then of course there is the gray zone..

        should paylines be as good or perhaps better than last year, and at least no worse?

      • writedit said

        Yes, yes, yes, and yes. Congratulations on your cautiously optimistic score!

      • laghs said

        But we expect more applications coming into NIH in FY15. So, the payline might actually be down?

      • writedit said

        Success rates will be down due to the larger denominator. If reviewers spread the scores appropriately, paylines should be relatively stable.

  98. blindsided said

    Dear Writedit,
    I have a question a bit off topic — I am in the 5th year of my R01, and one of my collaborators (non-key, but senior) is less than forthcoming with data on my project., more than a year after the experiments were performed This makes it difficult to generate the best hypothesis for the competitive renewal, I feel blindsided.. Are there any NIH policies/mechanisms that could help with such a situation? Or is it just the art of collaboration, that I have (obviously) yet to master. I have to mention I was an ESI when I got the award, so quite junior. Thank you in advance!

    • writedit said

      I assume you have talked in person with this individual about planning the competitive renewal and needing these data to do so. If not, that is your first step – not via email but in person. Bringing this up at group meetings may also help give you some back up. The data belong to the university/institution, not to this individual, so he cannot keep them from you. I would suggest talking with your mentor/Chair for assistance if you know the data exist but have not been shared with you. The NIH Data Sharing Policy can be invoked – though it really should not need to be within the same university/institution.

      • blindsided said

        Thank you writedit. Yes, the need for data was mentioned in the context of planning the renewal application, months before the intended deadline (Nov). Mentioned in group meetings as well. I also offered to analyze the raw data, if they don’t have time to do it. All I got was hand waving and empty promises, not one shred of data. I think you are right, I will involve senior people and hope for the best. Thanks again!

  99. Peter Pan said

    Hello Writedit,
    thank you for this very helpful blog.

    I have a RO1 A1 (submitted 3/05.2014) to NCI, which received raw score 26 and 8 percentile (scientific review on 6/3/2014). eRA Common indicated the Council review completed on Sept 10, 2014. Yet, I haven’t heard anything yet regarding JIT request. I spoke with my PO earlier in June and was instructed to wait until someone to contact me asking for JIT. I am anxious to know whether I can get NOA or not. Is this caused by undetermined FY2015 budget from Congress? Should I contact my PO again to ask for the instruction or just be patient?

    Thank you so much for your advise.

    • writedit said

      Congratulations on the nice score (I assume you mean the Overall Impact/Priority Score was 26). NCI is always very conservative at the outset of the fiscal year under a continuing resolution. If you haven’t communicated with your PO since June, you could check in again, though not to ask for JIT – just to ask for a timing update, in terms of whether you will need to wait for the NIH appropriation to be passed (as part of the federal budget). My guess is, you will have to wait for the federal budget, which probably won’t be until next year. Your PO will not confirm that you are getting an award but will probably remain cautiously optimistic until NCI sets paylines, so please don’t be surprised (or upset) if that is the case. Your PO truly does not know for sure at this point. You are in good shape, but you’ll need to be patient.

  100. Peter Pan said

    Thank you Writedit for your advice! Yes, 26 is Overall Impact/Priority Score. I will contact my PO as you suggested. Thanks again.

  101. grant waiting said

    Hello WriteEdit,

    I have a grant that is already reviewed but missed the payline at its assigned primary institute A. Now institute B (which is not one of the assigned institutes of the grant) says they will request a transfer to B for consideration. I wonder, in this process, should I as the applicant get involved in the transfer process or should I just wait for institute A to transfer the grant to B? If I should get involved, should I direct write to the PO of A to ask them to transfer the grant to B? I am asking because in eRA Commons it looks the grant is still with A, though it has been three months since it had been reviewed.

    Thanks!

    • writedit said

      The PO at primary IC A arranges the transfer to the PO at secondary IC B (they communicate how/when to make this happen). There is nothing you can do specifically, though you can contact your PO at primary IC A to check on the status of the transfer. However, I expect this will take some time since the NIH is operating under a CR, so no IC is going to fund a transferred application right now. You probably won’t hear anything until next year, after the federal budget has been passed.

    • Feri said

      Hi there!
      So sorry that I am just seeing your question.
      Exactly what Writedit told you has happened to my grant, and the transfer was done between my PO from primary IC ( NICHD) and my PO at the secondary IC ( NIDA) but I was advised by my first PO to send a resubmission as well. I took her advice and I am glad I did! My A1 was assigned to NIDA as primary and NICHD became my secondary and today I found out that my A1 was scored in the 7th percentile! If my A1 was scored lower than my A0, my assumption is that NIDA might have considered my A0 for funding in FY15 which was scored in the 18%. This happened to one of my colleagues for his R21 who scored much lower for his A1 and his A0 was borederline.

      Dear Writedit,
      I can’t thank you enough for your wonderful advice, and support here! I think I made it!!!
      All the best,
      Feri

      • writedit said

        Woohoo – congratulations on the terrific A1 score! Best wishes for success with your research!

  102. Feri said

    Thanks SO much Writedit and I will continue following your terrific blog!

  103. Jeff said

    Hello-

    I’m writing back with a follow-up question re. my still-yet-to-be funded R15 proposal. Since last writing, I have been asked by my PO to write up and submit a short description of how I would modify my proposal to eliminate a small amount of overlap with another grant, signed by myself and our university signing official on university letterhead. After that, I received a call from the Grants Management Specialist on 9/12 telling me that they were looking into funding my proposal in FY14, and that they wanted to make sure I would be ready to accept the award by the end of the month, and would be able to submit any additional JIT information within 24 hrs of the request. A couple days later, I received the JIT request, and promptly submitted the requested information.

    That’s the last I’ve heard. My status changed to Council Review Completed on 10/03, but I have yet to hear any final word about it, and an email to my PO has gone unanswered for the last week and a half.

    Reading through the posts here, and talking to colleagues, it seems highly improbable that they would ask for all of the above unless they were planning on funding the proposal. This has not reduced my anxiety, however.

    Any insight re. what may be going on here? If I were going to be funded in FY14, would I have heard something by now? I’m trying to be patient over here, but I’m also thinking about the looming Oct deadline for R15 submissions/revisions.

    Thanks,
    Jeff

    • writedit said

      You are correct that they would not do all that work if they did not plan to issue an award. They needed to get your award on the books by day’s end on Sept 30, which they probably did bureaucratically, but actually preparing the Notice takes a little longer. I have seen notices back dated to the end of Sept issued in early October. If you haven’t heard by Monday, you could check in with the PO as to whether the award was/is being processed – or if you should be looking at the November deadline for an A1 application.

      • Jeff said

        Great, thanks for the input! I will now go back to being patient ;-)

        Jeff

      • Jeff said

        Hello Again. In case you or anyone else is interested, my R15 to NIMH did not wind up getting funded in FY14. My PO has told me she is hearing that “..new grants might not be released until December 1st,” and has recommended I submit a revised proposal on the Oct 25th deadline, just in case. She further stated that I could still be funded in FY15, and that she hopes that I will be. That sounds like good news, right?

        From what I can tell, Congress has already approved an appropriations bill covering NIH funding for FY15. Do you think they are just being cautious while they get a sense for how things are shaping up early in the fiscal year?

        Thanks,
        Jeff

      • writedit said

        This is still good news (though not as good as receiving an award). A friend here at BICO received a select pay award at the beginning of the new FY (vs by Sept 30 of the FY in which he was being considered), so you could get an award for your FY14 R15 in December or after. My friend was also advised to put in an A1, which he did, and it was administratively withdrawn after the A0 was funded. Your PO’s support and enthusiasm is what is most important – that she wants you to be funded. The FY15 budget likely won’t be passed until next year, but NIMH can make your FY14 award under the CR. The FY15 budget should be a tad higher (a slight tad, don’t get excited) than FY14, so paylines won’t go up (probably stay the same or drop a percentile in some cases), but success rates will drop since the number of applications is increasing under the new NIH policy.

      • Jeff said

        Sorry, looks like I was wrong about the appropriations bill being passed already. I guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens as the end date for the CR (Dec. 11th) gets closer, eh?

  104. JW said

    Hello,

    I submitted an R15 application to NIGMS which just received a score of 27. I’m happy with the score, but my guess is that it probably doesn’t have a good chance of being funded. I’m wondering if its worth my time to try to resubmit for the next deadline in 2 weeks, or if I should hold off for another cycle. The study section was just this past week, so I would be getting my summary statement pretty close to the deadline, but I’m guessing the comments are minimal if my scores were a mix of 2s and 3s. I would hate to lose a cycle if I don’t have to, but I’m debating whether its realistic to try to turn this application around so quickly.

    Thanks! And this is a great blog!

    • writedit said

      NIH Policy (NOT-OD-14-074) requires that you have your summary statement before resubmitting (might not happen until after Oct 25), and you absolutely should take into account the concerns raised by reviewers. Unless you rushed a flawed application in the last cycle (such that you knew it had problems you can now fix), I am not quite sure how you would know what to change, aside from adding additional preliminary data and publications. Remember too that you will be going back to the same reviewers, who will know you resubmitted without taking their suggestions into account (due to timing). Your PO won’t want to talk with you until you have your summary statement, at which time the PO could assess whether your application might still be considered for an award and also provide advice on revising the proposal based on the discussion of your application.

  105. MSHS said

    I will be completing my third year of K08 from NHLBI in spring 2015. I am interested in applying for R03 from another institute that has a start date of June 2015. Am I allowed to do that, and keep both grants if funded? Thanks!!

  106. Psyance said

    Greetings Writedit! In my recently submitted R01, I noticed that on the cover/info sheet (which I assume is completed by who ever assigns the application) there is a mistake in the reported budget. The direct costs (minus consortium F&A) are listed correctly for years 1, 3, 4, & 5; however, for year 2 it lists the total direct costs (i.e., it includes consortium F&As) which makes it look like year 2 is >$100,000 more than any other year. Should I contact someone to have this corrected? It is still less than $500,000 for that year, but it looks like there is a huge jump in direct costs during year 2 (which isn’t accurate).

    • writedit said

      The mistake would have been made on your end (your institution’s end) – no one at the NIH changes anything in the application, which is exactly as you submitted it electronically. This is why PIs (& sponsored research office staff) need to look at the application after it is submitted, to be sure everything is correct. You can ask your PO if this can be fixed. I assume all the budget numbers are correct otherwise, in which case there shouldn’t (I would hope) be a problem with this change after the submission date.

      • Psyance said

        Thanks for your reply. Perhaps I should clarify. This isn’t to say that the mistake was not on our end (that’s quite possible), but there was no change in the actual application. The first page looks like a page that was generated (at least partially) by data I put in the application. However, it also lists things that I had no knowledge of at submission. For example, it lists an accession number, an IPF, the assigned review group, that I’m an ESI, that it’s not an AIDS application, etc. There is also a space where total direct costs, minus consortium F&A, are listed. These aren’t values I put anywhere in the grant. In fact, you have to do some math, using the various consortium budgets, to get those values. My institution maintains that they didn’t enter this data either (which is why I thought this was an info sheet added by someone at NIH when my grant was assigned). At any rate, it is my fault for not catching this sooner. Though, I really don’t remember seeing this page when I reviewed it (and certainly it didn’t have my review group listed). I will contact my PO (once one is assigned) to see if it needs to be fixed.

      • writedit said

        Yes, some of the pages are automatically generated based on electronic forms submitted – but the automatically generated pages draw their data from the forms completed in the application. If you have not been working with a PO in advance of submitting your application, then you should just contact the SRO of the review group to which you have been assigned. And if you did not work with a PO before submitting this application, please take care to do so the next time for advice on your specific aims (to develop an application of programmatic interest) and study section selection (to find reviewers interested in your science). Once you have your summary statement, your PO can give advice on revisions and advocate for your application.

  107. grant waiting said

    Hello WriteEdit,

    Just curious, say one has an unfunded R21A0, after revision and adding more content, can one submit an R01A1 based on the R21A0? In other words, can one submit an A1 as a different type of grant?

    Thanks.

    • writedit said

      With the new NIH submission policy (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-14-082.html), you can submit the modified R21 as an A0 again (you do not need to change aims, you would not refer to any prior applications in the research narrative and not include an introduction). If you feel you have enough preliminary data to support an R01 application, you can also expand it to an A0 R01. You might ask your PO which would be the better strategy (R21 A0 vs R01 A0).

      • grant waiting said

        So basically one cannot submit the A1 version of the grant as an R01 and it must remain as an R21 because the A0 was an R21(?).

      • writedit said

        No, you can submit your R21 A1 proposal as an A0 application for either activity code (R01 or R21). You could also submit a piece of it as an R03. My suggestion was to talk with your PO to see what makes more sense for your target institute in terms of what you want to accomplish and how much preliminary data you have available to expand the R21.

  108. Hope said

    Dear Writedit,
    I have a R15 that just got scored at NIDDK. I don’t think it was scored fairly because no one on the panel was in my area of research. (You might remember that I came to ask you whether it’s possible to move an application from one institution to another. I talked to the PO at NIAID following your suggestions but the PO wasn’t able to help me.) There is an upcoming deadline for R15 (October 25) and I am interested in resending the same grant to NIAID, as a new submission, without waiting for the summary statement. Do you think I can do that? I do have a time limit as my start-up is running out. I would appreciate your advice.

    • Hope said

      According to NIH Policy NOT-OD-14-074, it sounds like I cannot. But my circumstance is not described in the policy.

      I do think that this was a referral error. What do you think I should do? Thank you!

      • writedit said

        There are no “referral errors”. If you do not submit a cover letter, the referral office at CSR first asks different ICs if they will accept your application. If no IC will accept your application, it is rejected. This is not an automated process – people are asked. Again, in the absence of a cover letter, the referral officer looks at your title and abstract for key words that will suggest an appropriate study section (not necessarily the best study section). If the SRO does not reject the application, that is where it is reviewed, whether or not someone with the appropriate expertise for your particular project is on the panel. This is why researching study sections and including a cover letter that requests specific assignments and includes a list of the type of expertise needed to review the application is essential.

    • writedit said

      NIH policy prohibits you from submitting an application for which you have not yet received the summary statement, so no, you cannot submit the same R15 if you have not received the prior summary statement. Now, you can ask that NIAID be assigned as your primary IC, assuming the PO at NIAID was interested in your work, but the reviewers will be the same unless you find another study section to request in your cover letter. That is, the R15 applications are reviewed at CSR, not in the ICs, so the administering IC does not matter when it comes to the review process. You need to find a study section with reviewers who are interested in your area of research.

      • Hope said

        Thank you Writedit. A little bit clarification: (1) I did indicate in the cover letter that NIAID was my first choice, and I had talked to a PO at NIAID (before submission) who showed a strong interest. I indicated NIDDK as my second choice. My understanding is that the first choice, since I indicated explicitly in the cover letter, should be asked first — is that correct?

        (2) NIDDK and NIAID have different R15 panels at CSR. I have colleagues who are also in this round and are currently being reviewed at NIAID R15 panels. Our areas of research are very similar.

      • Hope said

        One more thing to add:
        (3) When I asked the PO at NIAID (or NIDDK) about which study section they would recommend, they both said that I had no choice because R15’s are reviewed in special panels, and each institute had a couple of these special panels.

        Sorry to show my frustration but there’s a lot of inconsistence here. I am considering to appeal but I have no idea how to do that, and whether it’s worth it. Could you please educate me on that? Thank you!

      • writedit said

        Ah, yes, I had forgotten that R15 had SEPs that reviewed them. You do not have your summary statement, so I am not sure what you want to appeal. At the time the application is assigned, if you have a concern about the IC and/or the SRG, you can and need to inquire about this immediately (not after the review). Even with your cover letter, the referral officer would have talked with both NIAID and NIDDK, and apparently NIAID passed at being primary IC (or NIDDK indicated a stronger interest). With the IC assignment, you want to contact your PO if you are concerned about which IC was assigned to be primary. At this point, you absolutely do not want to appeal – again, you don’t even have a summary statement (appeals can only be made if there are objective factual errors in the review that would significantly change the score), but also because you would be prohibited from submitting the application again until the appeal was complete, and then only the original application would be reviewed by the same study section in the review cycle following the next Council meeting (so next spring, since Council must approve your appeal). You never want to formally appeal unless something truly egregious happened at review. What you need to do is wait for your summary statement, talk with the NIAID PO about revising the application for submission with NIAID as primary (it could be you will need to modify the application for an NIAID assignment), and submit next February. I expect the summary statement will point out weaknesses that need to be addressed before you will succeed with your application.

      • Hope said

        Thanks so much Writedit! This is very helpful.

        Regarding the concern about IC assignment — I did inquire immediately after it happened by contacting the POs in both institutes (following your suggestion at the time–thank you again), but they told me it’s too late. Just in case this would happen again… was it really too late, or else?

      • writedit said

        Before you submit your revised application, you can let the NIAID PO know you plan to request NIAID as the primary IC on your next application (and confirm this is what he/she wants). You would put his/her name in your cover letter & indicate that you have discussed the assignment with them.

  109. K812 said

    I have an R01 A1 that was recently scored at the 14th percentile. It’s assigned to NIBIB, with NCI secondary. The payline for both institutes is the 9th percentile (I’m an experienced investigator). I read your Kindle book and learned that for most institutes there are a substantial number of grants funded beyond the payline. There is no data in your book for NIBIB, and I’ve been unable to find anything online. Do you know of a way for me to get this information?

    Another issue is that the PO did not respond to emails that I sent after the review of the A0. I will try again after I get the summary statement, but I don’t have much hope that he will advocate for this grant.

    Thank you.

    • writedit said

      I don’t have the funding trend data for NIBIB because they did not provide them (we asked all the ICs), so I cannot help you there – but you can assume they do fund applications above the payline. If your PO has not communicated at all, or at least since the submission of the A0, then you might check for other POs with similar portfolios or contact the appropriate Division chief for a different program contact. If you don’t know anyone else or none of your mentors or colleagues have suggestions (even if their NIBIB POs are not in your area, sometimes they can refer you to someone else), you can look through the Scientific Program Areas for either alternative PO names or projects similar to yours (and then look up their POs via RePORTER).

      • K812 said

        Thank you for the suggestion about the PO. There is a PO whom I’d prefer, and my grant could fit into his portfolio. I understand why it was assigned to the PO I have now, but it could go just as well to the one I prefer. Is it acceptable to ask a PO to take your grant from another PO? And how many emails have to be ignored before you should do this?

      • writedit said

        I would say if you never heard back after the A0 was reviewed and had no input on your A1 submission, that you could explain this lack of responsiveness to the PO you prefer and ask first if he knows why the other PO has not been responsive and then if your applications could be assigned to him (A1 if possible and any future submissions). Communicating with extramural PIs is the PO’s job, so it is reasonable for you to look into the situation and seek an alternative PO as appropriate.

      • K812 said

        I hate to keep asking questions, but should I try to get it reassigned now, after the review? If I resubmit it will be a new application and I would contact the preferred PO from the start.

      • writedit said

        Happy to keep answering questions. I think it would be appropriate to make contact now, explain the situation, and ask if this new PO can help with your A1 and, if not, with your future applications. Even if your A1 cannot be formally reassigned to him (each IC has their own internal policy on this), he can tell you how much programmatic interest there would be in your A1 and how likely it is that your application would be considered for select pay. In the process, you might also then find out what happened to your assigned PO (& this new PO may just engage your assigned PO to become more active in working with you – perhaps there is something going on that you don’t know about that had distracted him/her), and someone else at the IC will be aware of your A1.

      • K812 said

        Thank you so much for this great information! I will do as you suggest.

      • writedit said

        Now, I should add one more suggestion. I would suggest you wait to contact the new PO until you have your summary statement, if you don’t yet. You could also make one more attempt with the assigned PO when you get your summary statement (and if you did receive your A1 summary statement and tried to contact the assigned PO to no avail, you are good to introduce yourself to the new PO).

  110. JiLord said

    ESIprof got his first R01 funded after he submitted another one (entirely different project and institute). He was considered an ESI for the second R01 (given that ESI eligibility is determined on the date of submission). Now, his second R01 did not get a fundable score. Would ESIprof still be consider an ESI when he resubmit the second R01 as A1?

    • writedit said

      No, he lost ESI status when the first R01 was funded. Status at time of submission is what counts, so all future submissions (including the A1) will be as an established PI.

      >

  111. CK said

    My RO1 A1 submitted to NICHD got scored – 12 percentile with 26 priority score (as an established PI), and I have a few questions before discussing with my PO. NICHD hasn’t posted payline for FY14/15, but I assume it wouldn’t be much different from FY13’s (9 percentile). You mentioned that grants scored above the payline could be funded. Do you know how those grants are chosen? Randomly or by priority scores? I am very curious about the selection process and if you have any suggestions on increasing the chance. Also, there is no secondary institute assigned for this grant (as this is for specific topic and FOA announced by NICHD), but in case this doesn’t get funded, would it still be possible to ask other institutes to consider? NHLBI and NIGMS have ones that fit very well for this grant. If so, when would be best time to contact? I would so much appreciate your help!

    • writedit said

      First, you can’t ask for additional IC assignments now, and it would be very rare for secondary ICs to pick up the application (though not impossible, as demonstrated by fortunate folks who post here). If you need to rework this for a new application, you should identify appropriate POs at NHLBI and NIGMS and talk with them about your science and aims to see which of the 3 ICs are most interested. Whether your A1 is discussed for select pay depends on your PO’s level of enthusiasm for your project (they are selected in good part on score but mainly based on programmatic interest – not randomly at all). When you contact your NICHD PO, you can ask whether your application is under consideration for an award still and, if not, what you can do to improve the proposal for resubmission.

  112. 2Laroc said

    I have a budget question to toss out there. I am putting in my R01 renewal to NCI and am unfortunately under the Type 2 cap rule such that I can only ask for 225, not 250K. I was instructed however that the Type 2 cut is 10%, such that the hassle of putting in for a waiver for 250 (unlikely to fly) then taking a 17% cut is not worth it. My question is this: my institution requires a more detailed budget – should the average of this be over 225K for all 5 years such that I qualify for that module, or if it is an average of 220K per year would the grant fall to 200K module? I don’t think this matters for NIH but I am paranoid since I have been knocked modules before due to institutional mistakes. thanks for your help.

    • writedit said

      I assume you are referring to the 10% cut under the CR – hopefully at least 7% of that will be restored when the FY15 budget is passed (depending on how the dust settles after the dust up over Collins’ ebola vaccine remark). If the competing renewal budget cap only lets you go up to $225K and you need more, one question might be whether to go with a new Type 1 rather than a Type 2. We (at BICO) have had to bite the bullet & do that for some NCI grants (so much for the benefit of renewal). If you want to stick with a Type 2 and can do so within $225K, I would definitely suggest jiggering your internal budget to come out to $225K each of the 5 years (BICO requires the same internal budget). Coming out to $220K each year should mean your institution will bump it up to $225K vs back down to $200K (it’s in their interest to go for the extra module in terms of indirects), but since you can easily come up with another $5K (travel, open access fees, supplies, etc.), I would suggest you just do that to be safe.

  113. CK said

    That’s very helpful! Many thanks as always!

  114. Me said

    writedit – can SBIR indirect funds be used to pay bonuses to employees of the company?

    • writedit said

      You do not report how you spend your F&A/indirect funds to the NIH, which you use at your discretion. In your case, you probably don’t want to mention how you are spending your indirect costs to your PO.

  115. Confused said

    Hi, all!

    I’ve been a lurker for a couple months on your extremely useful blog. In my daily check of Commons, I noticed that under the Action section, a link for Inclusion popped up today. I was wondering what this meant for my grant, if anything. I tried searching the blog and the internet, but came up empty. Is this something that is automatically generated like the JIT? Also, I haven’t been asked to submit a JIT, nor has the link for a JIT popped up on Commons, which is why I’m kind of confused about this. I figured the JIT link would be the next step in the process, not the Inclusion. My score for my F31 application was under the 30th percentile cut-off for the automatic generation of the JIT link, too.

    Thank you for your help!

    • writedit said

      The JIT link should be open, but you should not provide JIT unless requested by the PO or GMS. eRA Commons issues an automated email request for applications with impact scores of 40 or less (not percentile), but these have no bearing on whether your application is being considered for funding. I am not sure what you mean by the Action section – there is an Action column, so I assume you mean there was an entry under Description for “Inclusion” (and a date?) with some sort of link. I also assume this would be in an Other category. In general, this section reflects internal processes, and your PO could explain exactly what it means. Because fellowships undergo the second level of review internally at the IC (not by Council), you should be in touch with your PO to determine whether they need anything else from you for these discussions.

  116. Hope said

    Dear writedit,
    Thank you for answering my questions about the R15 that went to the wrong IC. Today I received the summary statement. There were very few comments. To my surprise, the first two reviewers gave decent scores (very few comments though). The 3rd one, however, gave very bad scores without any explanation other than saying that the approaches were bad (literally just these words).
    Apparently I need to take this proposal to another IC and study section. My question is that, should I show the summary statement to the PO at the new IC?

    • writedit said

      Sorry to hear about the unhelpful comments from your reader (3rd reviewer is not required to write a detailed critique, though it would have been nice if the SRO had asked him/her to add a bit more). You can and should talk with the PO at NIAID about your summary statement and how to plan your revised application (I assume as a new A0 application rather than an A1). At least you won’t have to worry about the NIDDK reviewer #3 at NIAID.

      • Hope said

        Thank you very much writedit! I will do so.

  117. dimitris said

    Hello, my R21 with NEI received an impact score of 33. No percentile is given for the R21s.
    Any idea if the impact score is good enough for funding?

    thanks

    • writedit said

      Probably too high, since R21s are as or more competitive than R01s, but if your PO is interested, there could be a chance for select pay. When you have your summary statement, contact the PO to discuss next steps with regard to this application and its revision for resubmission (which you should plan on no matter what).

  118. dimitris said

    Thank you. I have contacted the PO and we agreed to wait for the summary statement. thanks again

  119. jms said

    Hi Writedit,
    Quick question: are only gray zone applications considered for select pay ?
    Thank you for this great blog.

    • writedit said

      Only scored applications are considered, and given the number of low-scoring but beyond payline applications in play, it is a lot less likely for higher scoring applications to get much traction during select pay discussions. You can see occasional applications funded in the 40th percentile range, but there is clearly a strong programmatic reason for doing so. POs select which applications they will push for consideration – applications just above the payline (or in any score/percentile range) are not automatically considered.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 266 other followers

%d bloggers like this: