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 Those ICs that traditionally do not publish payline or percentile guidance are indicated by “no payline data available” (& none probably ever will be).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: 22 July 2014

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

NCI ($4.92B): 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):  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): FY14 payline: 11th percentile for established PIs/21st percentile for ESI PIs; 11th percentile for R21s; 30th percentile for F31/F32/F33; 21st percentile for AIDS grants; impact score of 20 for R15s, 20 for R41/R42, 24 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, 10 for P01s and 20 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): 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): interim FY14 payline: 14th percentile for R01s
NINDS cleared concepts
(click on most recent Council minutes)
NINDS program contacts

NIMH ($1.45B):Interim FY14: 10th/15th percentile for established/ESI-new investigators. FY13: 10th percentile for R01s (special consideration of new/ESI applicants but no stated payline break0
NIMH cleared concepts
NIMH program contacts

NICHD ($1.28B): FY13 paylines (FY14 still pending): 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): 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): FY14 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): FY14 fiscal policy but no paylines
NIEHS cleared concepts (click on latest Council minutes)
NIEHS program contacts

NEI ($682M): FY14 fiscal policy but no paylines
NEI cleared concepts (click on latest Council minutes)
NEI program contacts

NCATS ($633M): FY14 fiscal policy but no paylines

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

NIAMS ($520M): FY14: 12th/15th percentile for established/new PI R01s, 12th percentile for R21s, impact score of 20 for R03s, 24 for SBIR, 20 for F31/F32/F33, 21 for F30, 20 for T32, 24 for K99, 26 for K01/K08/K25, 30 for K23/K24

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

NHGRI ($498M): FY14 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): FY14 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): FY14 fiscal policy but no paylines
NIDCD cleared concepts
NIDCD program contacts

NIDCR ($399M): FY14 fiscal policy but no paylines
NIDCR cleared concepts
NIDCR program contacts

NLM ($328M): FY14: 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): FY14 fiscal policy but no paylines

NINR ($141M): FY14 fiscal policy but no paylines
NINR program contacts

NCCAM ($124M): FY14 fiscal policy but no payline data
NCCAM cleared concepts
NCCAM program contacts

FIC ($68M): No FY14 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.


  1. Peter said

    Does anyone know the NCI SBIR payline for last year?

  2. whatsupdoc said

    Not sure if this is the forum for this but was just wondering if anyone has ever had any experience dealing with a bad program officer (e.g. non-responsive, dismissive, minimally engaged)? I got a relatively decent score on my most recent submission but I cringe at the thought of trying to talk to my program officer to ask for help. I’m actually more than a little worried of being stuck with this person if I actually do get funded!

    • writedit said

      Although I think (hope) it is relatively rare, there are POs who are at best not helpful and at worst a negative asset. I would suggest you check the IC Website (or RePORTER, via searches for similar funded research) to identify other POs who might be appropriate for your science – and ask colleagues. If a mentor or colleague can make an introduction to an alternative program contact who might be appropriate, that would be very good. You can explain your situation and simply indicate that you have not received a response and wondered if they might have any insight or suggestions. Often, IC coworkers of underperforming POs recognize them as such and are willing to help as they are able; just bringing your science to the attention of someone else who might speak up on your behalf at meetings where decisions are made could be helpful. Making a connection with an alternative appropriate PO will be important moving forward (for subsequent applications) no matter what, so the effort is necessary. If there is no one obviously appropriate or no other choice, you can ask at the Branch or Division level (whoever oversees your PO’s group) for an update on your application status and advice moving forward. I have two friends with lousy POs. One had a change in PO assignment (original PO was both dismissive and almost punitive), and a languishing application from FY13 was resurrected by the new PO for funding in FY14. Amazingly wonderful outcome, which I believe (but do not know for sure) came about through my friend & colleagues communicating with a different PO about their predicament (this other PO was not in the appropriate Division but probably communicated with others in a position to take a look & make a change). The other has a busy Division chief assigned who is not in the PI’s area of expertise; this is a tougher situation to resolve, since the Division in question lacks, right now anyway, a good PO for actually quite a large swath of science, and there is not much to be done unfortunately.

      • SaG said

        Someone needs to setup a PO version of Rate my Professor. I am all for the naming and shaming route. The risk is that no one in the whole IC cares that the PO is doing a bad job and you are branded a whiner. Hmmm….maybe a rate my PI site would be good too.

  3. whatsupdoc said

    Thank you so much for your reply. Prior to me submitting my grant, I actually spoke with a different program officer (that was referred to me by someone at the Division level) — who was fantastic. It was to my great disappointment that when I took a peek in era commons that someone else was assigned to be my program officer. I am an absolute newbie at this, so pardon this question, but are you actually able to request a specific program officer when submitting your grants? And are you stuck with the same program officer for anything you submit to that institute? I would absolutely love to swap out my PO for the resubmission. Seriously, I was looking up alternative careers (dealing blackjack sounded fun) after my last conversation with them.

    Thank you again for your advice!

    • writedit said

      You can communicate with the fantastic PO about having your project transferred to him/her. You cannot request a PO assignment in the cover letter – only the IC and SRG – but it is possible to change POs (sometimes they change without your doing anything due to personnel changes, reshuffling application loads, etc.), especially if there is an alternative PO in whose portfolio your work can be included.

  4. Scott said

    NIDDK has posted its 2014 Award Funding Policy here:

    For R01s, 13%ile for established investigators and 18%ile for ESIs.

    • writedit said

      Excellent – thanks for the update and making my job easy. I see, too, that NIDDK does not give the payline break New Investigators – only ESI.

      • Light said

        NIDDK is a bit tight. I heard that NHLBI pays up to +10 for ESIs. I got a 23rd % (I am an ESI). My grant has a secondary assignment to NHLBI. Dunno who to contact to explore potential transfer from NIDDK to NHLBI

      • writedit said

        With the current funding situation, very very few awards are made by ICs with secondary assignments, and your percentile makes it more of a long-shot – especially if you do not already have a relationship with a PO at NHLBI. NIDDK needs to relinquish the application, and you need to have a PO at NHBLI who is interested in advocating for an award. If NHLBI might be interested in your research, it might be worth getting to know someone at NHLBI even if it doesn’t help for this application.

  5. Dave said

    Decent payline bump there (2%ile increase across the board) and, in fact, these paylines are right back at 2012 pre-sequester levels. ESI payline is 18%ile for R01s at NIDDK.

    • submarine said

      Writedit, can you comment on historically how likely NIDDK would fund R01 grants from established investigators just one point away from the payline? The NIDDK funding trends figures for FY2013 suggest 19 of 25 competing R01 grants at 12%ile were awarded even though the payline was 11%ile for established investigators. It is hard to imagine that all 19 were from NI/ESI investigators, for whom the payline was 16%ile. Thanks!

      • writedit said

        Well, probably a lot of those 19 applications were ESI (at NIDDK, new investigators do not get a payline break – not since FY12). However, there were certainly hand-picked select pay awards, and my feeling is that ICs are now devoting 5-10% of their competing award budget to select pay. The historical trend tells you less about your chances than your PO’s attitude toward your application. Hopefully he/she is excited about your proposal and will talk it up at meetings where paylist decisions are made.

  6. YoungBuck said

    Does anyone have an idea when the interim paylines for the NIAID R15 mechanism will be posted? My grant has been reviewed and has gone to council. I spoke with my PO in mid-December (pre-council), and he was positive; however, he wanted to wait until the interim paylines were posted before discussing further. I am hesitant to contact him again until these are posted. If I just need to be patient, I will take that advice. Thanks,

    • DTJQ said

      Can I know your score?

    • writedit said

      Your PO will know before they are posted – and he may have a better idea now that the appropriation has passed (was unknown in Dec). If you haven’t contacted him since then, you should be fine doing so now. He may say that he still won’t know until the current round of reviews are done, at which point NIAID will know how many competitively scored applications are in the pool and how far their $ will go. In that case, you probably won’t know until later in March or April. However, if you are holding off on an A1 application that could otherwise be submitted in March, definitely check with him now.

      • YoungBuck said

        Thanks Writedit-
        DTJQ-It was a score of 20, 7th percentile on an A1. If you think that it is reasonable to contact him again, I will do so. I know they are busy— I do not want to be labelled a “pest”. I really appreciate the opportunity to ask questions on this forum!

      • writedit said

        Okay – with that score, you should be fine – and you should feel free to contact your PO again. He should have more definitive news for you now that the appropriation has passed and the debt ceiling did not turn into another fiscal cliff situation.If you haven’t contacted him since last Dec, you are definitely not a pest. These are folks who ask every few days (or weekly), even when they have been told that news won’t be available until a certain milestone, such as the appropriation passing or closer to Council meeting etc. Once you have an award, don’t worry about getting in touch with him if you have questions about the award or an update on the research (publication accepted etc.).

      • DTJQ said

        I agree that you will be fine. My score is 22 of an A1 application. I contacted the PO, he was not sure. I used to have a percentile of 9, it is later not in my commons page anymore. do you still have the percentile in your commons page? Good luck!

      • YoungBuck said

        Thanks Writedit.
        DTJQ: My percentile was erased….

      • DTJQ said

        YoungBuck, thank you for the information. The PO told me once that the payline might be between 20 and 24.
        Writedit, this is a really nice platform for us to discuss and get more updated information,Thanks.

      • writedit said

        You all make it useful, so thank you for sharing your intel and experiences.

      • YoungBuck said

        I agree— many thanks Writedit and all. This website has been immensely helpful… for the process… and for help deciphering what is really being conveyed between the lines. I will update my status (positive or negative) when I ultimately hear.

  7. lacquerhed said

    Any idea what the %ile is for F31′s at NINDS FY 2014?

    • writedit said

      If your PO didn’t have an idea after the appropriation passed, he/she should have a good idea by the end of the month (or whenever all the SRGs with NINDS F31 applications have met) and they know how far they have to stretch their $.

  8. newPI_2 said

    I have a question regarding % effort for K-recipients. I am an Assistant Professor in my first year with 85% effort committed to K01 (15% effort to teaching and service). My K01 is a 4-yr award, and my first year will end on 5/31/14. I have applied for another award this past grant cycle which I designated 10% of my effort to, with a condition that my K01 effort will be reduced to 75% if application would be successful. K01 requires a minimum of 75% effort, but I heard that you can lower that effort up to 50% for the last two years of my K01 (starting 6/1/15) with a consent of my PO. Is this true? If so, does this mean that I can start submitting grants to reduce my K01 effort below 75% after 6/1/15, or could I start applying now with projected start date of 6/1/15 or later?

    Also, I would like to submit multiple applications that do not overlap to take advantage of my ESI status. Since I only have total 25% effort to give (75% – 50%), what would be your recommendation? Say I want to submit 3 R01 applications, can I allocate 10%, 10%, 5% or am I allowed to allocate 25% for all three since it’s not likely that all three would be funded?

    • writedit said

      Here is the policy on lowering your K01 effort to 50% to accommodate support on other RPG activity codes: You must be the PI on the award, which means you will need more than 10% effort. You would submit each R01 application with an appropriate effort level (depending on complexity of project & other personnel involved) – independent of each other (assume none of the others are funded), but not the K01. Presumably these would not all be under review at the same time (i.e., do not plan to submit 3 R01s in the same cycle), which means you would just not submit the subsequent A0 or an A1 once you learned that one or two of your three applications were going to be funded – or you would withdraw one prior to review, which would give you the opportunity to submit it as new later in your K01 period, when it could then replace your K01 effort.

  9. BrianM said

    Just a quick update. Spoke to my GMS at NIGMS this morning. They are seriously backed up with work. I was initially told 2 months from “pending” until I would see a NoA on my Phase II SBIR, but then he reviewed the grant status and said March 7 if I completed some forms today. So guess what I’ll be doing?

    Just wanted to add there are some really good people working at NIH.

  10. MCP said

    Does anyone have any idea about funding payline (impact score range) for U01 (Basic cancer research in health disparity)? FOA says that funding will be decided on a case-by-case basis.

    • writedit said

      As described in the FOA, there will not be a payline at all. NCI will hand-pick the applications to receive awards from a wide range of scores based on programmatic interest/priority (though probably most if not all the applications will have received very competitive scores). I assume you worked with the PO before submitting the application and know his/her level of enthusiasm for your work, but you can check in again for a gauge of where you stand now that they’ve seen all the applications.

      • MCP said

        Thanks Writedit! I did interact with a PO; however, my application is assigned to a different PO. Assigned PO says he has no idea when he will be able to give any update. He did assure me previously that he will take my application to the SPL, but gave no assurance with regard to the possible funding outcome.

      • writedit said

        Sounds good – and having 2 POs familiar with your work is even better. Beyond knowing that your PO will advocate for you, there is little else you can do at this point except hurry up and wait. Good luck!

      • MCP said

        Thanks Writedit!

  11. Airmonkey84 said

    I posted here a while ago about my F32 which got routed through NIAMS. My priority score is 24, which is right on the edge according to the 2013 funding plan. Any thoughts on how this will fare in 2014? Should I plan to resubmit? Thx.

    • writedit said

      A score on the edge of FY13 paylines will likely be fundable in FY14 (i.e., most should go up 1-3 percentiles). When you have your summary statement, you can check in with your PO about whether to resubmit and what strategy to use if so.Hopefully, you’ll be on the right side of the cutoff though.

  12. tcgal said

    28 on a K07 resubmission for NCI- thoughts on my chances?

    • writedit said

      This is an unusual K, so I am not sure how that score fits with the range the receive. You should check in with your PO after the last round of Ks has been reviewed next week (Feb 26) – wait a couple of days until the scores have been posted (i.e., try next Friday or the Monday after for an update on where your application ranks in the pile, both in terms of score and programmatic interest).

  13. stellar said

    How does 18% @ NCI with New/early investigator status look this year. Study section met on 2/20/18. This is an A1 from 25%–18% which is an improvement, but i fear not quite enough to push it over.

    • stellar said

      Sorry, to clarify, this is an R01 A1 application at NCI scored at 18%. I am an ESI/new investigator.

    • writedit said

      With that score, you’ll want to be in touch with your PO as to whether he/she will advocate for funding.

  14. Light said

    Does anybody know the payline for NIDDK Small Grants for New Investigators to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research (R03)?

  15. MCP said

    I know PIs, who got funded with 22% and 24% rankings (A1 application, NCI). Of course with a significant budget cuts and decisions were not made until August/September. So, you need to remain touch with your PO. My A0 was not funded at 17%, but luckily I received a 2% in A1 and it was funded in the first pool of FY14.

  16. Stellar said

    Thanks for the reply. It is going to be a long dark summer I guess. Only a question if the fall lightens up….

  17. Pre-award question said

    If the grantee institution allows the 90-day pre-award expenditure, does that mean only AFTER the Notice of Award is issued? I now email confirmation from my PO that the grant is approved, but the NoA has not come yet, and I want to make purchases using the grant. Does anyone have experience with this? Thanks.

    • writedit said

      With this email confirmation in hand, yshould be able to set up an account with your grants administrator (at your university/institution) – and yes, it is 90 days before the NoA/NGA. PIs often do this to get jobs posted, purchase orders placed, etc. in advance of the award being received so they can actually start the work on the start date. The risk is that if some utterly unforeseen disaster occurs and the award is not issued, you are on the hook for whatever you spend, not the NIH.

  18. Michael Kearse said

    Great forum and thank you for excellent source of info regarding paylines. I just received my score for F32 (submitted in Dec 2013 to the NINDS), priority score of 26 and 8th percentile. Any idea what the NINDS F32 payline was this most recent cycle? Any insight on my chances for funding? I did see a recent note from NINDS stating a 14th percentile payline, but it did not specify to which grants.

    With much gratitude,
    Mike K.

    • writedit said

      I do not think I have seen NINDS post a F series payline, but I expect with that percentile, you should be fine. When you get your summary statement, you can check with the PO (best to wait in case the score is on the bubble & the PO needs to consider the reviewer comments).

      • Michael Kearse said

        Thank you for the reply! I talked to my PO. “NINDS doesn’t have a “pay line” for F32s, but more of a set of zones. You are in a zone that is highly likely to be funding. The final decisions will be made after (late) May council, but I am very optimistic that your fellowship will be funded.”

        Best of luck to all!

      • writedit said

        Great – – thanks for posting what you learned from your PO. Congratulations and best wishes for success with your training and your career in academic research!

  19. Light said

    If NIH is not going to fund a grant, when does the status on eRA commons changes to “not funded/paid” after the council meeting?

    • writedit said

      No, your status will stay Council review completed for the next few years, at which point the application will be Administratively withdrawn by IC. You receive no notification that you will not receive funding unless your PO specifically tells you (some do as a general practice, some only do if the PI has inquired about the application status).

  20. MKG said

    I have submitted K99. My grant review is on March, 18th. I am bit confused about how the impact scores are done. If 3 reviewers give score for 5 sections and 1 is the best, then 15 should be the best score if you get 1 in all. Why everywhere its mentioned that 10 is the best impact score?

    • writedit said

      The individual criterion scores (Significance, Innovation, Investigators, Approach, Environment) are not used to calculate the overall impact score. Completely separate animals. Applications are scored on a scale of 1-9 for each of the 5 review criteria and overall impact. For applications that are discussed, the final overall impact score is averaged by the SRO from scores assigned by each section member who can submit a score (1-9, but usually within the range set by the assigned reviewers) and then multiplied by 10 (and rounded down to the lower whole number).

      • MKG said

        Thanks a lot. I was totally confused. Now its much more clearer to me.

  21. SoftMoneyProf said

    I’m an ESI and have an R01 proposal that will soon be reviewed at NIMHD. This institute doesn’t participate in the parent R01 PA, instead offering a sparse handful of RFAs (≈2) each year. Do any of the usual ESI bennies (10-day summary statement, payline bump) apply here?

    Thanks for maintaining this great resource!

    • writedit said

      NIMHD will take ESI status into account when making awards to be sure a proportional number of awards go to ESI applicants (per NIH policy, which applies to R01 as an activity code, not just the parent announcement). NIMHD won’t use a hard payline to make decisions, so there won’t be a specific percentile bump, but it will be a factor in selecting awardees. Because this is an RFA, I doubt the summary statement will be generated any faster, since this is done to allow eligible PIs to resubmit during the same cycle in which they are reviewed (if an RFA has a second receipt date, it is usually far enough out not to require rapid SS generation), but your SRO might do the ESI first in any case.

      • SoftMoneyProf said

        Great – thank you! There’s only one receipt date each year, but with any luck the SRO will take pity on the ESIs and do those first rather than going in order by score.

      • writedit said

        Well, the earliest you could submit would be for June 5th, so hopefully receiving your SS by the end of March (probably sooner) should give you enough time to turn the application around. Good luck with NIMHD and your future submissions.

  22. m809 said

    Anyone one what the FY14 R15 payline is for NCI?

  23. Young Buck said

    Fortunately I heard from my PO that my R15 will be funded (NIAID). Score 20. Current application status listed as “pending”

    Here is the timeline for others.
    12/19/2013 Council review completed. (though Council was listed as 01/27/2014 )
    11/06/2013 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
    07/03/2013 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
    06/25/2013 Application entered into system

    Thanks to all that participate on this website (especially Writedit). It is extremely helpful.

    • Wondering said


    • writedit said

      Congratulations and thanks for sharing this follow-up and detailed timeline. Best wishes for success with the research!

  24. Wondering said

    We submitted an R15 and received an impact score of 41, which won’t be funded. We just completed a resubmission. The payline is at 24 as far as I know. What are the chances that our score will go down that much?

    • writedit said

      Sometimes, it is easier to get a score in the 40s down to a fundable level, since that usually means there is an identifiable weakness to be fixed … whereas a score in the upper 20s or low-mid 30s with no clear clue as to what you could do to improve the score is more of a challenge. If your PO was happy with your response to the prior review (since he/she would have attended the meeting and known what was discussed but not necessarily written in the SS), and you substantively addressed the prior concerns, you have a reasonable chance of dropping into funding range.

      • Wondering said

        Thank you, that is very helpful. The comments were received were mostly very addressable, such as increased description of sample handling, student involvement, increased description of human subject protections. There were very few comments that could not be addressed; mostly they required more detail describing what we had already planned. We have our fingers crossed. Thanks for your Blog! I have not found anything comparable for getting information on grants.

      • writedit said

        Sounds good. Best wishes for success with the A1 – and please do post an update.

      • Wondering said

        I will post an update. We just sent in the revision, so it’s still going to be a long haul. I expect we will have our score June-July. Thanks!

      • Wondering said

        So our score just came in and it is a 39. So although the guidelines allow another submission, we are wondering if it is really worth it at this point. Only 2 points lower despite addressing every comment as best as we could.

      • writedit said

        Hmm indeed. When you get your summary statement, you should check in with your PO about how the meeting went. It could be there were more applications (total and with low scores) that kept your improved application from getting a more improved score. Alternatively, the reviewers could all be different (so less concerned with what you fixed from last time, since those weren’t their concerns), or they could have decided that the work would not be high-impact even if conducted according to your improved approach (i.e., moderate enthusiasm for the significance of the work). Your PO will be your best guide to whether this study section will never be especially excited by your work or if another round of tweaking might do the trick. You want to be sure the PO is excited about the work you are proposing, too, of course.

      • Wondering said

        Maybe although we thought it was a good idea, it is only lukewarm and we should throw in the towel. I put everything I could into that grant to get a 39. Not good enough I guess.

      • writedit said

        You should look at this in the bigger scheme of things: you were twice picked for discussion, which puts you ahead of more than half the applications submitted, and you are ahead of half the applications discussed. Your PO should have some insight from the discussion and may also have some insight from the program side of things as to how they might like to see your idea tweaked (to fit a gap in their portfolio).

      • Wondering said

        We received the summary statement and reviewers 1 and 2 gave us all 1s and 2s. The third reviewer heavily criticized our preliminary data (first reviewer to do this, others said our data is stellar, particularly as it is an A1). It seems to us that despite there being individuals in the study group who support it, there are others who may not support it no matter what. They question the premise of what we are doing. Do we try to address these new comments or submit a new proposal and request a different study section?

      • writedit said

        Again, talk with your PO about how the discussion went and seek his/her advice on whether to change study sections. This only makes sense if there is a study section with reviewers who are more appropriate for your research and will be very excited by your work (check funded awards reviewed by the SRG, SRG member publications, etc.). You don’t want to change study sections just to get away from your current group. In your case especially, it sounds like the panel likes the work generally, and your PO should be able to give advice on revisions for this group. You could ask the SRO not to reassign the dreaded reviewer three based on the observation that his/her comments conflict with every other critique given – but this is at the SRO’s discretion.

      • Wondering said

        Thanks. We will talk with the PO next week. It is very curious to get all 1s and 2s from two of the reviewers and an overall impact score of 39. Clearly there are people in the review committee who are not on our side, despite strong support from others.

      • writedit said

        Yes, someone talked your score up obviously, which the PO should be able to clarify (why, what convinced others to agree). Sometimes reviewers don’t go back to change individual criterion scores, so the first two might have changed their minds about the 1s & 2s but didn’t update the scores. Hopefully the SRO’s resume & summary of discussion provides a few clues as well.

    • Psyance said

      Wondering – Just an FYI. I had an R21 with an impact score of 35 on the A0. I resubmitted, and was able to get it down to 20 (roughly the same spread you’re aiming for), so it certainly is possible. I suppose this depends a lot on the addressability of the identified issues. All reviewers noted that my A1 was extremely responsive to the issues raised in the first review (and my responses were tailored based on conversations with my [excellent] PO). Of course my application has yet to be funded.

      • writedit said

        Thank you so much for such a great response with your experience. If your PO is on board, you should be in good shape. Best wishes for success with the application and the research.

      • nPI said

        Good for Psyance for having an excellent PO. My recent experience with POs does not really encourage me to engage POs in the future.

      • writedit said

        nPI, you should keep trying to make a good PO connection. You can check with colleagues and mentors about their POs, especially if there is overlap in the science such that their POs could help you, and also communicate with the division or branch director of the area in which you conduct research for a referral to a helpful PO (and let them know if the individual they suggest has not been responsive). You will want to find a PO with whom you will want to interact, both so this person can help you secure funding and maintain a good relationship after an award.

      • Wondering said

        Thanks Psyance. I really hope we can get the score down as well. The problems were all addressable and we had a good conversation with the PO. Good luck to you!

      • Wondering said

        They gave us a 39 on the A1. Hmm.

      • Wondering said

        Yep. Well the last time they said that the topic is “of the utmost importance.” It makes it hard to understand what went wrong. It could be the onslaught of applications based on the new guidelines. Anyway, there’s nothing left to do except wait for the comments. At least we get to resubmit it indefinitely….I guess????

      • writedit said

        I thought about the deluge of resubmitted applications about to hit the streets, but the change in policy came after the Feb/March cycle, so you would have competed in the last cohort under the two chances policy. The major rush of recycled applications will be going in for June and, more likely, Oct. Hopefully your PO will be interested and sympathetic – and at the very least helpful.

    • Wondering said

      I read reviewer 3′s comments more carefully and realized that this person stated that our biomarker study would not elucidate the etiology of the disease. Except that the etiology of the disease is already well-established. Our study focuses on biomarker identification for treatment monitoring, which is a current high need in the field. This person clearly has no knowledge of the field. I will talk to the SRO tomorrow. Do I mention this?

      • writedit said

        The SRO can’t do anything about your review at this point, though you can talk with your PO. You do not want to use the word “appeal”, though you can point out how reviewer #3 misunderstood the underlying science and see what your PO says. If you formally appeal, your appeal goes to Council, and your application goes back to be reviewed again in the same SRG exactly as is (you do not submit a revised application or any response to the critiques – they use the file submitted last Feb). If you have any new data to add, you could not do so with an appealed application. You should first ask your PO if this was how your score got talked up (by the mistaken reviewer #3) – then ask for advice on what to do next. If/when you resubmit, you can note in your cover letter that you respectfully ask that the SRO not re-assign this reviewer based on a discussion with your PO about the problems with critique #3 (SRO can communicate with PO then).

    • Wondering said

      Thank you, this is very helpful. We will talk to the PO today.

  25. transfer said

    I received an administrative supplement (Investigator Research Supplement) to an existing R01. We already received the NOA and monies at the home institution. If the investigator transfers to a different institution to complete the project, is the money transferable to the investigator’s new institution?

    • writedit said

      Do you mean the PI of the parent award or the person being paid through the administrative supplement? The PI can take the funds with him/her if the original institution relinquishes them, which is usually not an issue (must be coordinated months before the move – communication with PO should start well in advance of the move). The administrative supplement is awarded to the original institution in the name of the PI of the parent award, not the individual being supported. If the individual being supported moves, it depends on whether the PI of the parent award wants to continue supporting that person through a sub award to the person’s new institution or pay someone else to conduct the additional experiments proposed in the supplement (and depends on if supplement was diversity award etc.).

      • transfer said

        the person being paid through the supplement will be transferring to a different institution. it is a diversity award made specifically to the individual, in which a separate research plan and career development plan was required for the application. similar to what is required for a K application.

      • writedit said

        Okay – then the supplement is specific to the person being supported. I am not sure how this is handled, but it probably depends on whether the supported individual can work on the proposed aim(s) and be mentored at the new institution, since the supplement is still to support the parent award research. The PO will need to be involved no matter what, so that is whom you should contact next.

  26. Sami said

    I am a new and ESI and received 13 percentile on R01 A1 at NCI. I received JIT request from my PO. I was hopeful of the award and the council met on Feb 28th. The eRA commons was updated today as ‘council review completed’. Does that mean the award was not made? I do not see any notice of award under the eRA commons status. How soon after the council meeting the notice of award comes?

    • writedit said

      If you received a JIT request, your award will likely be processed in the coming weeks. At some point, the status will change from Council review completed to Pending or another status indicative of action being taken. You can check with your PO about the status of your application, if you have not yet (i.e., will an award be made and, if so, in what time frame).

      • Sami said

        I wrote to my PO but did not hear back. And eRA status did not change as well. Really worried now. Is there anyone else i can contact who can give an insight on what’s going on?

      • writedit said

        Mostly, I think you have to wait. The government is shut down due to the weather today, but NCI and all the ICs are very backlogged with applications to process for award. If you have a GMS assigned, he or she might know the general time frame for award processing, based on the current workload/backlog. Otherwise, you’ll need to wait to hear from the PO. You should not assume the worst, and there is nothing you can do to speed anything up (so no need to contact anyone else). I know it’s hard though.

  27. k99er said

    Thanks for this amazing resource!

    A question for other readers: I was wondering if anyone has heard whether their K99 will be funded from advisory councils that have met so far in 2014 (my A1 was submitted at NIGMS w/a score of 18). The council met in mid-January & my PO told me a few weeks ago they hoped to begin making awards soon; I’ve still got a “council review completed” status and my wrist is tired from clicking through eRA commons to check :).


    • BrianM said

      I wouldn’t sweat it. They are still catching up from last year. My Council meeting was last September (also NIGMS), and status didn’t change to pending until February 4th. I’d actually given up checking. I’ve spoken to my GMS, he said they are overwhelmed with grants to be processed, and figure 6-8 weeks from pending until NoA.

      • writedit said

        Yep, what BrianM said. The appropriation did not show up instantaneously, and everyone is way behind with a backlog of awards, so hold off on hitting refresh for another month or so.

    • SB said

      Hi, my k99 on NHLBI status shows pending council meeting though the NHLBI council meeting completed on Feb 12, 2014. I am also waiting to know about the decision.

      • writedit said

        If your application was reviewed last fall and still shows Pending Council review, then you might check with your PO. It should have clicked over to Council review completed by now.

  28. Bucos said

    Hello, My R21 (A0) to NIAID scored 30 (no percentile shown). What is the likelihood of getting funded this cycle? I will wait until the Summary Statement is posted to contact the PO for preparing A1. In the meantime, is there any purpose for uploading JIT info onto eCommons? No direct email from PO requesting JIT info though.

    • writedit said

      You won’t get a percentile, and your score is 7 points above the interim payline (23), so you should probably plan on an A1 (and wait to contact PO until you have the SS, as suggested – by then, a final payline may have been posted). For any grant application, you only want to submit the JIT when requested by the PO (not in response to eRA Commons-generated request) – and that will only happen close to the timing of the Council meeting (before or after), not this far in advance of Council.

      • Bucos said


  29. Morrissey said

    writedit, with appropriations passed already in Dec 13/Jan 14, what have we been hearing with respect to NCI R01 paylines. I know we’ll not know this for sure until end of year, but are the 9%/14% success rates of established/ESI in 2013… looking 2% better in 2014 at NCI ?

    like NIDDK experienced?

    not looking for hard facts here, just the rumors/impression you’ve heard. thanks for the great resource!

    • writedit said

      The appropriation took well over a month to trickle down to the ICs, which is why everything has been so delayed. However, NCI has not had a separate “hard” payline for new/ESI applicants in recent years, and before last year, the hard payline for any PI was at the 6th percentile, with some applications scoring up to the 15th and 20th percentile hand-picked for awards (based on programmatic interest rather than percentile). The 9th percentile was a big jump, so I’m not sure if Harold will raise that again or stick with the 9th percentile so he can still hand-pick a number of awards. Your PO’s enthusiasm for your application is the best gauge of funding likelihood if it has scored above the 9th percentile. If your PO does not push it, your application probably won’t be considered by the SPLs.

  30. Alex said

    This is a wonderful resource, particularly for those of us at smaller institutions with limited NIH experience. Thank you!

    I am a New (not ESI) Investigator. I took an extended (6yr) postdoc to train in a different field in anticipation of a multidisciplinary career. I know a number of other people in the same boat who went to industry after their PhDs before returning to academia.

    Here’s the question: Do New Investigators (not ESI) really receive special consideration?

    Here’s the FY2013 data that the NCI gives:
    New + ESI: 1192 applications, 146 funded = 12.2% success rate
    ESI only: 506 applications, 92 funded = 18.2% success rate

    what the NCI doesn’t tell you:
    New (not ESI): 686 applications, 54 funded = 7.9% success rate

    It is hard to see where new investigators are given “special consideration” by the NCI. Am I missing something?

    • writedit said

      The NIH originally created the New Investigator designation with ESI-type applicants in mind but then discovered that European, National Lab, former intramural, etc. senior investigators were taking advantage of the new investigator breaks when applying for their first R01, which was not the NIH’s intent. Some ICs no longer offer New Investigators any sort of break (only ESI), and that is allowable. NHLBI and NIDDK come to mind. Some, like NINDS, indicate a preference for ESI, and apparently NCI falls in that category (per your findings) without explicitly saying so. You should check to see if you are eligible for an extension of your ESI period, and you can certainly tell your PO about your circumstances – this is especially important at NCI, where PO input on individual applications allows for consideration of such situations when making award decisions above the hard payline.

    • tcgal said

      Also worth noting that New Investigators get reviewed w/ ESI- separate from established investigators in study sections. So in theory there is a benefit there being judged w/”like” investigators.

  31. bunchofqs said

    I submitted an R01 on Feb 14. But, I think that adding more data and polishing the grant will increase the chance of getting funded. Can I withdraw and submit in June? If so, what is the best way to do it?

    • Morrissey said

      it should be no problem contacting the PO once it has bee assigned to a study section.

    • writedit said

      Feb 14 is an odd day to submit an R01. Was this for an RFA or PAR? You can administratively withdraw any application without losing A0 status any time up until it is reviewed (& yes, talk with your PO or assigned SRO) – but if this Feb 14 application was for a FOA with a specific submission date, then you would submit for the June 5 parent announcement or other PA with standard submission dates instead. I ask about whether it was an RFA, because if so, you could keep the Feb 14 applicaiton and, if necessary, submit as a new A0 in October, after the RFA version is reviewed (so, 3 chances for the same project).

      • bunchofqs said

        Sorry. I meant regular Feb cycle in 2014.

  32. DTJQ said

    how long will it take from the date of submitting a JIT to getting the formal notification?

    • writedit said

      It depends on whether your PO indicated that you were in line for an award (or likely to receive an award) or whether the decision still had yet to be made. If you know an award will be processed, it will still be 6-8 weeks in all likelihood (from the time your eRA Commons status switches to Pending), due to the backlog in awards. If you remain on the bubble, it will be at least that long, possibly not until after the next Council meeting, if your IC needs to wait to see how many of the applications currently being reviewed receive fundable scores and how many applications are in the pile for consideration for select pay awards.

  33. DTJQ said

    Thanks a lot, Writedit. The PO requested a JIT by email and the eRA Commons status turned to pending now.

    • writedit said

      Congratulations – you should probably have your award in April then (depends on the IC, too). Best wishes for success with the research.

  34. ziza81 said

    I just received my A0 K99 impact score (22). I’m assigned to NINDS (primary) and NICHD. Do I have a shot?

    • writedit said

      Possibly, though you should definitely check with your PO (probably best to wait for summary statement). NINDS has a success rate of about 18% (12/67 applications funded in FY12, 13/74 funded in FY13). You should probably assume that NICHD won’t be picking up any secondary applications (especially since their success rate dropped from ~26% in FY12 to 16% in FY13). If you are potentially in the running for select pay, then a decision won’t be made until summer, so if this was an A0, you should plan to start on the A1 (which is why you might as well wait for your summary statement to contact the PO – so he/she can offer suggestions on the resubmission).

      • ziza81 said

        Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately I’m not eligible for A1 submission with the new rules… so fingers crossed.

  35. Teddy said

    I just received an impact score of 27 on a SBIR Phase 1 grant applications submitted to NIDDK. Any insight on the likelihood this grant gets funded this year?

    • writedit said

      You should check with your PO, who would now (or soon) know the spread of scores and whether yours would fall within the payline (or if yours might be of special programmatic interest).

      • Teddy said

        Thanks a lot!
        What have been the paylines in the past years for NIDDK SBIR?

      • writedit said

        I do not believe they publish these, but your PO could let you know where you stand.

  36. Feri said

    I received an impact score of 24 and 18% for my RO1 submission (A0) in Oct13 deadline that moved to Nov. I am assigned to NICHD ( primary) and NIMH and NIDA as secondary. I see JIT in my commons and got my summary statement last week ( some minor issues but overall very positive) but still after two attempts to contact my PO at NICHD, I haven’t got any response back from my PO. Is it possible to transfer grants to another institute for funding recommendation? So glad I found your excellent forum!

    • LIZR said

      A few weeks ago I talked to my PO at NICHD, and he said that they are still working on establishing final FY14 paylines. According to him, this will happen very soon. He did tell me that as a new investigator my R01 (A0) had an excellent chance of being funded (impact score 22, 9%).

      Your PO may just be waiting for official paylines to be released, so that they can provide you with better information about the chances that your A0 will get picked up for funding. It is my understanding that these days it is extremely unusual for a secondary institute to pick-up a grant (too many good grants with primary assignment waiting to be funded in their own queues).

      • writedit said

        Thanks so much for chiming in with your experience – and yes, you are correct that very very few applications are picked up by secondary ICs – needs to be a very special situation, and not one the PI has any control over.

    • tcgal said

      It is really hard to get your primary CIO changed AFTER study section-

    • writedit said

      You yourself cannot “transfer” any application. The PO of the primary IC (in your case NICHD) needs to relinquish the application, and a PO at the secondary IC needs to request this (so you would need to be in touch with your PO there). However, secondary ICs almost never pick up applications these days and only based on special programmatic interest. Your eRA Commons JIT link can be ignored until you receive a request for this from your PO or GMS (though no harm in submitting without request – just does not reflect on funding likelihood). Your PO is probably dealing with back logged applications from prior cycles, so just be patient to hear from him/her about what to do next. The 18th percentile could be considered at NICHD, especially with your PO’s backing.

      • Feri said

        Thanks so much for the great information everyone and Dear Writedit! I just heard back from my PO and she stated that they still haven’t got their new payline at NICHD. She asked me to email her on Friday to see if she has any update. I am really hoping I have a chance at this institute.Fingers crossed!

      • writedit said

        Sounds good – and good luck.

      • Feri said

        Dear Writedit,
        My PO hasn’t still responded my email about NICHD paylines since our last conversation but instead I got the JIT request from GMS last week. My council meeting is in May. I have to work with our grant specialist to fill out the JIT ( is there any due date for this? our admin people are so slow to work with). I want to send an email to my PO to see if I should be optimistic about my grant being considered in May after I get the JIT in the system. Any thoughts? Very much appreciate your feedback!

      • writedit said

        The JIT request is good news, since most ICs are not getting this information except for applications on the paylist, though it is no guarantee of an award – just that you are being considered. Council can concur electronically on some applications in advance of the Council meeting, so that is probably why you were asked now. You want to get the JIT in as quickly as possible (do not think that you have until May – they want it soon). You can ask the GMS for a rough deadline, if none was mentioned. Hopefully if you needed any IRB/IACUC or other approvals, you got that started when you received your score.

      • Feri said

        Thanks so much Writedit! I have an approved IACUC and just got an email from commons that my JIT is uploaded!

  37. BKD said

    A quick question or advice: After a couple of months of not hearing from my PO regarding an A1 R15 application, I received a email stating that the PO was putting forward his/her recommendation to support my application. It will be a non-payline driven application, but has some programmatic interest. I would consider this a step in the positive direction, but does anyone have any experience with this type of situation. How cautiously optimistic should I be?
    Kudos for your excellent forum!

    • writedit said

      This is excellent news, though not a sure thing obviously. You might ask your PO if you should prepare a brief rebuttal to the prior review, if you have not so already, and if you have any new publications, abstracts submitted, or other updates on progress made since submission, that would be important to convey as well.

      • BKD said

        Thanks for the additional suggestions. Fingers crossed.

    • DTJQ said

      BKD, what is your score? my R15 is in NIAID with a score of 22, but the interim payline is 22. I don’t have any news from the PO yet.

    • DTJQ said

      sorry for the error, the interim payline for NIAID is 20.

      • BKD said

        My score was a 29 (outside of the payline) at NIDDK. The chief complaint was lack of clinical samples. I discussed this point with the PO; I would not be able to have access to patient samples and my research line was more biochemical. I think that the current portfolio for the Division does not have many/any biochemical applications which is where the programmatic interest might lay.

        But a score of 22 is great! It would be a shame if it were not funded. Have you contacted your PO to discuss the likelihood of funding?

        Good luck

  38. DTJQ said

    Thanks for the information. I tried to call the PO, but can never catch him on line. sent him two emails, and never get an answer. In my emails, I asked if I need to write a rebuttal letter responding to the reviewers’ concerns, but I have yet received any answer.

    • writedit said

      Is this about your pending R15? That is all set and on its way to being funded, per your earlier post (PO requested JIT, eRA Commons status changed to Pending). In that case, you do not need to worry about a rebuttal or doing anything more than being patient for several weeks (will take up to 2 months due to backlog of awards to be made). If you are talking about an additional application, then there could be issues since you can only hold the one R15 award.

  39. DTJQ said

    writedit, The R15 is a different application. the one is now in pending is SC1. two grants have no overlapping. Can I hold both R15 and SC1? Thanks.

    • writedit said

      I suspect not, given the R15 prohibition to hold any other active NIH research awards (as PI), regardless of whether there is any overlap, but you can check with either PO for clarification. Since the SC1 application is pending, perhaps check with that PO to determine how this would be handled and, if you must chose one award, which would be better (SC1 is better in terms of budget though).

  40. NL said

    I currently have an ESI status with the NCI, and my R01-A1 application received a 15% in June of 2013 and the council met in September. After waiting for many months, I emailed my PO 2 weeks ago and was told that my application looked promising and asked if my JIT was updated. However, I still have yet to receive any formal email requesting this, and my commons account still has not been updated since September of 2013. Given that it’s been almost a year since the original submission (April 2013), I am getting to the point where I don’t really know whether the SPLs decided not to fund my grant. Any thoughts?

    • writedit said

      Your PO just gave you a reason to be cautiously optimistic. Don’t worry about what your eRA Commons status says, but absolutely get any changes in your JIT to him/her ASAP. This includes new awards and will need to include any required approvals (IACUC, IRB, etc.) and certifications. Your PO will want to have all this in hand so the processing of any award can go forward without a hitch. If nothing has changed and all the approvals (if relevant) are current, just let your PO know this is the case. If you have any new publications or other updates related to the research itself, now would be a good time to pass along word of these, too.

  41. grad_student said

    I am in a similar situation with an NHLBI RO1 grant. The grant scored 11% last June… council met in October and set an “interim” payline of 10%. We asked our PO about funding potential and if the payline would increase and the response we got is “we’ll see.”… not very helpful and very frustrating. We have been patiently waiting for months now.

  42. overeasy said

    Hello, I have a couple timeline questions

    If I submitted a K99 application in Feb at NIGMS, when should I expect to receive the impact score? Is there enough time between reviews and the very next due date (July) to resubmit? That would mark the end of my 4th year and thus last chance to submit.

    Thank you!

    • writedit said

      Your application will likely be reviewed in June (look for date in eRA Commons), and you might not have your summary statement before the July 12 A1 deadline (depends on when your committee meets). Only new/ESI R01 applicants are given the opportunity to resubmit in the same cycle in which they are reviewed (with rapid SS generation and extended deadline), so the earliest you could resubmit a carefully revised application would be November. EYour application will likely be reviewed in June (look for date in eRA Commons), and you might not have your summary statement before the July 12 A1 deadline (depends on when your committee meets)

      • overeasy said

        Thank you for your response writedit. However, when I search my study section number, it lists a meeting date this March instead of July. Does this mean my proposal is being reviewed early in the March meeting? Do study section names change throughout the year?

        Thank you!

      • writedit said

        What do you mean when you “search my study section number”? If you are looking at the NCI Website (or the listing of all IC review committee dates), then you are seeing the roster of the most recent meeting held, not the one to which you are assigned. The date on which your application will be reviewed is (or will be) listed on your eRA Commons page. You don’t need to go find it anywhere. The roster will be posted later, probably in April, depending on the meeting date.

  43. Morrissey said

    what is the timeline from score posting on commons –> pink sheets? I thought this had to be within 2 weeks or something.

    • writedit said

      No, it can typically take up to 6 weeks, depending on how many applications were assigned to that study section and how busy the SRO is (the pink sheets are posted as they are completed, not all at the same time). New/ESI applicant summary statements are completed first, so show up a bit faster. If it has been more than 6 weeks, you can check with the SRO.

    • SD said

      NIH’s next step guidance states the summary statement is usually released within 30 days of the review: I think it’s fair to contact the SRA after that amount of time, but be prepared to wait longer as writedit said.

      • writedit said

        Thanks so much for posting this, SD. I think most summary statements are released within a month (and nice to know OER officially says they should be, too), but I’ve known it to take a little longer. The SROs must have them posted (at least) 6-8 weeks before Council meetings (for second level review), which was part of the issue about the rescheduled review meetings last fall (whether they could all be held & SSs posted in time).

      • SG said

        It is worth noting that this only pertains to CSR reviews. Reviews done by the ICs (RFAs, PARs etc.) can take longer.

  44. MCP said

    How optimistic a PI should be when the PO says that the application (against an RFA not a regular R01) has been approved by the SPL? Is it still possible that the program may decide not to fund the application?

    • SG said


    • writedit said

      Program recommended the application to the SPLs, so this means you’ve cleared both hurdles and can, as SG says, be cautiously optimistic. You will hear from the PO if there are any remaining administrative questions, but if not, it may still take a while for your status to switch from Council review completed to Pending, so just be patient.

      • MCP said

        Thanks Writedit and SG! PO says it is currently being reviewed by the OGA (I don’t have the GMS assigned on eRA commons though) and I should plan to submit the JIT ASAP.

      • writedit said

        Aha – the administrative review may take a little while due to the backlog of awards. You absolutely want to get the JIT in right away to the review can start soon – hopefully you have any necessary approvals (IACUC, IRB, etc.) in hand already.

      • MCP said

        Update on U01. Council held on February 28, PO asked for JIT on March 11, GMS assigned on March 12, JIT query- April 1, Pending/Award prepared- May 06. Finally!!!

        Thanks writedit for this wonderful blog!

      • writedit said

        Woohoo – congratuations and thank you so much for posting the full timeline here, so others realize bureaucracy moves slowly. Best wishes for success with the research.

  45. MCP said

    Yes, I have everything ready and will upload by the end of this week. I am not in hurry to receive the award (got funded for another application), but just want self-assurance that it will get funded. Hoping for the best.

  46. Kelly Carpenter said

    Just had an R01 definitively not funded by NCI at the 10%. I am a co-I so didn’t participate in the discussion, but I was surprised that they knew already that it was not funded. It was a Nov 13 submission/Feb 14 review. The PO said the payline was 9%.

    • writedit said

      This probably means the SPLs discussed the application but opted not to fund it or set it aside for consideration again at the end of the FY. While incredibly frustrating at the 10th percentile, at least you know the outcome. The question for the PO would be whether NCI would ever be interested in this particular project, since they did not select it for an award at the 10th percentile, and could you tweak the aims somehow to make it moer appealing to program. You don’t want to try again with the same research if program isn’t interested (even if it gets a good score).

  47. Michael said

    I submitted a F32 (NRSA) back in August 2013 which went to NCI and was scored a 20th percentile. At the time of first review, my PO wrote that “PERCENTILE scores of 10-20 will probably have a good likelihood of funding.” However, I have not heard anything back from NCI or NIH since that time. Council meeting on era commons says 2014/01. I recently contacted my PO, who wrote back only “Unfortunately, I have no additional information at this time that I can relate via email or a phone call.” Thoughts?

    • writedit said

      Your PO needs to wait until all the scores for the current cycle are in, at which point they know the number of applications with competitive scores and how far they can make their NRSA funding go. The cryptic language could indicate that your PO might have an idea in his/her mind as to your funding likelihood now, but he/she cannot know for sure yet (and therefore cannot say anything) until all the data are in. My guess is that you will have word about this in April (don’t worry about the start date).

  48. LNS said

    I am a New Investigator/ESI and received a 10th percentile on an R01 application (A0) from Oct 2013 submission. My PO said she felt very hopeful that it will be funded by exception but likely won’t know for sure until the end of June. She also encouraged me to prepare to resubmit just in case. As an ESI, I get the option to do the fast resubmission by April 10th. Can I still be considered for funding through the end of June with the A0 if I submit an A1 in April? Many thanks for your help!

    • writedit said

      Yes, your A0 remains active and available for funding even after you submit the A1 – and even after the A1 is reviewed. Whether you should take advantage of early submission depends on if you can improve the application that quickly … though it is hard to imagine that there were many concerns to address in an application that scored at the 10th percentile. Having an additional publication or manuscript accepted at least 30 days prior to the A1 review would help certainly. Your PO should have additional insight based on the study section discussion how you could tweak the application for this set of reviewers.

    • Al said

      Is this an NCI application? It’s really strange that 10% R01 with ESI status still needs to be funded by exceptions. I don’t think that you need submit an A1 but the PO should let you know if A1 submission is really necessary or just waste everybody’s time and efforts (including grant officers at your institute or CSR).

      • LNS said

        Yes, this was an NCI application. The PO said she feels optimistic but still urged me to prepare to resubmit. I’m hopeful, particularly when looking at FY13 data. However, my PO also implied that my app being an A0 could potentially work against me since they tend to favor A1 last-chance apps.

      • Al said

        I understand that they want to fund more A1 applications given it’s the last chance. However, other ICs such as NHLBI actually prefer to fund A0 vs. A1 if they have similar scores. You should be very hopeful since it’s likely that FY14 payline will increase by 1-2 points and you are also ESI. I would wait a bit and aim for Nov. re-submission if necessary since both July and Nov submissions will be considered in FY15 anyway. Good luck!

      • writedit said

        This is NCI, though, so the hard payline might stay at the 9th percentile, which allows Harold to make more select pay awards based on program interests/needs. Hopefully for LNS the payline will go to the 10th percentile, though. Applications submitted to the standard cycles in 2014 are for FY15 (including the Feb/March submissions). Some RFAs & PARs have receipt dates in 2014 and are paid in FY14, though.

  49. DTJQ said

    In my eRA commons, the statues turned from “pending…” to “The Award prepared…”. does it mean that I will be officially notified soon?

    • writedit said

      The official Notice of Award goes to your institution, but yes, that should be forthcoming soon. The final eRA Commons status will be Awarded.

      • DTJQ said

        The official Notice of Award comes today. Thanks.

      • writedit said

        Congratulations again. Were you able to resolve the question of having an R15 and an SC1?

      • DTJQ said

        I sent an email to the PO and asked if I could hold both if the R15 will be fall into the funding range. he didn’t answer (actually he never answered my emails).

      • writedit said

        Is it the same PO for both applications? If not, you can ask the other PO (for the SC1). If it is the same PO, you can check the division or branch in which he is located and ask the chief for guidance. Or, if you are only communicating with the R15-specific PO, you could ask a PO who is appropriate to your science.

  50. Alex said

    I understand that the Senior Program Leadership (SPL) committee is the last layer of review at the NCI. Is anything known about how frequently this committee either knocks out recommended applications or chooses to fund applications that weren’t recommended? Or do they basically rubber stamp what the Program Staff recommends? Do they really have the time to look over all of the applications in the “zone of uncertainty”?

    • writedit said

      If you look at the funding patterns data, realizing there was a 9th percentile payline, you can see how often this happens ( They do not review all the applications in the gray zone but only those put forward by POs (which happens after discussion at the Division level as well). If your PO has asked for a rebuttal to the summary statement and has indicated he/she will advocate for you, at least you are in contention at the SPL level. Now, I don’t know how many gray zone applications they consider or what percentage of these are tapped for funding. The SPLs do ask questions and discuss – no rubber stamp – so having an enthusiastic PO who will persuasively make your case is key.

  51. CancerDx said

    I just got received my K99 score which is a 24. I believe the cutoff in 2012 was 27 (NCI) and last year, with the sequester, it was 19. What are my chances of getting the award? Any ideas?

    • writedit said

      I am pretty sure congratulations are in order, since NCI did get $8 million extra this year, but it depends on how many applications they have at which scores. Your PO will now know the number of applications at each impact score so should be able to give you an idea of whether they need to drop the payline to accommodate everyone or not – and whether your application might be of special programmatic interest. If you just got your score, give it a day or two at least, and then check in (you still might have to wait a bit longer, but you should be okay checking).

      • CancerDx said

        Thanks for the quick reply writedit – I appreciate it! I’ll ask the PO these questions and see what happens. I’m hoping that I get the award because the change in eligibility criteria have made me ineligible for any resubmissions. I’ll be back to share the outcome in case that will be helpful to others.

      • writedit said

        Good luck and please do check back in with an update – hopefully good news.

  52. Sami said

    Thank you so much for the prompt reply!

  53. talacikong said

    Dear writedit, do you think NIAID’s K award current interim payline 20 may go up later? Last year’s final payline was 26. I thought the budget was a bit better this year, but why the interim is so much lower. Thank you.

    • writedit said

      I expect it will go up, though maybe not to 26. NIAID did receive more $ this year, but it depends on how the Institute has decided to allocate its appropriation – and the number of low-scoring Ks. It could just be that the scores have gotten lower and lower – it’s the number of applications at each score that determines how far the money can go. The NIAID study sections will wrap up by the end of the month, I think, so the paylines may shift a bit in April.

  54. Skyline said

    How often will A1 receive a better score than A0? I’ve seen so many comments that people complain resubmission is a waste of time. Wonder if I should just repackage or repurpose. My A0 was borderline and not funded in the FY2013. If A1 receives a worse score than A0, will A0 still have a chance in the FY2014? Thanks.

    • writedit said

      While there are no data on scoring changes from A0 to A1, you can look at the success rate of A0 vs A1 applications. Here are the data for new (Type 1) submissions: In FY13 (first with no A2s), 3,144 A0 R01s were funded (9.3% success rate) and 3,345 A1s were funded (31.5% success rate). Whether you should resubmit or repackage depends on what the concerns were. If the reviewers thought the problem was important and you were on the right track with the science but had some design issues, these are fixable and could drop the score into funding range. If there were any concerns about the significance, you probably want to repackage. If there weren’t any major methods issues raised, then ask the PO if anything during the discussion pointed to whether the reviewers just weren’t excited or a better application might win them over. Also, if you’ve published since the A1 went in, that bodes well for an A1. There is really no one generic answer for this, and only persons familiar with your research, grant application, and summary statement can offer useful insight specific to your situation. Now, while the A0 score remains active even after the A1 is submitted and scored, if the A0 score was borderline in FY13, it probably won’t be awarded in FY14 (though this is feasible administratively). But, if the A1 is also borderline and the PO likes the project, he/she could advocate for select pay, which is easier with the A1 (they can point to the A0 also being close but passed over). Without knowning more, my advice would probably be to resubmit and at the same time be developing a new R01 on a different question (you should always have more than one distinct project in the hopper – not just wait to sequentially revise/repackage the same story).

  55. DA said

    In the new Direct Phase II SBIR announcement, there are special rules for NINDS.
    Does anyone no the reason for these special requirements, particularly those excluding clinical trials? I have a proposal that likely fits NINDS best, but would definitely be lessened without the clinical evaluation (I personally don’t believe it’s technically a clinical trial, but I’m not sure who has the final say). Also, are the reviewers aware of this policy as I’m certain the proposal would be criticized for not having a clinical evaluation if I remove it.

    • writedit said

      You should definitely communicate with the NINDS SBIR program contact about this. He/she can tell you whether your proposal is appropriate for NINDS and how to frame the application – and whether your human studies are a clinical trial (not all are).

  56. DA said

    When does NIAID convert all the interim paylines to final paylines? Do the paylines go up a little when they go to final? I have an R41 that scored at 28. Interim payline is listed at 26. What are my odds here?

    • writedit said

      NIAID will likely update its paylines when all the SRGs have met this cycle and scores are posted, so they know how many applications have scored at each level for each activity code … probably in April. Although NIAID takes care to set conservative paylines that do not need to be lowered, and they usually go up a point or two, they don’t always. If you haven’t asked your PO for any insight as to how that score will fare, you might as well wait a couple more weeks and then check in with him/her, if the paylines haven’t been updated by early-mid April.

  57. Lizzie said

    I applied for an NCI F31 NRSA submitted in August. I received my scores in October–score of 20, 9th percentile. I haven’t heard anything since then though– no just-in-time information, nothing. The funding is supposed to start on April 1st, so what’s going on?

    • writedit said

      The start date is irrelevant to when you receive the award (i.e., award can come well after the start date on the application), so don’t worry about that. You should get in touch with the PO, though, to check on the time frame for an award. All the ICs are running behind, so you don’t need to assume anything bad, but you shouldn’t worry that you are bothering the PO by asking at this point.

      • Jerry said


        Dear Writedit:
        Where could we get a an F32 sample application?

      • writedit said

        NIAID says it plans to add a sample fellowship application to its examples page (, but they didn’t indicate which activity code. You should be able to look at applications by your postdoc colleagues, or your mentor might have a prior trainee whose application you could review as a model. Just ask around – most people don’t mind sharing.

      • BT1507 said

        I’m also waiting to hear back about an F31 (August Submission). Score = 21, no percentile published. I have not received a JIT or any other correspondence since December. I’ve contact my PO and am told that no decision have been made yet. I’m hoping this just means everything is behind……I hope we hear back soon!

  58. wtg said

    Do we have a payline for NCI R15 for 2014- what would be the chances for an application with an impact score of 20? Are impact scores that are below or equal to payline generally receives funding or the decision are made on a case by case basis. Thanks for the feedback.

    • writedit said

      NCI has not posted its final paylines, but your PO should have a good idea by now of how your 20 will fare. Given that the payline was at 25 in FY13, you should be in good standing. Paylines include the score at which they are set (i.e., 20 and below if the payline is 20). Not all applications scoring within the payline are funded, but these are for specific reasons, such as a very well funded PI, an area of research that is well represented in the portfolio (though your pre-application discussions with your PO should prevent such a situation), administrative concerns that cannot be resolved – other very case-specific conditions that your PO would let you know about (& a concern may appear in the summary statement).

      • wtg said

        Thanks very much for your feedbacks. Fingers crossed!

  59. fisher said

    Hi writedit,
    I got a NCI K99 impact score of 13. Is that safe enough to get funded? The PO said I need to wait until the council meeting. The NCI K99 FY13 payline is 20. This is the A0 submission, but I have no chance for the resubmission due to the rule change. Thanks.

    • writedit said

      At NCI, you should be able to be cautiously optimistic about a score like that, but if your PO did not say this, then maybe they are cutting back on awards. The score would indeed normally be fundable, so I expect the PO is just being especially cautious. I assume he/she knows you cannot resubmit (despite this being the A0), but you ensure this (and get some additional insight) by asking for advice on next steps if this application is not funded since you do not have the option of resubmitting.

  60. fisher said

    Thanks, writedit. I will contact my PO again.

  61. workinghard said

    I received a K99 resubmission score of 23 (NHLBI), but was told the payline was reduced from 25 (FY2013) to 21 (FY2014). My PO says there is a chance I will get funded towards August/October. What are the odds that this grant will be funded? I worry it won’t because I work in a well-funded lab.

    • writedit said

      Hmm – given the uncertainty fisher faced at NCI with a score of 20, I wonder if there are that many more low-scoring applications or the ICs are cutting back on this activity code. Your PO is saying that your application might be picked up at the end of the FY if there are funds remaining after awards within the payline are paid out. It’s impossible to say what the likelihood of this happening is, but at least your PO is advocating that your application be considered.

      • workinghard said

        Thanks writedit. I’m guessing that it is a combinations of more low-scoring K99s and less awards. It’s hard to believe that only a few years ago K99s were being funded at impact scores of 40. Wishing that were still the case today!!

      • SB said

        Hi workinghard, where did you get the information about the 2014 K99 payline? Is it impact score 21 for 2014? I am waiting to know the about the payline, but the PO told me they have to wait at least several weeks to get the final payline?

    • WaitingAndWaiting said

      Hi workinghard… I also have a borderline K and am awaiting news from NHLBI. I was told that “the best of the best” are being funded and this leads to the interim 21 payline. I was also told that they would finalize the current reviews and the payline decisions a few weeks ago. However, I am not sure when they will update the website or even contact the applicants. I have contacted my PO about every 4 weeks in a very short email and got some tidbits of information. Hopefully we will hear something soon.

      • workinghard said

        Great news, I hope we both get funded. The waiting process is painful!! Fingers crossed friend!!

      • writedit said

        Thanks for sharing your update and this intel, Waitingandwaiting. Your strategy of checking in about once a month with a concise email is perfect. All the ICs have been busy clearing their backlogged awards and waiting for the final SRGs to meet, so the delay is not surprising, and hopefully you’ll all hear more soon.

      • SB said

        Hi waitingandwaiting, thanks for updating the information. My impact score is 20 and still waiting for the final decision. Wish good luck to all of you who are in border line.

      • workinghard said

        Waitingandwaiting & SB, any updates from your POs regarding K99 pay lines? I heard today from student in our lab that the paylines have been established for F30s.

      • SB said

        Hi, I got an email from my PO that the advisory council favorably recommended my grant and they are going to fund my grant. Today, I got request to upload JIT. I don’t know the pay line. Wish both workinghard and waitingandwaiting will also hear soon for your PO. Wish both of you good luck.

      • writedit said

        Congratulations and thank you so much for taking a moment to share this great update. Best wishes for success with your project and career in academic research!

      • workinghard said

        Congrats SB, really great news!!

  62. PR said

    I have a very different type of question regarding my K99. I received an impact score of 22 (June 2013 submission) and 10 (Jan 2014). Now, I am 100% sure that my grant will be funded. While preparing budget for my original submission, I ended up asking for less money (because I went by the general K99/R00 guidelines). After realizing that NHLBI provides up to $75K+ benefits towards salary during K99 phase, i asked for more money in the revised grant which i think shouldn’t be a problem. The question is, can i withdraw my original application and ask them to consider the revised grant for funding? This way, I will be paid more.
    Any response will be highly appreciated.

    • writedit said

      You can just discuss this with the PO. Per working hard, it sounds like only the 10 is within the payline anyway, but either way, your PO should be willing to work with you on this (which shouldn’t require formally withdrawing the A0 – but see what the PO says).

  63. sugar science said

    Hi Writedit & others -

    I posted on here a few months ago to ask advice about a score. Thought that I would update in case the information is useful for others. My application was an R01 renewal, A1 submission, submitted in July 2013. Reviewed in December 2013 (delayed by government shutdown) and scored 14 percentile at NIGMS. In late February, my program officer told me it would be funded and I received the notice of award today, with an April 1 start date (right on time!). Hope that others are getting good news, too.

    • writedit said

      Congratulations and thank you so much for taking the time to post this update and timeline – very helpful for many blog readers, including me. Best wishes for success with the research.

      • sugar science said

        Thank you for maintaining this valuable resource and thanks to everyone who takes the time to comment and share information. It definitely helps me deal with the uncertainty that comes with funding process.

  64. amiswill said

    I am a first time applicant for K99 through NIDCR and got an impact score of 32. The email states that the summary statement will arrive within 8 weeks, which technically brings it close to may when the council meeting takes place. My question is whether this may be a competitive score for funding and whether I should wait until I get the statement before contacting the PO. Thanks!

    • writedit said

      The score seems high, and NIDCR makes relatively few K99 awards (10 in FY12, 3 in FY13), so I would not expect that score to receive an award. You will probably have the summary statement within a month – if 6 weeks have passed without a summary statement, you could contact the SRO (not the PO). You should wait until you have your summary statement to contact the PO. At that point, you will want to discuss your strategy for resubmission to address reviewer concerns. Your PO will likely have attended the meeting and can fill in details about body language and what this panel is probably looking for in your resubmission. That discussion can’t occur until you have your summary statement, and there is nothing your PO could say to you now about funding likelihood or resubmission strategy, so it’s best to wait til then.

      • amiswill said

        Thanks for your quick reply. I will wait for the summary statement. It seems that FY13 was also impacted by the government shutdown as 10 awards seems to be the norm for NIDCR right?

      • writedit said

        I am not sure what you mean about FY13, but the shutdown and then the delay in getting the appropriation down to the ICs (did not happen for weeks after the budget bill was signed into law) has created the backlog of work and delays in processing awards for FY14 (which begain Oct 1).

  65. SD said

    We received word from our PO that our SBIR R44 Fast Track application to NIGMS will be funded (submitted August 2013, impact score 23). I hope this data point is useful to any SBIR/NIGMS applicants.

    • writedit said

      Great – thanks for the update and timeline – and best wishes for success with your project.

  66. workinghard said

    SB, this information was provided to me by my PO.

  67. workinghard said

    It is possible that things have changed since that conversation, which occurred in Feb., but the PO has not indicated otherwise.

    • SB said

      Thanks a lot for the information. I asked PO at the first week of this month about the payline and he said it is not decided yet.

  68. NL said

    Any idea on how long it typically takes to get the award notice after the PO asks for the JIT and resource sharing plan? It’s been 11 days since my application got assigned an NCI grants management specialist and so far there hasn’t been any updates.

    • writedit said

      Could be up to a couple of months … it should be less than that, a couple of weeks more perhaps – but essentially, you just need to be patient. They will be in touch if they need anything, and the lack of activity or change in status is nothing to worry about. If a month goes by with nothing, you can check in again.

  69. peace said

    I applied for NCI K99, and got my score 25. I contacted PO to schedule a phone call. the PO told me that interim K99/R00 payline is at 20 and they will set the final payline in July/ August. He only want to have a chat in July when they will have more information about budget.

    Does it mean that my chance of being funded is very low, since this is big gap between my score and interim payline?

    • writedit said

      It means he won’t know until all the applications that score 20 or lower are paid out, and they see how much funding they have left to move the payline and pick up additional applications. It’s not great news, but he thinks it’s still possible. He really will not know anything before July, though, so in the meantime, you should concentrate on a resubmission or an alternative application (RPG or other K activity code, if you are eligible).

      • peace said

        Thanks for your kind reply!

  70. nervousnelly said

    Writedit, as well as those lurkers here who might serve on study sections, I’d appreciate your thoughts on the following:

    Recently submitted a grant that got a brutal score (50s). Senior mentors comforted me saying it at least got reviewed, there must have been a flaw I can fix in the re-submission. Well, summary statements reiterate x 3 that they didn’t find my idea significant or innovative enough.

    I think I should dramatically revise my aims on the resubmission (with the risk of having new flaws pointed out), but other are saying stick with the same aims and just answer the flaws they pointed out; they reviewed it once, so there must have been something they liked.. although based on the score, I don’t know why they bothered to review it.

    Any advice would be much appreciated.

    • writedit said

      Did the PO glean anything from the conversation that might be enlightening? He/she would be a good source of advice. Generally, concerns with the significance are tough, which would suggest you should start over with a more compelling question to address (all new aims & appropriate approach) in a new application. Without knowing anything more, that is all I can suggest. However, if your senior mentors have read the summary statement & the application (or at least the aims) – vs just saying you got scored, so go back in – and if they still think the issues are addressable, and if your PO felt the panel would welcome the same proposal back tweaked, then by all means, go with their recommendation, since they have access to the documents in question and know your research.

    • tcgal said

      I guess my question is do you agree with the reviewers? i.e., the proposal is not significant. what can you do to change their minds? did you sell the idea as well as you could? step back and ponder this

      another thought- were the right reviewers on the panel? e.g., i do population level tobacco control research — addiction psychiatrists often dont see the significance in what i do- people come to the table w/different orientations and value systems– this certainly shapes what one sees as significant.

      • workinghard said

        Nervousnelly, generally I have heard that if reviewers don’t think it is significant, it is a problem with grantsmanship. I would try to re-package your data in a way that allows the reviewers to see significance, which might entail new specific aims.

      • writedit said

        Okay, my bad for not even considering whether you were at the right study section (I assume anyone here knows to be sure they have their science in front of reviewers who will be excited by it – and to do this by researching SRGs before they even start to write the proposal so they are writing to the reviewers). This is also where the PO opinion based on how the meeting went is essential – he/she can say whether the discussion sounded like they didn’t understand the significance or were wavering but not quite convinced. Grantsmanship can help if the message wasn’t clear – but if they generally understood but still weren’t convinced, then you still may need to rethink the underlying hypotheses/objectives and specific aims.

  71. Quynh said

    Hello, do you have any information about 2014 payline for NHLBI F32 grant? I looked it up last year the cut off is at 38th percentile, but in 2012 it is at 20th percentile. What a big jump! I just received the preliminary percentile for my first submission (it is 29th). At this moment I’m anxious to know about my funding aspect…

    • writedit said

      It is tough to say, since it depends on how many low-scoring applications they have. Your PO should have some idea how your score will do within the next few weeks (when the current round of study sections wraps up).

  72. laghs said

    Dear Writedit, I have a question about no cost extension (NCE). I have an R01 in its final year and I will apply for no cost extension for another year. Usually, I cannot carry more than 25% from one budget period to the next. However, for NCE is there still such a restriction? My understanding is that it is still the same budget period, so this is probably not considered as a carryover? I just received another grant and wanted to charge mostly to the new grant. But I am not sure whether I am allowed to carry a large sum of my old grant (such as 80% of the budget period) into the no-cost extension period. Thanks!

    • writedit said

      You should not have an issue carrying over for one year, but saving it to carry over for a second year (or longer) could be a problem. You might want to discuss with your PO what is feasible for the long-term, so you can plan accordingly – you don’t need to worry that talking with your PO about this might result in the award being cut etc. (NIH policy on NCE:

  73. Curios said

    It will increase by two points compared to what? FY 13? Which would put it at about FY 12?

  74. kalr said

    Hi — appreciate the help/insights you provide on this page.
    I’m an ESI and have an R01 assigned to NHLBI scored at the 16th percentile. An “administrative” response to the summary statement was requested and I submitted this soon after because my score is 6-10 above the regular 10th percentile payline.
    Although no formal response has come the program officer has told me “so far so good” as for how things look for getting it funded.
    Do I have any cause for ongoing concern or should I feel pretty good about how things look? I’ve learned to not count any chickens in this business, so continue to have some skepticism about how things will turn out and the nature of the programmatic review for ESIs 6-10 above the payline at NHLBI seems a bit enigmatic.

    • writedit said

      POs are very conservative, so if your PO is saying so far, so good, then you are probably more likely to receive an award than not – though certainly not a guarantee at this point. When he/she starts being cautiously optimistic, you can start counting.

  75. 2Laroc said

    A colleague of mine received a request from the NIH to release a copy of their currently funded NIH grant to an investigator at another institution who requested it through the freedom of information act. This does not seem to be professional and perhaps even unethical. The contents of each individual’s grant are very personal as far as writing style and methods used etc. I personally would not want to release mine to anyone who asks, especially prior to publication and/or while the grant is active. This seems very uncollegial and could lead to misuse of the information, intended or not. I am curious your thoughts and/or experience with this.

    • writedit said

      When a grant application is funded by a federal agency, it enters the public domain and can be requested via FOIA. You have no choice in the matter – you agreed to this upon submitting the application. There is nothing illegal or inherently unethical about the request. Many universities maintain repositories of funded applications that are available for review by faculty at the university (but not outsiders), and I often encourage PIs to ask their colleagues for examples of funded applications. NIAID has several sample applications that are real applications submitted for funding. With FOIA requests, I believe the PI can ask that some details be redacted, especially if they checked off the box indicating the application included proprietary material, but I am not sure about this or how it might work. I always tell PIs to protect any intellectual property before submitting an application where its disclosure might put the IP at risk.

      • SG said

        PIs are allowed to redact any unpublished data in the application. My understanding is that the PIs can also redact patentable and other valuable information.

  76. 2Laroc said

    I actually find this very disturbing, but it is good to know and I will make sure to check the box for proprietary material each submission. I actually feel that the ideas, hypothesis, and approach put forward in an application are intellectual property. I don’t feel there is anything good to be gained from requesting a proposal that cannot be found in the PI’s public abstract and publications from the grant. I have actually had other faculty at my own institution get a hold of one of my grants and submit something eerily similar that was funded. One cannot be too careful in this highly competitive environment. I mentor some junior faculty who are busting their behinds to get competitive applications in, and I would hate to see a senior person request their grant and try to outcompete them. For sure one should seek out mentors and colleagues who are willing to share their grants as examples – which I am happy to do for persons I mentor, but I don’t think requesting an unknown PI’s grant outside ones institution is appropriate. Plus while they can access your funded application, you cannot see what they subsequently submit to know whether any questionable items were ‘borrowed’. Just my 2 cents on the topic, but I think PIs should all be aware of this issue. Thanks for your input, as always.

    • LIZR said

      I had another investigator initiate an FOIA request to gain access to my funded NSF grant. It was a bit unsettling to be sure (there was lots of unpublished data in the proposal that I didn’t want distributed). However, the name of the individual making the request was provided to me during the process. In my case the requester was an unfunded assistant investigator working in a related area, but this investigator was not a direct competitor (different model organism, different techniques/approaches, and asking different questions). I ended up not redacting any info in the grant as I didn’t think the investigator was trying to scoop me or steal ideas, but was instead, just trying to figure out how to write a successful grant. An FOIA would be really bad way to try and get an upperhand on the competition – your competitor/colleague would know that you requested access to their funded grant. I would personally never initiate an FOIA request of my own – too much chance of generating resentment.

  77. Pine_smile said

    Received the priority score of my NIAID R21: 17. Interim payline now is 23. Waiting for the further notification.

    • writedit said

      Congratulations and best wishes for success with your research. Don’t worry if nothing happens right away – you will probably be asked for JIT closer to the June 2nd Council date (though probably well enough in advance for electronic concurrence before the scheduled meeting). Right now, the ICs are still catching up on awards from the first and second review cycles.

      • Pine_smile said

        Thanks a lot, Writedit. This is really a wonderful forum, from which I have benefited a lot…

      • Pine_smile said

        Status changed to “Council review completed” today…

      • writedit said

        Aha – well, this means they gave electronic concurrence in support of your application (in advance of the Council meeting). (I am assuming you were just reviewed this cycle for an application submitted last Oct/Nov.) You should be getting a JIT request soon, I would expect. You can check with your PO for an idea of timing.

      • Pine_smile said

        Thanks, writedit. Yeah, the application was submitted in Nov (A1 resubmission), 2013, and was reviewed on March 27 this year.

      • Pine_smile said

        Received the response from my PO:

        Hi XXX;

        That’s a great score, well below the payline of 23. Should be funded, though not until after the May Council meeting.

        Best regards, Clayton

      • writedit said

        Congratulations again – this just means you need to wait a couple months for the award processing. You still might get the JIT before Council, but don’t worry about it (i.e., don’t start driving yourself nuts thinking the delay in JIT request means they’ve changed their minds or something went wrong with your proposal). If you need any regulatory approval (IACUC, IRB), you definitely want to get that in hand now, plus any required training/certifications for everyone who is key personnel (only if needed for human/vertebrate animals research). If you need to start buying anything or post a position, you can check with your Department about setting up an account 90 days in advance of award (set to your start date, I expect).

    • Pine_smile said

      Thanks, writedit, for your nice suggestions. Yes, I will have a IACUC to start.

      • Pine_smile said

        Status was changed to “Pending” today… Look forward to the further updates…

      • writedit said

        Good news … be sure to get that IACUC squared away soon.

      • Pine_smile said

        Thanks, writedit!

      • Pine_smile said

        Received JIT request today.

      • writedit said

        Terrific – thanks for the update (helps everyone else here get an idea of the timeframe involved).

      • Pine_smile said

        Status changed to “Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist” today after I submitted my JIT on May, 19.

      • writedit said

        Woohoo – thanks for this update to give everyone an idea on the timing of award processing. Again, best wishes for success with this research!

      • Pine_smile said

        Received “Notice of Award” today! Thanks a lot, writedit, for this great forum!

      • writedit said

        Hooray! Thanks for posting the particulars of your timeline, which is so helpful to others. Have fun with the research.

  78. Steve Liang said

    We just got an U01 grant reviewed recently responding to a one-time RFA. The score is probably at the borderline and we want to talk to the PO. But we don’t have a program officer listed in eRA or the summary statement. Is this normal? or is it a sign that our grant is not going to be funded so that they didn’t even bother to assign a PO? Did anyone experience the same? Thank you for any suggestions.

    • writedit said

      No, you should have a PO – you absolutely need one for the life of the award. (POs should be involved before and after application and are always involved after an award. is made) The fact that this is a U01 makes it especially unusual, since there will be significant programmatic involvement at the IC in this award. You should check the RFA for the PO listed there. If he/she is not still the PO in charge, they can refer you to the new program director.

      • Steve Liang said

        Thank you very much, writedit. I was reading too much into the fact of having no PO listed in my summary statement. I realized now that there is a PO in the RFA and I should be talking to him soon.

  79. PB said

    I am submitting an SBIR grant, due today (April 5th). Since it is a weekend, is the deadline extended over to Monday?

    • writedit said

      Yes – this is always the case (due the next business day).

  80. talacikong said

    Is there any information about NIAID’s final payline for K awards? Thanks a lot.

  81. zhgong said

    I got impact score of 18 for K07 award from last July submission, and had the coucil meeting approved the end of February, anyone in the same round have received notice of award or other update in their eRa? mine is still coucil review completed since February 28th.

    • writedit said

      If you haven’t checked with your PO for an update in all this time, that would be fine to do, especially if you are not sure if your application is within their funding range or whether you need to wait until after the May/June council (depending on the IC) for final award decisions to be made.

  82. zhgong said

    Thanks for the help. I have checked with my PO in the end of February, was told approved by the coucil and ” I expect your application to be recommended for funding, with a probable start date late this spring. As always, funding is not assured until the Notice of Award is issued, but I foresee no problems at this time.”, but that is the end of February right after the coucil meeting, my status have not been updated since changed to coucil review completed. still waiting, not sure if should ask the PO again. is a NCI-K07. Thanks

    • greenPI said

      In response to zhgong: I received an 11 on my K22 with NIAID and it took 3 months after council before I received my NOA. Seems like your still OK.

      • writedit said

        Thanks for sharing your experience and congratulations on your award – best wishes for success with your project and career in academic research!

    • writedit said

      This message says you are getting an award. If you need to start spending in advance of the award, you can check back in with your PO to find out if you are within 90 days of a notice. Otherwise, you should assume the wheels of bureaucracy are turning slowly, but still turning.

      • zhgong said

        I just worried. Thanks greenPI and Writedit.

  83. SC said

    I missed the deadline for submitting SBIR grant today, as my registration had expired, and it takes 1-2 days to reinstate it. The NIH website clearly says that late registrations are not a valid reason for late submissions. Should I still go ahead and submit the grant tomorrow? will it still be considered for this round?

    • writedit said

      No, it will be considered for the next submission date, so you might as well wait and continue to improve the application.

  84. Dave said

    Just wanted to post my timeline for others who may be interested.

    NIDDK K01, A0 submitted 6/12/12; reviewed 12/13/12: impact score 30
    Revised A1 submitted 7/12/13; reviewed 12/4/13: impact score 20
    Council meeting: 2/5/14
    JIT requested: 2/26/14
    Status changed to “pending admin review”:3/13/14
    Status changed to “award prepared”: 4/3/14
    NOA: 4/9/14
    Award start: 4/15/14

    • writedit said

      Congratulations and thank you so much for posting this excellent timeline/summary! I am glad the two-year effort ended well for you. Best wishes for success with your project and career in academic research!

    • Pine_smile said

      Haha, got NOA today! Congratulations!

  85. junegt said

    Hi writedit, I submitted a K99 to NIA in October last year and got a score of 20. I contacted my PO this week and he said that my score is likely fundable, but not guaranteed. I know that the NIA interim payline for K award is 20. What do you think of the likelyhood of my K99? BTW, this is my A0 submission, but I will have no chance to resubmit due to the rule change. Many thanks in advance! –junegt

    • writedit said

      For some ICs, the K99 payline is lower than the general K payline, which could be why he equivocated … but his saying that it is “likely fundable” is good news, since if he had any doubts, he would have just said you need to wait until May or June with no comment on your chances. I assume he knows you only have one submission (i.e., no option for an A1).

      • junegt said

        Thank you for your kind reply. I understand that there might still be a chance for me to get this K99. I will keep my fingers crossed and hope for the best…:-)

  86. k-applicant said

    You mentioned for NIA the FY13 payline is a “priority score of 20 for Ks” — where can I find this information? I clicked on the link ( but couldn’t find the reference to this score range.

    Thank you.

  87. workinghard said

    Writedit, they update the paylines for NHLBI today…looks more hopeful for many of us!!

    • writedit said

      Thanks for the heads up!

    • QT said

      I’m so happy for this news. It looks like my F32 grant might get funded with the new payline

  88. Quynh said

    yes, I’m happy with the update.

  89. F32 Question said

    Hi writedit,

    Can F32 awards for postdocs be backdated? In other words, with the current delay in the award process, would it be possible to recoup some of a postdoc’s salary that has had to come from different sources because of the delay. If so, how far back can the award be backdated? And if not, after a NOA is received, how long until the award can start (i.e. immediately, the 1st of the following month, etc)?

    • writedit said

      I have seen research awards backdated to the start of the month (but not any further back than that). I am not sure if this is possible with fellowships, but I am not sure why it could not be done. The NOA lists the start date – the award is activated once the institution starts drawing on the funds, though, again, I know the mechanism is different for fellowships (I don’t work in the financial end of things to give specific advice though). If you have a date in mind, you should talk now (before NOA) with your PO and GMS. Your institution fiscal/grant administrators would be familiar with what is possible as well.

  90. 2Laroc said

    The head admin in my previous Dept/Institution lobbied to get me to backdate my awarded R01 three months so they could recoup part of my salary. It requires PI permission so of course I declined. I am not sure I that this was even allowed but they sure tried!

  91. 2Laroc said

    Dear Writedit,

    The NIH put out this notice regarding allowing resubmission of unfunded A1s without changing the science, as a new A0.

    While this is great for PIs who missed the funding cutoff due to our current climate, I have some grave concerns that every PI sitting on unfunded grants will now just resubmit all of them hoping for a better review – this could really clog the review process. Also it seems there would be no way to know whether it was previously submitted or not – it seems that might be pertinent information for reviewers (i.e. this just missed the funding cutoff, or was repeatedly triaged).

    I apologize if this has been discussed, but I am sure we would all love your thoughts.

  92. guisheng song said

    Dear Writedit

    I submitted a R01 to NIDDK and received a percentile at 15%. In NIDDK, the payline for new and early investigator is 18%.

    Today I received an email from my PO:
    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,

    Would you please explain the meaning for this email?

    Thank you very much for your help


    • Morrissey said

      The ESI paylines often have a caveat like “for applications responsive to Summary Statements” or something to that effect. The PO basically wants remove any encumbrance to getting your funding through committee. this is a good sign.
      Say you have read the comments and that you plan to re-budget X to Y and to use funds from start up to pay for Z instead of the RO1… show him/her that you’re cooperating. Congrats!

      • guisheng song said

        Hi, Morrissey

        Thank you very much for your timely reply and positive response. I will prepare it accordingly based on your advice. In addition, could you please let me know if I should address all scientific concerns?

        Have a good day


    • writedit said

      If you look at your summary statement under Budget and Period of Support (for individual reviewers) and Committee Budget Recommendations (at the end of the summary statement, just before the list of reviewers), you can see if specific concerns were raised. I would think this is what your PO is asking about. Reviewers might have thought you asked for inappropriate amounts or be concerned that you have duplicative support (science overlapping on two awards). You don’t mention specifically if you are new or ESI, but if you are (based on your wording below), overlapping support is probably not a concern, but something was stated in the summary statement. If you do not see any specific comments about the budget, then you should ask your PO about his/her question (before offering a fix that might be inappropriate). You should also have responses ready for the scientific concerns raised as well. Your PO’s message is good news, though, so don’t be nervous or worry about giving “wrong” answers – you will have a friendly discussion with the PO, who wants to help.

      • SGS said

        Hi, there

        Thank you so much for your kind and timely reply.


  93. 2Laroc said

    My NCI R01 year 4 NOA was updated to include 97% funding level for this year (renews in Jan each year). While this seems like good news I actually lose near $6000 in direct costs and will have to shave that somewhere (if there is anything left that can be shaved). I thought there was no sequester in FY14 such that non-competing renewals would be funded at their “normal” levels (if there is such a thing at NIH).

    • writedit said

      The NIH-wide fiscal policy for FY14 imposes up to a 3% cut (, with ICs having the flexibility to decide how much (including more than 3%). This has been the case in prior years (e.g., FY11) when the NIH appropriation was flat (or reduced), which does not permit adjustment for inflation (needed to accommodate competing awards each year – if the money doesn’t come from Congress, it needs to come from current awardees). In FY12 (& some other prior years), any requested increase for inflation was eliminated (so essentially a cut).

      • 2Laroc said

        Bummer – it’s (not so) funny that the actual line budget for each of the 5 years on the NOA is never met. Well this will all merge into my experience with NIH grants/awards. Luckily I have been able to scrape enough loose change together here and there to compensate so far. Thanks for the information as always.

  94. LNS said

    When can we expect to learn if there are any changes to NCI paylines for FY14? (Many thanks for your wonderful blog. It has been a lifesaver for me for the past 4 years.)

    • writedit said

      You are very welcome – glad this little bit of cyber real estate has been helpful, which is due to everyone’s input. Last year, NCI updated the funding letter on May 6, so probably about the same time frame this year.

      • LNS said

        Thanks for the prompt reply. If my application ends up falling under the new payline, is it automatically funded or will I have to wait until after council meets to know for sure?

      • writedit said

        It must go to Council (which, although relatively rare, can decide not to concur with some applications put forward for funding by the IC Director), but applications within the payline that are eligible for early electronic concurrence are usually approved by Council in advance of the meeting (in which case your status would change to Council Review Completed before the meeting date). Then there would be the period for award processing (including JIT, so be sure you have your approvals n’at in order) before a Notice could be issued.

  95. worry wart said

    I have an RO1 application at NHLBI at 12th percentile (A1). ESI payline is currently 21st percentile. I was ESI when I submitted the A0, and NHLBI’s website says that (unlike NIH in general), resubmissions of RO1s that were initially submitted as ESI still qualify for ESI payline for the duration of the NIH resubmission period. My PO says funding is likely, but it has to go through two other rounds of verification that it qualifies for ESI. I still am a New Investigator. I have non-ESI collaborators, but no Co-PI on this grant. What exactly are they verifying? By the way, the PO said “It looks like an ESI application to me, but it still has to go through two other people.” Has anyone had this happen before? I don’t **think** i have anything to worry about, but there’s always that nagging irrational worry . . . .

    • writedit said

      You are correct about the NHLBI policy going out to 37 months (vs 13 months in the NIH policy), but I am not surprised that they require mutliple layers of approval for these cases. It is a federal government bureacracy, after all. I don’t think you have anything to worry about, especially not at the 12th percentile.

  96. Airmonkey84 said

    It looks like NIAMS has increased the F32 payline from 20 to 22. All the other paylines have increased as well over the past several weeks. From what I’ve seen all paylines are higher than last year except for the F32 (24 in 2013). I’m still hoping that the line increases miraculously to 24 – any insight into this?

    • writedit said

      If they just increased the payline, that is probably it for the year, but you can check with your PO, both about whether it might get another bump and whether you might be considered for an award anyway.

  97. Stressful Life said

    Dear writedit:

    First, thank you for maintaining this blog. It has been amongst the most informative resources I have come across.

    My R01 application received a “grey zone” score (New Investigator and ESI) when reviewed in October of 2013. I was told in Feb that it did not look good, and I should plan on resubmitting (which I did) but the PO told me unofficially he would continue to make a case for the original application.

    In mid March, I received an email from my PO asking for some information about the original application that could be used in their funding recommendation (which was strange because council met Feb 5th 2014). This included rebutting the three biggest criticisms.

    Yesterday, the status for the original application changed from “Council review complete” to “pending”. I have not heard from my PO and have never received any JIT requests. I have been told by several senior faculty not to contact the PO since my last email was not answered–and they may not want to say anything one way or another.

    What does the change to pending mean? I have been scouring the internet to gain some insight!

    • writedit said

      Congratulations – and you should in fact feel free to contact your PO. The Pending status means your application is being considered for an award (pending administrative review etc.). Be sure to have any IACUC, IRB, etc. approvals ready to submit if needed for JIT. With regard to the non-response, your PO might have just been busy before, or he may not have had any new information the last time you contacted him. With the change in eRA Commons status, you can and probably should get in touch to ask if the change in status means he would like JIT.

      • Stressful Life said

        WOW!! Thank you for the thorough response. I followed your advice and emailed. Here is to a few sleepless nights hitting send receive over and over!
        Thank you again for maintaining this outstanding resource.

    • 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

      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

      • writedit said

        Thank you so much for being super helpful to your colleagues by posting your timeline as well. Congratulations on the award and best wishes for success with the research!

  98. Stellar said

    Stressful life,
    I am not sure, but can you provide anonymous details? Institute? Percentile? A0 or a1?

    • Stressful Life said

      Sorry….it was an A0 with 17%. My institute has NO pay line and does things programmatically. Thank you!!!!

  99. workinghard said

    Pending is might be a good sign; my status was “pending” for a short period of time, and then switched to “awarded”. Good luck!!

    • Stressful Life said

      Thank you for your kind words and well wishes. I am only at the beginning of my career. It is hard to imagine this for another 30 years!

  100. comprenew said

    Dear writedit, thanks so much for putting together this amazing site, it is the most valuable resource I have found on the web.
    I am writing with a question regarding the upcoming competitive renewal of my R01. One of my mentors mentioned that – at the time she was planning her first R01 renewal – she was not allowed (some NIH rule, she said) to budget more funds than in the original grant. For example, if her first R01 was budgeted at 150k/yr, the competitive renewal could not ask for 250k/yr. This impacted what studies she could plan for the renewal, so she ended up putting in a brand new grant instead. Is there such a rule still in place?

    • writedit said

      You should check your Notice of Award. NCI caps renewals at 20% of the last year of the prior project period (, and other ICs may include restrictions in their award notices.

      • comprenew said

        Thank you writedit — I found out that NHLBI allows for a maximum of 3% increase relative to the last segment of the original award (if non-modular). Unfortunately that means I’ll have to simplify some of the studies I was planning (sigh!).

      • writedit said

        Sorry to hear about the limitation (not entirely surprised though) – thanks for posting the follow-up on what you learned.

  101. 2Laroc said

    I too am planning my renewal which has been cut each year due to all of the budget woes and I was going to put it back in for 250 modular. I have heavy animal studies and can easily justify the budget. It would seem unfair to include their auto 17% cut, sequesters, etc in what one asks for again (who is to say they do not cut another 17% off?). I know sitting on study sections the reviewers are usually fine with the modular budget for most grants so this must be an administrative issue. I will check my NOA also and perhaps consult my PO and GMO prior to submission. This is really a big hit for PIs with productive grants that have been victims of the budget crunch. I was looking at it as a chance to get this program back to where it should be….

    • writedit said

      Yes, with the sequester and other cuts, be sure to check with your PO about budgeting your renewal.

  102. Freedomtrail said

    Is it uncommon to be granted a second no-cost-extension? Thanks.

    • writedit said

      Not sure I’d say common, but it certainly occurs in justified cases. The overall statistics are not as important as the individual situation.

      • Freedomtrail said

        Thanks for your insight.

  103. SGS said

    Hii, writedit

    Thank you very much for your kindness for all these stressful research scientists here. As I posted there before, I received an email from my PO and asked me to figure out the budget issues. The following is 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,

    I have sent him a rebuttel letter and answtered all questions on budget and scientific concerns (including some new data). My percentile is 15% and the payline for ESI in NIDDK is 18%. The council meeting is May 14. But I still do not receive a JIT unitl now. Do you think I should contact with PO?



    • writedit said

      I wouldn’t worry about not receiving a JIT request yet – you may not until after Council meets. If your PO did not acknowledge your sending the brief response to the summary statement issues, you could ask for confirmation that he received them and they meet his needs (perhaps send the email with a read receipt requested, if you are wondering if your PO is getting you email) and ask if he could or would like to talk on the phone about any of these issues. If he doesn’t respond to that (I do know NIDDK POs who are not very responsive), don’t worry if you don’t hear anything until after Council meets. (I know that will be difficult.)

      • Jerry said


        Effective immediately, the NIH and AHRQ will accept a new (A0) application following an unsuccessful resubmission (A1) application. The subsequent new application need not demonstrate substantial changes in scientific direction compared to previously reviewed submissions, and must not contain an introduction to respond to the critiques from the previous review.

      • writedit said

        Yes, I covered this on the main blog,

      • SGS said

        Hi, writedit

        Really appricate your kindness. Now I am more comfortable. I will update all my information in the future.

        Have a good day


  104. Jerry said

    the payline will further go down

    • writedit said

      Paylines won’t necessarily be affected by the number of submissions, though success rates will almost certainly take a significant hit, at least in the near term. The percentage of triaged applications could go up, too, if more than half need to be removed to arrive at a feasible number to be discussed at study section. If SROs can keep the number of applications discussed about the same and the scores spread – and the NIH does not have another major budget cut – paylines should stay about the same, though a greater percentage of applications will not succeed.

  105. arghFunding said

    Any info on the effective paylines for the DP2 (New Innovator)? What about an impact score of 13? I don’t know if it’s appropriate to contact the PO without the summary statements out, which could take another few weeks.

    • writedit said

      An impact score of 13 should be very good, but the PO will need to see the summary statements (especially if they have become more like traditional reviews than when the program first started), as there will be programmatic discussion of these applications. There is nothing to be done during the interim (and no rush on a resubmission, since the next receipt date isn’t until October), so I would suggest you wait until you have your summary statement before contacting the PO. You may even receive instructions about next steps in the interim.

      • arghFunding said

        Thanks. It would obviously be nice to know before September (the notification deadline given in the FAQ) because there are many grants I could in theory apply for between now and then, and I’d REALLY rather focus on research instead. I’m trying to plan the next few months. In my impatience I emailed the PO already… I hope I can at least learn when this programmatic discussion will take place.

        Thanks again for providing this resource. Regardless of outcome, I’ll later leave a summary of the timeline for posterity.

      • writedit said

        You can certainly submit applications in the meantime (and do as much research as you like), since there would not be an award until after the DP2 status is decided (ie, submit in June, reviewed in October, earliest award date in Dec – but more likely next spring, since this is an election year).

  106. talaci said

    Dear writedit, what is the chance of getting funded after receiving JIT request from the GMS? The PO was not very explicit about it. Also, my commons says Council meeting scheduled on Jun 02, but i just noticed on “Status Message” it indicates “Council review completed.” on Apr 07.

    Thank you very much for this great bog and your generous help.

    • writedit said

      I am cautiously optimistic that congratulations are in order. You would not receive a JIT request unless your application were on the list to be processed for an award (pending administrative approval), and the Council Review Completed status means that your application was on the list sent to Council for electronic concurrence in advance of the meeting. You should absolutely get the JIT materials to the GMS quickly to expedite the award processing. This is not a guarantee of an award, but, again, they would not be doing this unless the planned to fund your application, assuming there are no administrative problems encountered along the way (usually related to budget overlap, IRB/IACUC approvals, etc.).

  107. DA said

    This may be a little off topic but just in case someone knows-
    We have a small business that asked for a 27% F&A costs for a Phase I STTR application. In the final FFR, do we answer the section on indirect expenses? The NIH guideline says, only fill this section if you are required to. How does one find out if we are required to answer?

    • writedit said

      I am not quite sure I understand the question. F&A rates are negotiated with the NIH independent of individual awards. I assume you mean your negotiated F&A rate is 27%. If you were granted indirect costs in your notice of award, then you should report them – but you can and should ask your GMS for clarification on what is required for this section in your situation.

      • DA said

        For rates less than 40%, no negotiation is required. Hence my indecision. But you are right-I will check with GMS.

  108. K99anxiety said

    Dear Writedit,
    Thank you for this wonderful blog. I would like to share my K99 experience so far. My application is with NICHD.

    June 2013: Submitted A0
    November 2013: Received impact score 20. PO said he was optimistic it would get funded, but that I should plan to resubmit just in case.
    January 2014: Submitted A1 (special deadline because of new 4-year rule that went into place in Feb)
    March 2014: Received impact score of 10 on A1 submission.
    April 2014: Found out A0 will not be funded.

    Council meeting is in early June. I have not received a JIT request at this time. Even with the score, I am still nervous about if the A1 will be funded or not.

    • writedit said

      If your PO was optimistic about the A0 with a score of 20, he should be more than cautiously optimistic about your A1 at a score of 10. Congratulations on the perfect score (which I suspect might convey, aside from your being perfect, reviewer frustration with the fact you weren’t funded for the A0). If you have not checked in again with your PO, you certainly can – and you should have a very positive response. The JIT won’t come until closer to Council meeting, so the absence of a request shouldn’t concern you. You should, however, be sure to have any necessary approvals (IACUC, IRB, etc.) in order now, plus any required training/certification.

      • K99anxiety said

        Thanks Writedit! I did get the IACUC approval, and will update if I hear anything.

      • writedit said

        Great – thanks also for posting your timeline and details, which I am sure others found useful as well.

      • K99anxiety said

        Council meeting is tomorrow and still have not received a JIT request.. I emailed my PO a couple of weeks ago about something else, and asked if he needed anything prior to the council meeting. He wrote back to my first question, but didn’t specify needing anything. Should I be worried? I have heard of a few others that got JIT requests from NICHD in the last 2 weeks (none were for K99′s though).

      • writedit said

        You might well not get a JIT request until after Council – not to worry. Lack of JIT request does not mean you are not being considered for an award. If you have a GMS assigned, you could ask him/her about JIT. Otherwise, check with the PO if you don’t hear from him in a week or so.

      • K99anxiety said

        Here is an update to my timeline (maybe more detail than people would want..)
        June 5, 2014: Council meeting
        June 24, 2014: JIT requested
        June 25, 2014: Status changed in era commons to “pending”
        June 26, 2014: Submitted JIT

        Is it reasonable at this point to ask about a timeframe for NoA? If so, is this a question for the PO or GMS?

      • writedit said

        Thanks so much for sharing your timeline since Council. Your notice of award may still take a couple of weeks. The GMS is the one processing the award and will probably have a better idea of the bureaucratic backlog and timing. Congratulations again and best wishes for success with your project and career in academic research!

    • K99anxiety said

      Final update..thanks again writedit for this blog and for the advice!
      July 1, 2014: era commons status changed to Award Prepared
      July 7, 2014: received NoA!

  109. 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!

  110. 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).

  111. 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.

  112. jrresearcher said

    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.

  113. 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.

  114. 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.

  115. 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).

  116. 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?



      • HopefulePI said


      • 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.

  117. 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.



    • 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.

  118. 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!

  119. 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: It’s really not much of a burden. Was it due today?

  120. 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!

  121. 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.

  122. 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.

  123. 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.

  124. 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.

  125. 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.

  126. 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.

  127. 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.


    • 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 ( 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).

  128. 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!

  129. 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.

  130. 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.

  131. 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 (, but there is no harm in asking (

      • 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.

  132. 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%?


    • 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).

  133. 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

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

      • writedit said

        You should find anything you need to know here:

      • 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.

  134. 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

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

      • Heliotron said

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

  135. 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 ( 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.

  136. 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:

        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).

  137. 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?


    • 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).

  138. 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?



    • 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


  139. 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, 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!

  140. 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.

  141. 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.

  142. 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.

  143. 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.

  144. New Player said

    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.

  145. 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).

  146. 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).

  147. 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)

  148. 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.

  149. 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.

  150. 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.

  151. 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).

  152. 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?


    • 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


  153. 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.


    • 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 (, 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.

  154. 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.

  155. 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?

    • 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.

  156. 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).

  157. 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.

  158. 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).

  159. 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?

  160. 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?

    • 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.

  161. 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.

  162. 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 (, 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.

  163. 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”.

    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: Best wishes for success with the project and your career in academic biomedical research.

  164. 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,

    • 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

        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.

  165. MMJay said

    Thanks for the insight. my application was for NCI K22. This application is revision one. This application was submitted in Feb 2013, reviewed in June 2013 and council review completed in Oct 2013. My PO has not given any clue except wait until June 2014, I don’t know why?

  166. writedit said

    Ah – this is what I about waiting until the next round of reviews is complete. Yours will be one of the last applications to be considered for funding as the FY winds down, but it is good news that your PO thinks this is possible. At this point, there is nothing else you can do but wait – and start getting your alternative plans ready in case an award is not made.

  167. nrsa_hopeful said

    Hi writedit – wanted to update here. I submitted a JIT request from the GMS this past Friday, which got my hopes up. But, I’ve now received this message from the PO: “Based on our current budget projections and the number of high-quality applications, the priority score your proposal received is in the uncertain range for funding. You may be aware 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 any awards at the present time. Your application is now on hold pending resolution of the budget and formulation of the NICHD funding plan for this round.”

    Do you have thoughts on why they would have requested JIT information but now say that funding is uncertain? And do you have any recommendations for what to do next? Many thanks.

  168. nrsa_hopeful said

    Hi writedit – I just checked eRA commons and the status has changed to “Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.” I assume this is good news (?!)

  169. nrsa_hopeful said

    I received the NOA today! Here is my timeline:

    08/08/2013: Application submitted.
    08/14/2013: Scientific Review Group review pending.
    11/12/2013: Scientific Review Group review completed.
    03/18/2014: JIT information requested from GMS.
    03/27/2014: PO letter indicating grant is in “uncertain range.”
    04/02/2014: Pending administrative review.
    04/03/2014: Award prepared.
    05/01/2014: NOA

    Oddly, the award date and “latest activation date” are the same (today). That should be an error, right? We listed a start date for this summer, and I thought it was the case that you have 6 months to activate an award?

  170. writedit said

    Well, the CR language is old, but the intent is probably to convey they still don’t know yet how far down the paylist they can go. The JIT is never a guarantee of funding, though these days, ICs reserve these requests for applications likely to be considered. Have you asked the PO if you should prepare an A1 for August? (or did you get one ready for April?)

  171. jmanuel said

    Good news–heard from the NIDA grants management specialist that the NGA for my K01 will likely arrive in the next week with a May 1st start date. Other good news is that I landed a great opportunity at another university, so I’ll be working on transferring the grant over the summer. MY PO is supportive of the move–part of my mentoring team is at this university and the school has a strong research infrastructure–but I’m expecting a lengthy transfer process based on a colleague’s experience. I’m planning to get an early start on the process.

    Thanks for hosting this blog. It’s a great resource, and I’ve really appreciated the advice.

  172. jmanuel said

    Thanks, writedit. I did look into the possibility of re-routing the grant, but my PO said it wasn’t possible since the NGA was already in progress.

  173. writedit said

    Congratulations and best wishes for success with your project and career in academic research! Did your PO suggest delaying the NGA until you move? If this is not possible, you can ask your current institution not to activate the award (by drawing on the funds), especially if you will be too busy with the move to do any work toward the K01 project. On the other hand, if you need the funds now and will start the research, starting the award where you are and moving will certainly work, too.

  174. WJM said

    Hi Writedit,

    We were pleased to see that the NIAID SBIR paylines were raised to a 32, with our Ph2 application receiving a 22 we are optimistic that we will be funded now. Could you provide any advice on when we might hear something regarding funding? We currently have an open window to apply for a state match that would provide additional funding for our project. However we need an award letter to apply.

  175. SD said

    Hi WJM,

    May I ask which state you are referencing? Do you know of a list of the states offering an SBIR/STTR matching award?

  176. WJM said

    Thanks Writedit. Our application went to Council last September so hopefully we will get some good news from our PO. Thanks again

    Sorry SD, I’m not aware of a list of states with matching programs, though I would think one would exist. I was referencing KY.

  177. writedit said

    It depends on when you submitted your application. If you were just scored in Feb/March, then you will need to wait until June/July. If you submitted last April or August, then you could have a notice of award soon – or not for several weeks still, depending on where you are in the backlog. I would suggest you contact your PO for an idea on timing and whether he/she can help with the opportunity for state matching funds. If your application has not gone to Council yet, though, I doubt they can give you any sort of guarantee.

  178. writedit said

    Oh wow – long time to wait. You should check with your PO and let him/her know about your situation. They would want to see your NIH award leveraged for additional funding.

  179. writedit said

    Congratulations — you have a grant award! Best wishes for success with your project and your career in academic research.

  180. mstudent said

    Hi writedit, just want to update for all those concerned about F31s at NCI. I have found out from my PO that the interim payline is 20%, and they will not increase that until July/Aug.

    I ended up resubmitting my grant application, and today I got my new score of 7%, which I am confident will be funded, although I don’t expect notice of award for a few weeks at least.

    Thanks again for all your help, and for maintaining this nerve- relieving site!

  181. writedit said

    Congratulations on the exceptional score and thank you so much for posting your intel – your collective participation is what makes the site great. They may go back and fund your A0 now (sooner), but if not, you can relax in the knowledge your A1 will be funded this summer (will take a couple of months rather than weeks if it needs to go to Council etc.). Best wishes for success with your training and your career in academic research!

  182. OG said

    I have the same question. I received an impact score but not a percentile and have heard somewhat contradictory takes on my chances of funding.

  183. writedit said

    You won’t receive a percentile, and the K22 is quite specialized, so the PO is your best source of intel with regard to your funding likelihood.

  184. writedit said

    Congratulations and thank you so much for sharing this detailed timeline. You can talk with the GMS or your grants administrator about the activation date, which shouldn’t be a problem. Best wishes for success with your training, project, and career in academic research!

  185. 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)

  186. writedit said

    Woohoo and congratulations on finally receiving the award! Two months is more typical than three for award processing (& it can take much less, especially during the end of the FY scramble). Thanks so much for posting this informative and detailed timeline – best wishes for success with the research.

  187. meshugena313 said

    So this proposal was funded! Occasionally miracles happen… It also took persistence in updating the PO, and also the fact that the program had a solid interest in our work that is also a topic that is not well funded in general. Good luck to others in the same boat.

  188. writedit said

    Woohoo! Congratulations and thank you for sharing this wonderful update, including the role of the PO, which is very important at NIGMS. Best wishes for success with the research.

  189. Xin said

    Dear writedit:
    I read this post with horror as I just submitted an R15 to NIDDK last week. Is there a way to request a change of institute? (NIAID was willing to accept the application as well when I inquired.) If it can be changed, do you think I should do it? Thank you.

  190. Xin said

    Thanks so much for the advice.

  191. writedit said

    You should not assume that your PO has the same concerns as the PO from the other thread (also, this was in the sequester year). If your PO encouraged you to apply for the R15, you should be fine, and you could talk with him/her to confirm he/she is interested in having your R15 in his/her portfolio. Since you just submitted the proposal, you could also ask the PO at NIAID if he/she can request assignment from CSR – I am not sure how that works after an application has been submitted, especially if you requested assignment to NIDDK, but it seems as though this shouldn’t be impossible. You should probably talk with your NIDDK PO first though.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 252 other followers

%d bloggers like this: