Archived Comments: Discussion: NIH Scores-Paylines-Policy-Peer Review (2009-2014)
December 9, 2009 @ 10:46 pm ·
Okay – I’ll get the ball rolling since NIAMS put up some FY10 interim paylines that include impact scores:
13th percentile for R01s
18th percentile for new investigator R01s
13th percentile for R21s
28 for R03s
25 for R15s
25 for K01/K02/K08/K25s
25 for K23/K24s
14 for K99s
27 for F31/F32/F33s
14 for the K99s … oof. By way of reminder, we have a couple of formulas for placing impact scores in context of the former priority scores:
[(impact score – 10) x 5] + 100 = priority score
[(15 – 10) x 5] + 100 = 125
[(20 – 10) x 5] + 100 = 150
[(25 – 10) x 5] + 100 = 175
[(30 – 10) x 5] + 100 = 200
[(35 – 10) x 5] + 100 = 225
((40 – 10) x 5] + 100 = 250
[(impact score – 10) x 3.5] + 100 = priority score
[(15 – 10) x 3.5] + 100 = 117
[(20 – 10) x 3.5] + 100 = 135
[(25 – 10) x 3.5] + 100 = 152
[(30 – 10) x 3.5] + 100 = 170
[(35 – 10) x 3.5] + 100 = 187
[(40 – 10) x 3.5] + 100 = 205
[(90 – 10) x 3.5] + 100 = 380
February 19, 2010 @ 6:36 pm ·
Did anyone get a Percentile on an R21 in a Feb2010 study section?
I received a priority score of 25 but have no idea what does it translate into in terms of percentile. I have a bad feeling it may be worse than the 13th percentile payline of NIBIB and other ICs.
December 14, 2010 @ 11:08 am ·
I submitted two R21 proposals in February 2010. The first went to NCI and received a priority score of 29 (15th percentile). That proposal will likely not be funded due to anticipated lower paylines in FY11 (probably would have been funded in FY10) according to the PO. The second went to NIDDK and received a priority score of 36. The PO said that NIDDK does not percentile R21 proposals. I resubmitted both proposals last month.
I won’t hear about the initial submissions until we get a federal budget approved since I submitted both proposals under a PA.
December 10, 2009 @ 1:20 pm ·
Its the first time I’ve seen percentiles for R21s. That is why I am curious if anyone has gotten a percentile score (I did not, but my R21 when through NIAID) and how they match with the percentile scores.
December 10, 2009 @ 5:48 pm ·
we had a r21 reviewed back in 2006 that was percentiled – the study section was CIHB and NCI was the IC
December 15, 2009 @ 1:34 am ·
I stumbled on this site & it seems like a great resource for info about NIH grants & paylines. I’m in total limbo with an F32 postdoctoral NRSA proposal I submitted to NICHD in April 2009. I got my scores back in July – 3rd %ile, impact score of 10. Feeling confident that I’d be funded, I turned down other postdoc opportunities and a teaching gig. But since then…nothing. My proposed start date, Dec. 1st, was two weeks ago, and I have yet to receive any notice of funding. I’ve checked in with NICHD multiple times over the last few months and have been told only that “the payline hasn’t been set yet.” This is a scary situation because, banking on the funding, I have no income or health insurance lined up for next semester. Paying out-of-pocket for insurance is pricey and I’m loath to do it because I could get funded any minute (although at this rate, it seems unlikely that my university could process the paperwork to get me on payroll before the holiday break, even if I got notification tomorrow). I have a seven-month-old baby dependent on my health insurance.
This is my first interaction with NIH so I’m wondering – is this a common situation? What do prospective NRSA postdocs typically do when funding is delayed – should I find another position or some kind of temp work? Is NIH operating under the assumption that postdoc applicants all have some kind of backup plan? How likely is it that this delay will last a month or more? Should I just bite the bullet and pay for a few months of health insurance myself?
December 15, 2009 @ 9:37 am ·
Well, with a score of 10 and a 3rd percentile standing (which means there were other perfect 10s, which seems remarkable in itself …), the payline shouldn’t matter assuming they intend to fund any F32 awards. The Grants Management Specialist might be able to give you a better idea of award timing. The FY10 appropriation has been approved by Congress and should have a Presidential signature soon if not already, so that should move things along at the ICs. However, your current institution is leaving you high & dry despite the fact you are sitting on a guaranteed award? Your mentor or PI in whose lab you will be working is offering no assistance at all? Sorry to hear about all this stress, particularly at this time of year …
December 15, 2009 @ 2:06 pm ·
Thanks for the reply. I don’t have a relationship established at the prospective postdoctoral institution…I haven’t collaborated with this mentor before, except to write the NRSA app (which I did because she made it clear that she didn’t have funding for a postdoc otherwise). So I’m not sure what their obligation to me might be. The university won’t front cash for an award without an official funding notice. The Grants Management Specialist has been saying the same thing as the PO – payline hasn’t been set yet.
Sounds like it’s more of a matter of ‘when’ than ‘if’ – but it would be nice to know when the ‘when’ might be so I can plan accordingly. Good to hear that the FY10 appropriations are moving forward, that’s encouraging…
December 15, 2009 @ 4:54 pm ·
You might also consider the precarious funding nature of the frying pan you’re jumping into, even given that you come with NRSA cash… This might be an opportunity for a rethink on your part.
December 15, 2009 @ 5:31 pm ·
Yes, you’re right about rethinking – although with the spring semester starting in just a few weeks, it’s a bit late to find another postdoc! I will say that the mentor has been very supportive, and if she had postdoc funding set aside, I don’t doubt that she would offer to kick in. She was pretty clear with me upfront about the need for me to secure my own postdoctoral funding. The frustrating thing is that I would have gone after another postdoc, or at least a teaching position, if the scores I got in July had been low or iffy – but because they were strong, I didn’t make a backup plan (and, in fact, turned down a teaching appt at the institution where I’m supposed to be starting the NRSA). I really didn’t expect that NIH would be tied up in a way that would push back my start date. Does anyone know if this is a common thing? It seems crazy to me that NIH would just assume that all potential postdocs were independently wealthy and about to handle a funding gap of a month or more. Or is it standard that a postdoc would already be supported by a particular institution even if the NRSA funds are held up? This is quite an introduction to the vagaries of NIH!
December 15, 2009 @ 10:18 pm ·
I would be slightly uncomfortable about joining a lab that couldn’t float a few months of post-doc salary while waiting for a 3%tile grant to get turned on. It is one thing to tell somebody that they have to bring in their own funding…it is another to not offer them a short bridge in waiting for a grant that did so well.
December 15, 2009 @ 10:54 pm ·
I have to agree with Pinus. I asked around at BICO, and everyone agreed they could come up with at least a few months of funding if not more to pay salary/insurance etc. until your award came through. None could imagine leaving you in that sort of situation or that the lab could be very secure if she absolutely had no funds (and no colleagues willing to help). You can take that anywhere – and anyone & everyone should welcome you eagerly (and provide a little bridge $) with 3 years of funding in the bag. You’d be a gift to any lab.
Also, the PI of the lab you are joining should have been aware of the typical end-of-year delays in NIH funding (long discussions of this at NIH Paylines & Resources, too). The NIH does not expect postdocs to be independently wealthy, and only a small minority come with F32s … the NIH expects T32s and parent R01s etc. to pay for your salaries – plus institutional funds (a lot of start-up packages here at BICO include $ for a grad student and/or postdoc) – and for any PI looking to pick up a postdoc to be responsible in doing so.
December 17, 2009 @ 1:42 pm ·
ALWAYS have BACKUP Plans. Have your main research project and 1 or 2 side projects…just in case. Get an NIH grant then get some more money from NIH or somewhere else. Be prepared when your PI tells you in a year that they are moving their lab across the country and offers (or not) to take you. This is the Real World now.
December 15, 2009 @ 7:50 pm ·
This is indeed a common thing. Blame Congress for not passing a budget but realize they seldom ever do on time. Dec 1 start dates suck.
December 15, 2009 @ 11:25 pm ·
NIA paylines (such that they are) posted … 7th percentile for R01s to established investigators, 12th percentile for R01s to new investigators (may go above 12th percentile for ESI) … average award reduction of 18% below recommended amounts
December 16, 2009 @ 8:08 pm ·
I saw the NIA posting of paylines for R01′s in FY2010, has anyone heard the payline for NIA K awards. I am anxiously awaiting more information.
December 16, 2009 @ 3:16 am ·
I was initially optimistic to learn that the payline for NIAMS F31/F32/F33 is set at 27. However, after reading PsychPostdoc experience, I’m much more wary about the situation.
My Aug cycle F32 (submitted to NIAMS) earned exactly an impact score of 27. What are some reasons not to fund me??
December 16, 2009 @ 1:34 pm ·
@PyschPostdoc – agree with pinus & writedit. The PI needs to go to the dept chair, then the dean, and get some temporary funding to get you started – it’s unacceptable to leave you hanging, especially regarding the health insurance. One of the most important things I’ve learnt from my current mentor is the fluidity of accounting. Here, you can apply funds backdating up to 90 days- meaning if you get your $ in Jan/Feb, and the ‘official’ start date is still Dec 1st, they can recoup the bridge funds from your fellowship. No real cost to the university. I’d have second thoughts about an institution or PI who can’t get this done, though it’s too late to switch it up now. What about your current institution? Any temporary situation you could do there?
December 17, 2009 @ 2:48 pm ·
Anyone heard about the paylines for KO1 applications to the NIDDK. I received a priority score of 19 on a June submission. MY PO told me to be ‘cautiously optimistic’ but that’s about all the input I’ve received. Any thoughts?
December 17, 2009 @ 4:36 pm ·
I’d say that sounds pretty good for NIDDK, and I am sure if he/she weren’t reasonably confident about funding, the PO wouldn’t offer anything beyond the noncomittal wait & see but plan to resubmit in the meantime party line. You of course have a long wait, considering most Feb submissions still haven’t heard about final funding decisions, but I’d say you could go with the cautious optimism … and perhaps get another manuscript or two in the hopper if possible, especially if resubmission ends up seeming more probable down the line.
December 17, 2009 @ 9:08 pm ·
This is copied from an email I received in July from Sonia Jakowlew, the NCI Program Director about F32 funding dates. You could be waiting til March or April!
RE LIKELIHOOD OF FUNDING:
The only thing that I can tell you now about the new scoring system is that I am “cautiously optimistic” that applications with impact scores of 10-15 will probably have a good likelihood of funding, while applications with impact scores of 80-90 will probably not have a good likelihood of funding. I am uncertain about the possible fundability of applications with impact scores of 16-79, which is what the majority of the impact scores will be.
I will not be able to comment on the probability of funding at this time because it is much too early. The House, The Senate and The President will need to come to a consensus on a budget for FY 2010 before we can consider how many F32 NRSA grants we will award and when we award them. In FY 2005 – FY 2009, the NCI did not receive funds until March/April. We started to award people at that time. Thus, a first (and repeat, first) decision on funding for the F32 awards may not be until March/April 2010.
December 17, 2009 @ 9:34 pm ·
Well, in those years, the continuing resolutions continued on into the subsequent calendar year, so it will be a little earlier this year, since Obama will sign the appropriations bill into law within a few days, I assume, but certainly sometime in December.
December 18, 2009 @ 2:51 am ·
True dat. That’s better news.
December 22, 2009 @ 3:02 pm ·
Below is a copy of the e-mail I received from my PO earlier regarding my K01 application to NIA. Doesn’t sound too optimistic, which sucks 😦
The payline for K’s hasn’t been determined yet, but a score of 31 has no chance, whatsoever. This is a very bad year, financially speaking. Good luck on the revision.
I wasn’t really expecting to be funded on my A0 application as the PO had said as much in a previous contact. But I was hoping for some information so that I could at least get some sense of the chances with my last chance A1 submission.
December 30, 2009 @ 6:14 pm ·
Greetings for the new year – I have applied for R15 NIH AREA grant (Stimulus) and have received the Priority score of 30. In my summary statement, I see that the committee has recommended my application for funding. But so far I do not see any percentile score in my ERA Commons account. Do you think my priority score of 30 is fundable? What percentile score this may translate into? I am a new investigator and have never received any NIH funding before. Thank you.
December 31, 2009 @ 10:09 am ·
As I mentioned over on NIH Paylines & Resources, your impact (not priority) score won’t be converted to a percentile. The R15 payline will be set based on impact score. The new investigator break is only given to R01 applications – no other mechanisms. However, you should have a reasonable shot at funding, depending on the number of applications NCI received and how they scored, of course. Your program officer may be able to give you an idea of your funding likelihood and/or perhaps your rank order. Good luck with the application and your research program!
Jerry Zhao said
January 8, 2010 @ 10:21 am ·
Greetings for the new year!
1) I am wondering if it is good or not to have one R01 and one R21 to be assigned to the same study section in the same cycle, but two different institutes.
2) Based on the NINDS (FY10 payline at 13th percentile for R01s; up to 16th percentile for A0 R01s; unspecified higher percentiles for new investigator …)
and NIA (FY10 payline for R01s at 8th percentile for established investigators, 13th for new investigators…), do you think it will have a better chance as a new investigator if the R01 application be assigned to the NINDS, not NIA?
Many thanks and greatly appreciated your help.
January 8, 2010 @ 10:48 am ·
I have no hard data to back me up but, anecdotal evidence suggests that study sections do not appreciate reviewing more than 1 app from the same PI in a given cycle. This is irregardless of mechanism or Institute assignment.
As for getting it reassigned to a new institute, that is not trivial either. It sounds like you would have a better chance at NINDS but you probably should have considered that when you wrote the abstract and specific aims sections. It might be hard to get it changed now.
Good luck with both.
January 14, 2010 @ 8:09 am ·
NIAID includes in its Funding News newsletter a brief but helpful overview of how paylines work (or don’t) in these unsettled times that essentially applies to all the ICs:
What’s Happening With Paylines?
Now that President Obama signed the omnibus appropriation bill into law, you may think that final FY 2010 paylines are just around the corner. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.
Expect a fluid situation. Interim and final paylines may change as we assess the impact of the new scoring system and incoming application numbers.
Here are the reasons you’ll have a significant wait — probably until April — for our final paylines.
* First, staff at several levels of the administration comb through the over 1,000 pages of legislation to define our funding levels.
* Next, our budget office crunches the numbers, so we can set our interim paylines.
* This year’s uncertainties — the new scoring schema and incoming application numbers — will likely delay final paylines for all grant types.
During this waiting period, we are using interim paylines to temporarily fund high-scoring investigator-initiated applications before we establish our true paylines for the fiscal year. At this point, we have interim paylines for R01s and SBIR applications.
Expect a fluid situation. As has already happened with the R01 payline, some interim paylines may change as we assess the impact of the new scoring system and incoming application data. It is possible that final paylines may also go up as more information comes in.
January 15, 2010 @ 11:05 am ·
This is maybe the most interesting nugget of information in the newsletter:
From 1999 to 2008, R01 applications rose a modest 27 percent — from 2,034 to 2,580 — while R21 applications surged about 375 percent — from 263 to 1,246.
January 15, 2010 @ 11:13 am ·
That just sucks. What about ICs that don’t use paylines? It looks submission from the October 2009 cycle will have the shortest time from SRG to council to award.
January 17, 2010 @ 2:43 pm ·
What can we expect after the NIAID council on Feb 1? If this is going to take until April, then what happens during the Feb 1 council meeting? What really is going to happen to the grants reviewed at this council meeting?
January 17, 2010 @ 3:00 pm ·
99% of grants are “approved” without Councilors actually reading them or their Summary Statements. See Rubber Stamp (politics)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_stamp_%28politics%29).
About 10-20 grants are discussed for getting paid beyond the payline. These the councilors read and comment on. They don’t rescore them but they do rank them. These grants are chosen by Program Officers using internal (that is semi-secret) criteria.
There might also be 1 or 2 grants discussed because the applicants appealed their score or review.
That is about it. Councilors also approve new initiatives (RFAs and RFAs) and get to hear some seminars too.
So, what is going on between Feb. 1 and April 1 you ask? Grants Management spends that time getting all of the paperwork in order for funding the grants. Believe it or not schools and PIs are not always very good at getting the required paperwork submitted in time. Why don’t they do it before council you wonder? Because they are working on stuff from the previous council.
January 17, 2010 @ 4:06 pm ·
Wow! It looks straight forward now with that explanation. Don’t know how I didn’t find this when read many NIH grant tutorials. That is a valuable piece of information probably will keep me calm knowing that there is a straight forward process and it is not totally random.
How long would it take for the council meeting decision to reflect in my eRA commons account? Would it take until April or will I be able to find out what was decided?
January 17, 2010 @ 7:20 pm ·
D, what you said applies for ICs/grants that come up payline before council. What is the role of the council if an ICs/grants that don’t use payline?
January 17, 2010 @ 7:51 pm ·
Well, by law all NIH Institutes have to have a second level of review..that is a council. All Councils are supposed to approve all funded grants. But, there is no requirement for a “published payline.” So, at Institutes without a published payline Councils might have a little more power because, presumably, more grants are getting funded out of order.
Also, just because an Institute doesn’t publish a payline doesn’t mean that they don’t use one. They just don’t stick to it as rigidly as an IC like NIAID.
My personal opinion is that most Councils actually wield very little power. I could be wrong because I am only familiar with a handful of Institutes. But, remember, who picks Councilors…People employed by the institute.
January 18, 2010 @ 11:35 am ·
Could someone tell how long it usually takes to see an eRA update or a decision after a council meeting (from “pending council review” status)?
January 18, 2010 @ 4:16 pm ·
D, How does councils handle applications that have requested dual assignment to 2 institutes? In almost all cases, no two ICs have council meeting on the same day. How do they coordinate or communicate?
January 17, 2010 @ 4:21 pm ·
All of this info, and more, is available here (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/budget/default_council.htm) and here (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/budget/op-proced.htm). But, it always helps to hear a short summary.
Check out the part about approved initiatives. It will give you a heads up on what RFAs will be published in the next year and what areas of research NIAID considers under funded.
January 18, 2010 @ 4:23 pm ·
Usually one is assigned as the lead institute. They have to coordinate with the other Institute to make sure they are willing to pay for part of the grant. Once they agree (in writing) then you have to wait for both Institute Councils to approve your grant (again usually this is a rubber stamp). Since the money has been promised the lead institute will start the paperwork once it has been approved by its Council. Most Councils meet within a week or so of each other so it usually doesn’t delay things.
The processes and paperwork is well worked out. More complicated applications (say one that makes the funding line for one Institute but not the other) can take more time and negotiations. If you are in that situation keep in touch with both Program Officers.
January 18, 2010 @ 6:21 pm ·
I do not see paylines (scores) for K awards from many institutions (such as NCI and NIBIB) that have paylines listed for all their other types of awards. Initially, many contributers here were optimistic about my K25 score of a 30, but I was told not to be optimistic (but it could still get funded by NCI later on). I had my grant assigned to NIBIB and NIDDK as well (NIDDK is not interested at all). Why are the K’s treated differently at other institutions? And does anyone have any further insight as to the paylines/chances of funding? I did already resubmit for the Nov. 12 deadline. Alternatively, what do you think the score would need to get to in order to be funded?
January 18, 2010 @ 7:10 pm ·
Emaderton3, NIBIB council is on Jan 22. Wouldn’t you know something from NIBIB after the council since NCI has deferred? NIDDK council is not until late Feb.
January 20, 2010 @ 2:31 pm ·
The contact at NIBIB said they would not fund it. I guess I will have to see how much my score improves after the resubmission is reviewed next week.
January 19, 2010 @ 12:34 pm ·
I am looking for information about R15 impact scores and related program official comments from the June 25 submission. We got a score of 20 from NIGMS and our PO has said it has good prospects.
Please post your R15 scores or any that you have heard.
Writedit, what is your take on our chances?
January 19, 2010 @ 12:47 pm ·
I think an impact score of 20 on an R15 definitely has good prospects, and the PO would not have given a hint of optimism if he/she did not think you likely to be funded. Good luck with the application and the research proposed!
January 20, 2010 @ 2:37 pm ·
Thanks writedit, hope springs eternal… I guess we will have to be patient until we hear more.
January 20, 2010 @ 2:40 pm ·
Last summer I received an NIDDK impact score of 15 on my R21 (submission Feb09). Nothing happened since but my PO told me that because of budget issues for 2010 I should expect to wait for ‘another couple of weeks’. Any other experience with NIDDK funding? Has anybody else heard back?
January 20, 2010 @ 8:48 pm ·
Just got news from my PO that my R21 through NIAID will be funded. My priority score was 20. If you are like me, you probably have been checking this site everyday hoping to get some sense as to where your application stands. No idea what the payline will be, but if you are somewhere near that score, there is reason for guarded optimism. I hope this is of help to some of you out there. This is was the last application I was waiting to hear from so I won’t be checking this site as often. Good luck to you all!
January 20, 2010 @ 9:10 pm ·
Congratulations and best of luck with the research itself!
January 21, 2010 @ 12:08 am ·
Congrats! Thanks for the update. I keep my fingers crossed for our R21 with a score of 23 at NIAID.
January 23, 2010 @ 7:34 pm ·
I also got a priority score of 20 for my R21 through NIAID and my era commons changed to Pending (administrative review). However, I did not get any news from my PO. When is your grant start date?
January 25, 2010 @ 6:12 pm ·
KM: when was your application reviewed in June or October cycle?
January 25, 2010 @ 8:23 pm ·
My grant was submitted in Feb2009. It was supposed to start on 12/1/09.
January 22, 2010 @ 3:02 pm ·
Any idea about the prospect of funding for R15 ARRA application with impact score of 29 from NCI ?
January 25, 2010 @ 6:21 pm ·
NHBLI February counsel is next week (2 Feb).
Has anyone chatted with their PO recently and asked whether NHBLI will hold steady as currently posted for A0 and A1 and A2 revisions at this counsel?
January 25, 2010 @ 6:46 pm ·
My R15 ARRA was reviewed in October cycle.
January 25, 2010 @ 11:14 pm ·
My bad regarding….
“Has anyone chatted with their PO recently and asked whether NHBLI will hold steady as currently posted for A0 and A1 and A2 revisions at this counsel?”
Was referring to paylines in the above earlier query. Currently, A0 =16, A1=12 and A2=10.
January 27, 2010 @ 10:48 am ·
I’ve trolled these forums recently looking for info on F32 scores but no one has really posted anything. Can anyone tell me how confident I can be with a F32 impact score of 20 when NIAID just released the interim payline cutoff at a 28? Would I have any reason to worry about the council meeting that takes place on 2/1? Thanks and good luck!
January 31, 2010 @ 5:29 pm ·
Has anyone received/heard news regarding NIDDK cutoffs for K01s? I received a priority score of 19 from a June submission and haven’t heard anything except the “cautiously optimistic” cliche from my PO. Thanks.
February 1, 2010 @ 3:50 pm ·
For those of you interested in the NIH cut of the HHS budget (an increase of $1B or 3.2%), feel free to check out the 114-p “budget in brief”, starting on page 40 of the PDF (page number 37 in the report).
February 1, 2010 @ 3:52 pm ·
My score for my resubmission of my K25 to NCI was just posted. My score went from a 30 to a 22. The generic email from the PO that went to everyone says not to contact her about any information on funding or rank of your application until Summary Statements are posted. It also has the advice about resubmitting. Since this is a resubmission that cannot be submitted again (therefore the Summary Statement doesn’t do much for me), would I be breaking any kind of etiquette by contacting the PO about my grant before I get the statement?
February 1, 2010 @ 7:10 pm ·
If your PO has been asked about funding just-reviewed grants so many times she automatically sends out an email saying not to contact her until your SS has been released, you probably won’t win brownie points by completely disregarding her instructions.
Even though you can’t resubmit your K25, your SS will still be very useful to you as you design your research, apply for other grants, and write papers.
February 2, 2010 @ 1:27 pm ·
I noticed that the K-award row on the NIAID payline page has reverted back to TBA (from it’s previous interim payline of 20).
Is this meaningful in any sense? That is, does it foreshadow a new (higher?) payline?
February 2, 2010 @ 7:41 pm ·
Anyone have any ideas on paylines (or approximate paylines) for R15 applications with NIAID?
February 3, 2010 @ 8:21 pm ·
Did you submit in June? What does your PO say about your chances?
We got a 20 on our R15 from a June submission to NIGMS and are still waiting to hear.
March 1, 2010 @ 10:09 am ·
Did you ever get any info on your NIAID R15? I got a 20 and am still waiting on my summary statements to contact my PO.
March 1, 2010 @ 5:24 pm ·
I spoke with my PO a short while ago and there are no paylines available for the R15.
February 3, 2010 @ 2:08 pm ·
I received a percentile ranking of 25% at NCI. There was a JIT request attached in comments at e-commons. Anyone knows what this means. Thanks.
February 3, 2010 @ 2:53 pm ·
Please see the comment by gankutsuoh under NIH Paylines & Resources:
“The NIH provides the JIT (Just in Time) link in the Commons for applications receiving a percentile of less than 30 or for applications receiving a priority score of between 100 and 300 if no percentile is provided. Please await instructions from the NIH on whether to complete this information.”
You do not need to do anything unless you are specifically asked to submit it. Either you will receive a generic machine-generated e-mail or a humane e-mail from PO.
February 3, 2010 @ 10:28 pm ·
The PO was not committal. I first spoke with another PO and she was REALLY optimistic. In my last conversation, my PO sounded reasonably optimistic – he said to wait on any resubmission.
February 5, 2010 @ 8:02 am ·
I think you have good reasons to be hopeful, the PO’s would not have given you this encouragement if there weren’t a great chance of funding.
What was your impact score?
Did you submit in June or Oct?
March 1, 2010 @ 5:27 pm ·
I spoke with my PO a few days ago and he said there were no paylines available for the R15.
February 4, 2010 @ 6:44 pm ·
Any info out there on the outcome of the Feb 2 NHLBI Advisory Council meeting? They should have set paylines for the ARRA R15s (Sep 2009 due dates)…?
February 7, 2010 @ 6:55 pm ·
Heard from PO that applications approved from Feb 2 council now sitting on desk of director waiting for signature. Should be signed off on by next 2 weeks and if/when this happens, NGAs likely start moving out in April. Little to say on paylines. Just unlikely, based on past experience, that paylines would move lower. And if they did, again based on past experience, not significantly lower.
February 7, 2010 @ 9:30 pm ·
Might they hold the FY2010 R15 payline of 30?
I scored 29 but figured that the ARRA R15 could be very different from the ‘standard’ cycles? Asked my PO a few weeks ago if I should prepare a submissio on the standard cycle due Feb25 – he recommended “wait this one out”.
February 7, 2010 @ 11:40 pm ·
As mentioned above, PO said that based on past experience paylines unlikely to drop lower. My view is that a score of 29 with a payline at 30 is an OK place to be. Could have been worse. The score could have been 31 for instance : >)
On resubmission – maybe listen to what your PO is telling you. Seems like reasonable advice.
Good luck – I think it’ll prolly work out.
February 8, 2010 @ 10:23 am ·
To throw a wrench in the works, I think the ARRA R15s are going to have different funding lines from the standard cycles. I know of at least one person (different institute — NIGMS I think) who was told a 22 definitely would not be funded in the ARRA R15 program. And as far as I can tell, a 22 is definitely better than the usual R15 funding line for NIGMS.
February 15, 2010 @ 11:17 pm ·
When I talked to my PO at NIGMS about my ARRA R15 with an impact score of 24 he told me to be ‘cautiously optimistic’. I hope I am not being optimistic in vain….
February 10, 2010 @ 12:11 pm ·
Just got the score for my R01 submitted last October: 24, 13 percentile. The primary insitute is NHGRI. Checked out their website, but couldn’t find any payline info. I am anxious to know whether this score is fundable.
February 10, 2010 @ 12:15 pm ·
NHGRI does not post its paylines, but a 13th percentile score should be competitive, especially if you are a new/ESI applicant. Your PO will be the best source of intel at this point. Good luck with this application and your research program.
February 10, 2010 @ 12:20 pm ·
Thanks for the quick reply. I am not a new investigator. I plan to contact the PO after seeing the summary statement. A colleague of mine got 13th percentile and his grant was funded by NHGRI, so I am optimistically hoping that I could get it as well without resubmission.
February 10, 2010 @ 12:20 pm ·
Unfortunately, NHGRI does not publish “paylines”. But, extrapolating from their success rates in 2007 and 2008 (http://www.einstein.yu.edu/ogs/NIHInfo/paylines.htm), which for other ICs tend to be about 80% higher than the paylines, you have an excellent chance.
February 10, 2010 @ 12:29 pm ·
Thanks. This is useful to know. NHGRI does seem to have higher success rates than other ICs.
February 11, 2010 @ 12:56 am ·
Is it normal for a R21 to receive an impact score but no percentile? I received an impact score of 15 for a R21 submitted last October (primary IC is NIDDK). The score looks quite good but no percentile is shown in era commons. Is this because the study section doesn’t have enough R21s to generate a percentile, or is it possible that something else is going on?
February 11, 2010 @ 1:03 am ·
Your conclusion is correct that R21s are not always assigned percentile, so don’t worry about that, especially with an impact score of 15. NIDDK uses the mechanism for a narrow range of proposed activities, but I would think even they would be likely to fund an R21 with a score like that. You can wait for the summary statement and then check in with the PO for an assessment of your chances for an award.
February 16, 2010 @ 3:51 pm ·
My R21 has a secondary assignment to NICHD, so hopefully one of the two ICs will pick it up. I’ll be really frustrated if a R21 with impact score of 15 couldn’t get funded..
February 12, 2010 @ 7:03 pm ·
Hi writedit- I love your site. Regarding the previous posting by Y said, any ideas regarding payline for an R21 funded by NIDDK (submitted in June)? I got what I thought was a pretty good impact score (17), but have not received JIT request, and the PO does not answer my e-mails. I think my proposal was responsive to the “risky-but-high-payoff” angle. Thanks!!
February 12, 2010 @ 7:24 pm ·
Well, don’t forget the federal government has been shut down, and not everyone is as dedicated as our NIH Fed friend who chimed in. 🙂
It sounds as though you’ve been trying to get feedback for longer than this past week, though. If you have tried for some time and truly had absolutely no response, you could contact the branch or division head (politely say you haven’t heard from the PO in his/her group). However, you might want to be patient just a little longer and/or try to call versus e-mail. A PI here only recently had confirmation that his NIDDK R01 (June-July submission) will be funded (impact score 22, 10th percentile), but he’s in regular contact with his PO. Not getting a JIT request isn’t an issue yet, so don’t worry about that. I would think a 17 would be in the funding range, though, so I hope you can get some idea of your chances soon. You could frame your request in terms of seeking advice as to whether to resubmit in March.
Good luck with this application and your research! And thanks for the kind word about the site – glad folks find it helpful!
February 12, 2010 @ 7:48 pm ·
Thanks for the helpful comments! In an initial phone conversation with my PO last November, he was quite positive, and very nice. I can imagine he’s extraordinarily busy right now, so I’ll try to be patient, and not read so much into his lack of response. Maybe I’ll take your advice and call rather than e-mail next time.
Have a good holiday weekend!
February 13, 2010 @ 1:43 pm ·
Hi writedit-, Thanks for posting the useful info and answering q. I would say you are just like a lighthouse- gives hope to our hopeless scientists. I received an impact/priority score of 40 and JIT for an R21 submitted last October (primary IC is NIAID). I was told the FY’10 payline for R21 grants is 20. How does this score sound? Is this score in the fundable range? Thanks.
February 13, 2010 @ 2:28 pm ·
Yes, the NIAID interim payline for R21 applications is 20 (http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/budget/budg-paylines.htm) and will not likely go up significantly. With an impact score of 40, you should be looking at a resubmission in July or November, depending on when you will have a competitive application ready. I assume the JIT request is the standard issue in eRA commons, correct?
February 13, 2010 @ 8:49 pm ·
Thanks so much. It is helpful.
February 18, 2010 @ 3:36 am ·
What are your thoughts on this situation. PI and I are waiting anxiously and worried about this:
NICHD R01 submission – score 22, percentile 14 (waiting word from Council review)
After speaking to our PO (who said the score probably fell into a grey zone and best to revise and resubmit). We decided to submit a resubmission right away as the comments received were minimal and easily addressable.
We just found out that the resubmission was unscored.
This was not what we expected. Thought we could only do better, but clearly not. Any experience with this situation? Is there hope we can still be funded based on the first review?? This is just terribly nerve-wracking. Thanks.
February 18, 2010 @ 7:59 am ·
This is not typical but not impossible. I assume your A0 is still active (in eRA Commons) and therefore could still be funded. You can talk with your PO as soon as you have the summary statement to determine if the concerns raised could affect continued consideration of your A0. I will add that a PI here at BICO submitted an R21 whose score went down from the A0 to A1 (on edge of payline so resubmitted) … only to have the A2 score go up. However, the happy ending to this story is that the A1 was picked up for funding with ARRA $. Not a possibility in your situation, I realize, but prior submissions of the same grant application can still be picked up, even after a worse score on the last amended version reviewed. Good luck!
February 19, 2010 @ 6:45 pm ·
Yes, A0 is still active, so I think our only hope is that it will get picked up. About the A1 that wasn’t scored, the PO says we’ll have to wait for the summary, but because it wasn’t scored it wasn’t discussed, so probably not much insight there. He was supposed to go to this study section (he’s been on our side and a great supporter), but got snowed in and didn’t make it (argh!).
So, based on what I see here sounds like we won’t hear about A0 funding till March/April. Anyone here have any idea if a 22 (14th percentile) at NICHD has a good chance? (let’s assume our A1 result has no negative impact on the decision)
February 19, 2010 @ 6:46 pm ·
Forgot to mention that PI is not new investigator
February 22, 2010 @ 6:21 pm ·
I see some recent posters from NICHD. My R03 A1 received a 9th percentile score but was not recommended for funding after the January Advisory Council meeting. Is it possible that it could be funded later in the year?
February 22, 2010 @ 7:02 pm ·
When you log into eRA commons, under status, does it actually say not recommended for funding? Or, is it simply “Council review completed” and you haven’t heard any good news? I thought that we wouldn’t hear back about funding till about March/April for that January council meeting, but I may be mistaken on this.
February 26, 2010 @ 9:34 am ·
SR, it says “Council review completed”, but I heard from my program officer that it just missed the cut-off.
Given that you found out that the payline was the 9th percentile (I see your post below), now I really want to find out what happened.
February 24, 2010 @ 2:35 pm ·
Learned from PO that NICHD payline for R01 for FY10 is 9th percentile
February 24, 2010 @ 4:22 pm ·
February 25, 2010 @ 4:37 pm ·
Wanted to give you all a heads-up with NCI FY2010 payline.The interim and the final paylines for FY2010 are same…15/20 for established and new investigators.Just got the info from my PO.
February 25, 2010 @ 10:42 pm ·
Does anyone know how long it takes to hear about funding after the status on era has changed to “Council review completed”? Due to snow storm, NCI’s council only met on Feb 19th. What is the next step? Will they be contacting applicants to let them know about the funding decision?
I got a score of 21 on the NCI’s K07, but am starting to worry that it is not good enough.
February 26, 2010 @ 11:51 am ·
For some people, the status of “council review completed” never changes, even when they get funded. It may be that your best bet to find out more information is to check in with your program officer.
February 26, 2010 @ 11:37 am ·
Are possible scores only 10, 20, 30, etc.? I see people posting scores like 21, 15, etc. I thought that scores were rounded.
If there is rounding, does it mean that a score=30 in the old system would have ranged from 224.5 to 175.5?
Scores of 10 and 20 seem more straightforward in terms of funding (with some exceptions). What about scores of 30?
February 26, 2010 @ 11:50 am ·
From what I know, the percentiles are often rounded (e.g., a 9.9th percentile becomes a 10th percentile), but the priority scores are not. So it is perfectly possible to get a score between 10 and 20, for instance.
But the scores don’t seem to be that straightforward in terms of funding because the percentiles can vary widely, as can the payline of the agency in which the grant is being considered.
A 30 seems like it could be fundable in some agencies and not in others. The percentile matters a lot. Do you have a percentile with that 30?
February 26, 2010 @ 11:54 am ·
Reviewers can only give whole number scores (1,2,3,4, etc). Scores are then averaged to 1 decimal place and multiplied by 10.
More info can be found in this PDF (http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/peer/guidelines_general/scoring_system_and_procedure.pdf).
In general, 30 is not a fundable score. I am not sure that 20 is a slam dunk either. But anything within that range is definitely worth resubmitting.
February 27, 2010 @ 2:39 pm ·
Wonderful site. Wish I would have discovered it before submitting my grant proposal. I recently received my summary statement from my R15 proposal (submitted in October) to NIGMS. My impact score, 26, probably puts me on the bubble.
My question relates to how my chances of funding are affected by the individual review scores. Basically, reviewers 1 and 3 gave me low (good) scores that would easily put me in the fundable category. Reviewer #2 gave me a MUCH worse score, that, when averaged, puts me on the bubble.
I’m not bitter or anything (ok, maybe a little 🙂 ), but do you think the Council would look for outliers in reviews when making funding decisions?
Thanks for any help!
February 27, 2010 @ 5:02 pm ·
The individualscores do not affect the impact score or any funding decisions at all.Council only looks at the final impact score.
Now, I’m assuming the impact/priority score was assigned by the SRO andthat you did not calculate this from the various criteria scores,correct? The impact score takes into account how the study sectiondiscussion went, so it sounds like the other members were able to allay theconcerns raised by reviewer #2 (individual criteria scores assignedprior to the SRG meeting, so they reflect reviewers’ initial assessmentof the application).
March 4, 2010 @ 12:48 pm ·
OMG! disparate scores? ? Appeal!!! Appeal!!!!! APPEAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
March 10, 2010 @ 10:20 pm ·
Right-o, drugmonkey. I’ve got Alan Dershowitz heading my legal team, but I think I need to go a little higher profile.
For another data point in terms of paylines, I talked to my PO and was told to be ‘cautiously optimistic’ for getting funded with a 26 for an R15 at NIGMS.
March 2, 2010 @ 11:03 am ·
I just received my summary statement for an R15 I submitted in October and found out that I had four reviewers score my proposal. I thought that three reviewers was routine. Would anyone know why a fourth was included?
Thanks for your help.
March 2, 2010 @ 11:14 am ·
Most of the time a fourth is added to provide some specific expertise that the other reviewers may not have. So, for instance, if you propose to use some totally new methodology from another field they might bring in someone from that field to review just the methodology.
March 4, 2010 @ 1:00 pm ·
Also, any member of the panel can review any proposal (save conflicts) assigned to that panel and write a critique if they so choose. In theory you could end up with 20 or more of them!
Of course this never happens.
But what I have seen occur is that someone not assigned to the application will get really involved in some point of discussion (pro or con, people, pro OR con). The system recognizes that the summary statement is supposed to reflect discussion. So sometimes the SRO or Chair or a panel member will say “Hey, will you 1) write that up as a critique; 2) write up a brief blurb for the SRO to include when prepping the resume or 3) write up a point for one of the other reviewers to include when they are editing their review”
Or, occasionally, a reviewer will just be so ticked about where the assigned reviewers and panel votes went that s/he will just write up a dissenting view on his/her own hook.
final scenario: the way I understand it* the official rules require that at least two people assigned to the application have to be in the room if it is to be discussed. So if for some reason 2 of the 3 are phone reviewers, the SRO may tap a 4th “discussant” reviewer to fulfill this requirement.
*it is possible that this is only a strongly encouraged practice and/or a practice limited to selected study sections.
March 4, 2010 @ 4:01 pm ·
Thanks for all this intel, DrugMonkey. I’ve seen RPG summary statements with 5-6 critiques (usually from SEPs) … and I’ve seen since the scoring/summary statement format changed an extra set of comments at the end with a heading not of “Critique #” but rather “Unassigned Reviewer Critique” – and then only with Strengths and Weaknesses related to Overall Impact (no individual criteria scores, obviously, and no individual review criteria addressed).
March 4, 2010 @ 10:46 am ·
I submitted a R15 ARRA via NIAID last fall and got a priority score of 26. I’m excited about the potential to get the grant but of course I don’t know if it will be fundable so I resubmitted under the regular R15 for the Feb cycle.
The main issue I had was that the reviewers (I had only 2) didn’t sight any real problems, and only suggested two ways to improve things (but their reviews specifically said that these were not really an issue). So it sounds like they were just looking for something to say. When I resubmitted I did update the status of some pubs but didn’t change anything about the grant. Is this going to hurt me?
There was a line in the R15 instructions that one should not just resubmit the same grant (but I didn’t have any choice as the reviewers did not really have any problems).
Also, any clue why it’s taking NIAID so long to post interim lines for the R15 but they have them for almost all their other grants (including R01s)? Honestly, how hard can it be?
Thanks for any help.
March 4, 2010 @ 11:29 am ·
Well, the Resume and Summary of Discussion should have indicated what weaknesses led to an impact score in the mid-20s (versus the mid-teens), which in turn would be the focus of your revisions. However, it’s not the duty of reviewers to tell you exactly what to do to improve the application, so you shouldn’t think by responding to individual concerns/critiques that your revision job is done. Any application and project can be improved upon, particularly if you continued to work on the project and/or any important reports came out in the literature in the meantime. Hopefully you checked with your program officer for insight as well (particularly in case he/she attended the study section meeting and heard the discussion). Having manuscripts accepted or published since the last submission should certainly help make your case, but if you really submitted the same application (and admitted to this in the Introduction), then your score may not improve.
March 12, 2010 @ 5:50 pm ·
This was a moot question as I recently heard that my “revision” was not accepted as ARRA grants had only a single cycle. So my revision will be treated as new, making my need to address weakness directly unnecessary.
March 4, 2010 @ 12:42 pm ·
In my Introduction I did address all the weaknesses (reviewer 1 had 7, all were of the ” …the PI may wish to think about…” variety and reviewer had 1).
I am perplexed by my scores based on the written comments. For instance, under the Significance section, reviewer 2 said things like, “… the PI shows an elegant understanding of the material…”,”…strongly demonstrated a grasp of forming hypotheses…”, “…”The professionalism and passion conveyed in the application will likely be reflected in a future publication record…” but then this reviewer gave me a 4 (there were no weaknesses listed for that section). So I don’t know what it would take to improve this score (my worst overall).
My PO has been no help (I’ve contacted them twice, the first time to ask about my score, the second to ask about resubmitting) and the response both times was basically “I don’t know”. So I’ve been a bit in the dark about things. I was hoping that since the ARRA was likely to be hyper competitive, I would have a better chance with the regular R15 cycle (even with a similar score).
Thanks for your input.
March 4, 2010 @ 8:54 pm ·
Also submitted a R15 in October that was scored pretty well. I requested the updated award amount ($300K as I understand it from NOT-OD-09-152). Committee indicates that budget is excessive and should only be funded at the old PA amount of $150K (PA-06-042). Any idea what this is all about?
March 5, 2010 @ 1:46 am ·
They can recommend that the budget be reduced, but usually for reasons related to the work proposed rather than the program announcement involved. Cutting the budget in half (if it did go from $300K to $150K) is pretty severe, and there would need to be a note as to why this was done and what cuts were recommended. You are correct that the notice does indicate that submissions on Oct 25, 2009 and thereafter could request up to a total of $300K in direct costs – but this doesn’t mean all R15s will be funded at that level. The budget needs to be appropriate for the proposal, so if you think the justification for the reduction is lacking, you could talk with the SRO … but be sure to have a sound rationale for the higher budget amount (beyond, that’s what the notice permits).
March 5, 2010 @ 10:44 am ·
Thanks for the insights. The reviewers all indicated fund budget as requested. The committee budget comments at the bottom of the summary sheet indicated fund as per the “old” PA.
March 4, 2010 @ 9:22 pm ·
The committee must not have thought you proposed to do enough work. For instance you request funds for 3 graduate students, 2 post-docs and a technician and yet only propose enough work for 1 grad student and 1 post-doc. So, they cut the salary support. It should say in your summary statement exactly what they cut and why.
March 4, 2010 @ 11:55 pm ·
How likely is it the an IC would increase the payline score or decrease the percentile from the interim announced values? Specifically, I am interested in NIAMS.
March 5, 2010 @ 1:48 am ·
They won’t lower paylines but could raise them if the IC discovers they have received fewer applications than initially anticipated (budgeted amount won’t change though). I don’t recall seeing NIAMS paylines change mid-stream in the past, but I don’t watch them that closely, and others may have observed an increase in paylines in years past.
March 5, 2010 @ 6:19 pm ·
Thank you; I read about ICs retracting their interim paylines, so I was getting a bit nervous about my borderline score (exactly at the payline) on my K-grant.
March 10, 2010 @ 10:12 pm ·
I got a priority score of 32 on my K23 application for NIDDK. For one reason or the other, my mentor seems to believe NIDDK has funded scores up to 40 in the last cycle, and says we should celebrate. Looking at your listing though, it seems my 32 is on the bubble and not likely to be scored. Does anyone know someone who got funded with a score like mine?
March 10, 2010 @ 10:14 pm ·
Sorry there is a typo in there, I meant to say 32 seems not likely to get “funded”.
March 11, 2010 @ 1:59 pm ·
What is the percentile?
I would definitely not celebrate until you have more information. The percentile I received on my recent grant would have been funded in the last several years, but the cut-off this year was surprisingly low.
March 11, 2010 @ 4:26 pm ·
They are not posting percentiles for the Ks in NIDDK- at least so I was told. We will see… But I am definitely not celebrating!
March 16, 2010 @ 12:34 pm ·
So K’s never get percentile scores. However, after speaking to a few people here, NIDDK has been known to be very supportive of K grants. The data from 2008 showed that they funded 47% of all K grants. And, what I was told by my sources is a score in the low 30s is definitely in the running, if not likely to be funded. Another way to look at things is, if NIDDK continues to fund K awards at the same clip, then your score needs to be better than about half of all of the others. Since very few get scores 10-20, a low 30 should be able to make the cut-off, at least at NIDDK. But, this is always subject to inter-section variability, etc.
March 17, 2010 @ 5:35 pm ·
My mentor has the same feeling on the Payline of K99 in NIDDK in the last cycle. does anyone know if all Ks share the same payline in NIDDK?
July 21, 2010 @ 11:27 am ·
Do any of you have an update on K award funding levels from the last round?
July 21, 2010 @ 11:48 am ·
Do you mean average award dollars per grant (i.e., were budgets cut administratively) … or success rate/paylines for specific K mechanisms? Your PO should be able to give some insight if you have an application that might get paid out before Sept 30th. Applications submitted this past Feb-March won’t have funding guidance for at least a few months (since FY11 budget won’t be known until, well, probably sometime in 2012) unless they scored well within the FY10 payline.
July 21, 2010 @ 11:55 am ·
Sorry – I meant the payline for 2010 K awards at NIDDK (specifically the K99). I know the 2011 payline won’t be set for a while, but I just wanted to see historical levels to what range my score (27, Feb 2010 submission) is in. The past paylines seem to vary a lot between the institutes that I have seen (from low teens to 40), but I haven’t seen anything on the NIDDK payline.
March 17, 2010 @ 12:20 pm ·
i was wondering if anyone knew about NHLBI fundable NRSA’s. So far (it was reviewed 1 week ago), my priority score right now is 34, and the percentile is 24…does anyone know what this means? is this a fundable score? any info will help
March 17, 2010 @ 5:44 pm ·
I do not know about NHLBI, but my PO at NIMH told me last September to expect a payline at the 12th percentile (so 1-12 get funded). However, that’s old info and she said that she does not know what the payline will be this cycle. Also, from top @writedit: “27 for F31/F32/F33s” in terms of impact/priority score means 1-27 get funded, but different agency, several months ago. Good luck to you!
March 17, 2010 @ 6:43 pm ·
Just a heads up to those of you waiting on scores from NIDDK:
I submitted a K01 last June and received a priority score of 19. I was told by my PO that they intend to fund the grant (for four years instead of 5) and my grants officer said the NIH would likely be ready to start funding the grant at the earliest possible date (April 1).
March 18, 2010 @ 11:53 am ·
Does anyone have any idea when paylines will be posted for R15s? My council meeting was Feb 1, but I haven’t heard anything – other than to be “cautiously optimistic” from my PO.
March 18, 2010 @ 7:16 pm ·
NIAID posted that decisions would be made in April. What was you score?
March 19, 2010 @ 9:57 am ·
26. What kind od application did you submit?
March 19, 2010 @ 12:23 pm ·
What is an od application?
March 19, 2010 @ 1:09 pm ·
OD = Office of the Director (of the NIH) … DP1s & DP2s have the OD as their IC (institute/center) assigment
March 19, 2010 @ 2:14 pm ·
It was a typo. I was asking “What kind OF application did you submit?”. Fortunately, my science is better than my typing 🙂
March 24, 2010 @ 10:00 am ·
I’m not sure what you are asking. I applied for a ARRA R15.
March 25, 2010 @ 11:59 am ·
That is what I was asking. Mine was a regular R15. NIAID updated their payline info but they still do not have anything on R15s.
March 21, 2010 @ 10:10 am ·
I just received the Summary Statement for a R15 submitted in October (for NIMH). The overall score was 33, and included a committee budget recommendation “The budget was recommended as request.” Any idea how seriously I should take this? What the prospects are at this point? Two reviews were very good (averaging 2.2 and 2.4) and the third lukewarm (averaging 3.6). No JIT email yet. I need to follow up now with the P.O., but any insights would be most appreciated.
March 21, 2010 @ 12:25 pm ·
I am not sure what NIMH’s payline is for R15s. But, my guess is that you will probably have to resubmit. A 33 seems to pretty high for funding an R15. The budget comment just means that the committee thought it was reasonable. So, it will be harder for NIHM to cut your budget if they do decide to fund you.
As always, your NIMH PO will probably have more insight into your chances of getting funded.
March 25, 2010 @ 7:30 pm ·
Yes, that is what I have also learned from an NIMH official, who nonetheless left open the possibility, since this person did not know yet about ranking or what had come into other parts of NIMH, indicating that they would be meeting to discuss the grants within a few weeks. Anyone else on this list waiting to hear about R15 proposals at NIMH, from the October submissions?
March 28, 2010 @ 4:50 pm ·
Recently got my score (28) on an R15 (A0) application at NIGMS. Asked PO’s advice vis a vis resubmitting or sitting tight, their response was very non-comittal. As I plan my grant application activity for the future, what are your thoughts on this application’s fate?
March 28, 2010 @ 5:00 pm ·
My suggestion is rewrite and plan on resubmitting. Sounds like you are on the bubble.
March 28, 2010 @ 5:43 pm ·
Thanks, D – it’s kind of what I thought. It’s going to be fun condensing a 25 page proposal down to 13.
October 10, 2010 @ 10:31 am ·
Well, I resubmitted and my A1 scored a 16 – this must be in the fundable rage, right?
October 10, 2010 @ 10:35 am ·
One would hope …
March 29, 2010 @ 12:01 pm ·
Hi all – I am a newbie at this grant game, and recently got my R03 A0 from AHRQ (yes, not NIH) scored at 39.9 percentile. I am an ESI. I emailed the PO, and she replied saying that they have not decided on the paylines yet. Any thoughts on what my odds are?
March 30, 2010 @ 9:46 am ·
Looks like NIAID R21 fundable score went up from 20 to 30.
March 30, 2010 @ 2:20 pm ·
The question a few of us have is what does that mean for the R15 payline? When looking at historical data the R15 payline has been higher than the R21 payline 4 out of 6 years.
March 30, 2010 @ 2:37 pm ·
I noticed that the R01 paylines went up recently. I recall that the tentative lines had been around 8 and 12 for non-new and new PIs. They are now at 10 and 16. Are we seeing a trend?
Still wish someone could explain why it’s taking sooooo long for R15 paylines (got my score around Christmas and was promised Jan paylines). Even my PO said they had no idea.
April 9, 2010 @ 2:25 pm ·
How did you find out that the fundable scores went up? Do they post the notices online? Do you know why they just now decided to raise the scores?
March 30, 2010 @ 11:21 pm ·
All I can say is that the trend appears very positive. I had an A0 R21 with a score of 29, and I was working on resubmitting. Not in the wildest dreams could I have thought that the payline would drop (or rise I guess) to 30.
March 31, 2010 @ 5:30 pm ·
I suspect that if many of those who had originally planned on submitting in October, moved their applications up to the ARRA September deadline, that there may be a dip in applications in October. If so, one would think that would loosen up the payline, if its become apparent that the number of viable proposals are lower than usual. I noticed that there were far fewer R15s awarded as a result of the September ARRA competition, only about 15 rather than 50. If my understanding is correct, I wonder if the unexpended dollars will be transferred to the regular cycles? Does anyone understand how all this works?
March 31, 2010 @ 5:48 pm ·
ARRA money can not go to the regular cycle. Because of the way Congress wrote the law it has to spent in 2 years, more or less.
March 31, 2010 @ 5:56 pm ·
And just awarding a grant does not count as spending the money.
April 1, 2010 @ 3:04 pm ·
I think the ARRA R15s are still being processed (they are up to 25 in NIH reporter now). I’ve noticed that some of the awards run through 2013, but the total cost appears to be applied to FY2010, so there must be some alternative interpretations of “spend the money in two years”
April 4, 2010 @ 7:08 pm ·
What do you mean by “they are up to 25 in NIH reporter now”. Does the 25 refer to the payline or the number of grants they have processed?
April 4, 2010 @ 7:25 pm ·
Does the 25 refer to the payline or the number of grants they have processed?
Awards processed. Good luck with your application.
April 5, 2010 @ 11:09 am ·
As of today, there are 26 awarded grants for ARRA R15, but none from NCI so far, any reason?
April 12, 2010 @ 6:34 pm ·
How do you know there are 26 awarded ARRA R15s? Mine went to NHLBI, got a score of 29, Council review in January, and my PO still can’t get any information whatsoever about these grants.
April 12, 2010 @ 6:43 pm ·
I would assume that you can use NIH RePORTER (http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm), and under RFA/PA, enter RFA-OD-09-007 to see what awards have been made.
As of today, 29 awards come up. I assume (and could very well be wrong) that those with a Funding IC listed as OD are being paid for by the money set aside for the competition, and the others are being picked up by their IC.
Again, I could be wrong, but that was my guess.
April 12, 2010 @ 8:35 pm ·
If in RePORTER you select ARRA funding (all), %R15% (Project Number), and New (award type – doing this eliminates supplements), 93 hits come back (FY09 & FY10). Using the RFA approach as N suggests does turn up 29 (all FY10). NHLBI has only funded 2 of the 93 total ARRA R15 type 1 awards, so they could be slow making decisions, but both are FY10 and both in response to the RFA. For comparison, NCI has 5 in FY09 but none (yet) for FY10 (none for RFA) … NIDDK has one each for FY09 & FY10 (RFA response).
April 5, 2010 @ 1:51 pm ·
So as paylines are still not posted for R15s in NIAID, does this mean that individuals are being contacted if they are being funded? Should I be worried I have not heard?
April 6, 2010 @ 5:11 pm ·
I have not been contacted, and I submitted an R15 to NIAID for the Oct due date. Recently, my status changed from “council review pending” to “council review complete” (March 29), even though my council meeting was listed as occurring in May–I don’t know if this is standard procedure to have the council review before the listed meeting time or not. I think we should be seeing paylines pretty soon. If others have received a notice of award for an R15, I haven’t seen it anywhere in these discussions. Good luck!
April 18, 2010 @ 10:19 am ·
The same happened with my two recent grants (RO1 and R21) both of which are now in fundable range at NIAID.
The two program officers told me that for a majority of grants which basically need rubber stamping by the council (read are in the clear and dont need to be debated, are not on the bubble), the GMS staff does a pre-council review so that awards can be issued ASAP after the actual council has met.
It is possible thar the same is happening to your proposal. Have you received either an electronic or a manual JIT request as well. The manual JIT request (I think) is a tell-tale that you will be funded
April 19, 2010 @ 11:31 am ·
I did get my JIT request from the Grants Management specialist last week and submitted it. My score is under the interim payline, so I guess now if everything goes well otherwise, I just wait for the NGA. Thanks for your thoughts here…I hope you are right!
April 6, 2010 @ 4:56 pm ·
I submitted an F32 to NIDDK for the December 09 deadline, and received an impact score of 21. No percentile. NIDDK declares that it expects to fund F32s at about the same rate as last year–can anyone help me discover where that rate might be listed? I had felt ok about my 21 since it seemed that meant the percentile must surely be lower than 20, but reading the posts here has me nervous.
Also, the PO said they’d be letting folks know in April whether they were funded or not, but the commons page now shows the council meeting will be May 12. Any insight about how long it typically takes to hear back for certain on these things? I believed they’d absolutely make the July 1 start date, but the folks still waiting in December on grants submitted in February now has me unsure.
(Great site, by the way! Thanks so much for running this forum!)
April 6, 2010 @ 5:50 pm ·
where did you see ‘NIDDK declares that it expects to fund F32s at about the same rate as last year’? thanks
April 6, 2010 @ 6:01 pm ·
It’s an admittedly poor paraphrase of what I found on their 2010 funding policy page (Google NIDDK 2010 funding policy; it’s the first hit).
The exact words were:
“Non-competing fellowship/training (Fs & Ts), career development (Ks) and SBIR/STTR (R41/R42) awards will also generally be issued at their previously committed levels.”
(But what WAS the previously committed level??)
Also, for anyone interested in RO1s, the “nominal” payline is given as 17th percentile, 19th for New Investigator types.
April 6, 2010 @ 9:53 pm ·
I believe this is referring to grants already funded and that the dollar amount for the subsequent grant period would be at the level in the NOA and not cut, rather than the percentile/impact score paylines.
April 6, 2010 @ 10:14 pm ·
Yeah, I saw this from the NIDDK website too, but it is under ‘Non-competing
Continuation Awards’ category, does a new F or K applicaiton belong to this
‘Non-competing’ category? thanks
April 6, 2010 @ 10:29 pm ·
Your’s would be a competing application.
April 7, 2010 @ 12:31 pm ·
Thanks for clarification. Sorry for spreading bad info!
April 8, 2010 @ 9:40 am ·
I also submitted an r15 application in October (for NIMH), but my status remains “Council review pending”.
April 10, 2010 @ 12:38 pm ·
I received email from Po saying that they will submit my proposal for Discretionary funding but also indicated that its not guaranteed.
how it works and what are the chances..Pl share your thoughts..
April 15, 2010 @ 2:39 pm ·
My R21 A2 was given an impact priority score of 35 (NIEHS). I conacted my program officer to discuss options for new submission based on reviewer comments and I received an email from her this morning saying, “I know that you are within the range of applications that have been suggested for funding. After our May Council meeting, the pay plan is finalized but things do look good.” To me, this sounds favorable. But a score of 35 I just assumed was not good enough. So I think with this new scoring system there is a lot of variability among institutes and study sections in terms of funding. While nothing is final, I am keeping my fingers crossed. Good luck to everyone out there playing the waiting game!!
April 16, 2010 @ 9:15 am ·
OK. ARRA R15 paylines are now posted. The interim line is a 22. I got a 26. Any one with ideas how likely it is that I still have hope?
April 16, 2010 @ 9:49 am ·
I post this earlier but it didn’t appear at the bottom of the list for some reason.
OK. ARRA R15 paylines are now posted. The interim line is a 22. I got a 26. Any one with ideas how likely it is that I still have hope? I did resubmit for the regular cycle, but this posted payline is very low.
April 19, 2010 @ 11:45 am ·
I posted this before but no reply
I received email from PO saying that they will submit my proposal for Discretionary funding but also indicated that its not guaranteed.
how it works and what are the chances..Has anyone gone through this phase and if yes Pl share your experience..
April 19, 2010 @ 8:51 pm ·
It is hard to say what your chances are. It depends on your Institute and how much money they have leftover at the end of the year. It also depends on how many others like you are put forward for consideration.
April 19, 2010 @ 12:06 pm ·
A truly terrible day for me
I received a 20 on my A1 K01 grant proposal to NIA, and I just received the following e-mail from my PO
A priority score of 20 is an excellent score, but I’m afraid that it just misses the current K payline. This may change towards the end of the year, but I wouldn’t count on that. The budget has gotten so tight that even outstanding applications, that would have been funded a few years ago, have gone unpaid (the payline for R01s is at the 8th %ile). There is nothing you (or I) can do to change that. I’m sorry.
This just stinks. Should I give up all hope or take solace in the fact that “this may change towards the end of the year”
April 19, 2010 @ 4:39 pm ·
A similar thing happened to me: I missed funding by 1 percentile. My impression is that it’s unlikely that the percentile will be adjusted so that my application is funded, although it is possible. I hope we are both lucky. In the mean time, we probably just have to keep submitting grants and hoping for the best.
June 12, 2010 @ 8:07 am ·
I was at an aging meeting recently where the atrocious NIA pay line was discussed. It turns out that what has happened over the years is that the number of grants with budgets of >$1 million a year has gone way up (like 400%) which drains the available pool for new grants due to future commitments. Fascinating and scary. Glad I’m a pediatrician.
There was a graph of all the institutes pay lines and the NIA is the only one that is plunging.
April 20, 2010 @ 2:24 pm ·
I submitted K to NIDDK for the October cycle. Study section already met 3/15, and I received a 30 but I still haven’t received summary sheets. Has anyone received their summary sheets? also, anyone out there from the last cycle know what the payline was for NIDDK with Ks? I hear that last year DDK funded up to the 40s, but this is obviously unsubstantiated… Any and all help would be appreciated!
April 20, 2010 @ 2:53 pm ·
A, I am in the same boat, received a 32- NIDDK, and I heard the same thing from 2 of my mentors- that DDK-D funded up to 42 last cycle (but my PO just says I am in the gray, and has not given me any indication as to what the payline might be this cycle- so I am not too optimistic). My study section met on 3/3, and my review summary popped up exactly one week ago, so I imagine yours will pop up within the next week or so. I hope your info and mine are right and that we will be within the funding line rather than out. Good luck!
April 20, 2010 @ 3:53 pm ·
Thanks DD! Did you happen to get any info from your PO regarding whether you should start working on your amenedment? I hear that we won’t be grandfathered into the 25 page limit (we were the last cycle at 25p), so we will need to somehow address all the issues from the section AND curtail our application by more than 50%! I don’t know how we’re going to do this (if we have to…)
April 20, 2010 @ 6:24 pm ·
Yep, it is going to be painful cutting it by 50% and making everyone happy! But hopefully depending on your comments there won’t be much that you will need to change. No, my PO has offered no insight with regards to my resubmission, she just replied and said I am in the gray, and that she will let me know eventually if I am funded or not. So I am just waiting. Good luck on your application too.
April 20, 2010 @ 2:25 pm ·
submitted K to NIDDK for the October cycle. Study section already met 3/15, and I received a 30 but I still haven’t received summary sheets. Has anyone received their summary sheets? also, anyone out there from the last cycle know what the payline was for NIDDK with Ks? I hear that last year DDK funded up to the 40s, but this is obviously unsubstantiated… Any and all help would be appreciated!
May 19, 2010 @ 4:11 pm ·
I have a question regarding NIH grant format. As you know, both the Research Strategy section and the Specific Aim section are supposed to describe the research background leading to the proposed work, which is redundant and wasteful of the precious space for the Research Strategy section. Is it acceptable to minimize such description in the Research Strategy section? If so, one would have to expand this description in the Specific Aim section, and insert references there.
May 19, 2010 @ 8:34 pm ·
The Specific Aims section is supposed to be a Summary or Abstract of the grant proposal. So, it must duplicate information in the Research Strategy section. That is why it is given an extra page.
You must be concise and focused in all parts of the application now.
May 21, 2010 @ 10:23 am ·
Another puzzling issue about the new NIH format. The Significance section should ” …. Explain how the project will improve/change scientific knowledge, technical capability, concepts, methods etc in the field”. The Innovation section should “…Describe any novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies to be developed”. But is not Innovation part of the Significance? Do not we improve the old methods (Significance) by developing new methods (Innovation)? The wording is misleading, to say the least.
May 21, 2010 @ 11:37 am ·
I’m not revising a R15, and was wondering about people’s opinions about whether including any citation stats would help or hurt a proposal. The issue did not come up in the reviews, but I am tempted to include some such stats in my CV, after each publication. So my questions are,
– About the general advisability
– The best format & stats to include; I’m inclined to insert in brackets the total citations, i.e. [Cited 29 times], but then there’s the IP factor and journal rankings also that could be included.
– My own 33 pubs have been cited at least 252 times, with a Hirsch factor of 9.
I would especially be interested in the opinions of any of you who have served as reviewers, about how such information would be looked at. Or, is it even permitted? Thanks.
May 21, 2010 @ 2:05 pm ·
Put yourself in the place of the reviewer— would you possibly find it a bit insulting to be told that a given journal is “high impact”? Presumably they also know the literature pertaining to your proposal, so they should also be able to assess the impact of your work on the field without knowing the actual number of citations. So, personally, I wouldn’t do it, but maybe other people have different opinions.
In any case, best of luck with your proposal!
May 23, 2010 @ 9:06 am ·
Thanks, B.O.S.S., for your take on my citation question.
For any one, I have another question, about interpreting a grant status. After the national council met earlier this month on my R15 proposal (submitted in October), my ERA Commons status changed to “Council review completed.” I assumed that I must resubmit, as that is what I was told. However, I noticed in an ERA list of statuses (http://era.nih.gov/docs/era_status_codes.pdf) that this status is equivalent to the Impac II “Pending Award. Non-fellowships”. Now, this seems more encouraging, but perhaps it is just bureaucratic double-talk, and I’m engaging in wishful thinking? Does anyone know what this actually means?
May 23, 2010 @ 8:08 pm ·
You got it right. “Bureaucratic double-talk”. I have seen awards pending for a year and never awarded.
May 24, 2010 @ 9:09 pm ·
It is not “double-talk”. It simply means that it is *possible* for Program to decide to fund proposals long after the assigned Council date and first-possible funding date. I am sure it does not happen very often but it does indeed occur. So applications stay live for an extended period of time.
One fascinating place I’ve seen this occur is when a grant scores close to the payline but then the revision goes backward. I’ve seen Program pick up the first, better scored version of the application before…
May 26, 2010 @ 8:56 am ·
Perhaps double-talk isn’t the best word. But, it is misleading. “Pending Award” suggests to me that an Award is inevitable and it is just a matter of time. When what they really mean “Post-Council/Possible Award but if you haven’t heard from your PO it is highly unlikely”.
May 25, 2010 @ 7:36 pm ·
Was your score under the interim payline? I am just asking, because my score is under the payline, and my commons status recently changed to “council review completed” after I submitted my JiT info (requested by GMS). I have not received a NoA at this point, and the council has met, although just earlier this week. I thought because I was under the payline that I would receive the grant….should I be worried now?
May 25, 2010 @ 8:12 pm ·
For NIMH, there does not appear to be any published payline, but I was told that my score of 33 was too high and that I would most likely have to resubmit. Never received a JIT request. I suspect that my proposal will hang around in this limbo state until it is finally disposed of; I assume that they are just keeping their options open. Sounds like you have a better chance.
May 26, 2010 @ 8:50 am ·
If your funding institute is NIAID and your grant percentile is under the payline you are going to get paid. I wouldn’t worry. Did you have any animal or HS problems in the grant that had to be resolved with your JIT information? If so that would delay things a few weeks. Otherwise it is just the wheels of NIH moving slowly that is delaying your NoA.
May 26, 2010 @ 9:31 am ·
No human or animal issues to resolve. I just got a little nervous when the “council review completed” status went up in commons instead of “pending award” or something to that effect. My institute is NIAID and I have read multiple times on their site that they fund all applications within a payline unless they have administrative issues. I sent in my JiT, then my GMS requested additional budget info, which I also provided. I have not been asked for any additional info, so I guess I just need to control my inner worrywart self and just be patient….
red menace said
May 26, 2010 @ 9:47 am ·
@Sciencegirl, I have a “council review completed” status since Feb for an R15. I emailed the GMS, and they said the award will start 6/1. Meanwhile, no status change and no NoA. It’s a nail biter, but hang in there, I think all should be fine in your case.
May 29, 2010 @ 8:40 pm ·
How long have you had the “pending” status. Did commons generate another row for the same grant with the “pending” status?
My RO1 was in this state for 4 days before the award was made.
May 24, 2010 @ 5:47 pm ·
Does anyone know the typical time lag between the NAGMS Council meeting and availability of a “signed paylist”? My PO is notoriously tightlipped when it comes to providing funding information. Any independent insight would be much appreciated.
May 28, 2010 @ 12:57 pm ·
I’m also waiting for word on a NIGMS proposal. On Tuesday (May 25), my PO said that they were going to make funding decisions in “a week or two” and asked me to call back in 2 weeks. PO also said that I was right on the edge of being funded and it could go either way. Ugh – the suspense is brutal.
May 28, 2010 @ 3:36 pm ·
I guess we’re in the same boat. Based on my application’s impact score (17) and the reviewers’ comments (mine is an R15), my PO told me to be “cautiously optimistic” way back in February and that funding decisions likely would be made in early June, in agreement with your PO’s comments to you. Or maybe we just have the same opaque PO and he’s driving us both crazy! Earlier this week he said that he couldn’t give a definitive answer on the funding until he had a signed paylist, but gave no further indication of when that might be. Good luck!
Cautiously Optimistic said
June 2, 2010 @ 12:25 pm ·
Is your proposal an F32? My PO told me that second level review for F32s was to take place yesterday (June 1) and he would have definitive answers after that. Hopefully we’ll hear something any minute now…
Grad student JH said
May 27, 2010 @ 11:43 am ·
I’m posting some details because I could not find this information anywhere about current paylines. F31 NINDS scored 27, percentile 18. Just got just in time in email, council meet 5/27/2010. Was wondering how long it takes for notice of award, grant should start 07/01/2010.
May 29, 2010 @ 4:26 pm ·
NIAID payline for R03 and R21 is impact score of 31, for an R01 from ESI does anyone know if impact score of 30 (or 25 percentile) would be fundable this year ?
May 29, 2010 @ 7:13 pm ·
Sorry PT. Not this year. Probably not next year either.
May 29, 2010 @ 8:38 pm ·
PT – it is unlikely.
NIAID doesnt differentiate between NI and ESI.
The NI cut-off this yr is 16%ile. Everyone at or above this score will get funded.
Perhaps NIAID might fund some programmatically important applications at higher %ile. Similarly bridge awards may be made for applications upto 17 or 18%ile.
25 may be a stretch. Best wishes,
May 30, 2010 @ 5:05 pm ·
I submitted an F32 to NEI in December. I scored a 25 (7% rank) in early March. If this is to be funded, when should I expect to get a just in time request? Council meeting is listed as May of 2010, and my grant status hasn’t been updated since March 1st, so I am starting to get a bit worried. What type of timeline should I expect if this is to be funded?
June 2, 2010 @ 9:17 am ·
I submitted an F32 to NHLBI in last December. I scored a 25 (17% rank) in early March. Council meeting is listed as May of 2010. When should I expect to get a just in time request if I am funded? I am a bit worried.
June 7, 2010 @ 2:27 pm ·
waiting, I submitted an f31 to NIAID in august, got a score of 28 in october, council met in february and final payline was just determined May 28. Today, I got what I believe is a JIT request from my GMS which is approximately ten months after submission. I guess it depends on if final paylines have been established by your institute but you may have another month…Did you contact your PO?
June 9, 2010 @ 5:50 pm ·
yeah, I just did it. And I was told that it will take another 4-6 weeks to get final payline decided. Finger crossed.
cathy smithson said
June 7, 2010 @ 10:40 pm ·
I just got my impact score today for an NIDDK R21. It is 16, what do you think as far as funding goes? I do not want to be too optimistic at this point.
June 8, 2010 @ 6:13 pm ·
I got a 17 on an NIDDK R21 and it was funded, so there’s hope!
Best of luck!
June 11, 2010 @ 2:22 pm ·
Great score! Did you receive a percentile score? I am thinking that R21s submitted in Feb. 2010 will not receive percentile scores due to the fact that they were shorter than those grants reviewed previously, but this is pure speculation on my part. I am trying to interpret my 25 score, but there was no percentile provided.
June 11, 2010 @ 4:12 pm ·
MichGuy, To which institute did you submit? The NIH Paylines and Resources site shows the payline by impact score for R21s from some of the institutes, although NIDDK was not among these.
Best of luck!
cathy smithson said
June 11, 2010 @ 11:24 pm ·
Neither this version or the prior 15 page version of the grant was percentiled. I believe that NIDDK does not do percentiles, just impact scores for R21. Percentiling or not appears to depend on the institute.
cathy smithson said
June 11, 2010 @ 11:27 pm ·
One more thing, the PO is usually very helpful at interpreting the impact score, but it is probably best to wait until the summary statement comes out before trying to discuss with the PO.
June 8, 2010 @ 2:44 am ·
Unless it is a highly unusual study section a 16 should be in the money. Remember that post-discussion scores and subsequent panel votes are in single digit increments with 1 the best possible score. The panel vote average is then multiplied by 10 to give the final impact score.
So you had to have a post score range of 1-2. or if it was any broader, almost nobody voted above a 2 anyway.
June 8, 2010 @ 4:36 pm ·
Just found out that my first submission of a R01 was unscored. Is it possbile to improve the score into a fundable range on the resubmission? Or should I ask to change the study section? Any suggestions would be appreciated.
June 8, 2010 @ 5:19 pm ·
It is certainly possible. But, I don’t know how probable. It depends on what the reviewers didn’t like about it. If there are 1 or 2 major but fixable issues you have a good shot.
I don’t think that changing study sections will help at all. Unless, the original SS assignment was a clear mistake.
Carey Lumeng said
June 11, 2010 @ 5:53 pm ·
It’s hard to say what unscored means nowadays and I definitely know people who have gone from unscored to funded. There are alot of variables such as the institute, the study section, and the project. If you are new investigator or ESI you should get your summary statement back pretty quick and get a sense where you stand. A low score on significance can be very hard to pull up from. If they didn’t like the approach only that is somewhat easier to work with
I would definitely also communicate with your program officers after you get your summary statement. They are your advocate to get you funding. Many of the quesions above re paylines and moving targets can be quickly answered by and email to your PO and a bit of patience.
June 11, 2010 @ 7:36 pm ·
Can you comment on what they mean by approach? I have recently received scores for my R01 outside of the fundable range. All my reviewers commented that the project is highly significant, but poor approach (but none explained what was bad about the approach, or how it can be improved). Please advise.
June 12, 2010 @ 10:46 am ·
Let me revise my advice slightly. Given that there is only one resubmission now I think that the pressure on the grant writer is to do more than just address the concerns. This is not like responding to a paper review for publication. While there may be pressure to turn then grant around quickly for new investigators I don’t think that this is always the best thing. The message the study section is sending if they score the approach low is that either the experiments are not the right ones to answer the question and advance the field, the experiments require expertise outside the investigators experience that decrease the chance for success, and/or preliminary data do not support that line of inquiry.
Good luck. Take your time. Talk to lots of other senior scientists for advice and don’t be offended by criticism. Know the people on the study section and see where they are coming from to potentially help guide changes.
June 11, 2010 @ 10:44 pm ·
From the NIH scoring criteria:
“Approach. Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?”
Essentially the guts of the proposal. If they feel that the problem is a significant one, the approach is what you are going to do to solve the problem. There is always something that can be improved in a grant, some weakness that they pointed out. You must address any weakness they bring up in the revision (they must have mentioned something). The other way to go about proving that your approach is doable and going to work is providing preliminary data supporting the plan. More data to support what you want to do the better. The other reality may be that they just don’t like the experiments and you have to propose different ones. This may be a tough call.
Again the program officer should have been listening to the discussion and can be the point person on this.
(I swear I’m not associated with them in any way) but I found the grancentral.com handbook a really invaluable tool in crafting the grant. Best $65 investment I made. Many recommended this to me and they were right.
June 13, 2010 @ 7:16 pm ·
Thank you Carey. I will try to contact my PO first see what she says about the situation.
June 21, 2010 @ 4:11 pm ·
Just got my K08 priority score from NHLBI – 44.
Looks like the payline for NHLBI for FY2010 is 40:
I assume I am SOL?
June 21, 2010 @ 8:49 pm ·
Not necessarily but I wouldn’t count on funding. At council review it is possible that they might fund grants just outside the pay line. The question is do you want to wait for that (answer=no). Read the summary statements carefully. Make changes. Try to get a paper published. Think carefully about making a great training plan. Resubmit.
June 22, 2010 @ 8:40 am ·
Thanks for the reply. The PO seemed pretty definitive that I would need to resubmit, so that’s what I’ll do.
Separate question – what are the roles of the PO vs the SRA? I emailed both of them about my priority score, and they both responded (albeit with pretty much the same response).
June 22, 2010 @ 8:42 am ·
Also, I have a logistical question – I am considering an offer for a faculty position at another institution. If I move, would I be able to re-submit the K08 from the new institution, or would I be submitting a NEW application?
June 22, 2010 @ 3:25 am ·
My RO1 was reviewed in Feb. I got 24%ile simply because reviewer 2 had serious concerns over Aim 1-2, but even this harsh reviewer was enthusiastic about Aim 3 as were the other 2 reviewers, the SRO and PO. I recently got JIT request for 1 year-bridge-funding from NIAID, which seems unusual because my score is way below the payline (12%). Do you know what the odds are? Brutal suspense!
June 22, 2010 @ 7:17 am ·
Your odds really depend on how much money NIAID has left unspent at the end of the year. That number is not clear until late in the summer. But, generally, NIAID won’t promise a bridge award unless they are pretty sure they can fund it. So, I think you have an excellent shot. Good luck.
June 22, 2010 @ 9:44 am ·
what would be expected timeline for getting R01 NoA from NIGMS ? We’ve got quite decent score/percentile so funding shouldn’t be a problem but the delay (it’s been nearly a month since the council meeting) is kind of frustrating…
June 23, 2010 @ 3:17 pm ·
My R21 (A2) received an impact priority score of 35 (NIEHS). I was sure that it was not within funding range. However, I contacted my program officer and she said “your score looks good, just wait.” Council review was completed in May and then my program officer said she was optimistic that it would be funded (it was among those recommended for funding). Then she said “things look good but I won’t see an official pay plan until mid June. My eRA commons status has changed from Council review completed to “pending.” Pending what? I keep getting the same response from my PO that things look good, but I still have not received a JIT request. Any ideas what is going on?
June 23, 2010 @ 3:52 pm ·
My guess is that they are waiting to make sure they have enough end of the year money to fund you. Lots of spreadsheets to look at, meetings to hold and dollars to double check. They don’t have to make a final, final decision until the end of the Fiscal Year in September. But, I bet you will hear much sooner than that.
June 23, 2010 @ 4:50 pm ·
Thanks SaG, It is definitely a long and drawn out process. Keeping my fingers crossed.
June 29, 2010 @ 11:10 pm ·
I am new here and to NIH grasnts. I just had a R18 priority score of22 — 7% This seems good and highly likely to be funded. But PO wouldn’t tell me anything re: funding decisions. Anyone have recent experience with AHRQ funding decisions?
July 6, 2010 @ 10:49 pm ·
Like JS, I can’t find any past data on recent past AHRQ paylines.
Anyone have any info, or know where to look?
July 12, 2010 @ 4:48 pm ·
Here’s my dilemma that I hope I can get some feedback on. I recently got my score back for an R21, which was low and likely not fundable. I contacted my PO and he indicated that I should resubmit as an R01. My dilemma is this. I was planning on submitting an R01 on a different topic this October so I am not in a position to flip the R21 into an R01 because all my focus in terms of experiments and writing is on the R01. So I was thinking of fixing up my R21 and resubmitting the revision in November. My question is this. if the R21 doesn’t get funded in the second submission, can I use the ideas in it and expand to make it an R01 at a later submission?
July 12, 2010 @ 6:15 pm ·
You sure can. When you change mechanism (R21 to R01 for example) it becomes a brand spanking new grant with 2 shiney new submissions.
Henry S. said
July 12, 2010 @ 11:16 pm ·
While it is true it will become a brand new submission if it is a different grant mechanism (R21 or R01), I would be careful about having an R01 and R21 (or multiple R01s) reviewed in the same study section at the same time, i.e. same cycle. This typically does not go so well, so if both the R01 and R21 will be destined for the same study section and same review cycle, I would consider pacing them out so you avoid this.
July 13, 2010 @ 7:07 am ·
Very true Henry. Another reason to wait a round or two is that if you go to the same study section the previous reviewers of the R21 might recognize your “new” R01. This could be good (they thought you should have been funded last time) or bad (they still don’t like your idea).
Carey Lumeng said
July 13, 2010 @ 10:14 am ·
I would also add that it depends on why it didn’t score well. If significance was questioned this is going to be a tough one to overcome with the new system and the paylines. If innovation was a concern this is more addressable. If it is a matter of approach this is very fixable. It sounds like you were scored and weren’t triaged so that’s good.
Out of curiousity, what were the reasons the PO listed to convert a low scored R21 into an R01 submission? Was the proposal too ambitious?
July 13, 2010 @ 10:58 am ·
Thanks for the input. The PO suggested R01 submission because there is a higher success rate.
July 13, 2010 @ 3:24 pm ·
The PO suggested R01 submission because there is a higher success rate.
That is the worst possible reason for making this move and I am hoping you simply misunderstood the PO.
July 13, 2010 @ 4:39 pm ·
I guess it depends on the institute somewhat. Some just don’t fund many R21′s for some reason (e.g. NIDDK). But it is a mistake to assume it will be reviewed in the same way such that a score will translate across…R21′s by their nature are exploratory and the bar for the amount of preliminary data to justify your case is much lower than for an R01. Also fewer years so by definition needs to be a much more expansive project.
Again, see what the summary statement says are the weaknesses and try to address them, but I would only convert an R21 into an R01 submission if I had a bunch more preliminary data to strongly justify moving it to take advantage of a “better success rate”
July 14, 2010 @ 10:26 am ·
I don’t think I’ve misunderstood anything. Here’s the one line email that I received:
“You should apply for an R01. The success rate is much higher.”
July 13, 2010 @ 12:38 am ·
Do you find that the number of applications scoring 30 or better increased during the first 3 review cycles?
With the new scoring system in place, is it possible that reviewers initially gave lower scores in the first two review cycles?
July 24, 2010 @ 12:44 am ·
I received a score of 48 on my F31(NIDDK submitted in April). My first assumption was to work on a resubmission. However, I have been watching here and have noticed that the scores are higher in this cycle. Is there any possibility of being funded? They don’t give percentiles, so I have no idea how my score compares to others. This is the first year of the shorter application…
July 24, 2010 @ 10:13 pm ·
Does anyone know any F31 impact/priority scores that received JIT or NOA by NIDDK this past cycle?
July 30, 2010 @ 10:51 am ·
I got a score of 49 for my k01 application. Anyone else got your score back? I’ve not received the statement yet. Don’t know if it’s worthwhile to do resubmit. feeling very down. It’s my 1st application.
July 30, 2010 @ 11:27 am ·
Although I don’t know what institute you submitted to, I can say that having gone through the “unscored, better score, fundable score” cycle for my K01 over the past year and a half, that you should certainly resubmit.
There’s no question that a terrible score is painful, but wait for the summary statment. You might be surprised how many things you can change immediately (i.e., career development plan, letters of recommendation, manuscript submissions). Things that may not require major revisions to your scientific plan.
July 30, 2010 @ 9:54 pm ·
A lot – maybe even most – applicants are unscored with their first submission, so a 49 is a terrific achievement. As Spookyfaust recommends, you should resubmit when you are ready (have more data, another publication, solid revisions with the help of your mentor & input from your PO, etc.).
Good luck with this application and your research!
July 30, 2010 @ 11:47 am ·
is there any chance NIGMS will send out NOAs before the fiscal year ends ?
Weve had our proposal scored late January (second percentile), the council
has met end of May, Jul 1 was requested as starting date. One would expect
this will get funded but so far we’ve got only, now a month old note, that it will
take a couple more weeks… 😮 [
July 30, 2010 @ 3:02 pm ·
I had requested a July 1 start date for a grant reviewed in the same cycle as yours, but was told by my PO it would be activated in either August or September. We just recently received the NOA for an August 1 start. Depending on the comments you’ve gotten from your GMS, at this point it sounds as if you’re likely to get the NOA in late August for a September 1 start.
August 2, 2010 @ 9:54 am ·
I (and a few colleagues) are in the same boat. We had submitted grants to the NHLBI that went through council review in May, with July 1 start dates. We all received scores within the payline, but have yet to receive our JIT request or NOA. I was told by the PO and the GMS that it will be funded. I have heard from our administrators that the NIH wanted to stagger start dates, which makes sense, but it would be helpful to have a general idea of the activation date for planning purposes.
Henry S. said
July 31, 2010 @ 9:21 am ·
Is there any specific timing between the JIT request from NIH and the NOA? I put a Dec 1 start date for a grant that was submitted in the Feb cycle. I just got the JIT email does this mean award is soon? Although it states in the standard JIT request letter that JIT request itself should not be interpreted as definite for funding. But I would take it as a good sign, right? It has yet to go through council which meets in late September. The impact score looked to be really good.
August 2, 2010 @ 10:14 am ·
Yes, exactly the same issue here…. it’s not the problem of getting funded but of planning – the unpredictably slipping dates mean there’s nearly no way to plan ahead.
But at least we’re not alone ;o)
August 2, 2010 @ 11:05 pm ·
Is it possible to DELAY the start date of a grant? I received an email today from the grants management office to submit “other support” in order for issuing NOA of my NIGMS SC1 grant. The requested start date in the original application was July 1st. I am a new investigator. Due to personal/family reasons, I need to relocate and move to another institution. At this point, I don’t know the definite time line. How complicated it is to transfer a grant to another institution? I will greatly appreciate your advice on how to handle this situation. Please share your experience. Thanks a lot.
August 3, 2010 @ 12:46 am ·
if you don’t have a new job lined up yet, accept the award at your current place and get the grant move planned for year 2. grants can move with PIs in most circumstances.
SC1 may be tricky- aren’t the NIGMS ones for minority serving institutions? You would have to show that your new place qualifies, at the least.
August 3, 2010 @ 7:22 am ·
DM is correct. You will be limited in where you can go with the grant. See if your PO has a list of eligible schools. It will be a lot of paperwork to move it too.
A public or private post secondary educational institution, such as a university or college awarding associate, undergraduate or graduate degrees located in the United States of America or its territories including Puerto Rico, Guam and Virgin Islands with more than 50 percent student enrollment at the applicant institution from groups underrepresented in the biomedical and behavioral sciences such as African American, Hispanic American, Native American, Alaska Natives or natives of the U.S. Pacific Islands.
August 3, 2010 @ 10:02 pm ·
Thank you Drugmonkey and DM for your insightful comments.
August 3, 2010 @ 3:06 pm ·
I am eagerly waiting for the decision of my grant submission, which got a score of 30. I contacted PO a couple of times, but he never replied. Is a bad sign? I saw a link to JIT, but never received an email from NIH for JIT. Can anyone here tell me when NIH requests for JIT? Before or after council meeting? Thanks.
August 11, 2010 @ 9:54 pm ·
Hi-My R01A1 application got a score of 32, 26% tile. I am a new investigator and ESI, NCI is the institute. I talked to PO, who stated basically that ESI wont add to any more credit and in past they funded 20, give or take a few. I think he isn’t really being my advocate and that 26 should be close if theres money left over. He didn’t encourage rebuttal either. Any suggestions? Or just let go you think, this is A1 so cant reapply.
August 22, 2010 @ 11:35 pm ·
My R01 was reviewed in Feb, and got a score of 24. The PO told me at the end of May that the grant will be funded. The original proposed start date is July 1, but now it is the end of August, and I still haven’t got the notice of award. I contacted the grant management specilist recently and was told that my grant has a very good chance of being funded. This made me a bit nervous as I have thought that my grant will be funded for sure, but now I feel less certain. Does any one have similar experience?
August 23, 2010 @ 1:54 pm ·
Your R01 score would mean different things at different ICs, so it’s hard to say based on that alone (not knowing the funding IC, that is). If the PO was confident and you received a personal JIT request (which is how I assume you met the GMO), you should be okay. Did you check back with the PO? Don’t let the delay in NoA cause concern – this is standard operating procedure at the NIH due to all the budget issues (NIH budget, that is – not your grant budget). If the PO confirms again that you will be funded, you can count on receiving your notice by Sept 30, since it must be made by the end of the fiscal year.
August 23, 2010 @ 4:16 pm ·
Thanks for your reply. My PO is slow in responding. I just contacted her, and hope she will give me some good news.
August 23, 2010 @ 7:56 pm ·
PO just replied and said that the grants people are working on my award. This is good news 🙂
August 23, 2010 @ 8:07 pm ·
VERY good news – Congratulations!!
Maria G said
September 9, 2010 @ 9:42 pm ·
Anyone know whether a 13 percentile for an R01 established investigator at NINDS will be within the payline at the Oct 2010 council meeting ?
September 12, 2010 @ 10:11 pm ·
My chair got his RO1 renewed at 16%ile from the same IC. Needless to say he is established. However, the key difference is his council was May 2010 (I think).
September 9, 2010 @ 10:39 pm ·
Does anyone know what was the SBIR 2009 payline at NINDS?
September 10, 2010 @ 6:01 pm ·
I have got an impact score of 32 in my SBIR application, does any one know what was the cut-off score for last years automatic funding in NINDS ?
October 9, 2010 @ 7:58 pm ·
I just got my score yesterday for an NICHD R21. It is 20 and a percentile is 11%, what do you think as far as funding goes?
October 10, 2010 @ 12:12 am ·
That’s a nice score and percentile, but I’m afraid you won’t know for quite some time (probably not until early 2011) whether it is fundable. NICHD does not publicize their paylines, so it is hard to gauge. The initial paylines for FY11 will be extremely conservative, though, and will remain thus if the NIH appropriation includes a budget cut, as is quite possible.
October 11, 2010 @ 12:26 am ·
I just got my priority score which is 33 (25 percentile). This is my first submission for a cancer-related project. As a new investigator, what should I do ?
October 11, 2010 @ 2:36 pm ·
Start revising once you have the summary statement in hand, and, if at all possible, get one or more papers out in advance of the resubmission.
October 11, 2010 @ 12:58 pm ·
NICHD FY10 payline for R01 and R21 are all 13%. What is your judgement?
October 11, 2010 @ 3:27 pm ·
This is “Hopeful” from way upthread. My NIGMS R15 initial application did not get funded. I submitted a revision in June and received an impact score of 11. I’m assuming this will be fundable as long as crazy stuff doesn’t happen (like massive NIH budget cuts). Does anyone know when I could possibly actually get the funding? My council data is January, 2011, but I know that some grants have expedited review (maybe that’s just for R01s?). Will Congress have to pass a budget before any new grants are funded? Could I contact the PO with these question or would that just be a bother at this point?
I know that this stuff might be spelled out somewhere, but I can’t find it. I also don’t know how the R15 funding process works compared to the R01 process. Thanks for any help out there.
October 11, 2010 @ 3:45 pm ·
Clearly an impact score of 11 will be funded unless the R15 mechanism is dropped due to budget cuts … but I think this highly unlikely.
You won’t be funded before Council meets, especially in the absence of an FY11 appropriation. Awards will be made under the continuing resolution, and your score could be among those CR-based awards, but you can’t count on that. You should certainly communicate with your PO about this, but there is no rush since this is an A1 and he/she won’t have any useful info for months … and he/she will be busy right now fielding questions from folks with less obvious scores and questions about resubmitting.
Good luck with the application and your research program!
October 12, 2010 @ 9:00 pm ·
I’m a new investigator / early stage investigator. My first R01 application to the NINDS received a priority score of 21, percentile of 10.0. I’m reluctant to bother my PO until I at least see the comments.
October 12, 2010 @ 9:01 pm ·
Oh, and my council date is 01/2011
October 12, 2010 @ 11:37 pm ·
Kudos for recognizing that you should not contact the PO until you have the summary statement. I would like to think you are in good shape for funding with that score-percentile as an ESI applicant, but even something that seems solid may not be this year, with budget cuts threatening. When you have your summary statement, you can talk with your PO about whether you should work on a resubmission and, if so, whether he/she has any insight into the study section discussion (whether via attending the review meeting or talking with the SRO) that might guide your revisions.
Amy Hepburn said
October 12, 2010 @ 11:05 pm ·
I got an impact score of 37 and 28%ile for my RO1 (A0) (NCI). I am a new investigator.
The NCI payline of FY2010 for new investigator is 20%ile. Is it difficult to move up to the 20%ile assuming all the comments are well addressed after revision?
October 12, 2010 @ 11:30 pm ·
I have seen much larger improvements in score upon resubmission and would say you are in good shape to revise into a fundable impact score … on the other hand, I have also seen nearly funded applications triaged on resubmission (even with the comments addressed). Publishing preliminary data in advance of the resubmission would help. Be sure to strengthen the entire application, not just weaknesses cited in the summary statement, which will never, especially with the abbreviated format, give comprehensive guidance on everything that could be improved.
October 13, 2010 @ 7:46 am ·
I totally agree with writeedit.
I dont think the study section would give you a 27-28%ile unless they wanted you funded, so you should be in good shape for your A1. FYI my first R01 went from 23 to 13%ile upon revision earlier this yr in NIAID.
Publishing a part of your preliminary data (or all) definitely would help.
Amy Hepburn said
October 13, 2010 @ 8:53 pm ·
Thanks Writedit and DK for your advice, very helpful. I appreciate it.
Amy Hepburn said
October 13, 2010 @ 8:59 pm ·
In your message dated back on June 11, you mentioned the grancentral.com handbook that is a very useful tool in crafting grants. Could you please let me know the name of that handbook?
Thanks and best wishes.
October 15, 2010 @ 11:22 pm ·
Grant Application Writers Workbook. Lots of fans (young and old) of this book around me. worth the $.
October 16, 2010 @ 2:14 am ·
Today I have got an impact score of 26 and in my EBRG R21 (NCI is primary) and percentile of 13.0. My council meeting data is 01/2011 and the summary statements will be within a month. Not sure if it is fundable. Any idea???
October 16, 2010 @ 3:27 pm ·
This could be close – as we’ve been telling everyone, it could be hard for program to have a good idea of what is fundable, especially near the margins, until next year. When you get your summary statement, you can contact your PO for any insight on what your likelihood of having the A0 funded as well as the best strategy for your EBRG A1 (assuming your 26 is an initial submission). Good luck with this application and your research!
October 16, 2010 @ 2:14 am ·
Today I have got an impact score of 26 and in my EBRG R21 (NCI is primary) and percentile of 13.0. My council meeting data is 01/2011 and the summary statements will be within a month. Not sure if it is fundable. Any idea???
October 18, 2010 @ 2:24 pm ·
Thank you!! It is the first time to submit a proposal to NIH, so I am excited about it. I contacted a PO today, but she does not know (that’s what I expected though) One thing she told me that it was the percentile of 15 last year….. Not sure if I should resubmit (A1) it by Nov 16th (although my colleague suggests not to do it)…. Hard to decide…
October 18, 2010 @ 2:44 pm ·
Since you only get one more shot, you want to be sure you can fully address all the issues raised in the summary statement (& get new readers to identify anything else that the next set of reviewers might flag) … being able to report progress on the work and any manuscripts submitted/accepted would also strengthen your resubmission case. It’s not a guarantee that your score will improve, so you need to feel confident about whatever you send in. Some time ago we had a discussion about the timing of new and revised applications (https://writedit.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/best-timing-for-nih-applications/).
October 18, 2010 @ 9:19 pm ·
Just got the priority score, 23, for a R21 (NEI). NEI does not provide percentile and no public availabe payline. Any comments about the possibility of funding. Thanks
NIH Budget – Timing & Impact on FY11 Paylines etc. « Medical Writing, Editing & Grantsmanship said
October 22, 2010 @ 4:04 pm ·
[…] now, traffic on the NIH Paylines & Resources and NIH Discussion pages is all about what does my impact score mean and will I get funded. Most funding decisions are […]
November 8, 2010 @ 2:18 pm ·
Submitted an R15 in February, was scored on June (impact score 24) and went to council review 9/13/2010. At the end of June I talked to the PO who recommended waiting until October and contacting her again. I having trying and I have left several messages (via email and phone) but I have not been able to get in touch with her. I assume that she does not have any news to share and that is the reason why she does not contact me back.
This seems like an awful long time (scored in June) and I am not sure whether I should consider resubmitting. I have not gotten a personal JIT (just the one that anyone with an impact score below 30 gets). The idea that the R15 grants are eliminated is quite scary for me now. Should I resubmit? Any other ideas? Thanks.
November 8, 2010 @ 4:39 pm ·
She probably does not have any additional information, but it’s a shame she has not at least conveyed this to you. I assume (unless you’ve gotten a lot done on an amended application) that it’s too late to submit this round, but certainly start working on a resubmission for next March … and if possible, get a publication out in the meantime.
November 8, 2010 @ 9:22 pm ·
I recently received a disappointing score on a resubmission of an R15, the overall score of which went from 34 to 40, and then a week later, to 41 (very odd). Just today received the Summary Statement with three reviews. If the overall final voting had reflected the opinions of these reviewers, it would have come to 25. (Reviewer A’s scores: 3 2 2 3 2; Reviewer B: 4 2 5 5 2; Reviewer C: 2 1 2 2 1). Seems odd that in the final voting, it would regress so much like this (from 25 to 41). There were a few comments that I used an illegal type font, or something was illegal about the appendix. Would it be worth asking for a ‘recount’, or are there any other things that might be asked in this kind of situation (not sure how common or unusual it is)? This is the last chance with this particular proposal.
(reposted anonymously by request – writedit)
November 9, 2010 @ 8:25 am ·
There is zero chance of a “recount”. The absolute most you could hope for is a re-review but that only happens if you can convince Program that the reviewers made an error of fact. (If you look through these posts you will see Writedit explain many times that your final score is NOT the numerical average of your pre-discussion subscores)
It sounds like 2 things may be going on with your application. First, Reviewer B won the argument. “B” did not think that your application was very Significant or Innovative and didn’t like the Approach. And “B” convinced the rest of the panel that he/she was right.
I have seen scores go from the edge of funding to Not Scored. So a change from a 25 to a 41 is not too unusual. Second, you also might have pissed off the reviewers by using an illegal (tiny?) font and tried to get around the page limits by putting stuff in the appendix.
Your only options at this point are to submit a new application that is significantly different from the previous one. You could resubmit it as an R01 but if it wasn’t funded as an R15 it is unlikely to do better as an R01.
November 9, 2010 @ 1:46 pm ·
You could resubmit it as an R01 but if it wasn’t funded as an R15 it is unlikely to do better as an R01.
This is not necessarily the case. A and C reviewers were on board with the entire proposal, including the approach and significance. Reviewer B wasn’t. These are good odds and suggest that the bones of the proposal are good. It either needs a few more rolls of the dice to maximize the chances of getting a third reviewer in the 2/3rds camp or else it needs a tweek to improve the odds of a random selection of 3 reviewers *all* being on board. Either way, it is worth taking another shot with a revised plan submitted as an R01.
November 9, 2010 @ 3:06 pm ·
DM, I considered that too but then I begin to wonder if it scored well because it was judged as an R15 rather than an R01.
Consider as part of the overall impact whether the proposed project addresses the objectives of the AREA grant program which are to (1) provide support for meritorious research, (2) strengthen the research environment of schools that have not been major recipients of NIH support, and (3) expose available undergraduate and graduate students in such environments to meritorious research. Preliminary data are not required for R15 application; however, they may be included if available.
But, I agree that all else being equal it is worth submitting as an R01.
November 9, 2010 @ 6:04 pm ·
Just an update for those who are awaiting funding decisions on F32 applications. I just received a call from my PO stating that my application was approved for funding. This was an application submitted in April through NIGMS and with a score of 31. Best of luck to everyone!
November 11, 2010 @ 9:09 pm ·
Just got a score of 29 for a Phase I SBIR 1R43 to the NIA and NINDS -anybody out there know if I have a chance of funding this 1 year project for Alzheimer’s disease?
November 16, 2010 @ 8:51 pm ·
Hi, my R01 just got a priority score of 24, percentile of 15. This is an NICHD application under the HIV/AIDS window. It’s a resubmission and is New Investigator eligible. I was feeling pretty good about this until I read earlier posts of very low NICHD paylines. So, does it look like I am in or out of the running?
November 16, 2010 @ 9:51 pm ·
Well, you should feel good about a score/percentile like that no matter what, but of course no one knows about paylines for sure right now, though your PO might have some idea as to where your application ranks in the NICHD pile. If it is of particular interest (based on its science), your odds could be better, but again, this would be a call made by your PO, in whose portfolio your project would land (and who needs to be your advocate at NICHD). If you have new data that could soon be published, this might help make a case for your research. Whatever might generate enthusiasm toward funding your application at the IC level.
November 19, 2010 @ 10:36 am ·
My R21 resubmission scores a 11 percentile with a priority score of 23 at NHLBI. Am I in for sure? The payline for FY2011 for R21 is not out yet…
November 19, 2010 @ 2:51 pm ·
I would certainly hope you can be optimistic with a score like that, especially when it is well within the FY10 payline (16th percentile). Has your PO (who will necessarily be very conservative/careful in all communications) given you any inkling as to whether to be celebratory?
December 6, 2010 @ 3:10 pm ·
Bill, interestingly, my R21 first submission scores a 15 percentile with a priority score of 23 at NHLBI. I wonder why the same priority score of 23 has different percentile – 11 vs 15? It was reviewed on 10/11/2010. Does it depend on study section?
December 6, 2010 @ 8:56 pm ·
Yes. Percentile rank is generally* within study section. It is based on the current and two prior rounds of scores generated by that study section.
Sometime other “base” populations can be used, such as the entire CSR average, if there are insufficient numbers of applications to which to refer. a study section conflict SEP is one such case. I’ve seen them based against the “parent” study section and also against the “CSR base”.
November 22, 2010 @ 11:21 am ·
She did just as you stated: conservatively/carefully say that it should be very likely but without the payline and budget set she could not give me 100% yes… this is a long wait….
November 25, 2010 @ 12:15 am ·
I have a question about the 5-year limit for K99 application. Is this 5-year limit counted starting from the receipt date of PhD? Let’s say if someone received PhD on June 1 2006 – would this person still be eligible if the K99 resubmission application is sent on July 1 2011?
November 25, 2010 @ 10:53 am ·
Y, The simple answer to your questions is No. You can not. The more nuanced answer is Maybe. The rule is….
Investigators who have more than 5 years of postdoctoral research training experience at the time of initial application or subsequent resubmission(s) are not eligible.
Note that it says “5 years of postdoctoral research training” not 5 years after your Ph.D. (or MD or DVM….) For most people it makes no difference. But, suppose you took 2 years off to have a baby, or join the Peace Corps or get clinical training as an MD, or travel the world with just a back pack? Since you are not getting PD training they don’t count. How do you prove that you fall into one of these, or similar cases? Contact the relevant PO and they will help. Hopefully.
November 25, 2010 @ 12:59 pm ·
So if someone got PhD in June 2006, and started the postdoc in October 2006, does the 5-year limit start from June 2006 or October 2006?
November 25, 2010 @ 9:24 pm ·
I think that it is true. It depends how the data is entered in the NIH Commons. I think that you have to enter the date you got your Ph.D. That is the default number that the system will use to calculate your 5 year clock. If you didn’t start PD training until October though you will need to contact a PO (I think) to get them to change your start date. I am not sure because I have never had to so this.
Find out who the contact person at your IC is for K99s and discuss this with them. They will know more and the process for changing the date. This table lists them by IC. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/contacts/parent_K99_R00.html
November 25, 2010 @ 10:10 am ·
I recently got an impact score of 22 on a one shot RFA R01, but no percentile score was assigned making it impossible to determine where I stand. This was a product development RFA, so innovation scores were likely pretty low for most applications. Hopefully, all will be revealed soon.
November 26, 2010 @ 3:20 am ·
Whether a 22 puts you in reasonable standing depends on how many applications will be funded (check RFA) and whether any were of particular interest (in terms of science) to program. Your PO might be able/willing to give you an idea where you stand in the pile.
November 26, 2010 @ 9:47 am ·
The RFA had a fairly narrow focus and expected to fund 15-20 applications. Three separate special emphasis study sections each convened for one day meetings, so I’m guessing they each had time to discuss 20-25 scored applications. As I said earlier, this was a product development RFA, so most (all) of the innovation will have taken place beforehand. Thus, I don’t see anyone getting a 10. Being the professional he is, my PO was positively noncommittal! I’ve yet to see the summary statement, so it’s a case of sitting and waiting (and sweating and worrying of course).
November 26, 2010 @ 12:05 pm ·
I am an ESI. My R01 resubmission was reviewed in Oct was ranked at the 19th percentile. The application was submitted in response to a PA by NIA (FY2010 payline for ESI is 13th percentile), but NHLBI was listed as secondary IC (FY2011 payline for ESI is 26th percentile). POs from both Institutes were really helpful in exploring the possibility of getting the grant re-assigned to NHLBI, but the request was ultimately not granted by NHLBI.
I learned from here and NHLBI’s website about the challenge of getting a grant re-assigned after review. But given the huge difference in payline between the two Institutes, I was wondering if anyone can give me any guidance regarding the next step besides hoping for a more generous NIA FY2011 payline.
November 26, 2010 @ 12:17 pm ·
Unfortunately, it is unlikely the NIA payline will improve in FY11. That is great that both POs tried to help move your application to NHLBI. However, if NHLBI declined to pick it up, I am not sure there are any next steps, unless the NIA PO can make an incredible case for select pay. You might instead work with the NHLBI PO to rework the project into a new R01 (see comments here and at NIH Paylines & Resources for discussion of what constitutes a “new” application) for which NHLBI would agree to be the primary assignment.
not Mervyn Peake said
December 9, 2010 @ 9:05 pm ·
Just heard from a senior NICHD official that they have started to fund FY11 awards, and interim FY11 RPG payline is currently 11%. Goal to have R01 and P01 at same level. Did not say what line is for new/early stage investigators. Said this can change as budget gets written, and that they statutorily will not fund “5″ (non-competing continuation) awards to full amount.
By comparison FY10 was 13% and NI/ESI 15%. (http://www.nichd.nih.gov/funding/strategies_concepts/2010/strategies.cfm)
December 13, 2010 @ 9:46 pm ·
My R03 in NIDDK scored 27 -study section-Oct 2010. . FY10 level for R03 was 30. Does anyone know if NIDDK has posted their FY11? this is a special rFA for diversity, thats funded for 3 years. The study section summary said the proposal was oustanding-excellent and funding for 3 years recommended. Can anyone give me some insights. any one with experience with this NIDDK type of grant
December 14, 2010 @ 9:24 pm ·
I have not seen or heard about the FY11 paylines at NIDDK. I think you can maintain hope, but nothing is certain. Have you communicated with the PO? (though, I would not expect anything more definitive)
December 15, 2010 @ 6:06 am ·
Thanks for the reply. Yes, via response to my email. Was not encouraging. Said they were still figuring 2011 paylines. Suggested I resubmit even though this was an A1.
How soon after council meeting do you hear back if you are funded?
Amy Hepburn said
December 17, 2010 @ 4:47 pm ·
For RO1 resubmission, new investigator, the deadline is on Mar 5th or March 22, 2011? Thanks.
December 18, 2010 @ 12:39 am ·
Deadline for all R01 A1s, new investigator or not, is March, July, or Nov 5.
December 22, 2010 @ 12:02 pm ·
Does anyone know when will NHBLI start sending out NOA? The interim paylines have been set for NHBLI and the congress just allowed the budget to carry through March…
January 4, 2011 @ 2:53 pm ·
NIAID has interim paylines out and I am wondering if we can expect to see any movement upwards in the final lines given the rather oppressive new regime heading to D.C.? I am within 2 points of the cut-off. Should I be planning to give up? Or are budgets likely to remain intact for this fiscal year?
January 4, 2011 @ 3:52 pm ·
Nature News suggests funding levels will likely go down (at best stay at FY10 levels … but not likely):
January 6, 2011 @ 11:22 am ·
It was my understanding that the Interim paylines listed by NIAID would only go up (or at least stay the same) and not go down. The article says that they are funded until early March, but my council does not meet until May and my grant is reviewed in Feb. So if my grant is scored below the current payline in Feb, will it be funded under the March budget or will I have to wait until May?????
January 6, 2011 @ 7:43 pm ·
I need advice on when to resubmit my K07 application. It received an impact score of 27 in the October NCI study section. I was told it was possible it could be funded with this score (and would’ve been funded last year). But with the current budget situation, I’m assuming I will need to resubmit. The reviews were very positive, and the few recommended changes will be easy for me to address. I’m considering resubmitting in March, but it sounds like that is the cycle with the longest wait. Any thoughts? Thanks!
January 6, 2011 @ 10:53 pm ·
Congrats on the nice score. Submitting in March would mean a long wait, but not as long as waiting until July … and maybe not a lot later since it’s not an election year. However, if you’ll have more papers published or good data to add if you wait until Cycle II, then it may be worth it, especially if you still might get funded with this score. All sorts of factors to consider, but you should base your decision on the science and on any advice your PO might be able to offer.
January 20, 2011 @ 1:15 pm ·
What’s the process for moving a grant? Let’s say I land an R15 and move to an ineligible institution? The grant FAQ suggests I cannot move it but then it states, “However, there are many other factors that must be considered in the geographic relocation of a grant. ”
So it is a case by case basis? I may be moving right as the grant is issued.
January 20, 2011 @ 2:01 pm ·
I’ve looked at this a little as well. For an R15, my current understanding is that you would have to move to an eligible institution to transfer the grant. I have a feeling that they might not allow the transfer if they (NIH) thought that the proposed research couldn’t be conducted at the new institution (lack of facilities, greater distance from a clinical collaborator, etc.) Of course, you’ll need to talk to your PO…if you can actually get him/her to have a conversation with you. Good luck and please post if you find out more information.
January 20, 2011 @ 8:52 pm ·
Untenured, the thing to keep in mind is that NIH grants (except for some fellowships) belong to the Institution, not the PI. Out of professional courtesy schools usually let departing faculty take a grant with them. Although I have heard of painful “divorces” where the school kept the grant.
For your R15 if your new school does not meet the R15 eligibility requirements ($6 million or less in research grants in 4 out of the last 7 fiscal years among other things.) then NIH WILL NOT transfer the award to the new school and you cannot take it with you. It stays at the old school and gets a new PI. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/area.htm
Sorry about the bad news. But, at least you are moving to a better place it research-wise.
January 21, 2011 @ 10:54 am ·
Thanks for the info SG but this is exactly the opposite of what I have heard about grants…that is they belong to the PI, not the school. My Ph.D. advisor was in a position to move while in the midst of a grant and the school had to let him take anything that was purchased with grant money so he could complete the research. Also, the line I quoted from NIH documents about there being “many other factors” to consider make it seem more like a case by case basis. Finally, I don’t how NIH would just give the money to some else at the school as the grant would only be able to be completed by me. At the least it seems NIH would just reabsorb it.
January 21, 2011 @ 12:06 pm ·
Sorry untenured but you heard wrong about NIH R-type grants. They belong to the school not the PI. And you can’t take a grant to a school that is not otherwise eligible to apply for it.
Note that when you submit a grant it has to be signed by an Authorized Organization Representative who is not (usually) the PI.
Have a chat with your GM person. they should tell you the same thing.
“…school had to let him take anything that was purchased with grant money so he could complete the research.” Again, if it was an NIH R-type grant the school didn’t HAVE to let him. They could have kept everything and appointed a new PI. Or given the money back to NIH. I think that 95%+ of the time schools let their PIs take grants with them when they leave. But, if the Dean is an SOB…..
January 21, 2011 @ 12:15 pm ·
Also, see point 2 on this FAQ.
January 21, 2011 @ 3:50 pm ·
Finally, I don’t how NIH would just give the money to some else at the school as the grant would only be able to be completed by me.
January 21, 2011 @ 7:59 pm ·
Is your point that I am wrong that it could only be completed by me? Without giving anything away, I don’t do traditional med research (it’s actually not done in the lab at all). As it stands, there is no one in my current dept who does what I do but I guess NIH could just ask around and see who wants it (?). That seems arbitrary given the grant application process.
January 21, 2011 @ 12:20 pm ·
and even better point 7
January 23, 2011 @ 10:36 am ·
Got a priority score of 23 under the MBRS SCORE SC1 (this was an A0 application and I am an ESI) program in NHLBI study section. Also got the JIT link but program officer remains noncommittal due to the budget not being approved…SCORE grants evidently do not have percentile scores either so don’t know where I stand (council meets on 27th of January). Hoping someone can give me some insights into the process and my chances if any …
January 24, 2011 @ 11:57 am ·
That’s a good score, certainly, but if you did not get a specific JIT from your PO or GMO (versus via eRA Commons), and if your PO is noncommittal (not surprising), then there aren’t a lot of insights to offer at this point. I suspect non-RPG mechanisms will take the hardest hit (in terms of allotted budget) if the NIH appropriation drops significantly, so that is probably why it is especially hard with a K23 to project where things might stand until March.
January 24, 2011 @ 11:41 pm ·
Thanks for the response, writedit. Pardon my ignorance, but I am unclear about your comment wrt K23 (what is that, did you mean the score??). Also, do you know what the paylines have been for SCORE grants? ….cannot seem to find any information related to them…
January 25, 2011 @ 1:36 pm ·
No, you need to pardon my crossed neurons … many apologies – I’m helping someone here sort out a K23 and the wrong synapse fired in typing my response. As I said before, your score for an SC1 is good, and I cannot imagine it being outside the usual payline, though I have no knowledge of what this might be (I am going on the trend that these special programs generally having more relaxed paylines). However, whether programs like SCORE will be trimmed down further (in terms of budget levels and hence paylines) to spare R01s (i.e., put as much of the IC budget to funding R01s at the expense of other mechanisms) is an issue that probably won’t be resolved until the NIH sees how much $ it will get from Congress later this spring. Perhaps we’ll get a clue tonight. I suspect the Jan Council meeting will set a series of if-then decision trees for prioritizing awards that are not obviously immediately payable (based on exceptional impact score/percentile).
June 4, 2011 @ 8:55 am ·
Got some great news! My PO informed me yesterday that my SC1 grant was selected for funding. My eRA status shows “Pending Administrative Review” which I guess is for grants that are going to be paid. Exciting!! Thank you so much everyone, and especially writedit for the guidance. This is by far the most resourceful site I have ever accessed, and has offered me enormous support. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you!!
PS. Fingerscrossed2, I feel that you might also be funded, as your priority score is obviously higher (mine is 23, you 18) and that my grant was also transferred to the NHLBI and assigned new codes. I would encourage you to contact your PO, and keep a tab on your eRA page. My PO told me that she was assigned to my grant only on Tuesday of this week, so things are moving along and you should know sometime soon, if you already have not.. I wish you the best!!
June 4, 2011 @ 9:00 am ·
Congratulations and best wishes for success with your research! And thank you for sharing your experiences – you all make the Website so valuable through your contributions and support of each other!
June 6, 2011 @ 10:30 am ·
I got the award notice just before the long weekend, and my funding started 6/1. Now my eRA shows Application Awarded. Things did move really fast. It is exciting. Looks like they are awarding one SC1 a week 😉
You’re right: after transfer to NHLBI, my PO also didn’t know it was coming till recently.
Thanks to everyone for sharing their experience. This site has indeed been very helpful.
June 6, 2011 @ 10:34 am ·
Great news – and it must feel great to have the NoA in hand finally! (and so quickly, after such a protracted wait) Thanks for sharing your experience here!
January 31, 2011 @ 12:08 pm ·
Thank you so much for your response. They had the council meeting last week. How long should I wait before getting in touch with my PO? Do they typically email us the desicion if we are funded? How soon after the meeting?
February 17, 2011 @ 12:29 am ·
fingerscrossed– I am in a similar situation. I got an 18 (A1 to NIGMS — does A0/A1 matter?). I am waiting to hear back from my PO after the Jan Council Review meeting. I did not want to bother him since everything seems to be in a limbo.
Did you hear back from your PO?
April 13, 2011 @ 1:31 pm ·
Sorry fingerscrossed2..I did not see your response earlier…well for what its worth, I have not heard anything from my PO and he remains non-committal as usual. Tells me that until the budget is finalized there is no saying what will be funded and what will not. I guess we will know more next week when (hopefully) the budget is passed by congress…
Do you have an idea of what kind of scores typically make the payline? …and whether the funding is through nigms or through the specific agencies (mine was assigned to nhlbi)..
April 14, 2011 @ 9:44 pm ·
I don’t know about the paylines for SC1 though my PO has been very positive since the grant was scored in Dec. About 3 weeks ago, he said the NIH is not making any new SC* awards till the budget is known. I saw on RePORTER that a couple of SC1s have been awarded in Jan/Feb 2011, but I do not know what that means.
I suppose we just got to keep our fingers crossed. Please post if you hear back.
April 18, 2011 @ 9:50 am ·
I think the SC monies that are being disbursed are for the ones that were already submitted and approved in previous cycles. I did not see any new awards made specifically in this cycle. I guess that is what the PO means when he says no awards are being given until the budget is finalized. And that is another thing that confuses me…I dont understand the reason for NIGMS to hold out so long where almost all other institutions like the NCI and NIAID have already set paylines as early as February….
Keep me posted if you hear anything….good luck!!
May 17, 2011 @ 12:57 pm ·
Spoke with my PO yesterday, and he informed me that they just started to award the SCORE grants this week. So we should hear something soon. Also, he told me to be optimistic with my priority score of 23, although he remained non-committal. With your score of 18, I dont see why you would not get funded, fingerscrossed2. Let me know if you have any updates…Good Luck!
May 30, 2011 @ 1:39 pm ·
Interesting…I got transferred to NHLBI too…don’t know if this is good news or bad…
January 31, 2011 @ 8:22 pm ·
I just received an impact score of 23 / 16% for NIBIB R21. Does anyone know if this has any chance of funding?
January 31, 2011 @ 8:31 pm ·
Do you mind sharing the name of the study panel that reviewed your application?
January 31, 2011 @ 11:59 pm ·
It was the EBIT study group
January 31, 2011 @ 9:25 pm ·
Well, you inspired me to check for updated paylines, which NIBIB has posted … unfortunately, the current payline for R21s (and R01s) is the 11th percentile.
February 1, 2011 @ 11:17 pm ·
F32 impact score 21 for last cycle (December). Seems pretty good, but what do you all think are my chances??
February 1, 2011 @ 11:31 pm ·
21 is pretty good indeed … which IC? We’ll know more about your chances in a month or two (or whenever the FY11 appropriation finally shakes out).
February 3, 2011 @ 10:14 pm ·
February 4, 2011 @ 1:06 am ·
Well, I’ll take a 4% cut … not as severe as it could have been. But NSF losing 16% … double ouch.
February 1, 2011 @ 11:47 pm ·
NIDDK. Maybe the PO will have some info about this.
February 1, 2011 @ 11:51 pm ·
Maybe … if so inclined, he/she can at least give you an idea of where you sit in the pile (in terms of ranking). Then it’s a matter of how much money will be available for F32s once all the shoutin’s done.
February 9, 2011 @ 6:50 pm ·
Waht are the chances for getting funding for a RO1 application at 8th percentile score in NCI for 2011
February 10, 2011 @ 9:53 am ·
Very good. Harold set the hard payline for established investigators at the 7th percentile but will discuss applications scoring up to the 15th percentile for funding, so be sure to be in touch with your PO about advocating for your application. And if you are new/ESI, then you are all set, as they plan to fund up to the 10th percentile in that category.
February 10, 2011 @ 11:30 am ·
Dear all, could any one tell me when the R15 score will be put online? The review section had the meeting on Feb7, 2011. So far I did not see anything changing with my eCom. It is still pending on reviewing.
February 10, 2011 @ 12:02 pm ·
This is a little late, but not unreasonable. The SRO is probably just swamped and should have something up in the next day or two.
Dipen Parekh said
February 10, 2011 @ 3:42 pm ·
I am an early and a new investigator . In the NCI, my RO1 has been scored at the 10th percentile. What are the chances of this getting funded.
Thanks in advance
February 10, 2011 @ 4:51 pm ·
According to the NCI funding policy ():
For new investigators, both “early stage” and more senior, funding to the 10th percentile will be virtually assured, with discussion of all applications through the 25th percentile to identify additional selections.
So, it seems you are “virtually” assured funding, which your PO can confirm. Congratulations!
th percentile will be virtually assured, with discussion of all applications through the 25th percentile to identify additional selections.
So, it seems you are “virtually” assured funding, which your PO can confirm. Congratulations!
So, it seems you are “virtually” assured funding, which your PO can confirm. Congratulations!
February 10, 2011 @ 5:14 pm ·
thanks a lot. Much appreciated
February 10, 2011 @ 6:45 pm ·
My R21 (EBRG) was scored at the 13 percentile and the status showed “council review completed”. When I contacted PO, she said NCI is currently paying R21 up to 7%. But it may change when and if NCI gets a budget. Could you give me an advice if I need to resubmit or wait until March??
February 11, 2011 @ 12:05 am ·
Well, the earliest you could resubmit is March, of course. The 7th percentile is the hard percentile, with applications in the 8-15th percentile reviewed for funding decisions, at least for R01s. You can ask your PO if the same holds true for R21s. If so, you want her to be your advocate at discussion time, so any new data, publications, etc. you can tell her about might be useful for her making the case for your application. But – please check with her first. And certainly resubmitting does not hurt anything (the A0 score remains in effect and under consideration, even after the A1 is scored, even if the A1 scores worse), but only you know whether you now have a stronger application to submit. Good luck.
Balaji Panchapakesan said
February 11, 2011 @ 8:55 pm ·
I just got my R15 score. It was scored 20. Do i have a shot at funding.
February 12, 2011 @ 12:11 am ·
What is the IC? This seems like a score within funding range, but your PO will be able to give you the best idea of how your score ranks.
Balaji Panchapakesan said
February 12, 2011 @ 11:27 am ·
Hi Thanks for the reply. What is IC. I just got my priority/impact score and it was 20 in Cancer Biomarker Study Section. I was doing some research and it looks like its within the funding.
February 14, 2011 @ 10:09 am ·
Does anyone know if a score of 21 on an R15 at the NICHD is within funding range for that IC?
February 15, 2011 @ 8:57 am ·
If a priority score is the same as the payline does that mean you can expect funding? For example, if the payline is at 26 and you receive a score of 26. Or do you have to be below the payline?
February 15, 2011 @ 9:04 am ·
Yes, the payline is up through the score or percentile listed (i.e., that # and below).
February 15, 2011 @ 9:25 am ·
Thanks. My resubmitted R15 score came out yesterday and I tied the payline. I realize that the payline could go down still as they are only interim but I am hopeful. Does it do any good at this point to talk to my PO?
February 15, 2011 @ 9:35 am ·
You might wait for your summary statement, in case there is anything in there you want to mention to the PO. I suspect paylines will not go down, though, so you should be in good shape. Congratulations on a good score and best wishes for success with this research.
February 15, 2011 @ 4:08 pm ·
Just got impact score for my K23 resubmission reviewed last week- 20. Since this appears to be clearly within payline for NHLBI of 30, will I still have to wait for council review (not scheduled until May) before I hear anything about JIT or NoA? The reason is my academic appointment for start of July needs to be re-negotiated, so I’m wondering how best to time my discussions with both the NIH and my own department.
February 15, 2011 @ 4:57 pm ·
Nothing definite will be decided before Council … and even then not immediately after, though perhaps soon after by early summer. If you need to negotiate before, say, June, you may be able to get a statement from your PO indicating your score is within payline and likely (though no guarantees) to receive an award, depending on the final outcome of the FY11 CR. If not, you have the stated NHLBI payline & grant policy on your side. Those on the other side of the negotiating table should understand this dance and what your score means. Your mentor should have an idea how your school/department handles these inevitable situations and what happens if you don’t get a NoA until after July 1 (a likely scenario).
I’m not sure what you mean by discussions with the NIH … you cannot negotiate more money, even if you get a bump in salary with your academic appointment, and should be prepared to accept less than what you requested, depending on which version of the budget cut passes.
February 16, 2011 @ 2:14 pm ·
Thanks writedit for your helpful comments. Really I’m trying to gauge when is best timing to contact PO (before or after council meets) re: when I might expect a JIT or NoA. Learning the NIH dance has been a learning curve.
February 16, 2011 @ 2:51 pm ·
You can contact the PO any time for an update on your award timing (and confirmation you will remain within payline), certainly before Council meets, though you might as well wait until after March 4 for now (when CR situation will either be resolved for the year or continued on for a few more weeks). You won’t get an NoA until after Council meets, and the timing of the JIT depends on the IC preference for handling things … sometimes before, sometimes after. The JIT does not guarantee an award, though, so it won’t be a substitute in terms of job negotiations.
February 16, 2011 @ 5:29 pm ·
Dear writedit, can you share with us what makes you suspect that paylines will not go down?
February 16, 2011 @ 7:04 pm ·
Well, right now the Republicans have the NIH slated to lose $1.6B (~4% cut from FY10). I do not think that would get worse with negotiations and could get a bit better. The main priority will be to protect the number of R01s awarded (meaning payline, for those ICs that set an offiical payline). With a 4% cut, ICs could make up the difference by cutting both noncompeting and competing award budgets (see SaG comment, https://writedit.wordpress.com/nih-paylines-resources/#comment-10233) … not fun to try to do the science with that much less money, but better than no award at all, particularly for career advancement. Some mechanisms might be cut back in terms of the number of awards, or perhaps no new awards made for the FY (esp big budget projects, training grants), but R01s will certainly be protected, and I assume the ICs that set other paylines will do their best to protect those as well, perhaps with deeper cuts to individual grant budgets as needed.
February 16, 2011 @ 7:26 pm ·
Thank you very much writedit for your insightful and encouraging comments. My RO1 was reviewed back in October and received a percentile score within the NIA interim payline for established PIs (9%). As you said, I will gladly take a budget cut if I get the award.
February 17, 2011 @ 10:01 am ·
The issue for some grants like R15s is that the budget is set at 300K so the only mechanism I see for reducing those is to reduce the number awarded (which likely means reducing interim paylines). Thoughts?
February 17, 2011 @ 11:19 am ·
That is simply the upper limit you can request. No reason the NIH can’t fund you and everyone else for less.
February 17, 2011 @ 11:58 am ·
NIH reducing awards below that which the PI proposed is absolutely routine. In my career it has been maybe 70-80% of the time that reductions were the expected value.
February 16, 2011 @ 10:09 pm ·
Thanks Writedit for this very informative site. I am an ESI with an 18th percentile R01 (A1) from October review with NHLBI and semi-nervously awaiting the turn of events with the Budget. I am kind of reassured that FY2011 is likely going to be a CR for the rest of the year, and that NHLBI at least for now has kept FY2010 levels for this year too for the R01s. Keep up the good work.
February 17, 2011 @ 3:09 pm ·
AnotherESI- Did you get a JIT from NHLBI yet? I heard everything is running late at the NHLBI.
February 17, 2011 @ 3:35 pm ·
I did not yet – I talked with my PO a couple of days after the statements and he gave the usual line of depends on how much money, paylines etc, but hinted that things should be OK. a friend of mine ( different study section and PO but assigned to NHLBI) with a 19th pc was send a JIT a couple of weeks following the summary statement, but with usual disclaimers that JIT does not mean anything etc. As writedit and others have commented, I dont think the timing of the JIT means much and since my start date is only after end of the current CR, it might not be for a few weeks before they send it out. What did your PO tell you ?
February 17, 2011 @ 4:12 pm ·
AnotherESI- Thanks for the message. I was discussing with others in this blog on the other end of this portal (on payline and resources section, please see dates Feb 10 to Feb 12). My percentile is 15 on my A1 submission from VCMB study section. Me too is an ESI. I talked to my PO several times since I got the summary statement until one day before the council met. She said, JIT is done by the GMS and she has no control over it. But she did tell me that there are no concerns. Then I called the GMS listed on my application two times. The first time I called her, she said she has not sent any JIT requests to anyone yet, since they still do not have the pay plan. But, she asked me to upload them if I have them ready and we submitted them last Friday. I called GMS a second time on this Monday (one day before the council), and she said, once they get the pay plan ready and if I qualify for the award, she may sent out NoA straight away if all the JIT documents that I submitted are OK.
Similar is the case with others such as ‘Jane’, who has a 13 percentile on her A0 from a different study section, but still waiting for JIT. Since many has not received JIT request yet from NHLBI, we all can hope that we are in the right track to obtain our funding. GMS said it will take two weeks from the council date to hear on anything from them. I will keep you posted if I hear anything from NHLBI. Good luck with yours!
February 17, 2011 @ 4:34 pm ·
HI SS, I have now attempted to reach my GMS – I know it probably is of not much help to move things along, but I thought I would just touch base – emailed and left a message. My start date is 4/1/2011, when is yours ? NHLBI continues to be confidently display the 2011 paylines on the website ( which I am well within), I am just hoping that they will stick to it. I did not want to call and bug my PO – what is he going to say other than the usual “we cant fund even 1st percentile if congress does not give the money…”
February 17, 2011 @ 4:44 pm ·
I would be surprised if your GMS replies to youe email. They usually never respond to emails or voice messages. I had to call 12 times last Monday for her to pick up her phone. But, once gets connected, they are very nice (at least mine) and discuss things in detail, which some times even PO’s do not discuss. Since you have never contcted your GMS, it is worth talking to him/her directly. My start date was accidentally given as 12/1/2010. But in fact, it should be 4/1/2011 as yours.
February 17, 2011 @ 6:40 pm ·
He actually wrote back and said to expect my JIT request tomorrow. I hope that things are going to fall to place.
February 17, 2011 @ 4:14 pm ·
Writedit and others, thank you very much for your insightful comments.
I am a new investigator and got 13 percentile for R01 at NIGMS. Do I have a good opportunity to be funded? I talked to the PO and was told it could go down to 17 percentile. But, without the detailed budget, nothing is assured…
February 17, 2011 @ 11:14 pm ·
A 13th percentile is great for a new invesigator! At NIGMS, they do not set percentile-based paylines. Jeremy Berg explained the process by which applications are recommended for funding on the NIGMS Feedback Loop (https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2011/01/28/the-funding-decision-process/). You will want to be in touch with your PO about any new publications, presentations, important data, etc. as well as how your research fills a gap in the research portfolio/addresses a specific NIGMS research priority that might help your PO make the case for your application. Yes, we still need to see what happens with the CR, but in the meantime, NIGMS will be making a list, and checking it twice …
February 19, 2011 @ 12:59 pm ·
Writedit, thank you very much for your suggestion.
February 17, 2011 @ 9:26 pm ·
AnotherESI- That’s a good news! Probably JIT timings depends on GMS. Good luck..
February 18, 2011 @ 1:49 pm ·
To who can help… I received an 8th percentile on an R01. It was slated to be funded through the NCI, but their payline now is 6-7th percentile. My PO said they sifted through, and put mine forward for ‘Exception Funding’. My questions are: (1) where does it go for final review?; (2) what are the chances of it being funded through this mechanism?; (3) Since the PO picked my grant out, does that mean he is strongly in favor of it, and would it help to continue contacting the PO if I find more information that they may not know about to make a case for my grant being funded? I’ve never seen a grant in the 8th percentile not be funded, but with new congress, this is the case now I guess.
February 18, 2011 @ 2:02 pm ·
Yes, your PO is clearly behind your application, and this sounds like good news since your application made it past the first cut of internal discussions to decide which applications in the 7-15th percentile range should be recommended for funding (I am assuming you are an established investigator). A friend here just had his 25th percentile application (new investigator) selected for funding by exception (at NCI – his award starts March 1), so the process works if the research is of high priority and fills a gap in the portfolio and comes from a PI the PO really wants to see funded. Each of the NCI Divisions will discuss the applications put forward for pay by exception and make final recommendations to Harold Varmus, who makes the final decisions. Be sure to thank your PO for helping moving your application forward … and if there are any updates that strengthen your case (e.g., a manuscript recently submitted/accepted), you might let him know.
February 18, 2011 @ 3:13 pm ·
Thanks for the insight! I have thanked him during conversation and in an email that followed. Thanks again.
February 18, 2011 @ 2:47 pm ·
Has anyone heard anything about NIGMS and K awards? As with everyone else I am anxiously awaiting. I scored a 24 (on a K23) which in the past would be good enough for funding, (my PO said the same) however this year…I just don’t know. Any insight would be helpful, if for nothing than to give me something to do besides wait and wait and wait….
February 19, 2011 @ 3:07 pm ·
Were you not productive enough during your previous funding period? Do you have specific reasons? NIH is ready to listen to your problems. Please read the nature link below:
Also, beginning with applications submitted for the May 25, 2011 and subsequent receipt dates, the biosketch instructions will include a modification of the personal statement section to remind applicants that they can provide a description of personal issues that may have reduced productivity. The revised instructions for the personal statement are shown below and should appear in applications toward the end of March:
Personal statement: Briefly describe why your experience and qualifications make you particularly well-suited for your role (e.g., PD/PI, mentor) in the project that is the subject of the application. Within this section you may, if you choose, briefly describe factors such as family care responsibilities, illness, disability, and active duty military service that may have affected your scientific advancement or productivity.
Providing information about personal issues is optional. If applicants wish to provide such information they are encouraged to limit such descriptions to a few sentences.
February 19, 2011 @ 3:09 pm ·
Oops.. I forgot to insert the link:
February 20, 2011 @ 9:59 pm ·
I wanted to let you know that NIBIB has started to act on collecting JIT information related to the January council. I have an R03 pending with them (I have many grants of various flavors pending at NIBIB and NHLBI) and didn’t hear anything about a JIT request after the study section met in the fall, so I uploaded the information anyway when I got a promising score (20). I never did get that formal JIT request, but I was contacted to ask for a copy of my institutions’ latest signed F and A contract agreement. And this grant on Commons now shows “Pending.” If any of you are waiting for action from January NIBIB council, hopefully news will be coming soon! Good luck all!
February 23, 2011 @ 10:45 pm ·
Jane- Do you see similar changes on your NHLBI R01 after the council meeting? Mine still shows “council review pending”, and no JIT request yet. I emailed my PO to check on this, and she emailed me back that my grant is in the funding range and GMS should soon contact me for the JIT. Good news is NHLBI is committed to maintain the same payline forward for the rest of the year. See this link with the summary details on the Feb 15 NHLBAC meeting:
February 23, 2011 @ 10:59 pm ·
SS – nothing on the NHLBI front for me either as far as what shows up in Commons. I still have “council review pending.” I’ll email my PO. Thanks for the summary details about the Feb council! Hopefully we will get JITs soon.
February 26, 2011 @ 9:18 am ·
Jane & AnotherESI- Yesterday, my R01 application (NHLBI) reviewed on Feb 15 was updated to “Council Review Completed”. No other info is provided on the commons. No JIT request either.
Do you guys see any such updates on your applications?
February 26, 2011 @ 10:40 am ·
yes, I have the same thing showing up as of this morning, but no other activity!
March 7, 2011 @ 4:43 pm ·
Yes, same here Council Review Completed. – the JIT request was uploaded and my requested start is the 1st of April. The JIT request had the usual disclaimer about it not meaning that funding has been approved, but that NHLBAC has recommded it. The counicl minutes however reiterates that NHLBI is trying hard to keep up the paylines from the website ( ESI 26). Semi nervously waiting.
February 22, 2011 @ 3:15 pm ·
I am an established investigator with a 9th percentile RO1 at NCI, scored last June and still on the bubble. PO at first (Nov-Dec) said funding was likely, but then reported that the grant was not among the 8-15th p’tile grants forwarded to Varmus, and suggested re-submission. Hate to take risk re-submitting a grant with negligible weaknesses. Does anyone think 9% grants will be superseded as new rounds of grants come in? Is there any indication NCI will make public its final results re: funding at each priority score level (a la NIGMS)? The shift of power away from peer review is disturbing in any case.
February 22, 2011 @ 3:55 pm ·
I would say if your application was not selected for recommendation to Varmus that you should resubmit. There will be a new pile of 8-15th percentile applications for program to sift through for Harold’s blessing, and yours will likely not be reconsidered, especially if your PO is suggesting that you resubmit. If you are well-funded already, that might have gone into the decision not to push for this 9th percentile application.
February 22, 2011 @ 6:42 pm ·
How do you know this is “a shift of power away from peer review”?
1) There have always been exceptions
2) The NIGMS data (only sets available) show that even exceptions have some relationship to review order, i.e., they are decreasingly likely the farther you get away from the hard payline
February 22, 2011 @ 7:04 pm ·
Priority scores (limited discriminatory power notwithstanding) represent the best effort of a peer review panel towards ranking proposals on technical merit. More grants funded by exception (i.e., via NIH staff intervention) equals reduced influence for study sections and increased influence for staff over the composition of the NIH portfolio. It is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon, merely a shift in degree of control.
February 23, 2011 @ 12:43 pm ·
Yes but how do you know that there is an increase in the proportion of exceptions? As I noted there have *always* been exceptions and NIGMS is the only IC to actually fess up to the number of exceptions/skips. If an IC now makes this process of “hard payline + grey zone” public in the way Varmus did, your comment only holds water if we have a prior definitive statement* that that particular IC *did not* do this in the past. The fact that the hard payline is 7% rather than 15% or 20% (pick whatever historical number you like) does not mean the relative balance of power has shifted away from the study section.
*rumors of line POs claiming that their IC sticks hard to the payline and never funds exceptions are interesting but fall far, far short of being convincing, given the motivations of POs to de-fang PI whinging at all turns.
February 23, 2011 @ 1:41 pm ·
Varmus wants to fund approx. same number of grants in FY11 as done in the previous year (i.e. 1250 new grants). Now that the hard payline has dropped from 15 to 7, the only way to fund 1250 grants is to increase the number of grants under ‘grey zone’. The trouble some of us are having in grasping is…now the hard payline area and the grey zone area are almost same, which was never the case in NCI history.
February 23, 2011 @ 2:23 pm ·
Several ICs do not use hard paylines for most or all of their awards (e.g., NIGMS, NIMH, NEI, NCRR, et al.) … some only come up with paylines after all the awards have been made (so, what we paid at rather than what we will pay at). Impact scores and percentiles are means by which study sections convey the scientific merit of an application to the ICs. What program does with these scores and percentiles is up to the IC Director (as Harold has clearly demonstrated), not the SRGs.
At least you know your 9th percentile got tossed into a pile of 8-15th percentile applciations that were discussed for funding consideration per NCI policy. At NIAID, which has its hard payline (interim) at the 8th percentile, your 9th percentile would be out of luck (except, possibly, as a potential candidate for select pay).
February 23, 2011 @ 10:42 am ·
Just curious to know… is your lab well funded? (i.e. around 750K / year in direct costs). A grant at 9%tile not being funded is shocking! I’m thinking that science is not the reason for turning down your grant. Hope you can shed some light on this so we all can know how the new NCI award mechanism is working.
February 23, 2011 @ 12:47 pm ·
I am in the same situation as EMBG, with a NCI R21 (response to a PA) at 9% last June, not funded. I now have to resubmit. My lab is not well funded (one RO1).
And I agree with EMBG: I am extremely confused by the fact that the peer review system does not mean much anymore when (i) the hard payline is around 7%; and (ii) the criteria for funding grants above this payline are not clearly presented. I wonder whether study section members will continue to put that much effort in reviewing, when their expert opinion becomes…well, just an opinion.
February 23, 2011 @ 1:11 pm ·
My lab is not heavily funded at present. This is definitely a change in how NCI decides what to fund. In FY10, NCI funded RO1s to the 15th (I believe) and then funded some exceptions, as usual. In the Town Hall Meeting in January, the NCI Director said they will not be “robotically responsive” to priority scores. Division Directors were asked to selected a fraction of the grants in the 8-15th range to be brought forward. Division Directors vary in their ability to argue for certain grants, and in any event, are likely to choose things that they think the Director is more likely to approve. I also sit on a study section and can tell you that this was not welcome news, and that CSR staff were uninformed about the new policy.
February 26, 2011 @ 11:41 am ·
My status changed last night to “Award Prepared: refer any questions to GM specialist”.
Naive question, but is this now a done deal?
Thanks for any advice and for all the helpful posts on here.
February 26, 2011 @ 11:43 am ·
February 26, 2011 @ 1:41 pm ·
Here is a link to the two week CR with a 4 billion dollar cuts:
This is similar to the cuts democrats were seeking for. It looks like this short-term CR will get approved by the senate and signed by the President.
I do not see any cuts proposed to NIH in the short-term CR. Let’s hope the same with the rest of the year 2011.
NCI or Bust said
March 2, 2011 @ 3:24 pm ·
The whole NCI situation is unclear to me. My RO1 A1 was reviewed in October and it received a 13 %. I am a ESI/new investigator with whose DOD grant ended recently, so I have no other grant support at the moment. My program officer wrote me in late October saying that I was very likely to be funded and congratulated me. Two months later she again contacted me and wrote that with the uncertainty at NCI that she had to retract her earlier statement. I received a JIT link via the website but not anything by email . I then talked to my PO by phone in January and she requested a one page rebuttal to my critiques which I sent along with my JIT. Council met Feb 7-9 but I have received no indication from PO of results. My questions basically are . . .
1. Does council make any specific funding recommendations or are all the decisions in the hands of the PO?
2. Is anyone hearing of ESI stage investigators getting funded whose grants were discussed at the October review / February council at NCI. If so, is anyone getting funded over 10 %?
3. I am hearing of people getting award notices for new RO1s 4-5 months after their grant was discussed at council. Is this now common?
4. Finally, how are the continuing resolutions, now through March 18, affecting NCI funding decisions, are they funding with the fractional monies they are getting or just waiting to see a complete budget?
I talk to my chairman and others in department who have 2-3 NCI RO1s and they seem just as confused about what is happening right now as I am. This whole thing is making it incredibly difficult to plan going forward, I can’t tell students whether they can join the lab, I can’t tell collaborators whether we can move forward, and I am starting to find it hard to look at my tech in the eyes . . .
March 2, 2011 @ 7:09 pm ·
You can see grants that have been issued in the last 90 days here: http://report.nih.gov/budget_and_spending/index.aspx (click on link to Excel file at the top of the list).
Funding decisions are ultimately made by Harold Varmus (Director). Council has to approve applications to be considered for funding, but Harold doesn’t have to fund them all.
The delays are indeed caused by the uncertain budget situation … especially uncertain this year with the threat of significant cuts (versus just no increase) looming. ICs want to be sure they don’t fund the usual number of awards in the earlier cycles and then discover they won’t have enough money to fund later submissions … so they’re being even more conservative than usual. Of course, if the government shuts down, everything grant-related at the NIH comes to a halt (submissions, reviews, funding decisions, award processing, etc.).
NCI is paying R01s below the 7th percentile for established PIs and below the 10th percentile for ESI/new investigators. Program staff then discuss all the applications that scored within the 8-15th percentile for established and with the 11-25th percentile for new/ESI investigators. Your PO needs to talk up your grant in her division so it is advanced further up the chain for funding consideration. A colleague here (new but not ESI) just had his 25th percentile A1 (submitted last March) funded by exception … the NoA was for March 1 (2011). Everything happened quickly once he was approved for funding by exception.
So, it’s not so much whether your percentile is in the gray zone – which is huge – it’s a matter of someone advocating for your application to be selected for funding out of a very large pile. That is why your PO asked for the one-page rebuttal. It could be they are still discussing the Cycle 2 submissions, so you could contact the PO to reinforce your loss of funding (how you can’t look your tech in the eyes is good), your excellent review, any new data or publications you might be able to talk up, etc.
Good luck with everything.
March 2, 2011 @ 9:34 pm ·
Dear NCI or Bust. I’m in the same situation… had PO saying 8th percentile very good score and looking good for funding in Nov, 2010. New congress got in, and everything went downhill. I’ve hired a new postdoc, etc. based on the fact that an 8th percentile has always been funded… would be one of the first 8th percentile in NCI history to not be funded (my grant was a multiple PI, but I’m contact PI, and the other is a PI with an R01, so we are not under new investigator status). So, treading new water, and hoping that the Senate can hold back the cuts that the House has proposed. All of us within this range are on pins and neadles. I think my postdoc will have to take an unpaid leave of absence if this CR keeps on getting punted…
March 8, 2011 @ 2:10 pm ·
I had a R01 application unscored by a study section. After getting the Summary Statement, I found out that the primary reviewer actually likes my grant and gave it good scores. What’s weird is that the negative comments from Reviewer 2 have nothing to do with my application! The SRO admitted that it is a mistake, and offered to re-review my grant in a special panel. Is this the best option that I can have? Thanks.
March 8, 2011 @ 6:34 pm ·
Assuming that the re-review is of your A0 then yes! This must be embarrassing for that SRO.
NCI or Bust said
March 8, 2011 @ 7:11 pm ·
This is odd that it wasn’t noticed by the review panel.
March 8, 2011 @ 9:37 pm ·
It wasn’t discussed. But, the other reviewers should have noticed, if they took the time. Or the SRO.
March 9, 2011 @ 8:01 am ·
Does anyone have information on paylines for R18 at AHRQ?
March 18, 2011 @ 11:11 am ·
I am a little confused about the grant referral process. Hope somebody here could help. My new R01 grant was submitted last month and assigned to the study section I requested. But yesterday after one month of this grant assignment, I received an email from the SRO of a new study section, saying that my grant has been transferred to her study section. I am not sure who made the change request. Was it the SRO from the previous study section, or the new SRO, or the referral officer? Thanks!
March 18, 2011 @ 1:50 pm ·
You can contact both SROs to ask what happened … and you can to ask to be switched back, if the SRG you requested is where you’ll get the best review. Sometimes SROs swap compatible applications when one group is overloaded with applications. Maybe in looking for the right expertise to review your application, the original SRO found good reviewers in a different SRG. Once you know why the application was moved, you can decide whether to ask that it be moved back.
March 18, 2011 @ 11:06 pm ·
Thanks, writedit. As you suggested, I contacted my new SRO today and got a surprisingly prompt email reply. She said this reflected a new policy change and a whole bunch of grants in similar scope to mine were transferred together from my original study section to the new one. These grants used to be reviewed by the original study section. I guess they are probably trying to do some reorg work by redefining the scopes of some of the study sections.
March 18, 2011 @ 11:19 pm ·
Great – I’m glad you got a reassuring reply promptly. Showing that you are paying attention may work in your favor at some point, too. Good luck with the review!
K99 applicant said
March 25, 2011 @ 2:01 pm ·
Submitted my K99 to NICHD in Oct 2010. The grant is pending council review. Received a priority score of 40 but haven’t gotten my critique yet. Reading the above post I don’t feel too hopeful of getting funded. But I also read that K99 scores are treated differently than the rest; also heard that NICHD awards K99s more than any body else. Since NICHD does not publish it’s paylines I am left wondering. Does anyone have a clue as to what 40 means for a NICHD K99?.
Previously before submission had discussed it with health scientist administrator at NICHD regarding the suitability of the proposal and got good response. That person also happens to be the PO. Will it help to contact her to get a idea on fundability? I think the main issue with my proposal is the lack of publications on the subject (as I changed fieldsfrom graduate studies).
March 25, 2011 @ 2:11 pm ·
Yes, you should contact the PO to get an idea of your ranking among all the NICHD K99 scored applications, I expect you will not be in the funding range with a score of 40, though. I would suggest waiting until you have your summary statement before contacting the PO, so you can also discuss critiques that can be readily addressed as well as resubmission strategies (if need be).
March 25, 2011 @ 2:34 pm ·
Submitted an A1 revision of my first R01 (I’m a ESI) last Feb. It received an impact score of 30 (14th percentile). Grant went to NIAMS. PO says it might have a chance if NIH cuts are not too bad once they have their final appropriations. I realize that we are all in somewhat new territory, but does anyone have a feel for my chances??? Any information would be greatly appreciated!
-Stressed out new PI
March 25, 2011 @ 2:54 pm ·
Well, with the interim sitting at the 12th percentile for ESI, hopefully your PO is correct that the payline might move up. You should get other applications in the pipeline, though, if you haven’t already.
Sean Evans said
March 30, 2011 @ 11:27 pm ·
i applied for an f31 in january and received a score of 22 today. i know this is a good score, but not sure whether it is good enough for funding. any ideas of whether i will be funded?
the walrus is paul said
March 31, 2011 @ 1:39 pm ·
for what it’s worth….your IC has funded FY2011 F31s as high as 26 so far this year….
March 31, 2011 @ 3:31 pm ·
Anybody seen anything for NCI RO3 scores?
March 31, 2011 @ 5:10 pm ·
Over at NIH Paylines & Resources, Arlena posted this helpful NCI update:
In case it helps anyone out there, I heard from my PO that the NCI’s “confirm the recommended paylist” meeting is supposed to be April 7th. It was going to be March 22nd, but it got postponed.
April 7, 2011 @ 1:08 pm ·
Can anyone tell me what the possible government shutdown means for those still waiting to hear about funding? I resubmitted an F32 to the NIDDK last August, priority score was 24, told I’m now “on the bubble” in regards to funding. I’ve totally run out of support but have been granted a short extension until the end of April. I’m getting really anxious to say the least about the possibility of having to look for another job/career if this doesn’t come through soon. Realistically, what is the time frame to hear about funding and then actually getting a start date?
April 7, 2011 @ 2:05 pm ·
No extramural business will be done during a shut-down, and subsequent delays would depend on the length of any work stoppage. On the other hand, one assumes when work resumed, the legislative and executive branches would have agreed on final appropriation levels for FY11 (which would then allow ICs to move ahead with funding decisions) … but who knows.
If you look over at the comments on NIH Paylines & Resources, there are many posts about delayed consideration of F (and other) mechanisms at NCI and other ICs (see https://writedit.wordpress.com/nih-paylines-resources/#comment-11432, for example)
the walrus is Paul said
April 7, 2011 @ 3:37 pm ·
Just as an FYI… after the week of April 11-15, Congress goes on a 2-week Easter recess. Don’t know if they will have the cojones to proceed with that if the govt is in shutdown mode, but…. remember this IS Congress. So, in other words, if there is no resolution within that first week, we will be looking at a rather extended break in the action.
April 10, 2011 @ 6:43 pm ·
Hi. How can I transfer priority scores to percentiles?
April 10, 2011 @ 6:49 pm ·
There is no conversion you can do – the SROs calculate percentiles for appropriate mechanisms. Not all grant types are percentiled, nor are all R01s (e.g., those submitted in response to RFAs). You can learn more about the difference between percentiles and impact scores (and paylines) here:http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/cycle/pages/part10.aspx#c1
April 11, 2011 @ 11:02 am ·
A couple questions for someone new to NIH review. Has anyone suspected, or knew for sure, that someone on study section took your idea? Is this uncommon or does it happen from time to time. Second question. Is it possible to request a reviewer to be excluded once you see who is on your study section 30 days before review?
the walrus is Paul said
April 11, 2011 @ 12:45 pm ·
I’m not even going to address the first one…that’s tinfoil-hat paranoia.
As for the second, the way to exclude a reviewer from you application is to list in you submission cover letter those people who are in such major conflict to the extent of being unable to give an unbiased critique. Unless one has spent his/her career alienating people, this list should be quite short. You must be able to adequately justify to your SRO (if asked) your reasons for declaring people to be in conflict. Be aware that if you are in a very specialized area, and you consider too many people to be in conflict, you are likely to have your application reviewed by people with less knowledge of the area, to you detriment.
People who are in conflict with you may be on the review panel, but not assigned to your application, so don’t automatically panic if there is someone you listed in your letter who still shows up on the roster…but do verify with the SRO that your conflict was taken into account in the assignments.
At the 30 day mark, it is likely that all assignments have been made, some reviewers have begun working on their critiques, and it will be extrememly difficult to replace someone or add someone to the panel. If you see a name that you inadvertently left off you cover letter conflicts list, you can notify the SRO (remember, you must be able to justify the conflict claim); reviewers are also required to notify the SRO of potential conflicts, so it is lkiely that either the person was not assigned to you because they declared a conflict, or the SRO assessed the extent of the reviewer’s declared conflict and decided it was not a source of potential bias. If all those fail-safe options have in fact failed, and the person in already assigned to your application, be prepared for the possibility that the SRO’s only option may be to administratively defer your application till the next review round, if it is not possible for him/her to find someone to adequately review it at this late a date.
April 11, 2011 @ 3:03 pm ·
I think calling it “tinfoil hat paranoia” suggests that it is nearly impossible, walrus. That in and of itself is willfully ignorant of human behavior. which, I realize, is the Program Officer’s stock in trade as a public phenotype but I hope you don’t really believe this.
The proper answer is that of course somewhere, sometime an idea has been lifted from a grant application to the advantage of the reviewer and disadvantage of the applicant. It seems unlikely that it happens anywhere near as often as paranoid applicants who comment online would like us to believe, however. This latter derives, IMNSHO, from a laughable conceit on the part of many scientists that they are uniquely brilliant snoflakes and nobody else could possibly have the same exact ideas from reading the same literature and being in the same subfield.
The more interesting question is the degree to which subconscious influence operates despite the reviewer’s best intentions not to benefit from reviewing someone else’s grant proposal. IMO, of course
the walrus is Paul said
April 11, 2011 @ 5:17 pm ·
minor correction…I’m an SRO, not a PO. And we are REQUIRED to make a speech at the start of every review meeting about ethical conduct which includes a section on ” the ideas presented in applications are not to be pilfered”. Sorry, but in all my years on the job, I have NEVER heard of a complaint being registered with NIH that a reviewer ‘may have’ stolen an idea. [and believe me, we get all sorts of complaints about all sorts of things, so if there was such a suspicion by anyone, they definitely wouldn’t keep quiet about it] That makes it ‘tin-hat’ in my book.
April 11, 2011 @ 7:18 pm ·
ahh, yes, SRO, my mistake. Same difference about your professional, public obligation* to pretend that peer review works nearly flawlessly. Really, I get that.
Agreed people don’t keep quiet about it and they don’t. See the triggering comment on this thread. Similar comments pop up in the academic blogosphere regularly and I see this as a reflection of what I hear in person.
Whether it is “tin-foil-hat” or not, in my book is not tied to the rarity or frequency of the phenotype but rather the chances that there is any validity to the suspicion that is advanced.
*and yes, I am familiar with the canned admonition. And I believe to the utmost that the vast, vast majority of reviewers for the NIH are trying their utmost to do a fair job, to respect confidentiality and to bend over backward not to steal ideas or quash grants (or manuscripts for that matter) so that they can pilfer the ideas themselves. But I am a student of human behavior and it is ludicrous to think that there has never been any such pilfering from what is contained in grant applications (or manuscripts). Ludicrous.
And *this*, my friend, gets us to the places where I really, really, really want to believe that SROs, POs and other apparatchiks of the NIH understand, at some private level, that some of the real humans doing the peer review can be flawed, pernicious or sociopathic. Even if it is basically a requirement of your job that your public face needss to pretend peer review is perfect. Because if you all don’t understand at some level that there are going to be bad actors on peer review panels, well, it is not exactly an endorsement of your savvy and intelligence.
April 12, 2011 @ 12:56 am ·
Whether it is “tin-foil-hat” or not, in my book is not tied to the rarity or frequency of the phenotype but rather the chances that there is any validity to the suspicion that is advanced.
By this standard, we should all be wearing tin foil hats. And everything in The World Weekly News could be true, too.
Is peer review perfect? Of course not, and you’re putting words in Walrus’ mouth if that is what you are trying to make him say so you can debate.
In over 25 years of working on grant applications to the NIH, NSF, DoE, DoEd, DoD, HRSA, CDC, SAMHSA, AHRQ, RWJF, et al. for researchers in just about every damn school and department a University can throw at me, no one has ever claimed to have had a proposed study or even hypothesis (successfully) stolen by a reviewer. By Mentors, sadly. By senior faculty, chairs, et al., yep. By postdocs, sure. By colleagues/competitors (via other avenues), check. But by F-ing reviewer #3, whom they know killed the application and whose career they fixedly follow from thence on, nope. Think about the time spans involved … think about where these thieves need to go for funding (i.e., back to the study section from which they did their obvious, if the idea and study design to get at its core was truly unique, pilfering).
Now, make the concept of “idea” big enough, and of course great and lesser minds will think alike, as you noted previously.
April 11, 2011 @ 8:35 pm ·
The Gentleman Doth Protest too much, methinks.
April 12, 2011 @ 9:00 am ·
You don’t even read your own blog comments, do you, writedit? I would swear you’ve had exactly these sorts of suspicions raised before i this very venue. and I suspect very strongly the triggering comment here is not raised idly.
By this standard, we should all be wearing tin foil hats.
You need to work on your reading comprehension.
the walrus is paul said
April 12, 2011 @ 10:50 am ·
well, drugmonkey, since you have such a low opinion of the abilities and integrity of NIH staff, I won’t waste anyone’s time here by offering any further responses to their questions. I’m sure you can provide all the advice for navigating the NIH process that they might ever need…..along with such compelling issues as whether they prefer pastrami.
April 12, 2011 @ 11:27 am ·
Please do continue your very thoughtful and generous public service here. Thank you so very much for all you have contributed. I get nothing out of maintaining this blog other than the satisfaction of being a good citizen and helping the biomedical research community through the exchange of useful information. Contributions like yours make this space even more useful to others.
Perhaps DM can restrict these sorts of discussions to his various for-profit plots in the blogosphere, where he is welcome to take on all comers.
April 12, 2011 @ 11:16 am ·
@Walrus. You need a thick skin to post comments on these kind of blogs. Don’t let DM’s crotchety opinions get to you too much. They are “just” his opinions. That doesn’t make it true. Provide the best advice you can and move on.
DM is a mild amateur compared to replies from Comrade PhysioProf.
April 12, 2011 @ 1:26 pm ·
I didn’t know my question would spark such heated reaction. The reason I asked this question is that there is a reviewer on my study section that has stolen a line of investigation from a colleague of mine in the past. The idea was not stolen from a grant or manuscript, but through personal communications. Perhaps my colleague should have been more saavy in keeping their mouth shut. In any case, my worry was that if this individual would take an idea through informal means would they also take ideas from more formal avenues such as peer review. I wanted to gauge how much of a problem this might be in the review of my grant in study section. It seems from the comments here that this may not be such a huge problem since blatant pilfering would have consequences. However, I do agree that we cannot ignore human and subconscious behavior. I guess some level of paranoia is good since science is competitive and not everyone is on your side or wants you to do well. However, at the same time over paranoia is detrimental as well since the systems in place work well most of the time and there are a lot of great people out there that can enrich our scientific experience.
April 13, 2011 @ 4:44 pm ·
Your insights have been extremely beneficial to me please do continue posting. Having said that I would like to know how new versions of previously non-funded applications (after two submissions) are handled by SROs. Are they considered as a continuation of the previous application and assigned to the same reviewers who reviewed the previous application? Would the members of the committee will remember that the new application is indeed a modified version of a previous application?
April 12, 2011 @ 5:51 pm ·
Well folks…..I have been lurking here for a while….but must decloak to comment.
It can and does happen. It happened to me. Ten years ago, when I was a very junior investigator I did my usual keyword search in my area of research and found that three pages of a grant that I had written was posted as original material and attributed to an individual unknown to me. I looked up my review section and found that the individual was on the study section that reviewed my grant.This person was a prominent and well funded researcher. I went to my university ombudsmen, and then to the appropriate staff at CSR. The individual was quietly dismissed from the study section. I was advised that I could make more of a stink out of it but that the only person this was likely to hurt was me. I left it at that. I’ve never heard of another instance, but I find it hard to believe that I am an N of 1.
BTW – I greatly admire the NIH staff that I have interacted with over the years. And I am very thankful to Walrus, DM, Writedit, CPP, and others here for teaching me so much that I didn’t even know that I didn’t know. And also for keeping me laughing during tough times.
April 12, 2011 @ 7:37 pm ·
Didn’t take long for someone to make DM’s day … sorry to hear about your experience, though it sounds oddly like someone just posted a chunk of your text verbatim on a Website (vs repackaging the idea for funding or publication). And attributing it to someone else (versus him/herself). Very odd.
April 14, 2011 @ 1:26 am ·
it makes my day when someone gets a grant funded, writedit. i already knew I was right about this… 😛
April 12, 2011 @ 1:22 pm ·
Dear the walrus is Paul,
I have enjoyed reading your insights and comments and learned a lot from them. Please continue to provide advice to many of us who do think that we do not know everything about NIH or actually know very little, like myself.
writedit, writedit, writedit. tch, tch. | DrugMonkey said
April 12, 2011 @ 1:33 pm ·
[…] you haven’t been following along, start with this comment from the walrus is paul, a self-identified NIH SRO that has been frequenting writedit’s blog of late. The triggering comment was walrus […]
April 12, 2011 @ 1:34 pm ·
sure, writedit, no prob
April 12, 2011 @ 1:36 pm ·
Thanks muchly. Have fun.
April 12, 2011 @ 5:18 pm ·
Now that the rest of this years budget is on the table what is the opinion(s) regarding NIH funds and how it will affect grants already in the hopper? Here is a list of proposed cuts (http://republicans.appropriations.house.gov/_files/41211ProgramCutsListFinalFY2011CR.pdf).
The only cut I see for NIH is for Buildings and Facilities (as opposed to research cuts in NSF). Does that mean the we are unlikely to see a decrease in paylines? My council (NIAID) meets in May (sometime) and I am right on the payline. I am of course worried that the payline may drop and I will just miss funding. I contacted my PO who may as well not replied based on the non answer they gave.
April 12, 2011 @ 5:48 pm ·
Updates on the appropriations bill can be found in a post on the main blog, https://writedit.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/limping-toward-fy11-appropriations/, where I also commented a bit on what might happen to paylines. Essentially, the ICs know how much money they have to spend for each mechanism, and, with almost all FY11 grants now reviewed (some RFAs & PARs are probably still out there), they know how many grants are in each percentile/scoring range. Nothing formal will be announced until the appropriations bill is signed into law, but it should be pretty straightforward thereafter … probably not a lot of changes to the paylines though.
April 12, 2011 @ 6:06 pm ·
They are cutting 50 millions from buildings and facilities plus 210 million total cut distribued through all ICs. What you saw was the file with only highlighted cuts (I saw that table as well and was misled). My guess is that this minor cut in research will still hurt the paylines a little.
April 12, 2011 @ 7:12 pm ·
Well that’s what I worry about. I am _on_ the payline, so should there be any pain in the paylines I will be the first to feel it.
Pinko Punko said
April 12, 2011 @ 11:03 pm ·
I hate the way “my friend” comments come out, but this is actually a reality and not just hearsay, but my actual friend, who is currently a post-doc, working on a gene, a function for which he discovered through painstaking forward genetics means, and said gene featuring in one of his P.I’s R01s, had a member of the study section, likely a reviewer based on expertise, contact my friend’s PI and discussing just as it happens their own work on this gene conveniently found through reverse genetic means. Who can know what happened? In the vast majority of such cases I would have to guess that the offended party simply does not wish to bring evidence of poor behavior forward because it always complicates his/her life while there is never enough evidence to nail the offending party. It happens in paper review and it happens in grant review.
This of course has nothing to do with the integrity of NIH staff, with whom I have had nothing but positive interactions.
Science lover said
April 25, 2011 @ 3:44 pm ·
I was awarded a couple of grants previously. While the grants were running, I changed my employer and the PI-ship was transferred to another person. Will this be considered as a black mark by NIH and therefore affect any of my new proposals that I submit with my current employer.?
April 25, 2011 @ 3:50 pm ·
No, this does not reflect poorly on you at all. I assume the grants had to stay where they were due to resources, facilities, expertise, etc. that was available at your old employer but not at your new employer … or you are talking about SBIR awards, in which case they definitely stay with the company … or that you are talking about awards that only go to qualified institutions, such as an R15 or SC1.
Science lover said
April 25, 2011 @ 3:59 pm ·
Thanks writedit. I was mentioning about SBIR and it should stay with the old employer. I was just wondering whether NIH will think that was a bad move from my part (changing the employer while the grants running)
April 25, 2011 @ 4:04 pm ·
No, you’re working in industry – you make employment/location decisions that are best for you. You won’t be able to submit a proposal for the same work at your new employer, of course, but you can talk with your prior PO about planning proposals from your new employer.
April 25, 2011 @ 3:59 pm ·
FYI: just got email saying that my F32 would be funded!! Impact Score 21, Submitted in December 2010 to NIDDK.
Thanks to writedit, and everybody else, for helping me learn about the whole process and inner workings of the NIH.
April 25, 2011 @ 4:02 pm ·
Woohoo! Congratulations! Best wishes for success with your research and your career!
Science lover said
April 25, 2011 @ 4:05 pm ·
April 25, 2011 @ 11:53 pm ·
Congrats! Another colleague also got notice for funding for her F32 submitted in December to NIDDK with impact score of 23. I am still waiting to hear back from my F32 (A1) submitted July 2010 with impact score of 24. Anyone else heard from the July 2010 submission cycle for NIDDK?
April 28, 2011 @ 4:18 pm ·
First off, congrats to Matt!
I don’t understand why later cycles are getting notices before previous ones? Do all IC’s do this? I am still waiting to hear on my NCI F32 from August 2010, impact score 14.
May 2, 2011 @ 10:39 am ·
Congrats to Matt too.
I have the feeling that there is some problem with the budget this year. I also have F32 from August 2010 with impact score 32/ 25% from NICHD. Got an email long long time ago saying my F32 is “likely” to be funded. Summitted JIT and nothing happens after that. It has been almost 3 months.
April 26, 2011 @ 4:40 pm ·
Just got an e-mail notice that final paylines are in for RO1s and there was movement UPWARD in the last few days. As of April 19 paylines were 8 and 12 for existing and new investigators, respectively. Final paylines just released are 10 and 14!.
I have a R15 that sits on the payline (24) and wonder if I can start celebrating!? Would an increase in RO1 paylines bode well for R15s in general? Or could we still be looking at a cut in the smaller grants?
April 26, 2011 @ 5:52 pm ·
Should have mentioned that this is for NIAID.
April 26, 2011 @ 8:17 pm ·
Sorry, but I have one more. My PO told me that I would have to wait until council review (sometime in May) to know anything for sure. If the final payline comes out before then and I am under or at it, then is there anyway I could still not get funded? My reviews were all very good and they noted no issues (animal care, budget, etc.).
April 26, 2011 @ 10:08 pm ·
If you are within a hard payline, you should be fine … some ICs won’t pay a fourth R01 to the same PI, but I’m guessing you’re not in that category 😉 …. or if a topic is oversubscribed in the portfolio, but that’s unlikely these days … though we did hear about that 14th percentile ESI NCI application that came back with a rejection rationale of “not congruent with program objectives” – but that was in the discretionary range, not within the hard payline. Good luck ….
May 11, 2011 @ 2:24 pm ·
Does anyone know how long does it take from council meeting to issuing award notice? My council was in January and the PO notify me they will fund my F32 in Feb. Nothing happens since then. Not sure keeping bugging PO is a good idea. Hope someone has experience on this. Thanks.
one big boat said
May 11, 2011 @ 3:33 pm ·
LOL. (Sorry. But, I’m guessing you are new here? …. ) you might want to read the previous posts on this board first. There has been this “little” issue of CRs and budget agreements that have held up the funding process for most of the time since (and even before) your Council’s meeting, coupled with resulting worsened paylines and some tough decision-making at the Institute level. Way too much to go into again here, but scroll up on this thread and the one titled “NIH Paylines & Resouces” and your questions will all be answered.
May 14, 2011 @ 12:13 am ·
Anyone have ANY news on NCI K99s? It is agonizing hearing about all these other ICs making funding decisions on grants submitted months and months after I submitted (Feb 2010 – impact score 20). The last I heard was before the CR passed, and I was under the apparently false assumption that we would know *something* soon after. I’ve done the math, and I’ve been sitting on this grant for over 1/3 of the time I’ve been a post-doc. It’s insane! It seems like NCI hasn’t made any funding decisions on any post-doc fellowships for FY 2011? Is this right? Can anyone tell me a good reason why they are withholding the funding for these mechanisms, while it seems like most of the other ICs have released them, at least for Feb 2010 submissions?
May 14, 2011 @ 12:20 am ·
Hate to ask the obvious, but have you checked again with the PO?
Baited breath said
May 23, 2011 @ 10:41 am ·
I had resubmitted an SBIR Phase I which received an impact score of 24. The council meeting was May 19. It was assigned to NIGMS, which does not publish paylines. In theory it should be fundable assuming they are in the same range as institutions that publish their paylines. I did receive an email from the PO asking for JIT information a couple weeks before the meeting. This is the first submission from my company (and would be my first grant) so obviously I’m nervous. Anyone have any information regarding NIGMS and/or the current SBIR funding process?
May 23, 2011 @ 11:16 am ·
If you had a JIT request from your PO, this is promising. Jeremy Berg explained on the NIGMS Feedback Loop how they make funding decisions (not with paylines).: https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2011/01/28/the-funding-decision-process/ At this point, you should just be patient – the PO (or GMS) will get in touch with you if an award is in the works.
May 23, 2011 @ 7:49 pm ·
Did anyone else get a priority score back for their New Innovator application. They do not release percentile rankings so I’m wondering if people know anything about last year’s unreleased payline.
June 6, 2011 @ 2:48 pm ·
Always_Rejected, I also got a priority score back this round but have no idea how to interpret it…
June 13, 2011 @ 2:47 am ·
Well I thought mine was pretty good so I contacted someone who received the award two years ago and they said theirs was scored differently, 100-300 were the ranges back then. I spoke to a few people who were scored a perfect 100 so I think that puts me back a little. Now I’m thinking that maybe a fundable score is closer to 10 or the low teens. I’m in the upper teens so I’m a little worried now. I guess you are just as lost as me.
May 25, 2011 @ 3:50 pm ·
Waiting for Your Program Officer to Respond? Here’s What to Do
This link is NIAID specific but might prove generally useful for other ICs too.
May 26, 2011 @ 10:43 am ·
Wanted to throw out a question out of curiosity. Are there any K99/R00 award recipients out there that have been able to secure R01 funding? Wanting to see how successful this endeavor has been.
May 28, 2011 @ 10:12 am ·
I know of a person who was able to (NIAID), although I also know scores of people that didnt.
June 2, 2011 @ 4:58 pm ·
I just found this website. I submitted a grant in February 2010, council met last October and I’m still waiting. The PO seems to think it has a decent chance it might get funded. This is an NEI R01 application–does anyone have any information on funding rates at NEI or when decisions will be made there? I’m assuming that decisions will need to be made by the end of the fiscal year, but I hope it doesn’take that long.
June 3, 2011 @ 12:56 pm ·
Hello, quick question. My status on eRA Commons was changed from “Scientific Review Group review completed. Refer any questions to Program Official” to “Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.” Does anyone know what that means?
June 3, 2011 @ 2:28 pm ·
Congratulations! It means your award is being processed.
June 3, 2011 @ 11:32 pm ·
Really? When should I expect to hear from my PO? Or should I contact him?
June 3, 2011 @ 11:38 pm ·
If you want confirmation as to your funding status, you should contact your PO. They will only be in touch if they need administrative information to process the award.
June 4, 2011 @ 12:39 am ·
What is the process typically like? I apologize for the questions as this is my first time applying for a NRSA F31. Fingers crossed, you are correct. Thank you for the encouragement!
June 6, 2011 @ 7:45 pm ·
Just wondering…is this true of all programs/centers? If you have “Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.” as your eRA status, it means your grant will be awarded?
June 6, 2011 @ 7:56 pm ·
Yes, I do not believe – though someone from the NIH could pipe in to correct me if needed – that your status would read thusly if your application were not being processed for an award. Of course, a last-minute administrative bar (research compliance issue, grant overlap, application irregularity, etc.) could delay or even derail an award, but assuming everything is in order, you have reason to be hopeful.
July 30, 2011 @ 2:17 am ·
My NRSA was funded! Thank you for all of your advice and words of encouragement. Good luck to everyone!!
June 4, 2011 @ 8:57 am ·
My grant got funded! Thank you writedit and everyone associated with this website. I wish everyone success!!
June 8, 2011 @ 12:22 pm ·
I sent a resubmission to NINDS for a R15 (AREA) grant. On 6/3/2011, My status on the eRA Commons changed to “Pending Council Review.” There is a JIT request under the Action column.
I was in the 17th percentile and my Priority/Impact Score is 30.
This is my first time at this…
Any opinions as to whether I should be happy or sad? Or should I just continue with the complete and total anxiety?
June 8, 2011 @ 2:23 pm ·
If this is for FY12, which I assume it is, then you have a long long wait … though your PO should be able to give you an idea of where you would have ranked in FY11. The Commons JIT request is automatic … the PO or GMS will request JIT info from you closer to when an award decision will be made.
June 8, 2011 @ 2:11 pm ·
Does any one know the R01 payline of NIGMS FY11 for NI and ESI? I saw an ESI above with R01 18% was funded, congratulations! Mine was 19%, my PO said no decision has been made. Worrying…
Any comments will be appreciated.
June 8, 2011 @ 2:20 pm ·
NIGMS does not use a hard payline but creates paylists instead: https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2011/01/28/the-funding-decision-process/
Arnold C said
June 8, 2011 @ 5:02 pm ·
With the new NCI rules (10%ile – 25%ile going to SPL for consideration of an exception), do you think an ESI (me) has a chance with a priority score of 20 and a percentile of 13? It is my A1, and no R01 has yet been funded via the Program Announcement to which I responded. I am hoping that last point helps me….
June 9, 2011 @ 7:26 am ·
Your 13th percentile should help make the case for your application in terms of the science, and the PO for this program can let you know whether your proposed work is of high priority to NCI. Some programs don’t pay many awards because they have a limited appropriation but often because the applications are not sufficiently responsive. You reapplied to the same PA (and received a great score), so I assume the A0 comments were encouraging, as was your PO. You can ask the PO directly why no awards have yet been made and the likelihood of yours being one of the first. Good luck!
Arnold C said
June 9, 2011 @ 10:26 am ·
Thanks. FIngers crossed.
June 9, 2011 @ 12:35 pm ·
When a grant is assigned to multiple ICs (in this case the secondary IC, which is the one requested in my cover letter, has the most favorable payline) is there a process for contacting a PO at the secondary IC to espouse the wonderful science and importance of my grant? Or do I just keep sacrificing pipette tips and culture media on my altar in the hood? Thanks in advance for any insights.
June 9, 2011 @ 1:43 pm ·
You should be in touch with your PO at the secondary though favored IC to see if your work is of sufficient priority to them to accept the application for consideration of an award. Some (but not all) do accept transfered applications, but the PO has to request this (you can’t). Your original request for assignment to this IC should help make the case, though. Unfortunately, if this is for FY12, you have months more of sacrifice before you will know if the grant gods are pleased. Good luck!
June 10, 2011 @ 9:22 pm ·
I have a question about resubmitting an application. For the changes I make in the text, what is the best way to mark them? The instruction says “mark in the text by bracketing, indenting, or change of typography. Do not underline or shade the changes.” But specifically, what is the best way to do it (e.g., change Arial font to something else?)?
June 12, 2011 @ 10:13 am ·
I think the change in font typeface (from Georgia to Arial or vice versa) works well. That is, keep the bulk of the text in your preferred typeface and the new text in the contrasting typeface (one needs to be sans serif, the other serif), and indicate what each typeface means in the Introduction section. Now, if the application is substantially changed – most sentences/paragraphs rewritten, reorganized, lots of new data-experimental design, etc. – you can say at the outset that the application is so substantially changed that changes are not marked (since it would make the narrative difficult to read).
June 10, 2011 @ 9:22 pm ·
I have a question about resubmitting an application. For the changes I make in the text, what is the best way to mark them? The instruction says “mark in the text by bracketing, indenting, or change of typography. Do not underline or shade the changes.” But specifically, what is the best way to do it (e.g., change Arial font to something else?)? Thanks!!
waiting impatiently said
June 14, 2011 @ 3:30 pm ·
Any predictions about payline changes in FY2012? I got an RO1 score within current paylines for ESI (which I am–I got 22nd percentile and they’re funding to 26th) at NHLBI, but the PO says since it will be FY2012, she can’t tell me much more except it would be funded according to current paylines, and if they don’t change much I should be okay.
June 14, 2011 @ 3:45 pm ·
That is all any of us can say. The question is whether final FY12 appropriations (which won’t be known until sometime in 2013, so you have a very long wait, unfortunately) will look anything like the current House budget, which significantly slashes the budger for HHS (so NIH would take a big cut, too). No one can at all predict how the FY12 budget will go, so, truly, there is absolutely no way to suggest whether paylines will drop even further … they will not go up though.
June 15, 2011 @ 3:54 pm ·
NCI/SBIR funding delay: does anyone in academia has similar issue? We are waiting funding for the second year of SBIR/Phase II. The year two budget period is supposed to start six weeks ago. Four weeks ago PO told that NoA and funding for the second year will be released “very soon” and no laps in funding is expected. Nothing since than. Does anyone has anything similar with ongoing grant(s)?
Arnold C said
June 16, 2011 @ 6:55 pm ·
I just received my score on an R01 application, and it is on the bubble. It was assigned to the NCI. If the Program Announcement to which my R01 application responded has two institutes listed as participating institutes (NCI and NCCAM), could I transfer my grant to NCCAM? If so, do you think that would be an easier way to get funding through NCCAM?
June 16, 2011 @ 8:04 pm ·
The PA listing does not matter. If you application received NCCAM as a secondary assigment (look at the summary statement/eRA commons), then you can contact the NCCAM PO about whether they would accept the application (and wherher your score would be competitive there). However, most ICs prefer to see first if NCI (which has the biggest budget at the NIH) will pick up anything cancer-related.
Arnold C said
June 16, 2011 @ 10:36 pm ·
Thank you for the reply. What if NCCAM was not listed as a secondary assignment? Can I still request that it be considered by NCCAM?
June 16, 2011 @ 10:42 pm ·
No, if CSR did not assign you, and you did not request dual assignment in your cover letter, then, to the best of my knowledge, it is too late to request assignment to NCCAM now. If CSR did not assign NCCAM, this probably means your research is not appropriate for them (such that they turned down secondary assignment).
June 16, 2011 @ 7:59 pm ·
I am an ESI, and submitted an R01 to NHLBI in Jan. It received a 17%, and the FY11 payline for ESI at NHLBI is 26%. I am very excited, but realize I’m in for a wait. In the meantime, I plan to submit R01s up to the point I get a NOA. I have another and plan to put in a third in Oct. Anyone know whether ESI status will been maintained on those submissions? Any ESIs out there with a second R01 awarded above “normal” payline, but under ESI paylines?
June 16, 2011 @ 8:06 pm ·
The funding decision on your 17% R01 will be made before either of the others, so if you are not funded, you will still be ESI … but if you are funded (happy day!), you will lose your ESI review status for any subsequent applications.
June 17, 2011 @ 8:07 am ·
Yes – we were fortunate to obtain a DP2 (R01 equivalent – which means loss of ESI status) a few months after an R01 was submitted to NIGMS. Since the R01 was submitted while I was an ESI, it was still treated as such and subsequently funded.
Perhaps writedit is right, and it was a clerical error, or different institutes treat this in their own way, but I was essentially able to get two R01 type grants as an ESI due to the timing of submissions.
June 17, 2011 @ 11:33 am ·
Did anyone get an EUREKA proposal (submitted Oct. 2010) awarded yet? Mine got an impact score which put it into the grayzone, I got the JIT request, the application moved to the council and since the council meeting (May 19) the commons status is “pending”. How long will it take for a final decision.
June 17, 2011 @ 12:14 pm ·
Well, if you haven’t checked with your PO recently, you can certainly ask again. Everything is moving very slowly at all the ICs due to the backlog of work, but the PO can at least offer some reassurance on the light at the end of the tunnel … hopefully an oncoming NoA.
June 17, 2011 @ 12:48 pm ·
I am in a similar situation with NCRR (R24). What if you check with your PO and they do not reply? Has anyone heard about funding from NCRR?
June 17, 2011 @ 1:33 pm ·
Is this for FY11 or FY12? NCRR, of course, is in a special situation since they don’t even know if they’ll exist after Sept 30th. On paper, the programs are being redistributed, but if FC’s new vision for the NIH is not written into the first CR of FY12, then all the planned changes will be put on hold. The funding for specific NCRR programs for FY12 remains to be seen (well, entire NIH, too). If you are waiting to hear about an FY11 application, the delays are compounded by both the late appropriation and the chaos induced by FC. Your PO probably hasn’t replied because he/she doesn’t know … though it woudl be nice to pass this along to you. You could try calling in a week if no e-mail response.
June 17, 2011 @ 1:41 pm ·
The last thing I heard from my PO about a week ago is that the application is going through the administrative process for possible funding. Hopefully that is good news.
June 17, 2011 @ 1:55 pm ·
Oh and I should have said for FY 2011
June 17, 2011 @ 12:39 pm ·
I just got R01 at 8th and impact fator of 23 for NIDDK. does someone know it will be funded or not?
June 17, 2011 @ 1:28 pm ·
No, no one does since the FY12 budget won’t be worked out for many months yet. However, at NIDDK, the 8th percentile should be funded unless the NIH appropriation is cut dramatically.
June 17, 2011 @ 1:34 pm ·
Thank you so much. Cross fingers.
June 23, 2011 @ 1:50 pm ·
I am working on a R01 resubmission due July 5. Based on the reviewers’ comments last time, I could guess that two of the three reviewers were ad hoc members and they liked my proposal. Is it likely that they will be invited to the study section again? My first submission was last October. Should I wait till November this year to resubmit so that it is more likely these two reviewers may review again? Thank you for any suggestions/comments!
June 23, 2011 @ 3:52 pm ·
The timing won’t affect which reviewers are assigned. You can ask in the cover letter to have the same reviewers reassigned (SRO not obligated, but you can ask). Usually at least one prior reviewer is reassigned though.
June 25, 2011 @ 5:43 pm ·
Any news on R15 scores and funding? Do the institutes or NIH central fund the R15s? What are the prospects for a R15 impact score of 22 on a revision?
June 26, 2011 @ 10:04 pm ·
Each IC funds their own R15s. I would think an impact score of 22 would be pretty competitive, but you should check with your PO … and if this is for FY12, then you may be in for a long wait to hear anything definite.
July 8, 2011 @ 5:45 pm ·
Thanks for the info. Yes, for FY12. The PO said it would be “many months” before i hear about funding even though the council meeting is in October. Do you think i will hear by Jan. 1, 2012?
July 8, 2011 @ 5:55 pm ·
Maybe, but not definite … Council will meet on schedule, but I doubt we’ll have a budget for FY12 by then. That is the key to knowing the likely timing of funding decisions and award notices … when Congress passes and the President signs final appropriations acts (versus continuing resolutions).
July 8, 2011 @ 7:25 pm ·
How can one tell if an application is for FY11 or 12?
I submitted original proposal in June 2010 and the resubmission in Feb 2011. The start date on the application is Sept. 2011 although the council does not meet till October 2011 for this application.
July 8, 2011 @ 7:40 pm ·
The FY is almost always the year after the calendar year in which the application was submitted. So, your 2010 submission would have been funded in FY11. Most Feb 2011 applications are funded in FY12 … unless they are in response to RFAs/PARs with special dates or to ICs with an Aug Council date. I assume this is an R15, since you mention it is a resubmission, and I’m not sure what other mechanisms can be resubmitted in Feb. However, if your IC’s Council meets in Oct rather than Aug, I do not understand why you have a Sept 1 rather than Dec 1 start date listed. I would suggest you contact your PO for clarification on this.
Amy Hepburn said
June 26, 2011 @ 6:58 pm ·
The score of my first RO1 submission is 28%tile and 37. I will have it resubmitted this July 5th. The primary institute is NCI, and the funding rate there is 10%tile for new investigator. So, I would like to add a secondary institute to my resubmission to enhance the chance of being funded. The grant is about cancer and DNA damage repair. I would like to hear your recommendations as for which secondary institute should I request, of course it should have a better funding rate than NCI and also my proposal should fit to their interest. Thanks a lot in advance.
June 27, 2011 @ 6:45 pm ·
The conventional wisdom on DNA damage and repair is that NIEHS is by far the easiest funding choice outside of NCI. They won’t touch it if it’s tobacco-related, but if you can make a case that the DNA damage could come from environmental causes (like UV light), you could make it work.
Amy Hepburn said
June 28, 2011 @ 10:35 pm ·
Thanks Anon for providing this information. It is very helpful.
Amy Hepburn said
June 28, 2011 @ 11:07 pm ·
Hi Anon, what is the payliine for NI at NIEHS Y2011? Thanks.
June 27, 2011 @ 4:29 pm ·
Does anyone know what the funding percentile or impact score cutoff was for the last round of NIMH F31 NRSA grants announced in may?
July 7, 2011 @ 1:35 pm ·
I once had a reviewer really get upset because I accidentally labeled two of my Figures “FIgure 1″ but in the text I referred to the first as Figure 1 and the Second as Figure 2. Obviously I forgot to update the figure number of the second figure. I also had a reviewer once get very upset that my reference list went up to only 40 but I did have a reference “50″ in the text.
Now try to have everything perfect when I turn in a grant. I noticed on my most recent RO1 submission that one of the figures is slightly cut off on the right side. Although this is very slight and we proofed the grant a million times I was wondering- has anyone had any luck switching out their grant before. I called ERA commons and they said that it cannot be done after the deadline but that the SRA might be able to do it for me. The grant has not been assigned to anyone yet. It is just sitting under the “Recent/pending esubmissions” tab but since the deadline was the 5th- the ERA commons help desk assured me that if I try to switch it out that I would not be able to upload something in its place.
Baited breath said
July 7, 2011 @ 1:54 pm ·
This goes back to the thread about building the relationship with the SRO (SRA) before the grant goes in or shortly after. It’s entirely up to them. I had made an error on the references and fortunately he had agreed to make the substitution. This was my first grant submission and he was pretty helpful in understanding the process.
It is easier for a reviewer to spot a typo than read background material and provide critical and detailed comments. A good SRO is able to find people willing to commit time to do the latter, but it’s not a perfect process.
July 7, 2011 @ 9:41 pm ·
I have read your posts for the past 2 years and thank you for all your information about the granting process.
I have a question about R15 revisions. I submitted a revision to NHLBI this past January. The original submission recieved a 24 impact score. This score did not meet the 20 impact score cutoff for that cycle of funding at NHLBI. In the revision submitted in January, I addressed many of the issues from the reviewers and published a paper to support the hypothesis. My new impact score is a 52! How can this be possible?
Have you heard of such a drastic change in scores from the original to the revision? The January revision I submitted went to a study section with new members this time around due to the fact that one of my collaborators is part of the standing study section. Any suggestions or insight towards talking to my PO or the grant would be greatly appreciated. I understand that the revision is my last chance for submitting this grant. Thank you.
July 7, 2011 @ 10:11 pm ·
No doubt you are dazed and confused. It is not unusual for A1 scores to be worse than the A0, especially for the reason you note. The A0 is not dead yet, so if your PO is enthusiastic about the science, you could even ask about the potential for funding by exception/selective pay. Very long shot, but worth asking, especially with the new paper and a solid response to the criticisms (and potentially a summary statement that will help make your case, but it needs to be objective rather than subjective concerns about the critiques). If your PO can’t offer any hope with regard to having the A0 picked up, then he/she should be able to suggest the best strategy for reworking it as a new application, whether via a different mechanism or new aims/approach for the proposed work. NIAID has a nice summary article on your options for an unfunded application: http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/newsletter/2011/pages/0511.aspx#a00
July 13, 2011 @ 11:43 am ·
Hi All, I recently received my scores for the F32 grant I re-submitted to NHLBI. My impact score was 18 and my percentile 5. I am pretty optimistic that this means I will be funded. I was wondering if anyone could give me an estimate about how long it will take to find out for sure. To give you an idea of how confused I am about this process…I STILL have not heard a definitive yes or no about my initial submission from Aug 2010 (my scores put me on the bubble).
July 13, 2011 @ 12:06 pm ·
Sounds promising. The best advice would be to talk to the program officer.
July 16, 2011 @ 9:21 am ·
Congrats (probably). Now the wait begins. Practically speaking the next communication you will get (after the request for JIT) that will be something you can hold in your hand is a letter of the intention to fund the project. From there there is a delay to get all the paperwork done.
You’ll certainly have to wait until after the council review date that should be listed. The Advisory Council reviews the whole situation and sets the paylines based on the budget.
I’ve seen things all over the map. My most recent grant (R21) I didn’t get the final confirmation of the intention to fund until the week before the start date. The final fund transfer was 2 weeks after the start date. My post-docs T32 found out 3 months before the start date and we were able to get the funds early.
July 20, 2011 @ 4:06 pm ·
Thank you both for the information. It looks like I am going to be waiting for a while since the council review is several months away.
July 13, 2011 @ 8:20 pm ·
Does anybody know what would happen if there is no agreement on the debt limit? Would this cause a government shutdown? Would anything happen to grant funding due to be paid out after the deadline?
July 14, 2011 @ 10:53 am ·
Not necessarily a shutdown. Feds could work but wouldn’t get paychecks. For Fed grants it would mean that your institute would stop receiving checks to pay your grants. So, it depends on when you expect to receive your next payment from Uncle Sam.
I am assuming that paying NIH grants would not be high on the “what bills do we pay” priority list that the WH develops next month.
July 17, 2011 @ 12:53 pm ·
Thanks. My fear exactly.
July 14, 2011 @ 2:17 pm ·
The study section for my F32 (NIGMS primary, NIAID secondary) met yesterday. My commons account still says “Pending IRG review” under current application status, but when I click on the grant and pull up the details, there is now a 40 next to Impact/Priority Score.
I assume this means I’m hosed – anyone care to disagree?
July 14, 2011 @ 2:32 pm ·
Well, with NIGMS it depends on the rest of the applicant pool and the priority of your work to the IC (NIAID has their payline at 24, so you would be out of luck there). While still at NIGMS, Jeremy Berg explained how NIGMS funding decisions are made: https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2011/01/28/the-funding-decision-process/
July 14, 2011 @ 2:46 pm ·
Thanks for the link. I guess I would have a slim shot if there weren’t a ton of F32s in the 10-20 range, but I’m not optimistic.
The other question I was trying to get at was whether the score I saw on the page is correct, i.e., should I wait to get an email or notice of some sort before I start the heavy drinking?
July 14, 2011 @ 2:49 pm ·
That is your score … but if this is an A0 especially, I’d suggest working on getting a solid manuscript out before going on that bender …
July 16, 2011 @ 9:12 am ·
40 is likely outside the funding range but should be movable up with a revision. Keep in mind a HUGE component of success with an F32 is the Training Plan so think about ways that this can be beefed up. Keep in mind that these scores are not linear in terms of priority. Alot of grants get bunched up in the 20′s to 30′s
My advice to people starting with grants is that the skill you need to learn nowadays is not writing grants for actually RE-writing them. It’s all in how you respond (personally and professionally) to criticism of work you are working passionately on.
So maybe have that beer but then make a timeline plan on a resubmission and try to get the data that proves that you are right and they need to give you a chance. This is not like a paper review so when you get the summary statements by all means respond to the points but if you can go beyond this you’ll be in better shape.
July 16, 2011 @ 9:22 am ·
Thanks for taking the time to share this thoughtful response, CL … the same sort of sound advice as that in PLoS Computational Biology on building and maintaining a good scientific reputation (http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002108). Your trainees are fortunate to be working with you.
July 17, 2011 @ 9:27 pm ·
That’s a good link. Thanks for the complement. I’m merely passing it forward. I’ve been fortunate to have good mentors.
Here are two other things I’ve been repeating more often recently:
1. Always put your best foot forward. Pressure to submit grants can lead to people rushing things and thinking – “oh well…I’ll have a chance to make it better on resubmission.” Not a good idea. Granting agencies/study sections have a memory and they “know” who you are by all work that gets sent to them. If it’s not your best work I’d keep working on it even if you miss a submission cycle.
2. Image the reviewer as you…or worse. Imaging the person you are writing for is someone who is stressed about their funding, trying to get papers out that are getting rejected, overworked and tired, fighting to get the right people in the lab, juggling teaching/clinical work, getting flack from their spousal equivalence unit for not helping out, their dog bit them, they are stuck in a middle seat in coach on the way to study section and sleep deprived. NOW they are picking up your grant to read. The net result of this is write with clarity from the start. If you lose them with jargon, confusing hypotheses, or typos/errors in your first few pages you are starting from behind. Make it as simple to follow as possible even if it is likely a complex problem.
My $0.02…back writing a grant…
July 17, 2011 @ 11:11 pm ·
A lot more than two cents … thanks for sharing these spot-on observations. Best wishes for success with your own research and grant applications.
July 20, 2011 @ 12:39 pm ·
How long before NIAID releases grants?? I received a fundable score prior to council meeting at the end of May. My PO told me that my grants mgt person cannot get the ball rolling on funding until NIAID release the grant. Any idea how long this is suppose to take? Based on my good score in Feb I was planning to have money to support my lab this summer, but I likely will run out of funds before that.
July 20, 2011 @ 11:09 pm ·
You are allowed to start spending money on allowable costs up to 90 days before the NoA. Since Sept 30 is the end of the fiscal year, you should be able to start spending money in advance of the award if it is critical, but the NIH notes that this is at your risk, so your fiscal person would want assurance that the award was coming before the end of the fiscal year at least. This is not something I have direct experience with, though. I would think either your PO or the NIAID GMS/GMO should be able to give you an idea of the timing of the NoA by now.
Here is the standard FOA language about preaward expenditures:
Pre-award costs are allowable. A grantee may, at its own risk and without NIH prior approval, incur obligations and expenditures to cover costs up to 90 days before the beginning date of the initial budget period of a new or renewal award if such costs: 1) are necessary to conduct the project, and 2) would be allowable under the grant, if awarded, without NIH prior approval. If specific expenditures would otherwise require prior approval, the grantee must obtain NIH approval before incurring the cost. NIH prior approval is required for any costs to be incurred more than 90 days before the beginning date of the initial budget period of a new or renewal award. The incurrence of pre-award costs in anticipation of a competing or non-competing award imposes no obligation on NIH either to make the award or to increase the amount of the approved budget if an award is made for less than the amount anticipated and is inadequate to cover the pre-award costs incurred. NIH expects the grantee to be fully aware that pre-award costs result in borrowing against future support and that such borrowing must not impair the grantee’s ability to accomplish the project objectives in the approved time frame or in any way adversely affect the conduct of the project. See NIH Grants Policy Statement http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_Part6.htm.
July 21, 2011 @ 8:37 am ·
Well yesterday I got a note from my PO saying the grant had been released for funding! So I should be set. Guess it didn’t help to panic. Thanks for the info.
July 21, 2011 @ 8:39 am ·
Great – congratulations again, and best wishes for success with the research!
Bud C. said
July 28, 2011 @ 2:18 am ·
I received a score of 15th percentile on my R01 application, which went to the NCI. I am a new investigator with ESI status. This year, that score is in the grey zone. Supposedly, grey zone scores are considered for funding as an exception by the SPL at their monthly meetings. It has been two months since the study section met, but my PO says he has not even seen my grant come across his desk (?). Should I be worried? Isn’t the PO the person who “puts up” the grant for consideration by the SPL? If he has not seen it, should he be looking for it since he is supposed to be my advocate? I do not want to come across as pushy, but I feel that my PO is being a bit passive. Any advice on how this new process at NCI works would be greatly appreciated.
July 28, 2011 @ 3:01 pm ·
Applications submitted this year (2011) will be funded under FY12, which does not start, in theory, on October 1st. However, the government will continue dysfunctionally under a CR (continuing resolution) for many months, so paylines will not be known until next year, in all likelihood. Since your application is no where near the “hard” payline for NCI in FY11, you should start working on your A1 (or another application) in the meantime. You won’t have news about this for a long, long time. In the meantime, if you have new publications since your application was reviewed or any other major developments, you can let your PO know. Sometime this fall he/she will start advocating for your application as potential pay lists are drawn up, but I expect the discussions of gray zone applications will be put on hold until the FY12 budget picture is clearer.
July 28, 2011 @ 9:57 am ·
I have just received a score of 21 on my resubmission application for NCI R03. Last year I got 35 for my first submission and heard that the score is on the boarderline of funding and was asked to resubmit this year. I wonder how much chance I have with this score.
July 28, 2011 @ 5:58 pm ·
I am in a similar situation, but with a R03 (NCI) score of 25 on the 1st submission this year. Wonder what is my chance.
August 1, 2011 @ 1:17 am ·
Sorry- I realized I posted my comment/question in the wrong spot!
I have an R21 submitted Oct 2010 at NICHD with a score of 12 (2%)–it passed secondary review June 2nd and I received the standard letter from my PO stating they anticipated it would be funded, but I still haven’t received a JIT request–my start date is supposed to be Sept 1 and this was in response to an RFA–why haven’t I received a JIT request and should I contact the PO or grants management specialist? Thanks!
August 1, 2011 @ 7:16 am ·
Congrats. My guess is that they are waiting to make sure the Federal Gov’t actually has money to send to you. With a possible debt limit deal in the works you should hear something soon.
August 1, 2011 @ 7:17 am ·
Congrats. My guess is that they are waiting to make sure the Federal Gov’t actually has money to send to you. With a possible debt limit deal in the works you should hear something soon.
Although it is strange that you got a percentile in response to an RFA. You sure you didn’t respond to a PA?
August 3, 2011 @ 10:54 am ·
I recently had an R01 not get discussed. Obviously that was disappointing, but when I finally got the summary statement it shows pretty decent criterion scores. Averaging the criterion scores for each individual reviewer (of three) and then averaging the three averages gives a 2.7. Now I know priority scores are not the same, but since it was not discussed and thus not given a priority score, this is all I have to work with. Having average criterion scores of 2.7 makes me even more surprised that it was not discussed.
Does anybody have any similar experiences? Am I foolish to think the criterion scores of 2.7 should be discussed? Is this too study section dependent to bother to try to discuss? Its just with criterion scores averaging 2.7 and not a whole lot of feedback in the summary statement, it seems unlikely to go from not discussed to funded in the remaining submission. I appreciate any thoughts anybody would like to share. Thanks.
August 3, 2011 @ 12:31 pm ·
Assigned reviewers give preliminary impact scores (which you, as an applicant, never see), and this is how the SRO ranks the proposals for discussion. You are correct that the criterion scores do not directly relate to the impact score, at least in terms of any calculations. The cut-off for triaging is getting higher and higher. I heard a rumor that CSR is moving toward triaging 70% of proposals (and, actually, one colleague here at BICO reported this occurring in a study section he recently attended) to reduce the time needed for meetings/discussion. Your PO might be able to suggest ways to strengthen the application based on his/her experiences listening to that SRG discuss grants (if your PO has attended any of their meetings in the past). Otherwise, assuming the few comments on significance and approach were positive, a new peer-reviewed publication would certainly help … plus more and more convincing preliminary data.
August 5, 2011 @ 5:44 pm ·
I’m not really sure if average criterion scores mean much. Overall it’s fairly easy to get 1 or 2′s for significance or innovation (if you aren’t taking a lot of risks). There is data that the approach correlates best with the overall impact score which is what the reviewers recommend and I’d suspect that you have got 3-5 in that category. Depending on the study section they may have a stringent cutoff for discussion. Alternatively if there is one reviewer that is a low outlier this could be the problem.
August 7, 2011 @ 12:18 pm ·
Can anyone shed some light to me as how the score in summary statement
is calculated? Definitely not the average of scores from the three reviewers.
My R21 score is 28 from a special emphasis review panel and wondering what is the chance of funding.
August 7, 2011 @ 12:21 pm ·
Forget to say that council review is early September and start date is in December and for NIDA.
August 17, 2011 @ 9:45 pm ·
Has this thread moved to another website? It has been very helpful, but it looks like people have stopped writing as of August 7…
August 18, 2011 @ 12:10 am ·
Most people post over on NIH Paylines & Resources … I had tried to get folks to migrate here, but both of these pages get used for general comments, questions, and discussions. I have to keep archiving the comments at NIH Paylines & Resources, though, or the page takes too long to load (which also makes the comments searchable then … but breaks up continuity when I have to decide where to cut off the comments to shorten the current page).
August 19, 2011 @ 8:41 am ·
i submitted a Sbir grant which will be funded. Once I receive the NOA and submit the W9, should i begin the work immediately. Can I request a start date beginning say in Jan 2012?
Your help is appreciated.
August 19, 2011 @ 10:00 am ·
Sometimes you can delay accepting an award, but if it must be awarded in FY11, then only until Sept 30. You should check with your PO or GMS about when the award must be issued.
September 8, 2011 @ 5:41 pm ·
I recieved a 2 year grant from NIH. The NoA shows 2 year funding. However the funding was released for 1 year. The eRA common shows, upon submission of progress report the second year funding will be released. How remote are the chances, that the second year will not be released. If the progress report is submitted on time and is upto satisfaction, is there any reason the funding for the second year may not be released.
September 14, 2011 @ 8:48 am ·
This is standard. Noncompeting renewals are just that – noncompeting and essentially automatic assuming you have submitted your progress report and are submitting any related manuscripts to PubMedCentral (awards can be held up if you are not in compliance).
September 28, 2011 @ 4:54 pm ·
Can anyone out there shed light on the following topics, please? Replies could be generally useful, it seems.
1. How much can the chairperson of a study section influence a) selection of its i) regular members and ii) ad hoc members, and b) assignment of proposals to members? Influence over assignment could occur indirectly, for example, by way of a recommendation to the SRA or PO that person X had expertise in area Y.
2. Are data available on the percentage of cases in which a high-scoring but unfunded proposal was revised but not discussed after resubmission?
3. Further to point 2, suppose for example that one reviewer gave a proposal very high marks (all 1′s, possibly one 2) but another gave it more average marks. The overall priority score could be high but not competitive in that batch of proposals. The applicant then replies directly in the revised proposal to all significant points raised by reviewers, but the revised work is not discussed. If there is a significant probability of this outcome, the review process will have a large “random” component (nefarious intentions are not considered in this example). But if the process does have such a large random component, what is the point of a study section?
September 29, 2011 @ 8:17 am ·
I’ll give it a try.
1 a) A little. An SRO might ask for suggestions of possible reviewers but the Chair would be one among many sources.
1b). Usually none even indirectly. The SRO should know the members and their expertise (or ask them) to assign grants to review.
2) No. But, anecdotal evidence (on this board for example) suggest that it is not unusual. You could ask NIH to generate the data though. Maybe post a comment on Rocktalk (http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/rock-talk/) or send in a FOIA request to NIH.
3). There is definitely a random component to grant review. A study section is good at removing the bad stuff (over 5) and finding the really good stuff (2 and under) but everything in between is more difficult. These are all expert opinions on future work. It would be interesting to see the correlation between first scores and second scores. Maybe another FOIA request?
September 30, 2011 @ 2:12 pm ·
just receive 7th percentile for R21 at NCI… what are teh cahnces with FY12 budget that it will be funded???????
September 30, 2011 @ 2:20 pm ·
Oof, I certainly hope much better than 50-50. You probably won’t know in time for your planned Dec start date, but if the House can push through any sort of increase above FY11 levels and your project is of programmatic interest (per your PO), you should be in reasonably good shape. Sadly, though, no guarantees.
October 7, 2011 @ 10:21 pm ·
I was wondering if anyone has some advice/suggestions for my situation. I graduated in August and have been planning on starting as post-doc at end of November (same institution). PI has an A1 submission at NCI scored at 11%, but is awaiting payline. PI can pay me for “a few months” but suggested I talk to other PIs at our institution looking for a short term appointment and come back to his lab when funding clears. How reasonable is an 11% at NCI in the current budget climate? What needs to happen on Congress’s part…I assume the FY12 appropriations bill, not just continuing respolutions, right? Any advice would be appreciated.
October 8, 2011 @ 9:08 am ·
The NIH is starting FY12 with a budget cut (due to CR), and whether their ultimate appropriation will increase or decrease depends on whether the Senate or House version of the Labor, HHS, & Education bill wins out (write to your Congress folks!). However, at NCI, the bigger issue is that the selection of applications for funding above the 7th percentile is a crap shoot, with decisions dragged out for months. If your PI’s PO is not advocating for his application, then his chances of funding are slim. However, even if the PO is enthusiastic about cheerleading for the application, funding is not guaranteed.
The bigger issue is, assuming you want to pursue a career in academic biomedical research, that you don’t want to spend these critical early postdoc year(s) bouncing around on short-term assignments. This is your chance to focus on the science you want to pursue and get solid first-author publications out. A few months here and there will put you in the middle of author lists and not leave you with a line of investigation you can call your own. Unless the short-term assignment is in a lab where you’ll learn a new technique you really want to get under your belt, I wouldn’t recommend you do something just to be expedient. (on the same vein, I assume you are staying at the same institution either for family reasons or the institution is the best place to continue your training) Depends on what your goals are, though … maybe you are just doing the postdoc as the necessary next step to apply for jobs in industry or elsewhere outside academia … maybe you just want a job that keeps your hands at the bench.
October 10, 2011 @ 12:10 am ·
Thanks to all who have shared their insights on this forum. It helped me understand NIH procedures and I could write a more informed K99. My grant received a impact score of 16 at NIAID. From what I have read, that’s good? I dont have a percentile yet, is there any way to know the fundability based on the impact score?
October 10, 2011 @ 12:17 am ·
Congratulations on such a outstanding score! This would be fundable for other K mechanisms … but I am not sure about the K99 since NIAID does not fund many of these applications. It could be months before they have a payline for the K99, though your PO should be able to say whether this score would have been funded in FY11 at least.
October 10, 2011 @ 6:02 am ·
Thanks, Wiredit. For now I’m just happy with the score. It provides great independent validation of my ideas. Plus I will be using it in my applications for faculty positions! Let’s hope congress now gets it’s act together and actually passes a budget!
October 10, 2011 @ 8:00 am ·
Absolutely … and in the meantime, it will attract the attention (in a good way) of search committees. Good luck!
NIAID K99 said
March 5, 2012 @ 1:07 pm ·
I am curious whether such a score is funded by NIAID eventually. NIAID is so tough on K99.
October 10, 2011 @ 1:35 pm ·
just received email requesting JIT for my grant application…is this good sign
October 10, 2011 @ 1:46 pm ·
It’s not a bad sign but likely went out to everyone within a certain percentile range (say 20th & below). The time to get excited is when the PO or GMS asks for JIT right around the time funding decisions are being made … which are a long way off for FY12.
October 10, 2011 @ 8:43 pm ·
I received an 11% as a New Investigator on my R01 A1 at the NCI in June 2011 for FY2012. Council met in mid-September. When can I expect to hear anything regarding funding, and how realistic are my chances of funding for FY12? Thank you.
October 11, 2011 @ 8:08 am ·
Congratulations on the outstanding score! You are just above the FY11 “hard” payline for NI/ESI (10th percentile), so in theory, you should have a good chance of being selected for pay by exception as part of the gray zone pool (11th-25th percentile). You will want to talk with your PO about whether to prepare a short rebuttal to the summary statement critiques or any new data/publications to help bolster your case as your application is discussed at the Division and IC level. With the budget cut in the current CR and the unknown outcome of appropriations negotiations, a final decision won’t be made for months though.
October 11, 2011 @ 10:42 am ·
My R21 got a score of 28 and it is in a special emphasis section. I am wondering if the primary institute is not interested in funding, what is the role of the secondary institute.
thanks for comments
October 11, 2011 @ 11:51 am ·
You can contact the PO at the secondary IC – hopefully you had already communicated with him/her before submission – to see if they might be interested in picking up the application if it is not funded. However, different ICs have different priorities for the R21 mechanism, so sometimes moving these applications around can be trickier.
October 13, 2011 @ 6:34 pm ·
I am plannig on puttin gin a proposal for the upcoming DOD Peer Reviewed Cancer Research PRogram – Discover Awards. I didn;t see ay specific topics on this site addressing these DOD awards. Any advice – web help for things like process, paylines, and gratsmanship given the different structure of these proposals?
October 14, 2011 @ 11:44 am ·
Did you submit a pre-application and receive an invitation to submit a full application? (the pre-application deadline has passed)
October 17, 2011 @ 8:15 am ·
I did submit the pre-application, but the PRCRP Discovery Award does not require an invitation for the full application. They say the pre-application is for planning purposes only…
October 17, 2011 @ 2:47 pm ·
The solicitation includes a list of focus areas (plus the allowable topic areas), so I am not sure what else you want to know about DoD research priorities for these awards. I would hope you have a complete draft of your proposal by now in any case, given the deadline next Thursday …
October 18, 2011 @ 11:36 am ·
Hi I got 12 percentile for RO1, NHLBI-NSI- Can someone comment on my chances of getting funded?
October 18, 2011 @ 11:58 am ·
If you mean ESI, then you should have a good chance of being funded at NHLBI, especially if this is an A0 (initial submission). FY12 paylines are unknown, but you are well within the NHLBI FY11 paylines. Your PO should be able to offer some guidance.
October 18, 2011 @ 12:10 pm ·
This is A1 submission and my PO is not very positive
October 18, 2011 @ 12:15 pm ·
Hmm. A1s are paid at a higher payline for established PIs, but I thought the ESI/NI break was for both submissions. The NIH is starting the FY with a pay cut and is waiting to see what will happen with the final appropriation, so it could be that NHLBI will be very conservative at the outset of the FY, but you could still be picked up for funding once they know how much money they have to play with.
October 18, 2011 @ 12:20 pm ·
Thanks a lot for the info.
October 18, 2011 @ 1:27 pm ·
Confused: Are you an ESI or an NI? The NHLBI phased out any differential paylines for NIs. However, they had previously been very committed to ESIs, and unless they have entirely changed that policy, a 12% as an ESI would appear fundable. However, a 12% for an NI may be just above the payline, which will likely be 10 or 11% this year. This is due to the consolidation of the A0 and A1 paylines, and the probable increase in application numbers (NAIAD numbers are up 17% so far for the year, and each 10% increase in applications basically drops the payline by 1%).
October 18, 2011 @ 12:35 pm ·
Confused: Are you an ESI or an NI? The NHLBI phased out any differential paylines for NIs. However, they had previously been very committed to ESIs, and unless they have entirely changed that policy, a 12% as an ESI would appear fundable. However, a 12% for an NI may be just above the payline, which will likely be 10 or 11% this year. This is due to the consolidation of the A0 and A1 paylines, and the probable increase in application numbers (NAIAD numbers are up 17% so far for the year, and each 10% increase in applications basically drops the payline by 1%).
October 19, 2011 @ 12:02 pm ·
Tony–are they consolidating A0 and A1 paylines?? I had not heard that from my PO.
October 19, 2011 @ 12:29 pm ·
I don’t think that has been formally announced, but they were the only institute with differential paylines for A0s and A1s, and I cannot imagine that the A0 payline would drop from 16 to 10 without consolidating thw two paylines. So, that is my guess.
October 19, 2011 @ 3:36 pm ·
Oh, I have not heard that the payline was 10–did you get that from a good source? Among the gossip I have heard (none directly from anyone at NHLBI, so maybe not a good source) was 13-14% for A0 and 8-9% for A1.
October 19, 2011 @ 3:42 pm ·
I have heard 10% bandied about unofficially as the likely payline from some NHLBI linked sources. With that said, the 3% drop is consistent between your numbers and the 10% number, as the consolidated payline in 2011 was 13.
October 19, 2011 @ 10:45 am ·
The NHLBI council met yesterday–has anyone heard what paylines they may have announced? My PO is out of the office.
confused: My PO said the ESI break is established investigator A0 payline+10 percentile points. If they don’t change that and you are ESI, you should be doing well. If the payline for A0 is 10 or 11 percentile, ESI should fund 20 to 21 percentile.
My PO also said not to be alarmed if very low paylines are published immediately after the council meeting; due to budget uncertainty they may be very conservative.
October 24, 2011 @ 7:30 pm ·
I talked to my PO at NHLBI. They will consolidate the A0 and A1 paylines for FY2012. My PO mentioned a payline of 10 percentile. That means a quite big payline drop for A0 and ESIs.
Anyone has more information about this? Thanks!
October 24, 2011 @ 8:45 pm ·
Until the Advisory Council minutes are posted, we only have what POs share and this tidbit on the Website:
Dr. Susan B. Shurin, Acting Director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), welcomed members to the 243rd meeting of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council (NHLBAC). The meeting was entirely a closed session. Council members attended via telephone. The Council concurred on the award of numerous research grants to be supported with FY 2011 appropriated funds.
You might want to pose your question on the NIH Paylines & Resources page (https://writedit.wordpress.com/nih-paylines-resources/), since that has a larger following of potential contributors.
October 25, 2011 @ 10:56 am ·
Did your PO mention whether the ESI policy of 5-10 points over the standard is likely to remain in place?
October 25, 2011 @ 11:04 am ·
The payline break (10 points) remains.
October 25, 2011 @ 11:16 am ·
Thanks for the information. The overall drop in the payline, as I posted earlier, is not secondary to budget reductions, but due to consolidation of the A01 and A1 paylines, and an increase in overall application number. The consolidation alone would have dropped the payline to 13 or 14. The increase in application number is costing 2 points beyond that. yielding 11-12 range. So, the initial payline of 10 appears very conservative, and barring am unexpected budget cut, or a big increase in application numbers for the third cycle, I would expect the eventual payline to drift up 1-2 points. Alternatively, programmatic discretion will be used, like at NCI, to fund grants near the 10% payline.
October 26, 2011 @ 1:15 pm ·
Hi tony and eh504, how certain is the ESI 10 points break in NHLBI? My PO said there is no offical word on it, but the PO of my colleague said it remains. Thanks!
October 26, 2011 @ 8:20 am ·
How long does it normally take for the council to announce the payline–just curious, as I have been nervously awaiting this for my first F32 (nhlbi). Thank you all for posting on this board, it has been so helpful to me!
October 26, 2011 @ 11:34 pm ·
Council doesn’t announce a payline – this is set by the IC Director/extramural staff (but is discussed at Council). For FY12, it could be a while before final paylines are known. You are best off checking with the PO on where your application ranks in the pile with the score that it has. He/she should have some idea based on FY11 scores and how applications submitted in the first 2 cycles have been scoring.
October 27, 2011 @ 8:39 am ·
Thank you very much–I will do that! I wasn’t sure if that was appropriate or not, so I didn’t want to email the PO. But now that I know it is fine to do so, I will! I appreciate your help!
October 31, 2011 @ 8:17 am ·
Any news? I’m also waiting on NHLBI but I haven’t heard from them since the council met!
October 26, 2011 @ 3:13 pm ·
Any idea what NIBIN for NI/ESI will be? My R01 A0 got a 15%
October 26, 2011 @ 5:56 pm ·
Hi, I recently received an impact/priority score of 20 from NIAID for my K22 application. According to previous two years’ paylines (31 for 2010, and 26 for 2009), it seems optimistic. I understand that payline announcement will take a while to come, but meanwhile what I should be doing? I have planed to try to look for a faculty position with or without a K22 funding. Should I start now and use the score to enhance my application? I read previous comments about the long wait for the funding… Thank you in advance.
October 27, 2011 @ 7:20 am ·
We’ve been discussing NIAID K22s over at NIH Paylines & Resources (starts here: https://writedit.wordpress.com/nih-paylines-resources/#comment-14457). It seems as though the PO (assuming it is the same PO for this mechanism) is pretty forthcoming with advice as to whether to resubmit.
October 28, 2011 @ 3:25 pm ·
Thank you very much! I contacted PO and got really prompt feedback, the tone was very optimistic and I was still suggested to go with the safest option which is to prepare for re-submission.
Thank you so much for all the input, your blog is extremely helpful!
October 26, 2011 @ 7:13 pm ·
SOmeone please give me info on paylines for NIMH!
October 27, 2011 @ 8:55 am ·
NHLBI just post the NI/ESI policy for 2012.
October 28, 2011 @ 1:20 pm ·
Hi, I submitted an SBIR application in August, and was expecting impact score as it was under IRG review, my era common status today shows in the impact score: not discussed. Does any anyone know what does that imply.
October 28, 2011 @ 1:44 pm ·
Unfortunately, it means your application was not even scored, so no chance for funding. You probably want to talk with the PO about whether you should resubmit or try to develop an entirely new application (though I assume this is difficult with SBIRs since the drug or technology being developed won’t change).
October 30, 2011 @ 1:51 am ·
R01 application not discussed because of “a lack of commercialization/product development prospect in 4 years”. I am wondering if this argument is valid in assessing a R01 application. The reviewer indeed scored my application well having no five component scores above 3. If yes, how would one respond in re-submission?
October 30, 2011 @ 7:48 am ·
Was your application in response to an RFA/PAR? Or was it a standard Unsolicited application? If the later that comment doesn’t really make sense.
October 30, 2011 @ 12:03 pm ·
It is a unsolicited application. It is the first time I have ever seen this kind of comments.
October 30, 2011 @ 12:04 pm ·
Me too. Were you proposing to develop a new technology or method (vs a hypothesis-driven proposal)?
October 30, 2011 @ 3:46 pm ·
Very strange comment. Definitely talk to your PO about this. Did you try and make a strong case in your app that the work was important because it could be commercialized in 4 years? Did you apply to this PA?
October 30, 2011 @ 10:59 pm ·
yes, it was a generic R01. The aims are not hypothesis driven and are related to continuing the development of a technique that was funded in a previous R21. I am surprised to see this because we had made great progress since R21 was funded. However, the technique needs further improvement and the accumulation of a much larger database.
November 1, 2011 @ 5:26 pm ·
I have received a priority score of 29 for SBIR application. The Po was positive and said the chances are not bad, however he recommended to resubmit an amendment just in case!
November 2, 2011 @ 4:26 pm ·
I have a question about competing renewals for R01s. What will reviewers typically look for in a competing renewal?
and what will be available to them? i.e., will they see the entire previous grant or just the specific Aims/summary statement? or just the Reporter page?
The reason I ask is, I got a budget cut and decided to remove a component of my grant after getting an OK from the PO. So I am wondering if what I change in the sp. Aims will have some relevance when time comes for the renewal
Thanks for any input!
November 3, 2011 @ 9:34 am ·
Reviewers want to see productivity – publications – for whatever research you completed during the funding period. Your Progress Report (in the renewal) will explain the change in scope (approved by PO).
November 3, 2011 @ 12:18 pm ·
I see thanks much for your response !
November 3, 2011 @ 5:00 pm ·
They only see the summary statement, not the prior grant proposal (unless they happen to have reviewed it). So yes, it is critical to mention your changes, and the reasons, in the Progress Report section of your continuation proposal.
November 2, 2011 @ 10:42 pm ·
Hello I received a score of 29 for my R15A1 application with GM. Any suggestions about the likelihood of funding? Cannot find any GM paylines for R15.
November 3, 2011 @ 9:39 am ·
Someone reading the blog might have an idea of what R15 scores were receiving awards last year, but your PO should be able to give you an idea of what was competitive last year and what your next step should be.
November 7, 2011 @ 8:45 pm ·
My eRA common web shows that my application was not discussed in the scientific review council meeting. Depending on the individual scores by the critics is it possible that the application may be taken up in other council meeting. What is the fate of an application which is not taken up for discussion or not assigned a over all impact score at a review meeting.
Typically in what circumstances a application is not discussed in the scientific review meeting. I am assuming not all 100 % application are scored in the council. What happens to the ones that are not over all scored.
November 7, 2011 @ 11:37 pm ·
About half of the applications submitted to the NIH (maybe more these days) are not discussed at study section, which also means they do not receive an impact score. All applications accepted for review do receive criteria scores and comments by the assigned reviewers, but these comments may or may not suggest why your application was not discussed. Your application will not be reviewed by another study section and will not be given any further consideration for funding. If this was an initial submission, you should talk with the program officer (PO) about whether to try to revise and resubmit or start over with an entirely new concept and application. Not all applications that are not funded at the initial submission are amended and resubmitted.
November 8, 2011 @ 4:27 am ·
Thanks, Writedit. What is the criteria for selecting an application for discussion at the study section. Are the applications pre- screened. Are they picked in terms of merit. If the application is given good score by all three critics then should it not be discussed at the study section.
Does the PO assigned to the application decide which application are discussed in study section and which are left.
Mine application was an initial submission. I haven’t received the statement summary. But as of now i am in fixed position .
November 8, 2011 @ 9:22 am ·
The 3 assigned reviewers give criteria and preliminary scores to your app before the meeting. If your Preliminary scores puts you in the top ~%50 in that meeting then your app is discussed and given an Impact score. It is not enough to get a “good score”. You have to get a better score than at least %50 of the apps.
Also, the PO has no say in whether you are discussed or not. It is up to the reviewers and SRO.
November 8, 2011 @ 12:26 pm ·
Thank you SG. If one is getting a grant already from the agency does the result of new grant/application get affected. I have an active grant from the agency already and in my second grant application we had the same PI’s (multiple PI). Would that affect the chances of an application ?
November 8, 2011 @ 12:40 pm ·
No it should not.
November 8, 2011 @ 7:57 pm ·
Can some one working in a research oriented company apply for a RO1 or BRP grant. Does the applicant need to be employed / associated with the University.
November 8, 2011 @ 9:25 pm ·
Yes you can. Check out the NIH SBIR Program. But, you can also come in as a regular R01 too.
November 9, 2011 @ 1:45 pm ·
I know this forum deals more with R-series grants, but I just received an impact score of 28 on an MBRS SCORE SC1 grant resubmission (A1- I improved from from a 48 in my first submission). Any idea what my chances are?…I know that MBRS does not have a percentile scale.
Any comments/suggestions are welcome.
November 9, 2011 @ 1:51 pm ·
We discuss all types of grants here … however, it is the IC (institute or center) that determines whether your score is competitive for funding. I don’t know of any ICs that post payline information for the SC1s, though, so your PO will be the best source of intel as to whether your nicely improved score may result in an award.
November 10, 2011 @ 1:08 pm ·
Just a question – how many of you gals/guys are worried, have ulcers and an overall worried attitude (sounds like clinical depression)…?
November 10, 2011 @ 10:40 pm ·
I know that I am constantly on edge, as are my colleagues…this is a tough time for researchers, that’s for sure!
November 10, 2011 @ 2:36 pm ·
I just received a percentile of 5% for a NICHD application. Does anyone know if that is within the payline for 2012?
November 10, 2011 @ 6:11 pm ·
Man, if NICHD isn’t funding at the 5th percentile, I think we can all go home … your PO should have an encouraging word for you. Congratulations on the exceptional score.
November 10, 2011 @ 10:44 pm ·
Congratulations!! That’s an amazing percentile! What was your actual score?
November 11, 2011 @ 1:08 pm ·
November 10, 2011 @ 11:17 pm ·
Hi, I submitted an SBIR application in August, and got an impact score of 54 from the IRG review, My PO told me it will not be funded. However, he left the door open saying that I should wait for the comments to see if anything can be done. Apparently, the application can be championed by somebody from the inside. Anybody knows what it really means?
November 10, 2011 @ 11:21 pm ·
Your PO is telling you to wait for the summary statement to see how the discussion went and what concerns the individual reviewers raised. This will determine whether you are likely to be able to revise it sufficiently to bring the score in funding range. You do want to excite the assigned reviewers to serve as advocates/champions for your applications among the full panel of reviewers – but this occurs during the study section meeting (not now). You would be developing a strategy to get the next set of reviewers excited about your proposal and willing to argue its merits in front of the group.
You may also have noticed posts with regard to the need for POs to champion applications in a certain percentile range at the NCI. This is something else altogether – I think your PO is referring to getting some reviewers on your side at study section.
Baited breath said
November 11, 2011 @ 10:27 am ·
What was the institute? We were in a similar situation with an SBIR. It received a 49 and just squeaked into discussion. When we received the critiques it was clear two of the reviewers thought it was a reasonable proposal but needed changes, and one did not. It was our first SBIR and the significance and impact were high but there were some things we didn’t address properly.
The PO liked the application and had a number of helpful suggestions. He felt if they were addressed it should be funded. We received a 24 the second time around. This was on the cusp due to the issues with congress last summer and I was told to sit tight until council. Two weeks before council I had a JIT and then a phone call with the PO. It was subsequently funded.
I think the take-home is to use the critiques to your advantage. The reviewers will have positive and negative things to say. As long as the issues are not fundamental and you receive good impact scores, technical details can easily be addressed. Reviewers like to know that you listened to what they had to say. What’s interesting is that I was later asked to write a review article by someone on the panel, so clearly someone in the discussion got people excited.
November 29, 2011 @ 4:23 pm ·
Paylines are up for NHLBI (updated today)…
November 29, 2011 @ 4:35 pm ·
Thanks much for the heads-up. I’ve updated the NIH Paylines & Resources page (https://writedit.wordpress.com/nih-paylines-resources/).
November 29, 2011 @ 5:59 pm ·
Hi all, I have a question about mechanisms. I am at a big research institution but our college of public health is small so we are still eligible for R15 I received a score of 15 on the first submission but I am currently ineligible as I also received an R56 bridge award for an unfunded R01 last year. The program officer suggests submitting an amended R15 after my bridge award runs out. I am considering just pulling it out of the R15 mechanism and trying my luck with a small RO1 for the project. The science was reviewed very well in the R15 so I am hoping it would still fair well as an RO1. I still have my new investigator status. Can someone tell me if this is true or are the mechanisms so different that I could be even triaged as an RO1?
November 30, 2011 @ 10:50 am ·
The expectations for an R01 are higher in terms of preliminary data and publications as well as the science and approach – an impact score of 15 for the R15 does not mean you’ll do as well with an R01 (and yes, you could get triaged – different reviewers would have different perspectives/priorities/concerns). Did you ask your PO about going for an R01 vs an R15? I suspect the advice will be to stick with the R15, but it’s worth asking. However, it doesn’t matter if it is a “small” R01 – reviewers will hold you to the same standard, though you should get a little break as a new investigator, depending on the study section.
November 30, 2011 @ 11:57 am ·
Thanks very much for your advice. I have published 5 articles in this area of research and have quite a bit of preliminary data. I also received a small internal grant to generate more preliminary data this Spring so maybe I will wait until I have a publication out of that and then decide which direction to go.
November 29, 2011 @ 11:21 pm ·
Just received the score for an SBIR re-submission: 27. NIAMS 2011 payline is set at 25.
My questions are:
1) Although the resubmission was submitted in Aug 2011, the start date for the proposal is Jan 2012. Will this fall under the FY 2011 or FY2012?
1a) If FY 2011, how likely is the payline to creep up by two points to 27 within the next remaining month of 2011?
1b) If FY 2012, how long would we have to wait to get final verdict on the proposal?
November 29, 2011 @ 11:50 pm ·
The 2ndary institute is NIA, which doesn’t publish specific paylines — anyone here can comment on the NIA SBIR payline?
November 30, 2011 @ 12:12 am ·
FY11 ended on Sept 30th … FY12 goes from Oct 1, 2011 – Sept 30, 2012, so you would be considered for funding in FY12. We won’t know which direction paylines might go until we get a better idea of whether the House or Senate version of the Education-HHS-Labor appropriation bill will serve as the template (the House version increases NIH funding, the Senate version reduces it). The next decision point is Dec 16, when the current CR ends. If the Education-HHS-Labor appropriation bill has not been signed into law, the CR will be continued, and the NIH will continue operating under the 1.5% cut from FY11 levels.
Frank Walter said
November 30, 2011 @ 4:20 am ·
And continue to recruit people to sign ” support federal funded biomedical research” through different channels would be very good.
December 1, 2011 @ 11:42 am ·
More questions about my F32. I scored under the payline for NHLBI, and I am very happy about this! However, the project start date was supposed to be today, and I know you said it could start after the “applied for” start date, but I haven’t heard anything at all. Should I be worried? I know paylines were only announced two days ago, so that could be the hold-up…Thank you again for this amazing forum…I seriously would have been crazy (er, even crazier) if not for this…
December 1, 2011 @ 12:13 pm ·
The “earliest project start date” is just that … a hypothetical perfect world calendar date. Occasionally projects do start on or around that date … but not lately, and especially not for Dec 1 start dates. You’ll be contacted by the GMS when things start happening to process your award. Your PO should have an idea as to when the administrative machinery will kick into gear, too.
December 1, 2011 @ 12:17 pm ·
My F30 at the NHLBI was scored a 15, and the recently set 2012 payline was a 15. Does this mean that my application is likely to get funded? Or does this mean that only scores below 15 are funded?
December 1, 2011 @ 12:21 pm ·
Congratulations – applications scoring 15 should be funded, assuming there are no administrative problems etc. Best wishes for success with your degrees & your research!
December 2, 2011 @ 9:50 am ·
Good morning, I received a percentile of 6 for a R01 application. Does anyone know if that is within the NCI payline for 2012?
December 2, 2011 @ 10:15 am ·
It is so sad that anyone has to ask this question. This is a criticism of the NIH budget not you. The answer is yes. HV stated a hard payline of 7% for 2012
December 2, 2011 @ 10:49 am ·
Is the NCI FY12 hard payline for NI/ESI 10% like FY11? Thanks.
December 2, 2011 @ 11:57 am ·
I haven’t heard anything about a different hard ESI/NI payline at NCI. My assumption at this point is that ESI status would be considered during the grey zone deliberations.
December 2, 2011 @ 11:40 am ·
Hi, I think “hard payline + grey zone” are not a right way to do. It really gives PDs the power for a bias situation. It is an unfair system. How to get old system back to work?
December 2, 2011 @ 11:53 am ·
And yet the “old system” is full of Reviewer bias. I guess I can hope/wish that they PO bias will cancel out the Reviewer bias. But, no matter what you do you are going to have bias since most reviews are subjective.
So, I would ask you why you think that reviewer bias is any better than PO bias?
December 2, 2011 @ 12:06 pm ·
Hi, SaG, I agree, but I think the reviewers’ bias is transparent and you will have a way to address in your next submission. PO’s bias is in “black box”. You will have no idea why your 8% score is not funded.
punky punky said
December 2, 2011 @ 3:04 pm ·
the “reviewer bias transparency” in the old system meant, in many cases from my own experience, that no matter how you address the issues in the next submission you’ll be turn down. It is good that the “old system” got killed and I hope that resurrection does not happen.
The PO’s bias in “black box” may still contain some useful info on why your 8% score is not funded (if you ask and you should).
December 2, 2011 @ 1:36 pm ·
I received a priority score of 21 (September) for the resubmission of my R15 grant. My PO sounded on the phone optimistic even if she insisted on the fact that she did not know the paylines for 2012 . Still I do not have any further news when the grant is supposed to start in February 2012. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? Thanks a lot for all the comments posted.
December 2, 2011 @ 2:21 pm ·
Your scheduled start date has nothing to do with when the award might be issued – likely after the start date, and you will likely only know the award is being processed a week or two before. Right now, the NIH does not know how much money they have to spend in FY12, so all ICs are being very conservative in making awards. Your PO is being completely honest in saying she does not know – no one does (please read multiple threads on the budget issue on the NIH Paylines & Resource page and in my post on the budget-setting process, https://writedit.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/budget-update-good-news-for-nsf-their-creativ-use-of-these-funds/). Sounds like you have a great PO, so just trust that she is being helpful and is not hiding anything from you and will let you know when things might start happening on your award … which definitely will not begin to happen until next year. Hang tight and be happy you have potentially good news awaiting you.
December 2, 2011 @ 2:32 pm ·
Thanks a lot. I will…
December 2, 2011 @ 2:24 pm ·
I’ve got a situation i could use some guidance on. There is a competitive revision announcement for active R01s that i’m eligible to apply under. The award would be for 2 years max. The earliest start date under the announcement is 9/12 – my R01 ends 1/14- and i would not be allowed to apply for a full 2 years of funds.
It is NIH policy that all grantees may extend the final budget period of the previously approved project period one time for a period of up to 12 months beyond the original expiration date in the NOA if additional time is needed to ensure adequate completion of the approved project. Our fielding for our first wave of data collection was delayed by 3 months, and moreover, when the grant was awarded, 3 months were truncated (i.e., our 4 year project was awarded for 45 months, not 48 months). Thus, we can already anticipate that we already have a legitimate need to request the no-cost extension. My PO agrees that we will need the no-cost extension. However there seems to be some confusion (or willingness?) by her admin staff as to whether or not we can get one. The last communication informed us that No cost extension are not allowed this early in the life of a R01 (we are at the end of our 2nd year).
What do folks here think, should i be able to get a no-cost extension this early?
December 2, 2011 @ 2:38 pm ·
You can get a no-cost extension … it’s essentially a way of life for all NIH awardees. However, you cannot request it now. When you are in the last 6 months of funding, you can start talking with your GMS about a NCE, though you probably won’t submit it until closer to the end of the award period. You should be able to request a NCE for the competitive revision as well (though the application will need to have an end-date that matches the parent R01) … but just ask your PO for clarification on this.
December 2, 2011 @ 3:11 pm ·
thanks.. but if we can only request 5 of 12 months for the 2nd year, does that mean i can only request 41% of the max funds? this is really the issue more than anything else.
December 3, 2011 @ 12:17 am ·
You can ask for the maximum amount if that is how much $ you need to get the proposed work done.
December 2, 2011 @ 8:06 pm ·
As a new grad student I am very new to the grant/funding process and want to make sure that I am reading my score right on eRA Commons.
I applied during cycle II (August Deadline) for the F31 Diversity fellowship through the NCI. My SRG met on Nov 30th and today the Impact/Priority score and percentile was updated. Is it normal for it to be updated so quickly? Also eRA commons says that my application is still pending IRG review, what does that mean? Is this score my final score? And what is the difference between the SRG meeting and the council meeting that is meeting in January?
If I am reading this right, and it’s my final score, I think I’m in good shape. I received a 10 (1%ile). (Either that or I am a typo/mishap in the system and I’m going to be very disappointed very soon).
I’m sorry if this is a silly set of questions, I just want to make sure I am reading things right. This would be too much of a high and a low if I am wrong on this haha.
December 3, 2011 @ 8:06 am ·
Wow- congratulations on you perfect score. It is not too unusual for the impact score to be updated so quickly … depends on the SRO & the number of applications involved etc. Your summary statement will take longer, but this isn’t an issue for you since you’ll definitely be funded. Wonder if you would have been competitive for a Director’s Early Independence Award … best wishes for success with your degree program & research!
December 2, 2011 @ 8:52 pm ·
One of my graduate students applied for an F31 Diversity Fellowship and received a score above the payline. Is he allowed to resubmit?
December 3, 2011 @ 8:08 am ·
Yes, assuming he has only submitted the initial (A0) application and not an amended (A1) application as yet.
December 5, 2011 @ 12:47 pm ·
Hi, I received a 7% for my RO1 submitted to NCI, and contacted my PO for an advice. He did not respond my request for if I should consider for resubmission or not. What should I do? Thanks.
December 5, 2011 @ 1:26 pm ·
First, you should be funded at the 7th percentile. Someone else posted that Harold said the 7th percentile hard payline would be continued, so in your case, this isn’t an issue. Although usually there is no downside to getting the A1 ready, just in case, at the 7th percentile (or the 8th or 9th or 10th), you are not likely to get down to, say, the 5th percentile. My advice would be to put your time & effort in a new R01 application (different from the current proposal sitting at the 7th percentile).
December 5, 2011 @ 1:37 pm ·
thanks for your advice.
December 5, 2011 @ 4:20 pm ·
We got an impact score of 13 for our R15. Last year
cut off for R15 at NHLBI was 20. The council meeting was scheduled for Oct, 2011. We did not hear anything from our PO. Could you please give us an idea about R15 at NHLBI.
December 5, 2011 @ 4:49 pm ·
Your PO should be able to give you guidance on this, but I assume your score of 13 is secure, especially with a payline of 20 last year and the other posted FY12 paylines at 15 or higher.
December 5, 2011 @ 6:27 pm ·
my f32 nrsa was reviewed on 11/9/11 – i scored a 29 which is the 26th %tile – does anyone know if this is fundable?
December 5, 2011 @ 6:50 pm ·
Depends on the IC (funding institute or center), but that might be a little high for FY12 … you can check with your PO for better insight.
December 6, 2011 @ 4:55 pm ·
Does anyone know if you can submit an application to NIH AND the same or very similar application to NSF?
December 6, 2011 @ 5:03 pm ·
No … with two exceptions:
“Research proposals to the Biological Sciences Directorate (not proposals for conferences or workshops) cannot be duplicates of proposals to any other Federal agency for simultaneous consideration. The only exceptions to this rule are: (1) when the proposers and program officers at relevant Federal agencies have previously agreed to joint review and possible joint funding of the proposal; or (2) proposals for PIs who are beginning investigators (individuals who have not been a principal investigator (PI) or co-principal investigator (co-PI) on a Federally funded award with the exception of doctoral dissertation, postdoctoral fellowship or research planning grants). For proposers who qualify under this latter exception, the box for “Beginning Investigator” must be checked on the proposal Cover Sheet.”
December 7, 2011 @ 9:52 am ·
Thanks for the helpful info!
December 6, 2011 @ 5:17 pm ·
If it already happened, can applicant withdraw one?
December 6, 2011 @ 5:23 pm ·
Yes – you contact one program officer or another and explain what happened. There is no penalty at this point, and you won’t lose a submission if the application hasn’t already been sent for review (though check with the PO on this … if you will lose your NIH A0, then I would recommend withdrawing the NSF application).
December 6, 2011 @ 5:32 pm ·
Thanks, Writedit, for your advice. What happens if I got a promising score for the NIH proposal and wait for another agency which is under review with the similar proposal. Can I just depend on the one which I already have? Thanks again.
December 6, 2011 @ 5:39 pm ·
You can’t have the same proposal under review at the same time by two or more federal agencies. When you submitted the application, you agreed to this (legally binding contract). If you have a promising score for the NIH application, you should just ask the NSF program officer to withdraw that application and then submit it again if needed.
December 6, 2011 @ 7:08 pm ·
Just received the score for an SBIR re-submission (A1): 28.
NHLBI 2012 payline is set at 25.
Is it still any chance to get this grant funded? If not, what other options would be for this proposal?
December 7, 2011 @ 10:38 am ·
You need to talk with your PO, but probably not, given the budget situation. Since you probably cannot significantly change the proposal, I am not sure you have many other options, but, again, someone in the SBIR program should be able to provide some guidance.
December 7, 2011 @ 10:48 am ·
Many thanks for your advice, Writedit!
PUI Researcher said
December 7, 2011 @ 2:30 pm ·
What should I do when it seems impossible to get in touch with my PO? I have written e-mails to set up a phone call, but he doesn’t ever respond. I have also called and left a voicemail, but he never responded. I don’t want to piss him off, but I kind of feel like it is his job to talk to me about my proposal (NHLBI R15 23 score, 20 payline)
December 7, 2011 @ 2:42 pm ·
Well, what is the timescale involved? Hours? Days? Weeks? And when was your application reviewed? He could be waiting to get some information before responding, though it would be more professional to at least acknowledge your communication. If this has been going on for weeks, you could contact the Division chief or a PO with related interests to determine whether there might be a personal reason for the lack of communication (out of office, family leave, change of duty, etc.) and whether someone else can offer some guidance. At this point, though, I expect no one will be able to tell you anything, since no one – and I mean no one – knows what will happen to the NIH budget and whether the payline might go up at all. If you attempt to reach your PO again, you might acknowledge your awareness of the fact the budget is a complete unknown and that you do not expect him to look into a crystal ball for the answer … but that you would appreciate guidance on your next step. If this is an A0, he will likely suggest preparing an A1 for next March … if this is an A1, then he should be willing to discuss strategies for reworking the project for a new application.
December 7, 2011 @ 2:42 pm ·
Make sure that he is not out in the field. Keep insisting. Yes, it is part of his job to talk to you.
December 12, 2011 @ 1:47 pm ·
Regarding the NIH biosketch, is it good to put the number of citations at the end of a publication to show the impact of the paper? I was critized for the publication in the low impact factor journals althouth it is not true.
December 12, 2011 @ 1:56 pm ·
Well, of course low-impact factor refers to the journal itself, not the number of times your paper was cited, but I have seen PIs indicate how many times a paper is cited (parenthetically, at the end). Hopefully reviewers will assume you don’t do a lot of self-citing. If you are responding to a prior review in an A1, you could note that the community affected by your work does cite and benefit from it, even if the journals are not top tier for the field.
December 12, 2011 @ 1:55 pm ·
I was contacted by my program officer and asked to write a rebuttal to the summary statement. Can you give me some guidelines/advice regarding this? Thanks a lot!
December 12, 2011 @ 2:03 pm ·
If your PO gave you a page restriction, then you need to follow that, and your priority is first to respond to concerns raised in the Resume & Summary of Discussion. You want to quote verbatim (not paraphrased) specific questions-concerns-weaknesses raised and then specifically clarify any points that might not have been communicated originally, indicate why the concerns will not affect the impact your proposed research, explain how your proposed approach addresses the concerns raised, etc. Once you cover each of the weaknesses/concerns from the discussion, if you have room (or if you do not have a page limit), you can do the same for each of the individual reviews in turn (same thing – direct quote, then your response). You don’t need or want to restate any praise from the review … just get straight to the point of answering the reviewer questions/concerns, as if you were in the room with them … and in such a way that you do not say the reviewer was wrong or mistaken. Your goal is to shore up the scientific merit of the work for the PO to argue in front of his/her higher ups in making the case for funding, so this is not a situation in which you want to get in a pissing match or get upset with specific comments you take issue with. Stick with the science, why yours is good and will succeed in achieving the proposed aims. At this point, the issue is probably more one of approach than significance/innovation, but you can tell what the study section was most concerned about in the summary of discussion. Good luck (and hopefully others will chime in with advice).
December 12, 2011 @ 1:56 pm ·
I submitted the A1 revision for my RO1 in November 2011. If it doesn’t get funded can I submit it as an R21 in Feb 2012 if I receive the summary statement before the R21 deadline?
December 12, 2011 @ 2:07 pm ·
The application will only be reviewed and possibly scored in February, so I assume you are referring to whether you will receive a fundable score (funding decisions for Cycle 3 applications don’t happen until next summer). To submit the same work as an R21, I believe you would need to administratively withdraw the R01, since it will not have been considered by Council yet (and still be actively under review). You should talk with your PO about this, though, particularly what piece of the R01 would be of most interest to the IC as an R21. Also, not all ICs accept R21s, and some for very specialized uses.
December 12, 2011 @ 2:12 pm ·
Since I already submitted my A01 R01, if I withdraw it before review, will I still have one more submission or will I have used it up already by submitting in the first place?
December 12, 2011 @ 2:18 pm ·
It has already been assigned for review, so you would need to ask the PO and/or SRO about whether you lose a submission if you withdraw the A1 now. I know of one instance in which the A1 option was preserved for an application that had been withdrawn almost immediately after it was submitted … but you are over a month out, so I’m not sure.
December 14, 2011 @ 3:23 pm ·
General question: Is funding decision made after the Council meeting for a NIH proposal?
December 14, 2011 @ 5:02 pm ·
Not immediately (and never before).
December 16, 2011 @ 12:14 pm ·
Can someone please explain the “NCI funding exceptions process” for applications scoring outside 7%? What happens during that process, and who makes the final funding decisions?
December 16, 2011 @ 5:44 pm ·
Please look on the NIH Paylines & Resources page: https://writedit.wordpress.com/nih-paylines-resources/
We have lots of posts about the NCI review process (search for “NCI” or “Harold” or “SRL”).
There are also several posts on this page about the NCI review process (e.g., https://writedit.wordpress.com/nih-paylines-resources/discussion-nih-scorespaylinespolicypeer-review/#comment-10859). Just look around.
December 19, 2011 @ 4:31 pm ·
Duplications not in PHS agency: Based on SF424, “Submissions of identical applications to one or more components of the PHS are not allowed”. If a grant was submitted to the NIH and VA which is not a public health service system, does it still violate SF424?
December 19, 2011 @ 4:39 pm ·
Check the VA rules. The NSF says no NIH submissions with two exceptions spelled out in their Grant Proposal Guide. I believe in general that federal agencies do not want to invest time & effort reviewing duplicative proposals, especially if the project is essentially the same (versus customized to different mechanisms/sponsor priorities).
December 20, 2011 @ 3:44 pm ·
Now that the budget has been settled on for FY 2012, does anyone know if new paylines will be posted? How and when are the interim paylines usually updated?
December 20, 2011 @ 3:46 pm ·
For the ICs that post paylines, these should be updated in January, I would guess (it’s not immediate).
December 20, 2011 @ 6:10 pm ·
Since the budget increased slightly, the updated lines will only be an improvement over interim lines, right? At worst, they stay the same, but they should not get any lower?
December 20, 2011 @ 6:32 pm ·
Yes, paylines will stay the same or improve minimally.
December 20, 2011 @ 10:15 pm ·
The 2011 pay lines were 12 and 16 for R01 A0 and A1 at NHLBI.Since the budget is better than current CR-do you expect the R01 pay line for NHLBI to increase from 10 to 12 ? .
December 20, 2011 @ 10:27 pm ·
It could go up – it is likely to go up … probably to 12, but I certainly can’t say for sure, since I don’t know what their application pool looks like or how much they need/want to restore to grants that were cut at the beginning of the fiscal year.
December 21, 2011 @ 5:04 am ·
Thanks. I am a NI with 12 percentile. Crossing my fingers!!!
December 22, 2011 @ 1:15 pm ·
I talked to my PO at NIBIB and he said surprisingly that they payline will drop into the single digits and for NI be probably at 10% – in 2011 it was at 16%. This would be a 6% drop in pay line from 2011 to 2012 in spite of the slight increase for NIOH and also NIBIB (though mostly not for R01s). That was pretty surprising if not shocking (my percentile is 15% for my A0). Any idea what is going on there?
December 22, 2011 @ 7:07 pm ·
It’s a math thing. If the total cash is the same and the number of awards is the same, declining paylines mean people submitted a lot more applications.
December 23, 2011 @ 10:30 am ·
Check out this graph about the the NIH R15 Program success rate. Award numbers have been constant for the past 10 years. Success rates have cratered though because the number of applications has risen dramatically. I bet that a similar thing is happening to many of NIH’s grant programs. Budget cuts don’t help either.
December 23, 2011 @ 1:25 pm ·
Merry Christmas everyone.
I have a score of 28 on my R21, it is an international study with NIDA as primary institute. This is probably higher than NIDA funding limit. But Fogarty International is listed as secondary institute. Can anyone tell me what is the mechanism for switching primary institute. My colleague just got her R01 funded by Fogarty with a score of 30. My PO is not very helpful.
Anythought is appreciated.
December 28, 2011 @ 6:45 pm ·
NIAAA, an R21 grant received score=20. The Council was scheduled to meet in Oct 2011, but because of uncertainty in budget for FY2012, the payline was not established. If you have had experience with NIAAA R21s, can you please share it? Also, how long should I wait to start worrying about the funding decision – the NIH budget was decided on Dec 16th…
December 28, 2011 @ 6:54 pm ·
Well, the NIH appropriation wasn’t officially signed into law until Dec 23 … your PO should have an update for you in January. You won’t hear if you are not going to be funded, so you need to ask if you want a definite answer (yea/nay).
December 28, 2011 @ 7:08 pm ·
My PO told me they just got the interim payline for the Sept council but would not tell me what that number is. I am trying to decide if I should be contacting my secondary IC before the January council. R01, 8%, NICHD primary. When is the right time to contact secondary ICs?
December 28, 2011 @ 7:20 pm ·
Your NICHD PO should be willing to get in touch with the secondary IC PO to help with this process if NICHD will not fund your R01. The secondary won’t consider it until the primary has definitely declined to fund the award … and at the 8th percentile, your PO should want to see this funded by one IC or another.
December 30, 2011 @ 1:26 am ·
Any chance for 13 percentile (A0) RO1 (NHBLI) from new investigator to get funded after january 2012 council? Thanks
December 30, 2011 @ 1:36 am ·
If you are not ESI, your new investigator status does not count at NHLBI. However, they do not seemed to have adjusted pay lines to reflect the final appropriation signed into law … though there is no way of knowing whether there will be enough $ to bump it up to the 13th percentile. Your PO should know in Jan. If the pay line stops heartbreakingly at, say, the 12th percentile, you could ask your PO about the possibility of being selected for select pay/pay by exception.
December 30, 2011 @ 10:10 am ·
I have a question….The Grant Specialist emailed and requested my University’s revised F&A agreement. I’m thinking this means that a NOA is being prepared? Am I assuming too much? Is there any other reason why the Grant Specialist would email with this request?
December 30, 2011 @ 10:34 am ·
Probably not, as they don’t usually go looking for work just to keep them busy … 🙂 I assume you were asked for your JIT, which likely precipitated this request.
January 2, 2012 @ 3:33 pm ·
My JIT was requested in July and submitted soon thereafter. They were just waiting on the final budget to decide on payline. Fingers crossed!
Baited breath said
December 30, 2011 @ 10:58 am ·
Just received a request to be on an SBIR panel next month and it had this sentence: “As you know, we are moving review of SBIR/STTR applications to an editorial style…”
No, I didn’t know, and I’ve been on panel a number of times over the last couple years. Anyone know what this actually means?
Baited breath said
December 30, 2011 @ 12:59 pm ·
OK just got a response from the SRO. They are moving to a two-tiered system in which primary reviewers are subject matter experts who get 3-4 applications and provide feedback using the existing scoring system. They then go to a second tier of generalists who are assigned 18-20 applications and actually vote during the panel meeting. The reviewers are not part of the voting or panel meeting.
I find the logic of this approach baffling. For all its faults, the existing system at least allowed reviewers to bring some in-depth knowledge to the discussions.
December 30, 2011 @ 5:14 pm ·
Indeed. They call it an editorial board approach, which is what they used for the deluge of ARRA applications, as it is modeled after journal peer review (expert reviewers submit written comments, which the editorial board discuss when deciding which manuscripts to accept. I agree that the journal editorial board model is not as good a fit for proposed research (not yet conducted) versus the reporting of actual data and methods performed.
March 4, 2010 @ 1:00 pm · Edit
Also, any member of the panel can review any proposal (save conflicts) assigned to that panel and write a critique if they so choose. In theory you could end up with 20 or more of them!
Of course this never happens.
But what I have seen occur is that someone not assigned to the application will get really involved in some point of discussion (pro or con, people, pro OR con). The system recognizes that the summary statement is supposed to reflect discussion. So sometimes the SRO or Chair or a panel member will say “Hey, will you 1) write that up as a critique; 2) write up a brief blurb for the SRO to include when prepping the resume or 3) write up a point for one of the other reviewers to include when they are editing their review
Or, occasionally, a reviewer will just be so ticked about where the assigned reviewers and panel votes went that s/he will just write up a dissenting view on his/her own hook.
final scenario: the way I understand it* the official rules require that at least two people assigned to the application have to be in the room if it is to be discussed. So if for some reason 2 of the 3 are phone reviewers, the SRO may tap a 4th “discussant” reviewer to fulfill this requirement.
*it is possible that this is only a strongly encouraged practice and/or a practice limited to selected study sections.
March 18, 2011 @ 11:19 pm · Edit
Great – I’m glad you got a reassuring reply promptly. Showing that you are paying attention may work in your favor at some point, too. Good luck with the review!
December 30, 2011 @ 5:14 pm · Edit
Indeed. They call it an editorial board approach, which is what they used for the deluge of ARRA applications, as it is modeled after journal peer review (expert reviewers submit written comments, which the editorial board discuss when deciding which manuscripts to accept. I agree that the journal editorial board model is not as good a fit for proposed research (not yet conducted) versus the reporting of actual data and methods performed.
December 30, 2011 @ 6:59 pm · Edit
I am a little confused about what is reported on ERA Commons. Under the grant status at the top it says “Council review completed” but further down it says Council Meeting Date: 2012/01 date. There is nothing else. So has council actually reviewed it? It was an R15 to NIAID that received a PS 15. Thanks!
January 1, 2012 @ 2:00 pm · Edit
I assume, since your score is well within the payline, that Council reviewed/approved it electronically en masse with other applications within the payline that have no administrative issues that might require discussion or special approval. This is a time-saving measure, done in advance of the meeting.
January 2, 2012 @ 3:33 pm · Edit
My JIT was requested in July and submitted soon thereafter. They were just waiting on the final budget to decide on payline. Fingers crossed!
January 15, 2012 @ 1:57 am · Edit
As far as I know, not all, just those submitted by the IC as having the potential for funding, which varies by IC and can include applications at many impact score/percentile levels (such as those for select pay). The easier statement is to say that not all those applications approved by Council will be funded. The IC Director makes final decisions, but needs Council approval first.
Bing Lu said
January 19, 2012 @ 4:06 pm · Edit
I have a question. My PO told me my grant at Oct 2011 council meeting will still use 2011 payline, is that right?
January 19, 2012 @ 4:17 pm · Edit
They might just continue the FY11 payline for FY12 – it is up to the individual institute/center.
January 20, 2012 @ 10:12 am · Edit
Thanks. My R01 (Sep 27, 2011 council meeting) was just on the 2011 NIAMS payline. My PO said, will use 2011 payline. However, no any good news yet. Do you have any idea when the decision would be made for last Sep council meeting grants?
January 20, 2012 @ 2:44 pm · Edit
No way to know on the outside, but they have not made any Type 1 or 2 awards in the past 90 days, so I would imagine they will get their act together soon & take care of business.
January 20, 2012 @ 2:52 pm · Edit
Is this also true for NIDA as well?
January 20, 2012 @ 3:01 pm · Edit
Each IC sets its own payline (most only do so internally, not publicized) or other method (guided by impact scores/percentiles/summary statements) of selecting applications for awards. The increase over 2011 funding is so small that last year’s paylines probably would apply in 2012.
January 20, 2012 @ 3:06 pm · Edit
Thanks, my NIDA PO told me that will have to wait for 2012 budget if my R21 will be funded, do you know if NIDA funded any grant since the last council review, I believe in Nov 2011.
January 20, 2012 @ 3:42 pm · Edit
You can see what has been funded by clicking on the Excel file named Notice of Grant Awards issued in the last 90 days at http://report.nih.gov/budget_and_spending/index.aspx
You should sort the data by Column B, as you are only interested in the Type 1 (new) awards. (Type 2 = competing renewals, Type 3 = competitive supplements, Type 5 = noncompeting renewals, etc.)
The NIH just released its fiscal policy for 2012 today, so I would expect ICs to pick up on award activity in the next week or two.
January 23, 2012 @ 10:20 am · Edit
My SBIR application just got a score of 27. It is a joint FOA for NHLBI and NICHD. No payline published for either of these ICs. What do you think are my chances?
January 23, 2012 @ 10:27 am · Edit
Your application will first be considered by the primary IC to which it was assigned (which you can identify on your summary statement – and in the assigned application number, either HL or HD), so that is the important payline. Your PO (also listed on your summary statement) should have an idea as to your likelihood of funding, since this is the final review round for FY12.
January 23, 2012 @ 11:11 am · Edit
Thanks. I’ll contact the PO.
January 23, 2012 @ 1:48 pm · Edit
I just talked with the PO. He told me that since this was a special announcement, he will not be able to say for sure whether the proposal will get funded until the council meeting, and that the standard payline does not apply. Does this make sense?
January 23, 2012 @ 1:58 pm · Edit
Yes – they will only fund a few awards (announcement should say how many), so scores alone will not be the deciding factor on which applications are funded. Bottom line is you just need to sit tight until a decision is made. Your score is good, but you have no way of knowing whether your project is more attractive to NHLBI than another project with a similar score (or higher or lower).
January 23, 2012 @ 2:21 pm · Edit
Does anyone know how long it takes for a notice of award to come through after a grant is reviewed by the SPL at NCI?
January 23, 2012 @ 2:26 pm · Edit
Could be days, could be weeks. They have a huge backlog of awards to make, so it would depend on where you were in the queue (assuming Harold gave his final blessing).
January 23, 2012 @ 2:42 pm · Edit
Yes, I heard they voted to fund. It sounds like an absolutely crazy process, and I am now very grateful to my PO, who, I discovered, put in a ton of work on my behalf. Thanks, Writedit, for all the advice.
January 23, 2012 @ 2:51 pm · Edit
Congratulations on the happy ending – and on having such a great PO (it seems many NCI POs are incredibly frustrated with the new processes there, so I’m glad yours stuck it out). Best wishes for success with the research!
trying to figure it all out said
January 25, 2012 @ 3:19 pm · Edit
I have a question for more experienced grant people. I submitted an R03 in February 2011 which was scored in July at 21. My PO said the agency didn’t have a budget yet and it would be safer to resubmit, so I revised and resubmitted in November. At the beginning of January, I received a JIT request for my ORIGINAL submission and turned around my paperwork (but my PO warned me it was not a guarantee of funding). I don’t want to be pesky with the PO, so thought I would ask about the approximate timeline after submission of JIT info and determination of whether you will get funded or not. (And etiquette – at what point is it acceptable to email the PO and ask w/o being totally annoying?)
January 25, 2012 @ 7:30 pm · Edit
Which IC is this? Some are doing better than others catching up with the backlog of awards to be made. Your PO could have a better idea by now both about the pay line and when/whether you might get an award. As long as you keep your e-mails short, to the point, and polite, I don’t think you need to worry about asking now, a few weeks later. If your PO does not say to stop asking (he/she will let you know when there is news), you could ask again a couple weeks later. I assume your A1 will be reviewed later in Feb or early March, at which point you could get in touch again if need be.
trying to figure it all out said
February 15, 2012 @ 1:07 am · Edit
Thanks for the commentary; it was helpful. I wanted to follow up and note that my grant was awarded last Friday – NIDA apparently had a bit of a backlog, and I’ve been hearing from other senior PIs who had been waiting on their grants (since July 2011) that they’ve been getting their NOGAs too over the last day or two. So, hopefully this is the start of good news for many a PI 🙂
February 15, 2012 @ 1:20 am · Edit
Thanks for sharing your experience and giving some hope to many of those waiting (for far too long). Congratulations and best wishes for success with the science!
January 26, 2012 @ 1:49 pm · Edit
My lab mate and I just resubmitted (A1) our F31 NRSA grants to NIMH and received scores of 8th% and 17th%, respectively. My lab mate has received numerous e-mails from our PO asking for confirmation of several courses and recommended taking a few others to bolster “general knowledge.” I have not received any such e-mails (we have the same PO). Should I assume that 17th percentile was just not enough to cut it at this point, or is it possible that I may hear something further down the line since I was on the cusp of funding?
Thanks so much for the help and this blog has been amazing to read!
January 26, 2012 @ 2:43 pm · Edit
Your application could be given consideration after the cycle 3 applications are reviewed and NIMH knows the range of percentiles involved. Their success rate in FY11 was 22.3% and in FY10 was 25.5%. Remember, success rate does NOT equal the payline – 20% of their applications might well be scored at the 12th percentile or lower. You should not hesitate to ask the PO about the status of your application – whether it will still be considered later in the FY when all the numbers are in, or whether he/she can already say, sorry, but you probably won’t make the cut. You won’t be told that you are not being funded, so the only way to find out is to ask. Good luck … I would certainly hope a 17th percentile F31 can still make the cut.
January 26, 2012 @ 5:20 pm · Edit
Thank you very much for your rapid response. I e-mailed my PO so we’ll see what happens. Thank you again!
Anne Houtin said
January 30, 2012 @ 2:53 pm · Edit
Will a detailed budget be required in JIT information or initial module budget is sufficient? Thanks
January 30, 2012 @ 4:14 pm · Edit
JIT requests are about potential budgetary overlap from other funding sources (active and pending) and include the total costs for the current year (or first year if pending). You do not provide your project budget in any format. You complete this form as shown in the example on the PHS 398 forms page (grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/othersupport.pdf).
Anne Houtin said
January 30, 2012 @ 4:27 pm · Edit
February 1, 2012 @ 12:46 pm · Edit
The payline for NHLBI K awards (which was announced prior to knowing the FY 2012 budget) is 19 compared to 30 from last year! Now it is confirmed that the total NIH budget did not change much from last year. Any idea when the payline will be updated? I am sure someone has already asked this question…I went through most of the previous comments but didn’t see it. Thanks for your time.
February 1, 2012 @ 12:50 pm · Edit
All I can say is that NHLBI will update it when they update it. No idea of the time frame. They might now wait until after the Cycle 3 applications have been reviewed, since then they’ll know the score distribution for most applications to be considered in FY12.
February 1, 2012 @ 1:00 pm · Edit
You mean the applications that were submitted on Oct 12, 2011? I submitted mine on Feb 12, 2011. Sorry I am a noob in grant applications XD.
February 1, 2012 @ 1:10 pm · Edit
Yes, cycle 3 = the standard due dates in Sept, Oct, Nov, & Dec (varies by mechanism & application type – new vs renewal … oh, and AIDS applications get until January for cycle 3). The review period for cycle 3 grants is Feb-March, so I would hope NHLBI et al. would update their paylines before then – perhaps now that everything has been assigned (& # of applications is about set), some awards will be forthcoming. In the meantime, if you haven’t already, you can check with your PO about the degree to which the payline is likely to shift up.
February 1, 2012 @ 7:09 pm · Edit
A few people on here have also posted on this–why all the drama, NHLBI?? Why take down the paylines, indicate they would be updated when final budget is known, leave paylines down for a week or two, and then POST THE EXACT SAME PAYLINES???!!!???
I’m not the only one here wishing paylines would drift up one or two points (specifically, two points) and thought they just might when they got reposted. But this one had kept my stomach in knots . . . . uuuuuugh. Okay–just needed to vent!
February 4, 2012 @ 12:24 am · Edit
Not sure if this means anything but a couple months ago I spoke with my PO for K series grant from NHLBI. My score is 23 and she told me that I would need to wait until after the Feb 15 Council meeting to get a final result. She said that though the meeting was on the 15th, she probably would not know for sure until the end of March. However, she said that in her experience a score of 23 should be in the safe zone. A few days later the postings came up with the payline of 19 so I must assume she knew that was coming and did not pertain to my grant given that the Council meeting was not until Feb. So, bottom line is that I am confused but hopeful and waiting anxiously for more information. Given my PO’s comments, I was under the impression that the paylines (at least for the Ks) will be changing after this Feb meeting but who knows…Anybody talk to their PO’s at NHLBI recently? Again, my email correspondence was months ago.
February 4, 2012 @ 9:48 am · Edit
Paylines can change up through the end of the FY and are most likely to change again after the cycle 3 applications have been reviewed (then the ICs know the numbers of applications per score/percentile & what their budget will bear). Your PO might also be able to advocate for funding your application out of order (above the payline), so if you have any updates to send (new manuscripts, abstracts, data, etc.), don’t hesitate to check in with her.
February 4, 2012 @ 1:39 pm · Edit
Regarding the RO1 submission, if the application is submitted as a ESI/New Investigator on Feb 5th then is it true that the statement summary would be provided by 1 st March so that the ESI can be eligible for next cycle submission.
What is the review cycle for a ESI/New Investigator
February 5, 2012 @ 12:55 am · Edit
If you submit Feb 5 (Cycle I), your application will be reviewed in ~June, you will have your summary statement in July 10, and you will be eligible to resubmit August 10 (for Cycle 2 review in ~Oct). The schedule for each cycle is posted here: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-12-001.html
February 5, 2012 @ 2:56 am · Edit
Thanks Writedit for your response. However in the following NOT:
it is stated that study sections participating will schedule meetings so that new investigators receive their summary statements no later than March 1, July 1, or November 1.The Summary Statements for qualifying applications will have an explicit note indicating eligibility for next cycle submission.
Resubmission applications for consideration at the next cycle must be submitted by March 20, July 20, or November 20.
New Investigators who do not choose the next cycle option will use the standard resubmission dates for subsequent cycle submission (March 5, July 5, or November 5).
February 5, 2012 @ 10:14 am · Edit
This is an old notice, that was updated by this one: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-11-057.html (which is summarized in the link I originally provided).
What is it that you need to have clarified? If you can and want to, you are allowed to resubmit during the same cycle you were reviewed. Otherwise, you wait for the next cycle (or later, depending on the state of your project).
February 4, 2012 @ 1:53 pm · Edit
My A0 has some overlaps with my another grant, but are significantly changed in A1. The A1 has not been reviewed (but will be reviewed very soon). Now, NIH asks JIT (specific email asking) and seems to fund my A0. I prefer NIH to consider my A1 after it is reviewed if the score is also fundable score. Is this reasonable request and is that possible to do this or what is the best way to do this? Thank you for any your suggestions.
February 5, 2012 @ 1:00 am · Edit
Talk with your PO about why you would prefer that the A1 aims be funded instead and negotiate this as part of your award (which is a grant, not a contract to do exactly what you said in the A0, so long as you make progress on a project that can be renewed in 4-5 y).
February 5, 2012 @ 5:19 pm · Edit
I got a score of 31 on a R34, and did not find percentile on eRA commons. Is there anyway to know the percentile? Or some mechanisms just don’t have percentile. So how would I be able to know the payline, then?
February 5, 2012 @ 5:41 pm · Edit
Most mechanisms go by score, not percentile. The R34 is pretty specialized (and payline never posted at any IC), so you should just check with your PO as to whether a 31 will be competitive.
February 5, 2012 @ 11:17 pm · Edit
Numerous posts on this site recommend talking to ones PO regarding ones score and the possibility of funding. I know my experience may be unique, but I have found the process of talking to the PO less than helpful and even potentially misleading. I applied for a K in June 2011 and received an IS of 21. I had a very hard time getting my PO to return any of my calls or emails. I finally resorted to calling her office at random times, in the hopes of catching her. I finally got through and began to ask her about my score. She would not tell me much, but after 15 minutes of very diplomatic conversation, she finally told me that she thought my IS was a good one and that she would definitely NOT recommend that I consider a resubmission. So I waited for my council meeting (which according to eRAcommons was supposed to happen in January of 2012) to occur. I went to re-contact my PO 2 days ago, but noted that on the commons website, a new PO had been assigned. So I called her instead and immediately connected with her. She was quite nice and told me that the council meeting would not be happening til the end of Feb 2012. She was significantly more informative, but I almost fell down when she told me that she though that my grant would not be funded for this cycle and that I need to think about resubmitting! She though that the payline would likely fall to about 19-20 and that I would likley be outside of that payline. To say I am devastated would be an extreme case of sugar coating. But what REALLY bothers me is that I now have less than 4 weeks to revise, repackage and get all new documents together – in order to resubmit my application by the March cycle. Had the first PO been more forthcoming, I would have been preparing my resubmission for the past 2-3 months! So the punchline is that while your PO *should* be your liaison (and potentially your advocate), you still have to be very cautious about believing what they have to say. Anyone else with similar experiences?
February 6, 2012 @ 12:10 am · Edit
Your experience is not entirely unusual … there are less than helpful POs at the NIH, and while you’ve happily been reassigned, another option is to diplomatically direct your question to the program, branch, or division head. Also, not all POs would recommend resubmitting with a score of 21 since the likelihood of making it 5 points better could be tough (depends on your situation & summary statement & trends at your SRG – they don’t automatically give you a little more of a break on your A1 just because it was close the last time). A colleague here at BICO was advised by her NCI PO not to resubmit her R21 with a score of, I think, 24 (she put her time & effort into other grant applications instead). I am sorry you got such conflicting advice and hope you can pull things together in time to improve your score. Thanks for sharing your experience, which is important for everyone to be aware of.
February 9, 2012 @ 3:48 am · Edit
Do you mind sharing which institute? I am in the same boat but unfortunately this is my revised application. Waiting until after council meeting in Feb to contact my PO. Thanks
February 7, 2012 @ 6:44 am · Edit
I was just wondering how long it takes after council meeting for updates to show up on the commons website (just basic things like “council review completed”).
Also, while reading the summary statement for my scored K99 application, I just realized that there was a minor discrepancy in the scoring associated with reviewer #3. At the beginning of his critique where his scores for the different sections are summarized, the scores are listed as 3-5-5-1-1 (candidate-mentoring-research-mentor-environment). However, as I scroll down and actually read his detailed comments, the scores he has assigned to each section are lower: 3-4-4-1-1. For the first two reviewers, however, there is no such discrepancy.
I know individual section scores don’t directly translate into the overall impact score (25), but I can’t help but wonder if there is a chance that my impact score would have been better had it been influenced by the “correct” (lower:-)) individual section scores. Any thoughts? Is this worth mentioning to the PO?
February 7, 2012 @ 10:57 am · Edit
No, not at all. Each SRG member assigns his or her impact score following the discussion. The summary statement doesn’t exist until after the meeting, so their is no discrepancy to cite that might have affected the discussion. It could be your reviewer (who, as #3, was essentially just a reader) went back & changed the scores in the summary list but forgot to change this in the individual categories (or vice versa) – reviewers can update their critiques following the discussion. And, scores of 4 would not improve your funding likelihood in any case. They need to be 1s and 2s predominantly. You will want to talk with the PO to gauge the likely outcome. Waiting for your eRA commons status to change won’t tell you much (definitely will not tell you if you are not getting funded). For some ICs, you need essentially a score of 10-11 to get a K99/R00, so, again, check with your PO about your relative ranking & funding chances.
February 7, 2012 @ 3:32 pm · Edit
Thanks, that helps clear things up.
February 8, 2012 @ 2:50 am · Edit
Hi I have been working on my K23 (NIMH) since last year. I have been working with this one PO and then, she told me that someone else will be my PO. So, three of us talked about the grant. When I submitted my application, I had different PO assigned to my grant. But today, I noticed that my PO is different person. Would this be any indication that no PO likes my proposal? Anyone had their PO changed this many times?
February 8, 2012 @ 9:50 am · Edit
Usually there is a K-mechanism-specific PO (independent of the science), so while the number of PO changes you have experienced is unusual (and a bit unsettling), it is WNL. At NIMH, they assign K POs by Division: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research-funding/training/training-development-contacts.pdf Do any of these folks look familiar? You should probably have your mentor introduce you to his or her PO at NIMH as well, if this hasn’t happened already. This will probably be your “science” PO (assigned by research program vs mechanism) as well, and this person could probably provide a little insight into the musical chairs with the K PO positions. The full list of NIMH program contacts is here: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/organization/extramural-programs-and-contacts-listed-by-division.shtml
Gabe Luna said
February 10, 2012 @ 1:26 pm · Edit
Does anyone know what the current payline is for R21’s in the NEI? I received an impact score of 32 (don’t know what percentile that is) and realize that probably won’t get funded however, I wanted to know how far I am from getting to the payline for R21’s.
February 10, 2012 @ 2:22 pm · Edit
I think we have a few NEI investigators participating sometimes, so you might hear back. In the meantime, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, you can check with your PO about what last year’s payline was and how this year’s looks and ask specifically for resubmission advice.
February 10, 2012 @ 2:22 pm · Edit
There is no benefit for NEI except for R01s. So for R21s you are competing on the same level as established investigators.
Last cycle my R21 A1 application had a impact score of 29 and a percentile of 20% (the A0 app had an impact score of 37 and a percentile of 29%). Needless to say, the A1 is DOA
February 12, 2012 @ 3:06 am · Edit
R21, NEI, 2011, A0 got 23 and A1 got 25. Neither got funded.
February 14, 2012 @ 10:44 am · Edit
I submitted my K in Feb 2011 (first cycle)…At last on my eRA website it says “Council review completed.” I assume they have reviewed all the applications from all three cycles? The NHLBI payline still is at 19…I hope it gets updated soon but based on HB’s comment I am not going to hold my breath since my score is 22.
February 14, 2012 @ 12:03 pm · Edit
The Cycle III applications are still being reviewed, and these won’t go to Council until this spring/summer. If there is a slim chance of your application being paid out of order, you won’t know until August probably, but your PO can suggest how likely that outcome might be.
February 14, 2012 @ 2:14 pm · Edit
I doubt it. My PO isn’t telling me anything…just tells me to sit tight and resubmit in case I don’t make the cut.
February 14, 2012 @ 9:43 pm · Edit
Hi, any idea about the payline for K01s at NIA? It has previously been 20. My PO said final decisions would be made mid February. Thanks.
March 5, 2012 @ 10:36 pm · Edit
I am wondering the same thing. My PO has not answered my questions and I have a 21.
March 6, 2012 @ 8:09 am · Edit
I am afraid I do not have any special knowledge of the career development pay lines at NIA – you should both have the same PO, who hopefully will have an update soon (& you can ask again via a brief, polite query).
March 6, 2012 @ 11:10 am · Edit
Thanks, writedit. Not sure what the etiquette is. After a week is there still a chance of getting an answer? Or do you follow up with another message?
March 6, 2012 @ 4:06 pm · Edit
You could call or email again in the next week. If nothing else, hopefully he/she can give an update on the timing of these decisions.
February 16, 2012 @ 11:47 am · Edit
Hi. So I’m new to the NIH application process. I have a K01 in with NCRR and the eCommons site says the Study Section Meeting date was 2/15/2012. Is this a real date or an estimate?
February 16, 2012 @ 1:29 pm · Edit
real. usually two days. You will have your score couple days after the meeting.
February 16, 2012 @ 3:01 pm · Edit
Thanks for the info! 🙂
February 17, 2012 @ 7:04 pm · Edit
The posts here are all very informative. And I have been reading them trying to interpret my F31 score. I submitted my first F31 application in December and just got an impact/priority score of 18. I don’t see a percentile or snap indicator code. I submitted to NINR. Is this even a fundable score?
February 17, 2012 @ 7:12 pm · Edit
Congratulations on the exceptional score! You should check with your PO, but I would think that an overall impact score of 18 (there is no percentile) would be funded at NINR, especially since they funded 35 of 82 applications last year (success rate of 42.7%). I can’t imagine there are 30+ applications with scores below 18 out there … but your PO can give you the best insight.
February 17, 2012 @ 7:50 pm · Edit
Thank you so much for your rapid response! I didn’t even know they had a success rate of 42%. For some reason I thought it was lower, so that’s great! I have not seen my comments yet, since they have not been displayed but will definitely contact my PO! thank you!
February 18, 2012 @ 10:38 am · Edit
Here is the info i got from my GMS on my year 3 non-competing award hold up
“Currently all NCI awards are on hold pending the release of OMB funds. As soon as the funds are released, this award will be funded. We apologize for the delay.”
What is going on here? The budget was signed almost 2 months..
February 29, 2012 @ 8:56 pm · Edit
I am in the same boat. Large clinical trial: No money. I don’t even know what OMB funds are. Any suggestions?
February 18, 2012 @ 12:18 pm · Edit
Hi — thanks so much for all of the helpful information! Do you have any idea about paylines for R01’s at NEI? I am a NI/ESI and my A1 application just got a priority score of 24 and an 8th%. Should I be cautiously optimistic?
February 18, 2012 @ 3:59 pm · Edit
I think cautious optimism would be warranted … NIEHS doesn’t have a big budget, but you can see what your PO has to suggest.
February 19, 2012 @ 9:45 am · Edit
Thanks! I was actually asking about the National Eye Institute, not NIEHS, but I’m guessing your answer would be the same.
February 19, 2012 @ 8:37 am · Edit
I checked the status of my NIH R15 grant proposal and noticed that I got a score of 20 for the resubmission.
My proposal was assigned to NICHD as the primary institute, followed by NHLBI and NIDDK. I could not find the 2012 R15 payline for NICHD, but I found that the 2012 R15 payline for NHLBI is 20. Does this mean that my project will be funded by NIH in 2012? Can anyone tell me the 2012 payline for NICHD?
February 19, 2012 @ 8:42 am · Edit
That score might also be fundable at NICHD – you can check with the PO. Also check with the NHLBI PO as to their potential interest in taking assignment if NICHD does not make an award.
February 20, 2012 @ 3:00 pm · Edit
I also have an NICHD R15 resubmission that just got scored. The payline for FY 2010 was 22 (http://www.nichd.nih.gov/funding/strategies_concepts/2010/strategies.cfm). In speaking to my PO about the resubmission in October, she said it was “about 22″ last year. My score? 23, You should be fine (congrats!) – I am probably out of luck!
February 19, 2012 @ 8:45 am · Edit
What is the process for moving a grant? Let’s say I land an R15 and move to an ineligible institution? Is it possible?
February 19, 2012 @ 5:28 pm · Edit
The award is made to the institution, not the PI, and while usually institutions allow PIs to move their awards, I do not believe the NIH would. You should ask your PO to be sure of their policy. If there is no one at your current institution whom the NIH would allow to take over as PI, though, the award would go back.
February 19, 2012 @ 6:02 pm · Edit
Thanks for your informative reply. I really appreciate it.
February 21, 2012 @ 5:05 pm · Edit
February 21, 2012
R21 Impact/Priority Score 30, Percentile 13.0.
Is that gant fundable?
February 21, 2012 @ 6:03 pm · Edit
In order to answer this question, it would be helpful to know the IC (Institute). There is no ESI benefit for R21, so most paylines are in the neighborhood of 10%. Some ICs do not even use the R21 mechanism. As previously mentioned, some ICs (such as NCI) have a “gray zone” that they pick and choose from. Regardless you should contact your program official.
February 21, 2012 @ 8:59 pm · Edit
Hi, I saw the revised 2012 paylines for NIMH and am surprised that NICHD’s paylines are so much lower. I know this year is unique. But, is there a chance NICHD will up their payline? I submitted in July and it went to council in October. I just want to know if I should keep hoping or submit someplace else. Thanks!
February 21, 2012 @ 9:56 pm · Edit
This is NIMH
February 22, 2012 @ 12:40 am · Edit
My guess is that your score falls in the discretionary decision range, so you’ll need to check with your PO whether your application will be pushed for funding or not.
February 22, 2012 @ 10:39 pm · Edit
thanks! I’m in the grey zone and trying to be patient given that they are behind. This is agony! My PO is helpful. But, has been much more careful with wording as of late. Before they were using “cautiously optimistic”. Now, not so much. I’m only one percentile away and hoping for the best.
February 22, 2012 @ 12:26 am · Edit
I applied for an F32 to the NIDDK back in December 2011. I recently received my impact/priority score = 20. What are my chances of getting funded? Besides getting this question answered, what are some additional questions I should ask my PO? Thanks in advance!
February 22, 2012 @ 12:38 am · Edit
I know they are paying them at 16 … I would think 20 should be competitive, but ask your PO.
February 22, 2012 @ 11:13 am · Edit
Does any one know the FY12 R21 payline at NINDS? I have a A1 scored at 12% with impact score of 26. Do I have a chance? Thanks!
February 22, 2012 @ 11:16 am · Edit
Probably, if their R21 payline is not too much tighter than their R01 payline (14th percentile in FY11, likely for FY12).
May 29, 2012 @ 11:54 am · Edit
I received the NOA last Friday. 12%, A1, NINDS. The payline is probably 14% or 15%.
May 29, 2012 @ 12:42 pm · Edit
Congratulations and thank you so much for sharing your data! Best wishes for success with the research.
February 22, 2012 @ 1:58 pm · Edit
Does anyone know the payline for F31s at NINDS? I received a 17th percentile and 29 priority score and am nervously awaiting the most recent council’s results. Am I in the running?
February 22, 2012 @ 5:21 pm · Edit
Does anyone know when one might expect to receive a NoA for Cycle II for NHLBI, F32 awards (submitted in August)? I am well under the payline and was told by my PO that I need not worry but a tentative idea of date for final word would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
February 22, 2012 @ 5:29 pm · Edit
Cycle II awards don’t start until the spring (officially April 1, but probably later), so you’re not late yet (unlike cycle I awards that have not been paid yet). In a month or so, you could ask your PO for an update of the timeline, or the GMS, if one has been in contact with you by that time.
February 22, 2012 @ 5:41 pm · Edit
Thanks for the input and such a great site for info.
March 2, 2012 @ 1:06 pm · Edit
Letter came yesterday saying they plan to fund and it seems like things are moving. Thanks again for the advice.
February 27, 2012 @ 4:48 pm · Edit
Does anyone know if changes can be made to the salary line after an application has been submitted to the NIH? The application (K01) has not been funded – it will be reviewed next month. However, I am expecting an increase in salary as part of an upcoming move to a new department. I expect the move to take place before the grant is awarded / funded. Thanks.
February 27, 2012 @ 11:55 pm · Edit
I believe this can be negotiated if an award is to be made (nothing can be done now). [if not, I am sure someone will correct me – great feature of doing this page :)] You can ask your PO for guidance.
February 28, 2012 @ 12:48 pm · Edit
Thank you very much for the response!
February 27, 2012 @ 11:49 pm · Edit
My R21 grant proposal received impact/priority score 43 at NINDS. The NINDS does not provide any percentile. Could you please tell what does this score means?
February 27, 2012 @ 11:52 pm · Edit
It means you need to resubmit. With a score of 43, there will be some clear items to fix, which is not always the case for scores in, say, the 20s that miss the payline. If your PO went to the study section, he/she might have some extra insight into how you can craft your revised application to appeal to the SRG.
February 28, 2012 @ 1:02 am · Edit
February 27, 2012 @ 11:51 pm · Edit
My R21 grant proposal on translational research (first submission) received impact/priority score 43 at NINDS. The NINDS does not provide any percentile. Could you please tell what does this score means? Any idea about the payline?
February 29, 2012 @ 8:57 pm · Edit
What is going on with NCI funds for Non-competing funds being held up? Any insight? Thanks
February 29, 2012 @ 11:39 pm · Edit
You are not alone – it seems both non-competing and competing awards are being held up at NCI … no idea why. More than enough frustration to go around, though.
March 27, 2012 @ 4:30 pm · Edit
Any word of movement at the NCI? Still waiting….
February 29, 2012 @ 11:35 pm · Edit
This must be IC specific, not sure what is up at NCI. I had a new R01 from NHLBI that was disbursed pretty quickly (got the NOA in mid Dec and funds were there within a couple of weeks). This was from a competing grant under FY 2012.
March 2, 2012 @ 10:03 pm · Edit
Just received a score for my first NIDDK K01. The priority score was 34. I am assuming it’s a resubmission? I see that they have been funding around 35% for the last couple of years (but what does that translate to in terms of the score?).
March 3, 2012 @ 1:01 pm · Edit
Yes, that score will almost certainly not be fundable. You can talk with the PO for any pointers he/she might have on your resubmission strategy (based on the SRG discussion).
March 3, 2012 @ 2:25 am · Edit
Question about bridge award (R56).
Could some of you share your experience of R56 award? My PO mentioned that only competing R01s can be bridged. I have a unfunded A1 R01 with a percentile score very close to the payline. My PO kind of implied that this R01 may not be qualified. This is a bit confusing.
March 3, 2012 @ 2:45 am · Edit
Perhaps he meant competing renewal – we just received a 1-y R56 award for a Type 2 A1 that was not scored within the payline but was of high programmatic priority to fund quickly. That said, R56 can be used for Type1 (new) applications, so unless your IC restricts its use to renewals, you should be eligible for consideration. More likely, your PO was referring to the idea that the short-term award is meant to support you while you work on the revision, which isn’t possible for an A1. The PI here got the R56 because the NIDDK really wanted to see the work done (& we’ll submit a new application in June or Oct, taking advantage of the bridge-funded data).
March 3, 2012 @ 9:21 pm · Edit
Thank you writedit for the information. The IC is NINDS and I could not find any policy saying only type 2 can be bridged. I guess my A1 application is qualified.
March 3, 2012 @ 9:28 pm · Edit
BTW, writedit do you know if your colleague initiated the request for a R56?
March 4, 2012 @ 12:05 am · Edit
No, the PI cannot request an R56 award, though I guess a PI can ask the PO about being considered for bridge funding. This is not the same as select pay/pay by exception, though, so folks should not get in the habit of asking about it, especially in the absence of a good relationship with the PO.
I study stress, irony is ironic. said
March 3, 2012 @ 3:10 pm · Edit
A0 with a score of 23 and percentile rank at 13 at NIGMS. I wrote my PO and he is not responding, 4 days now. I don’t have the summary statement yet and don’t want to call yet. But I assume the lack of response is due to massive volume just after SS and because this is borderline, but NIGMS does not publish payline. Past success says 13th is greater than 90% likely to get funded. Additionally, I am at the end of my bridge funding and have no other current support. Does anybody have recent experience at NIGMS with a 13th percentile???
March 4, 2012 @ 12:08 am · Edit
Nice screen name … at least you know what to do (or what is happening anyway). I would think you should be in good shape with a 13th percentile at NIGMS … the lack of response from your PO is no indication to the contrary. He/she is probably just very busy, possibly away on official or personal travel. You should try again when you get your summary statement and have something to discuss (e.g., concerns raised are easily addressed via technical tweaks without changing the underlying science etc.).
March 6, 2012 @ 1:53 pm · Edit
It’s been a month since I received my summary statement for my A1 with 2% score with NIGMS. I just e-mailed my PO few days ago but no response. The PO has never replied to my previous e-mails when I was prepping my revision either… I wonder if there’s a trick to get POs to respond. I have tried to be polite, not be too pushy, etc., I haven’t had much luck with other POs either.
March 6, 2012 @ 4:16 pm · Edit
A few days is not too long for a reply, but if you have never heard from this PO, you might want to confirm this is the correct person still; POs get reassigned, and NIGMS in particular has just undergone some reorganization to accommodate NCRR programs. If another week or two go by with no response to your next e-mail or call, then you could check with the person who directs the branch in which your PO is located (both to make sure you are trying to contact the correct PO and to check on the status of your application). The communications should be brief, focused, and polite – not a hint of complaint.
March 6, 2012 @ 5:40 pm · Edit
Thank you. I’m sure I’m contacting the right PO but I will wait for a while and see how it goes.
March 3, 2012 @ 11:53 pm · Edit
As ESI/NI, my RO1 grant proposal received 10% score at NCI. The eCommons site says the Council Meeting date was May 2012. Is this a real date or an estimate?Any idea about my score?
March 4, 2012 @ 12:02 am · Edit
At NCI, the Council meeting milestone is especially relevant. All applications scored above the 7th percentile are discussed by program and individually approved by Harold. Last year, ESI up to the 10th percentile were automatically funded, but this is not stated in the FY12 funding policy, so I suspect your application stands a good chance of being funded but is not a given … and the outcome will not be known until well after Council meets (the date is real, BTW). You should be in touch with your PO to see if you will get an ESI break on payline and, if not, whether you should prepare for him/her a rebuttal to your summary statement to help make the case for funding your application.
March 4, 2012 @ 9:34 am · Edit
Do you mean I shold give myPO a rebuttal letter before of after the concil meeting ?
March 4, 2012 @ 9:40 am · Edit
You shouldn’t give your PO anything before asking if he/she wants it. If you have not been in contact with your PO, you should first ask if your percentile and ESI status will be enough to secure an award and, if not, whether he/she (the PO) would like you to draft a brief rebuttal.
March 4, 2012 @ 11:53 pm · Edit
I have contacted my PO. He lets me wait the decision from concil meeting.
March 5, 2012 @ 1:44 am · Edit
Did you ask your PO if you should draft a rebuttal and he said he didn’t need the rebuttal, just wait for the council meeting?
NIAID K99 said
March 5, 2012 @ 1:07 pm · Edit
I am curious whether such a score is funded by NIAID eventually. NIAID is so tough on K99.
March 6, 2012 @ 11:42 am · Edit
Question of F31 Individual Pre-Doctoral Eligibility: One of the sites associated with the NIH/NCI F31 Fellowship states that there is a requirement for the sponsor to have an R01 or equivalent funding in an area of research related to the application. My sponsor had an R01 that expired recently and currently has an R01 that is ranked in the 6th percentile, but has not been administered a budget. I am confused as to whether this technicality would disqualify me for the fellowship. Thanks.
March 6, 2012 @ 3:53 pm · Edit
If you have not applied yet, your sponsor will complete the current & pending research support table to reflect the pending application (and any others in the queue). The requirement is that the sponsor have sufficient research resources to support your training, which could also come from institutional funds, if he/she has any (start up package, bridge funding, internal award, foundation, etc.), though reviewers do want to see an R01 or equivalent on the books (& a track record of funding – and graduating productive students). If the 6th percentile application is not awarded by the time you apply, you can send an update to the SRO about this once the award has been made (which would certainly happen well before the SRG meeting). If you have applied, you can let the SRO know about the 6th percentile score and send another update once the award is made (which I assume his highly likely, barring any administrative issues).
March 6, 2012 @ 8:04 pm · Edit
NHLBI just changed their funding paylines for K awards from 19 to 25. My K-02 score was a 23 and I emailed my PO who confirmed that I will be funded. I know there are a couple others on this blog in similar situations with K series with NHLBI so hopefully this is good news for you as well.
March 6, 2012 @ 8:06 pm · Edit
Congratulations and best wishes for success with the project and your career in biomedical research! Thanks for taking a moment to share the details of this happy turn of events.
March 7, 2012 @ 12:06 am · Edit
I recently got my impact score for an F32 application that I submitted Dec 8th 2011. Does anyone know what the pay lines are for NIGMS for FY2012 for F32? Do you think a impact score of 24 will be funded?
March 7, 2012 @ 9:29 am · Edit
NIGMS does not use paylines, as the former director Jeremy Berg explains: https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2011/01/28/the-funding-decision-process/ You should check in with your PO as to whether your application is likely to make it onto the pay list and what you might be able to do to help this happen (e.g., brief rebuttal to concerns raised, any updates on new manuscripts, posters, etc.).
March 8, 2012 @ 2:35 pm · Edit
I received a 31 impact score for my R21 at NIDDK. This was in response to a specific RFA. Do you think I have a chance of getting funded? I also received the JIT, the day after the review.
March 9, 2012 @ 8:39 am · Edit
You should just check with the PO since it will depend on the score spread for RFA applications (vs NIDDK paylines) & the number of applications they can fund. The JIT probably went out to all scored applications given the timing.
March 19, 2012 @ 1:12 pm · Edit
I am currently applying for an individual predoctoral NRSA fellowship and am just wondering how others have dealt with the budgeting area. Is there a need for an explicit justification? Most of the parameters are outlined by the application, but tuition and fees and the institutional allowance might differ from individual to individual. Thanks for any help.
March 19, 2012 @ 2:00 pm · Edit
There is no budget justification (nothing to budget) – you provide an estimate of the stipend & tuition/fees cost, and the final amount is determined at the time of award. Your grants/fiscal administrator will give you the $ amount for each year.
Amy Hepburn said
March 19, 2012 @ 3:07 pm · Edit
My PO sent my RO1 to the Varmus committee for making the final decision in late Feb. Now the current status of my grant has been changed to “Council review completed” on March 2, 2012. But I have not heard any words about if it is fundered or otherwise. I contacted my PO and he has not yet replied. Does anyone know if the funding results have come out since the late-Feb Varmus meeting? Any suggestions for what should I try at this time? Thanks.
March 19, 2012 @ 3:11 pm · Edit
All you can do is wait to hear from your PO. He might not know the pay list as yet either.
NCI or Bust said
March 19, 2012 @ 5:42 pm · Edit
My post-doc just got a 19 priority score on their KO1 award from NCI. I could not find any payline guidance for NCI. Is this within the 2011 funding range ?
March 19, 2012 @ 6:07 pm · Edit
Possibly, if they use a payline … an excellent (actually, exceptional) score like this should certainly be discussed for consideration. The PO will give you the best idea as to the likelihood of funding.
March 20, 2012 @ 8:31 am · Edit
I received a 26th percentile score on my F32 application from NHLBI. Anyone know the likelihood of getting this funded after resubmission?
March 20, 2012 @ 8:38 am · Edit
That will depend on the A1 score, which could go down (better) … or could get worse – some applicants go from close to the payline to unscored. There is no way to predict what will happen.
If I stare at the score long enough, would it go lower? said
March 22, 2012 @ 2:31 pm · Edit
I got a score of 21 (impact) and 11% on my F32 application to NIH/NIMH. My PO congratulated me on the score but said the final decision won’t be made until the council meets in May, thus he has no information on payline. I have not asked him if I should submit a brief rebuttal since the reviews just came out yesterday. Does anyone have any idea what is the payline for NIMH F32 these days? Thanks.
March 22, 2012 @ 6:24 pm · Edit
NIMH uses both paylines and programmatic discretion in selecting applications to fund (& in not funding applications below the stated payline), though your score and your PO’s encouragement bode well for your success. You should let your PO know about any new manuscripts/abstracts submitted, and you can ask whether a rebuttal would be helpful – depends on what NIMH takes into account in discussing applications. NIMH has never published paylines for anything other than R01s/RPGs, but perhaps someone has some insight of F32 levels from past applications or intel from their PO.
Young Scientist said
March 25, 2012 @ 6:45 pm · Edit
First of all thank you for such a valuable website. My question is …. I submitted a K22 to NCI (2011 cycle III) and got a priority score of 27. This is first submission. The summary statement doesn’t have any major concerns. I contacted the PO and asked if my score is within the fundable range but the PO said “can’t comment at this moment because the budget situation is not yet clear” and I have to wait until council meeting. I read in this blog that a score of 30 was funded in 2010. On the basis of that can I be cautiously optimistic about getting funded. I greatly appreciate your comments and suggestions. Once again thank you for such a wonderful website.
March 25, 2012 @ 6:49 pm · Edit
Cautiously optimistic, perhaps, but this is a different FY, and there could be more lower scoring applications in the queue … or different programmatic priorities. Everyone is waiting for NCI to get its act together, so I think you’ll just need to see what the PO says. If this was an A0, though, certainly think about revising or moving on to a different mechanism, depending on your status now – just in case.
Young Scientist said
March 25, 2012 @ 8:56 pm · Edit
Thank you for your response. Is it a good idea to contact the PO again and ask more details, though I am not sure that the PO will reveal any additional details such as the possible cut-off or if I have to start revising the application. I am just assuming that my score is just inside the cutoff but as you said it is a different FY. Thank you.
March 25, 2012 @ 9:03 pm · Edit
You can certainly ask for his advice on whether to resubmit – if he tells you to hold off, start smiling … but if he tells you to start revising, don’t assume the worst. It’s always your best course of action, just to be safe.
L. A. Cowart said
March 27, 2012 @ 4:12 pm · Edit
Has anyone heard from their PO if the NHLBI paylines for RO1 (ESI) will move up at all or will there be much lattitude for pay by exception?
March 27, 2012 @ 8:02 pm · Edit
FY2012 paylines for ESI R01 are final (20%), with the caveat that 15-20% requires a response to any issues raised in the summary statement. For FY2013 (submitted this year), there will still be an ESI benefit, but the payline won’t be determined for quite some time. I don’t think NHLBI awards many grants by select pay, but someone else may know more. If it’s an A0, keep in mind that, as an ESI, you can revise and resubmit the next cycle.
March 28, 2012 @ 12:49 pm · Edit
I got a score of 29 on my F32 submitted in Dec 2011 (to NIGMS). From reading this page I have seen scores that high get funded, but I’m not sure. Does anyone know what the funded scores are likely to be this year?
April 2, 2012 @ 12:39 pm · Edit
The score is a little high, but NIGMS funds based on programmatic priority etc. as well. If you haven’t heard from your PO about how interested they may be in your application, you could ask, especially if this is an A0, in which case you could then also ask about resubmission strategies (based on PO insight after hearing discussion of your application) to improve the score.
April 2, 2012 @ 2:58 pm · Edit
Agreed. A friend submitted to the same study section 2 cycles ago, and got a 32. She was planning to resubmit, but got a call from her PO a couple weeks before the planned start date saying she was being offered a fellowship. So I’m feeling cautiously optimistic but know full well that the PO might just have liked her proposal a lot…
March 28, 2012 @ 1:02 pm · Edit
Just wondering if K08 can be transferred between ICs. If a K08 that was assigned to NIA (primary) and NIAID received a high priority score fundable at NIAID (<24), but unsure at NIA, can this K08 be transferred to NIAID? What procedures should be taken?
April 2, 2012 @ 12:51 pm · Edit
Secondary ICs can and do pick up applications on occasion, but first NIA needs to decline making an award. You should talk with the NIA PO, who would also be the one to recommend a counterpart at NIAID (unless you already know the appropriate PO at NIAID); the NIAID PO then would request transfer of the application if it is of programmatic interest.
April 2, 2012 @ 1:11 pm · Edit
Thank you! This is very helpful…
March 28, 2012 @ 1:12 pm · Edit
I have a similar question. I submitted my K08 in June 2011, and it got assigned to the NCI and received an IS of 21. I had suggested in my cover letter that it may be most applicable to the NCI, NIAID, or the NHLBI. Of course, the NCI has yet to reveal their decision and may not do so for another month or more. My question is whether there is a mechanism by which to transfer a K08 application to another one of the other requested institutes. The NHLBI and the NIAID have released their paylines and my application (should it have received a similar score at their SRG) would likely have been fundable. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.
April 2, 2012 @ 1:07 pm · Edit
You will want to talk first with the NCI PO (your score could be fundable there) and then the NIAID & NHLBI POs, to gauge their programmatic interest in your work. The NCI PO should be willing to help you make contact (if you don’t know the right POs) at the other ICs to determine whether either would accept primary assignment
KC Rice said
March 28, 2012 @ 5:14 pm · Edit
My resubmitted R01 (submitted in Nov 2011 review cycle) status update switched to “Council Review Completed” on 3-22-12, even though the next council meeting isn’t until May 2012. Is this a glitch in the commons system or could it actually mean something? My grant was scored 10% outside the posted payline for NI/ESI status.
April 3, 2012 @ 5:36 pm · Edit
Could anyone advise me where to submit best K01 proposal, NIBIB or NCI? It looks like my proposal qualifies to both of them. I was wondering which one has higher payline, or in other words, less competitive. Thanks in advance!!!
Kelvin Wong said
April 4, 2012 @ 2:57 am · Edit
I have a question regarding ESI responding to RFA. Since these R01s are not percentiled, do ESI get their brownies and how?
April 5, 2012 @ 12:25 am · Edit
Please share if someone knows what is the difference between K01 and K25 training grants. They sound similar from NIH website information. I am to choose between these K01 and K25 grants, but do not have a clear idea.
April 5, 2012 @ 5:56 am · Edit
While the K01 covers a wide range of basic science expertise, the K25 is very focused on quantitative scientists (mathematicians, statisticians, physicists, computer scientists, bioinformaticians, et al.). If the K25 is appropriate for you and your IC participates in the parent announcement, that is mechanism you should use – but you can check to be sure with the appropriate IC contact (http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/contacts/parent_K25.html).
April 6, 2012 @ 1:45 am · Edit
Thank you very much, writedit!
April 9, 2012 @ 6:36 pm · Edit
I just got a priority score of 30 for my postdoctoral NRSA to NIGMS. Does anyone know my chances of getting funded? I am still waiting for the reviews…
April 11, 2012 @ 8:37 pm · Edit
Not sure if this is the right page for my question, but I am curious about how hard it is to transfer an F32?
I got a competitive score (won’t know funding decision until ~July according to PO), but my sponsor is moving to another University and I can’t go with him due to family reasons. Assuming I get funded, I’d like to move to another lab at my University and work on a different but related project.
According to the NIGMS F32 FAQ, “If you change two of the three parameters (e.g., project and sponsor), you will need approval to retain your fellowship from your program director and from the NIGMS Fellowship Oversight Group (FOG). Your request will only be approved if the justification for the change(s) is very compelling.”
Does anyone have experience with this? Any idea how hard it is to get approval from FOG?
April 11, 2012 @ 9:51 pm · Edit
Well, your justification is compelling. You should start working with your new sponsor to modify the research project as needed so you can show your PO how you can make this work. If the underlying hypothesis or focus (science) is the same/similar and the new sponsor has a strong track record, this shouldn’t be too difficult. If your old and new sponsor have the same Dept Chair, perhaps he/she could also write a letter of support indicating your training will be as productive in the new arrangement as had been originally proposed. You will want to work closely with the PO on all this, since he/she will be the one making your case at NIGMS.
April 12, 2012 @ 2:30 pm · Edit
Thanks for the tips. My new sponsor would be in the same department, so having a letter from the chair is a good idea.
I am unsure when I should approach my PO about this. I am leaning towards waiting until I receive an offer, because I don’t want to give him any extra reasons to keep me off the pay list.
Also, do you think I will need a whole new research strategy to give to the PO, or just explain in a letter how I’ll be shifting my focus (i.e., still studying the same general process but a different aspect of it).
April 12, 2012 @ 2:39 pm · Edit
Since the issue is moot without a pending NoA, there is no need to bring it up now. When and if the award is ready to be processed, you will need to talk with him – particularly as part of JIT information (change in budget from one sponsor to another). You shouldn’t need to rewrite the entire research plan, but you will want to rework the specific aims page as needed and address any changes in the approach needed to accommodate the new aims and the new lab, as appropriate. You want to show the PO you’ve thought this out and worked it out with your new sponsor (who will need to submit a letter of his/her own). Since the change in labs will happen no matter what (I assume), you should be working on this now with the new sponsor so your being proactive is reflected when you do approach the PO with the change.
April 12, 2012 @ 6:10 pm · Edit
So I am putting together my first progress report for my K23. Any suggestions or advice, particularly when discussing progress on specific aims? (not much has happened since parent study from which I am awaiting specimens still has not started enrollment). Also, how long should the mentor statement be? I’m guessing pretty short since the report has a 4 page limit. Thanks
April 13, 2012 @ 10:25 am · Edit
You don’t need to sweat this too much – just say what you’ve done toward each aim, and if no data are available yet, no worries (esp on a K23, since clinical data take a long time) – the PO just wants to see that you are working toward your aims and whether you’ve encountered (& overcome) any specific problems. If you’ve done anything on the didactic or career development side (attended workshops etc.), you can mention that. The mentor statement doesn’t need to be long – just supportive.
April 13, 2012 @ 6:18 pm · Edit
Thanks writedit for the reassurance. I definitely have stuff I can report on didactics/career development and one of my aims. The lack of progress on the other 2 (for reasons outside my control) was worrying me.
April 19, 2012 @ 2:32 pm · Edit
I am curious if any one has updated information on the FY12 R21 payline at NINDS. Thanks.
June 7, 2012 @ 7:28 am · Edit
Could anyone comment on this new PA from NCI? I may be wrong, but isn’t it true that historically NCI has issued very focused R21 (bio-specimen, pancreatic cancer etc). This announcement appears very similar to the parent R21, save the cancer requirement. I am debating whether to submit my proposal to this or the Nano Medicine R21 NCI also participates. Any insights will be greatly appreciated.
June 7, 2012 @ 7:39 am · Edit
NCI does not participate in the parent R21 announcement and, yes, this is essentially their NCI-specific investigator-initiated R21 mechanism (not tied to a scientific focus). Other ICs have similar broad but IC-specific substitutes for the parent announcement. If your science is appropriate for the Nanoscience PA (& if another IC might be appropriate as a secondary assignment), you should contact the appropriate NCI PO for that program and also search RePORTER to see how your work compares with that which has been funded already through this PA (PA-11-149, PA-08-053, PAR-07-271, PAR-06-475, PAR-03-043).
June 7, 2012 @ 7:47 am · Edit
Thanks for the info writedit!
June 7, 2012 @ 7:51 am · Edit
Sorry I meant to ask that are you saying that PA-12-145 is an re-issuance of an existing PA? Thanks.
June 7, 2012 @ 8:05 am · Edit
No, it’s a new PA. No awards have been issued to applications in response to this PA as yet. (when searching for awards to older PAs, don’t forget to change the FY from active projects to all years)
June 7, 2012 @ 8:10 am · Edit
June 11, 2012 @ 2:08 pm · Edit
Hi, I need a little help. I am bit confused. K01 objective says: “… The expectation is that through this sustained period of research career development and training, awardees will launch independent research careers and become competitive for new research project grant (e.g., R01) funding.”
However, K25 objective does not say like this. I wonder if I should emphasize in my K25 proposal that I will follow up with R01, or it foes not matter for this proposal?
Thank you in advance!
June 11, 2012 @ 2:12 pm · Edit
Yes – all the career development awards have the goal of helping junior investigators establish independent research careers. That means securing an R01 apart from your mentor. You’ll want to indicate both how any training (key skills learned) and the research project (preliminary data for R01) will put you on the road to starting your own line of research.
June 11, 2012 @ 4:12 pm · Edit
Thank you, writedit!
June 15, 2012 @ 7:22 pm · Edit
FYI – I was awaiting a decision from the NCI on my K08 submitted June 2011 (yes, over a year ago). However, it seems that some of the NCI funding decisions are now being finalized, as I was informed of the decision on my grant 2 days ago, but only after talking to my PO. Notably, the only change to my eRAcommons page was the addition of a grants management specialist. So, if you have been waiting like I had (and getting more frustrated each time you checked eRAcommons), it may be time to re-contact your PO to see if anything new may have happened with your grant. Good luck!
June 19, 2012 @ 10:13 am · Edit
Does anyone know what the fundable range of priority scores tends to be for New Innovator applications? does low 20’s sound hopeful?
June 19, 2012 @ 10:17 am · Edit
These are very competitive, but I would guess a score in the low 20s would be within striking range. Your PO could give you a better idea of where you rank in the pile.
Fly pusher said
June 28, 2012 @ 11:38 pm · Edit
I am a ESI/NI and my R01 grant application (A0) has received 29 percentile/priority score 40 at NINDS. The score just came out and I am waiting for the SS. Do you have any about the NINDS payline? Any feedback would be helpful.
June 29, 2012 @ 1:54 pm · Edit
You should start working on the A1 – you can contact your PO for advice when you get your summary statement. In FY13, the payline will not be above the 14th percentile. They go higher for ESI, but not up to the 29th percentile (the research would need to be exceptionally exceptional).
June 29, 2012 @ 12:20 pm · Edit
I am a ESI/NI and my R01 grant application (A1) has received 10 percentile/priority score 24 at NCI.The status of my application in eRA is “Council review completed”. Status date is 06/26/2012. So does it means a decision is made. Thus I ask my PO. He said a decision on my application will likely be made in July and my application is still under consideration for funding. However my project period begin date is 07/01/2012. Does anyone have the similar situation? Why the final decision is not from council review?
June 29, 2012 @ 1:46 pm · Edit
The IC Director, not Council, makes final funding decisions. At NCI, Harold Varmus & the SPLs decide which applications scoring in the 8-15th percentile range will be funded. Your PO won’t know if your application has been selected until the final list is sent out. Your start date is irrelevant – they can make the award after this date (which is the earliest possible start date).
July 1, 2012 @ 8:05 am · Edit
July 6, 2012 @ 7:21 am · Edit
Are the names and contact info of NCI SPLs published?
July 6, 2012 @ 8:28 am · Edit
Yes – you would need to look up the contact info for each individually (http://www.cancer.gov/aboutnci/organization), but they are listed at the outset of all NCAB minutes:
Members, Scientific Program Leaders Committee, National Cancer Institute, NIH
Dr. Harold Varmus, Director, National Cancer Institute Dr. Kenneth Buetow, Associate Director, Center for Bioinformatics and Information Technology Dr. Robert Croyle, Director, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences Dr. James Doroshow, Director, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis Dr. Joseph Fraumeni, Director, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics Dr. Paulette S. Gray, Director, Division of Extramural Activities Dr. Peter Greenwald, Director, Division of Cancer Prevention Dr. Lee Helman, Scientific Director for Clinical Research, Center for Cancer Research Dr. Douglas R. Lowy, Deputy Director, National Cancer Institute Dr. Alan Rabson, Deputy Director, National Cancer Institute Dr. Dinah Singer, Director, Division of Cancer Biology Dr. Sanya Springfield, Director, Center to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities Mr. Michael Weingarten, Director, Small Business Innovation Research Dr. Linda Weiss, Director, Office of Cancer Centers Dr. Jonathan Wiest, Director, Center for Cancer Training Dr. Robert Wiltrout, Director, Center for Cancer Research Ms. Joy Wiszneauckas, Executive Secretary, Office of the Director Dr. Robert Yarchoan, Director, Office of HIV and AIDS Malignancy
July 6, 2012 @ 12:27 pm · Edit
July 5, 2012 @ 9:00 am · Edit
Is there any information out there on what score is needed to fall within the 2012 (final) or 2013 (interim) paylines of NIA for R21 grants? My colleague just received a 28.
July 14, 2012 @ 1:40 pm · Edit
When a grant is administratively withdrawn by the IC, can I make use of the same or similar specific aims and submit a new application in the same mechanism, say RO1? Do the referral people still go back and check those old one’s and deny review? Is it two years after the last review for administrative withdrawal? Also with the NCI omnibus R21s (introduce this year), any idea how many grants will be funded per year? Thanks.
July 14, 2012 @ 1:49 pm · Edit
If the application was administratively withdrawn prior to review, I believe you can still use the same application (but you should check with the PO to confirm this – especially if the reason for administrative withdrawal was due to duplication from another application); if after review, you cannot use it again. After 2 years, however, I would expect the science to have moved forward sufficiently that you would be ready to submit new aims and experiments toward an updated hypothesis. With regard to NCI’s funding strategy for R21s, I have no clue – and I am sure they do not at this point, either, given the many budget uncertainties that lie ahead.
July 17, 2012 @ 4:40 pm · Edit
I posted back in April about my F32 application, so I thought I would update with current information. I got a priority score of 29, which I thought was borderline but probably fundable. Then, my boss informed us he was moving to another University, and I was unable to move with him. I was hoping that if I got the fellowship, I could take it with me to another lab to work on a similar (but not identical) project.
Well, last week my PO emailed me to say they were preparing to offer me the fellowship, and I had to inform him about my situation. He was sympathetic, but said they were unable to fund me since my project and sponsor would be different from the application.
Hope that information is useful to somebody out there….
July 18, 2012 @ 8:05 am · Edit
Very sorry to hear they did not find your justification for the change compelling, especially if your new mentor and department chair were supportive (and as qualified as the original mentor). Did you talk with the PO about submitting another F32 for your research with the new advisor? (feasible for the Aug submission if so?)
July 20, 2012 @ 11:54 pm · Edit
Can anyone here tell me when NIH requests for JIT? Before or after final decision? Thanks.
July 21, 2012 @ 12:26 am · Edit
JIT must be submitted before a notice of award can be sent, so before the final decision (and usually, but not always, before Council meets). The IC Director will not sign off on an NoA without full administrative clearance (which requires JIT).
July 21, 2012 @ 2:24 am · Edit
Thanks. Wasn’t aware.
July 23, 2012 @ 4:48 pm · Edit
Though a lot of this depends on Congress and the Fiscall Cliff/Sequester situation (FY 2013), does anybody know how an impact score of “20” sits with NIAID? My PO is out of town until the end of the month 😦
July 23, 2012 @ 10:23 pm · Edit
That depends on the mechanism (since you don’t give a percentile, I assume not an R01, unless this is an RFA with its own special panel), but NIAID publishes the score cut-offs for just about everything, and for FY12, it seems as though a 20 would have fared well in any category. If this is for an RFA, both the score and the science will come into play as will the number of awards to be made – all of which will require input from your PO (who won’t know at the end of the month in any case, though).
July 29, 2012 @ 3:37 pm · Edit
Good God I’m an idiot. I can’t believe I didn’t mention what this was for. This was an ap for an F32 NRSA fellowship. For FY 2012, I think the cutoff was “22”, but I’m concerned about how the upcoming budget sequester (and resulting NIH cut) will affect my chances. Thanks for the info.
July 29, 2012 @ 5:42 pm · Edit
Yes, the FY12 payline was 22.Well, your PO still won’t know the impact of sequestration etc. or whether your score would survive. No one knows how that will go, and we won’t have an inkling for a few months. If the cuts go through, then you might be closer to the edge, but if the House language (sets a quota for NRSAs) is used for the final appropriation, you could be okay. Really absolutely no way to know, though, so don’t drive yourself crazy over this. If that was an A0, you could work on the A1 in the meantime. Keep looking for/applying to other fellowships (not NIH), too.
Patiently Waiting said
July 25, 2012 @ 11:25 pm · Edit
Hello. I am seeking information about the NIH/NCI F32 NRSA timelines. I applied Dec 2011, received my score (16th percentile), and was told via email on June 1 that my fellowship was recommended for funding “pending successful review by the NCAB later this month.” I asked my PO for an update on July 16 and she said “To the best of my knowledge it is currently being processed by the NCI Office of Grants Management.” What does that mean? Should I anticipate an official Notice of Award soon? I have another fellowship I’ve been awarded that I plan to decline if I indeed receive the F32, but I can’t keep the other organization waiting for a reply much longer. This was my first time applying for F32, so I’m not sure what to expect.
Thank you for your input!
July 25, 2012 @ 11:38 pm · Edit
Your can contact the GMS assigned – but you can also check with the sponsored research/programs office at your university (or your department grants administrator) as they are involved in the acceptance and activation of the award. Processing at NCI takes a few weeks, maybe up to a month, depending on how busy they are. You will be receiving the F32 (they do not process awards that are not going to be made) … if NCI knows about this other fellowship offer, you may need to decline it before they will issue the NSRA, but the GMS should tell you this as part of the processing process. Again, check with the assigned GMS for a better timeline.
July 31, 2012 @ 11:16 am · Edit
Dear all, I have a R15 application (A0) get a impact score 20 at NIAID. Can anyone give me some confidence whether the grant could make it or not. The 2011 and 2012 payline was around 25, but there will be a cut this coming year. Will that affect my grant?
thanks a lot!
July 31, 2012 @ 11:55 am · Edit
Unfortunately, no one will be able to say for some time whether your 20 will be funded.If sequestration weren’t looming, you might have been funded under a conservative interim payline, but I think until closer to January, the ICs will need to be incredibly conservative … and if sequestration does go through, other mechanisms will likely be cut more so that R01 funding can be preserved. If there were any concerns raised that you think you can address well, you could plan to submit the A1 in November (your A0 will remain under active consideration for funding, even after the A1 is reviewed, and even if the A1 gets a higher score). You could talk with the PO about resubmission strategy, but he/she won’t have much advice for you on the funding likelihood of the A0 at this point.
July 31, 2012 @ 12:58 pm · Edit
oh, thanks for the input. I will wait for the statement coming out, then to check whether I can address their concerns and make a better resubmission. So stressed funding situation!
August 17, 2012 @ 4:27 pm · Edit
Thanks for the excellent resource writedit!
I have an R21 app at NIAID that was reviewed in Feb, and went to expedited council 7/31. Does going to expedited council review change anything in the timing of notifications for cycle 1? I was expecting to have to wait until mid-late 2013 to know for sure about funding, but when I saw it went to expedited review I thought it might speed things up. With all the budget uncertainty I don’t see how it could though. Thanks!
August 17, 2012 @ 4:40 pm · Edit
You must have a very good score on your application, which means it may be fundable under the interim payline (if your score is at least a few points below the last posted payline for FY12). Your PO won’t know anything definite for some time, though, as you surmise.
August 17, 2012 @ 4:56 pm · Edit
Thank you! That’s very helpful. I was wondering about how far under payline you need to be for interim. So “at least a few points below” gives me hope! I have a 22, but I haven’t found a frame of reference for interim vs. final for R21’s yet.
August 20, 2012 @ 11:37 am · Edit
I may be wrong about this, but if you were reviewed for an R21 in February, you are probably on cycle III from last year. I don’t believe there are any interim paylines yet.
August 20, 2012 @ 11:51 am · Edit
You are correct – an application reviewed in Feb would be for FY12 Cycle III, which means anon should be funded this month or next (FY12 R21 payline is 28).
August 20, 2012 @ 12:02 pm · Edit
Sorry, I hit send before completing the message. As I started before, an application reviewed in Feb would be funded in the FY12 Cycle III. However, I was going to add that the May 14th Council would have looked at Cycle III applications, so I am unclear whether the 7-31 expedited Council is for final FY12 decisions (though a score of 22 would have been clearly under the payline and should have considered at the May Council) or an early review in advance of the Sept Council meeting (Cycle I of FY13). Some ICs have some Cycle I start dates in Sept, and it could be NIAID follows this practice. I would suggest Anon clarify this with his PO.
August 20, 2012 @ 2:09 pm · Edit
I made a mistake! So sorry! I submitted in Feb. and it was reviewed in June. It was an early review in advance of the Sept. council meeting. Is it correct then that regardless of the early review it would still be funded under FY13 paylines? I did ask my GMS about it (hope that was OK) when I saw that it had already been to council (thought it was a mistake), and was told that it was expedited review and that anything under FY12 payline went so that they could fund some projects early, if possible. Just not sure what “early” means, if anything, for this cycle. Maybe those under FY13 interim paylines, if the paylines are released before the Sept. council meeting?
Also, sorry for post as a separate comment below!
August 20, 2012 @ 1:28 pm · Edit
There must be a wide variation in PO’s, as I couldn’t get mine to give me a hint of where my “20” stood in the pile of NIAID F32’s. I’ve heard from others much more revealing info. The wait is maddening.
August 20, 2012 @ 1:56 pm · Edit
I made a mistake! So sorry! I submitted in Feb. and it was reviewed in June. It was an early review in advance of the Sept. council meeting. Is it correct then that regardless of the early review it would still be funded under FY13 paylines? I did ask my GMS about it (hope that was OK) when I saw that it had already been to council (thought it was a mistake), and was told that it was expedited review and that anything under FY12 payline went so that they could fund some projects early, if possible. Just not sure what “early” means, if anything, for this cycle. Maybe those under FY13 interim paylines, if the paylines are released before the Sept. council meeting?
August 20, 2012 @ 2:13 pm · Edit
Certainly okay to contact the GMS … and thanks for sharing the clarification you received. “Early” could mean prior to Sept 30 (end of FY12) or in Oct (beginning of FY13), either of which would be prior to your assigned Dec 1 start date. Depends on whether they want the award on the books in FY12 or FY13. Your experience suggests they anticipate the FY13 interim payline for R21s to be at least 22, though, which is helpful. Congratulations and best wishes for success with your research.
August 20, 2012 @ 2:43 pm · Edit
Got it – and thank you! Either of those descriptions of “early” would be much earlier than I originally thought with all of the budget uncertainty (thought the Dec. start date would be impossible). The GMS didn’t indicate one way or another whether mine would be on the list that could go through early, just said that the early review was in place so that some could be funded early. If I find out more I will pass it along here!
academic hack said
August 23, 2012 @ 4:15 pm · Edit
Hello writedit-a quick question for you. Can you please tell me how long into a K99 award (NCI if it matters) a PI has to wait before they can accept a tenure track position at another institution? I have heard throught the grape vine that a year is the minimum. I feel like I would want to avoid losing an oppourtunity (as they are so rare today!). Any ideas of the positives/negatives of going as early as possible?
August 23, 2012 @ 4:26 pm · Edit
These awards are actually quite flexible, so you should not hesitate to talk with your PO about the offer. NCI has their own K99 program, so I am not sure how they handle their awards, but I have heard of K99 applicants who had tenure track positions offered before the K99 was even awarded being allowed to start with the K00 (sometimes even keeping some of the K99 $). If the tenure track position is at an institution you would like to join, I am not sure what the negative might be … unless perhaps you need some special training at your current place that you cannot get elsewhere & would miss out on if you left early. Talk with your PO about the grant management part, though – this should be a common occurrence, since it seems a lot of universities use these awards as part of the selection process.
academic hack said
August 23, 2012 @ 4:43 pm · Edit
Great info, thanks so much! The budget situation really is putting everyone in a lurch–hard to effectively negotiate with employers when you unsure of the funding situation, no matter how good your impact score. But that is OK-at least we have your guidance!
September 10, 2012 @ 12:17 pm · Edit
I received an impact score below the FY 2012 payline for a K99 application (NCI). Council review is in mid October, but I just saw that council review for my grant has already been completed. Is this a good sign? Thanks as always writedit.
September 10, 2012 @ 2:04 pm · Edit
I expect it means they sought pre-meeting electronic approval en bloc of those applications scoring below the FY12 payline … but given the uncertainties that lie ahead for FY13, you cannot make any assumptions about funding unless your score is well below the payline and your PO has shown optimism with regard to funding.
September 10, 2012 @ 3:12 pm · Edit
Thanks as always writedit!
September 24, 2012 @ 4:18 pm · Edit
After NCI council Review, how soon we will come to know whether our K99 grant funded or not!
September 24, 2012 @ 8:22 pm · Edit
For FY13, probably not until next year. Your PO should be able to give you a rough idea of funding likelihood (whether you are even under consideration).
September 27, 2012 @ 10:41 am · Edit
Thanks for the answer. PO huh!! not at all helpful, starting date is 1st the Dec 2012, council review is over we do not know where we stand…
September 27, 2012 @ 10:51 am · Edit
I’m sorry to hear this but not entirely surprised, given the unknowns ahead. They don’t know themselves what might happen. Even if Harold doesn’t think sequestration will occur, it is tough to make plans in the interim.
Aging postdoc said
September 19, 2012 @ 3:04 pm · Edit
Greetings! I have been in touch with a program officer at NIH about whether I qualify for K grants. I emailed my program officer in mid August to inquire. She responded immediately and asked for some more details, and gave me some good advice on which Ks have better paylines. I responded with the requested information and she said that the case was complicated and would take some consideration, but she was about to go on vacation for a week and would get back to me after that. That was more than a month ago, and I haven’t heard from her since. Naturally, writing someone in August is not the way to expect quick consideration, so I cooled my jets when I didn’t hear from her after her vacation. A few days after Labor Day, I sent a brief email to follow-up and included our previous correspondence as a forward. Still nothing. I feel anxious to know this information, for obvious reasons, but I don’t want to be a belligerent pest. I’m not sure what to do next and would appreciate any advice.
September 19, 2012 @ 4:07 pm · Edit
Most ICs have a separate PO assigned to K mechanisms. If you made initial contact with your “science” PO, you might look around for the appropriate K-specific PO in your IC and forward this person your prior correspondence. If you have been communicating with the K-specific PO, you should certainly try to make contact again (especially if you were planning to submit in October). If no response again, you could see if there is a senior career development PO at the IC or another K-specific PO to whom you could forward your earlier correspondence and ask for guidance on eligibility. Alternatively, the training officer for the entire NIH (Rodney Ulane, PhD, firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com) should be able to offer guidance for your situation, which I assume, based on your handle of “Aging postdoc”, has to do with years since you completed your terminal degree etc. versus the science itself.
Aging postdoc said
September 19, 2012 @ 4:40 pm · Edit
Thanks, this is really great advice. It was my K-specific PO with whom I was corresponding, and yes I was asking for an extension of eligibility based on taking time off to take care of my parents during an extended illness. She was genuinely sympathetic, which makes me keen to get her response in particular while also being careful not to aggravate her. I will write her again, and I feel much better knowing about the other avenues to take if she is never gets back to me.
September 19, 2012 @ 4:47 pm · Edit
It could be she has been waiting for confirmation from someone higher up rather than risk incorrect advice. Reminding her gently again, especially if you have a submission date in mind, should get some sort of response.
Aging postdoc said
November 15, 2012 @ 12:16 pm · Edit
I just wanted to follow-up with an additional thank you and more info for others who might be in a similar situation. Indeed, my PO never got back to me in the past three months, despite kind follow-up emails and even catching her on the phone to ask. I have enough interpersonal experience in life to know when someone’s decision is that they are just not going decide. I have taken your additional advice and sent a fresh request Rodney Ulane for some guidance in the matter.
September 20, 2012 @ 10:38 am · Edit
I’m in the process of moving to a different university. During the transition period before my official start date at the new position, how should I handle my NIH grant submissions? Given that the study section/council review will take at least half a year and possibly a lot longer, it seems the logical choice is to start submitting proposals from the new institution. Is it possible to have my era commons account affiliated with both institutions for a short period of time (before I complete the move), so that my future institution can submit my proposals? I would appreciate your advice.
September 20, 2012 @ 2:44 pm · Edit
The institution is the applicant, so until you are employed by your new university, I do not believe you can submit grant applications through them (the application is a legal document). Your current university would submit the application, and you would need to consider how much of the budget would remain at your current university after you leave (e.g., if you have collaborators there who have paid effort). If you complete the transition to the new institution prior to the grant being reviewed, you can ask the SRO about submitting new budget and resources sections (including any new personnel involved at the new institution), assuming you can get the current university to transfer the application to the new institution in time (this is not a problem, usually, but it is not automatic – it is not something you can switch in eRA Commons, certainly). If there is a significant benefit in terms of more resources, collaborators, equipment, etc. at the new university, then you may be better off just waiting until you move. Alternatively, if you have a collaborator at the new institution who is engaged in a different aspect of the science, he/she could submit the application with you as part of a multiple PI submission, though this individual would need to do the actual submission as the contact PI. If awarded, then, your current university would just need to relinquish your portion of the award to the new institution. Now, I give all this advice based on what makes sense based on my best guess about how all this interim-processing (not pre-, not post-award) might work. If anyone has actual experience with a situation such as this, please do chime in! SL, you might in the meantime explain the situation to your PO and/or to the sponsored research office at the new university, to see how they would recommend handling this transition period.
September 20, 2012 @ 5:53 pm · Edit
You can apply through the new institution. I have done this successfully.
September 20, 2012 @ 5:54 pm · Edit
Interesting. Thanks for sharing your experience.
September 20, 2012 @ 6:15 pm · Edit
Of course, I did this after consulting (as you suggest) with my PO on all of the specifics.
September 20, 2012 @ 10:53 pm · Edit
I just learned that my R01 (A1) application was reviewed at council last week and will not be funded due to “low programmatic priority”. This application received a priority score of 10, so I am a bit surprised. I directed this proposal to said institute after conversations with the PO. Any suggestions on how I approach one of the secondary institutes (this grant was assigned to one primary and two secondary institutes)? Thanks!
September 20, 2012 @ 11:01 pm · Edit
Wow. This is not the first time I have heard of a fundable proposal being declined by the primary IC due to low programmatic priority, but it is a first to hear that an application with a perfect score is being turned away. But, with a score like that, either secondary IC should be happy to pick it up. I would suggest you talk with your PO at the primary IC about which would be the better secondary to approach – your PO should be happy to initiate the process. If you have a preference, let the primary IC PO know what that is. You can also contact the PO in the secondary IC that you would prefer, but your primary IC PO will be involved in the transfer no matter what, so best to start there. Congratulations on the exceptional score – I am sorry you need to go through such an exercise, but I hope it works out for the best for you.
September 28, 2012 @ 1:45 pm · Edit
My PO is discouraging me from working with him to approach either secondary institute about a potential transfer (and he said I should not contact other institutes directly). He said a transfer was highly unlikely for a number of reasons and that the new institute would have to have available funds for special emphasis consideration, which was also not likely. He used very strong language in his email about not requesting a transfer to a secondary institute. But, he said he would initiate the conversation if I thought it was worth a try. It seems like he wants the grant to just die, which is difficult for me given the perfect score. I’m having a hard time letting go of this R01, but it seems like my hands are tied. Any suggestions?
September 28, 2012 @ 1:51 pm · Edit
Unfortunately, your PO does need to be on board & involved – you cannot transfer the application yourself, and having been told not to contact the other POs, you should not. He does offer to make contact himself, at your request, so that would be my advice (to ask him to initiate a conversation). The other POs will look at the score, summary statement, and how the work fits in their programmatic priority and make their own decisions based on these factors. If you can make the case that the science proposed should be of programmatic priority to one of the secondary ICs, you could point this out your primary PO when making the request (so it comes across as a reasoned, rational request rather than one out of funding desperation).
September 28, 2012 @ 8:15 pm · Edit
I’ll bite. What is wrong with your grant that it doesn’t get funded with a perfect score and you’re told to just let it die? Do you propose killing people? Was is reviewed by your mother? Do you already have a $bazillion in active NIH funding? Are you at an Institution outside the USA? Are you being investigated for scientific misconduct?
October 22, 2012 @ 5:55 pm · Edit
I believe it is door number #3. I submitted 3 R01s at once. Two received perfect scores and the third received an 18 (9th percentile). The grants (unfortunately) all went to the same institute. That institute funded the first grant, and also wants to fund the one that received the 9th percentile if they can this fiscal year. So, I think they just choose 2 of the 3 and don’t want to fund the third. But, I’d really like to do the work and was hoping that the score would win them over.
October 22, 2012 @ 6:20 pm · Edit
Wow. Two perfect and one exceptionally scored R01 all on different topics. Congratulations. While I can understand a bit better the low programmatic priority clause, I am not sure why the PO does not want you to move one of the applications to a secondary IC. Of course, depending on the budget sizes (and whether you have other NIH awards), 2 or 3 simultaneous grants could put you over threshold for extra consideration in making awards to well-funded applicants (though this is not the PO’s job to consider). You might be able to check with someone higher up at the IC, though I expect your case is well known at all levels as such a situation rarely (ever?) arises. If it is the same PO for all 3 applications and you have a good relationship with him/her, you could ask for some additional insight on the decision process and whether you should attempt to seek funding again for the project left on the table.
September 24, 2012 @ 6:31 pm · Edit
Hi, I am trying to find a list of documents for R01 proposal in NIH website but with no success. I know about research strategy, project summary, and specific aims, but not sure these are all. 1) Does anyone know the full list of required documents for this R01? 2) Do specific aims and project summary count to 12 page limit?
September 24, 2012 @ 8:21 pm · Edit
All the forms and uploads are listed on the electronic application package. The SF 424 instructions will walk you through them (including individual format pages to upload). You can refer to this annotated set of SF424 forms for guidance as well.
The Project Summary (abstract) is a separate upload (limited to 30 lines), as is the Specific Aims, which is limited to 1 page. The Research Plan is 12 pages. The literature cited (references) are uploaded separately, as are any other required components (human subjects, vertebrate animals, select agents, resource sharing, etc.). Your department grants administrator or university office of sponsored programs/research should be able to help you with the application (the latter must submit it – you cannot do this yourself).
September 24, 2012 @ 9:07 pm · Edit
Thank you so much!
September 26, 2012 @ 10:37 am · Edit
Not sure if this helps anybody, but NIAID released interim paylines for an R01. Though this probably won’t be much of a surprise, it is 6 for an established PI and 10 for a new investigator. They haven’t released any other interim paylines.
September 26, 2012 @ 3:50 pm · Edit
SIX!? Ugh. I was actually excited for about 5 seconds when I received an 8% on my recent NCI R21… Is there anything I can/should do? Should I wait until I receive the summary statement to contact my PO? Could/should I ask to be transferred to my secondary IC assignment? Should I just pack up & go home?
September 26, 2012 @ 4:00 pm · Edit
Well, considering that NCI set their hard percentile threshold at the 7th percentile in FY12, I don’t imagine this will go up to the 8th in FY13, especially not for the first half of the FY, which would leave you in the large pool of discussed applications – but at least in very good standing. You might do better with one of the other ICs, but they would not accept it for consideration until NCI was sure they were not going to fund it, which won’t happen until next year. You should check with your NCI PO to gauge his/her level of enthusiasm for your research (he/she needs to serve as a steadfast advocate for the internal review) and whether the application can/should be transferred to one of the secondary ICs – assuming you have a willing PO on the receiving end). Probably best to wait for the summary statement, so the PO can see what, if any, addressable concerns the SRG had.
March 5, 2013 @ 4:51 pm · Edit
My contracts & grants office and I just got an email saying that “I am pleased to inform you that the NCI is considering funding this award…”. I’m assuming this isn’t an NGA (although I’ve never seen one of those!), but does it mean that I will get funded? Or just that I “may” get funded?
I am sooo thankful for this site BTW! Your help and guidance is much appreciated.
March 5, 2013 @ 5:02 pm · Edit
Congratulations – though don’t pop the bubbly yet. You are correct that this is not an NGA/NoA. Was this part of a JIT request? If so, it means the SPLs (Scientific Program Leaders) will discuss your application for possible funding, so be sure the data are submitted in a timely manner. You can and should check with your PO as to whether your application has already been discussed by the SPLs and selected for funding, pending resolution of any JIT/administrative issues, or whether they are just now in the discussion phase. If the former, very good news. If the latter, you could then ask yoru PO whether it would be helpful for you to prepare a short (one-page) rebuttal to the summary statement (resume & summary of discussion) to be taken into consideration during the SPL discussions.
September 26, 2012 @ 4:57 pm · Edit
I was in the same boat last year (with an A0) and was told by a couple of POs that IC transfers are not happening….period.
September 26, 2012 @ 5:01 pm · Edit
Well, some are – but no doubt a very small minority (and perhaps more likely as A1s – not sure). All the POs involved must be quite enthusiastic about the research itself (not just score-driven, but it must be a very competitive score, too).
September 27, 2012 @ 3:33 pm · Edit
Thanks so much for the advice!
Gabe Luna said
October 9, 2012 @ 6:17 pm · Edit
NEI, R21, re-submission score of 20. Any chance of being funded?
October 9, 2012 @ 11:36 pm · Edit
When you get your summary statement, talk with your PO. Especially if the score improved, he/she can give you an indication, though with no certainty given the uncertain budget times ahead, how your application might do during paylist discussions and what your next steps should be.
Gabe Luna said
October 10, 2012 @ 5:30 pm · Edit
Thank you. The score did improve from 32 to 20, it was also assigned to nibib from the NEI, I’m not sure what they are like in terms of funding. Thanks again for your feedback.
Gabe Luna said
October 9, 2012 @ 6:28 pm · Edit
NEI, R21, Re-submission score of 20. Any chance of being funded?
October 9, 2012 @ 11:37 pm · Edit
When you get your summary statement, talk with your PO. Especially if the score went down, he/she can give you an indication, though with no certainty given the uncertain budget times ahead, how your application might do during paylist discussions and what your next steps should be.
October 14, 2012 @ 12:33 am · Edit
I just received an impact score of 22 for my NHLBI Diversity K01 application. According to the FY2012 K01 payline (IS=25), I would get funded. When will the FY2013 payline be available? Should I be worried that I may be cut out of the funding, or do you think the payline will stay the same?
October 14, 2012 @ 3:05 pm · Edit
The payline will likely go down in FY13, but the question is by how much … more if sequestration occurs, probably just a point or two if some other compromise can be reached that keeps the NIH budget flat or only slightly cut. Your PO might have a better idea after Council meets as to NHLBI’s strategy for FY13 (i.e., whether to start making awards slightly below FY12 levels), but if you are on the edge, you won’t know about funding likelihood until next year. If this was an A0, you should probably start thinking about the A1 … if this was an A1, perhaps consider other funding mechanisms, such as a diversity supplement to an existing R01 or other qualified RPG.
October 17, 2012 @ 4:44 pm · Edit
Thanks for the reply. I have more questions related to the specific award I applied for. As mentioned, it was the NHLBI K01 Diversity/Re-Entry RFA. It was a special announcement, separate from the regular K01. It was reviewed by a special emphasis panel. What does all of this mean in terms of scoring and funding? Is it lumped into all of the K01 apps and scores? If so, why bother having the separate RFA? Can you shed some light on how these are handled? Thanks.
October 17, 2012 @ 5:00 pm · Edit
Your score is compared with other K01 scores in making funding decisions (including programmatic discretion based on portfolio priorities), but the separate funding announcement allows these applications to be reviewed (and scored) apart from those submitted to the parent announcement – a similar concept to reviewing R01 applications submitted by new/ESI applicants separate from those submitted by established PIs.
October 17, 2012 @ 5:15 pm · Edit
So then how does it work for new/ESI apps for R01? Do they receive some kind of point “break” after scoring is done? Meaning is there some type of systematic point deduction/improvement for these apps? Would this be the case for this separate RFA for K01? I am still trying to understand the advantage in applying for the separate announcement. Is it just an issue of less competition overall? Thanks again.
October 17, 2012 @ 6:30 pm · Edit
No, there is no scoring on a curve, and the payline break comes at the IC level. The idea is that reviewing applications from PIs at the same level of experience levels the playing field … reviewers can recalibrate their expectations based on whether the applicant has had prior funding to support publications and generate preliminary data. The same would be true for applicants who took time out of the tenure track for medical, family, or other reasons or who may not have had access to the best research institutions or mentors for training. The bottom line is that the science must still be exciting and compelling and the plan robust though.
In FY12, NHLBI made 12 awards to applications submitted to the diversity/re-entry K01 RFA and none to the parent announcement (NHLBI only began participating in the K01 parent announcement in Feb 2011 – in FY11, they funded 6 of 15 applications reviewed – all to the RFA – for a 40% success rate). Data are not yet posted as to how many applications were reviewed (and we will not know from which FOA). So, at the moment, it seems NHLBI still makes all K01 awards to applicants to the RFA (now HL-13-019), perhaps reflecting its programmatic priority for enhancing diversity.
October 25, 2012 @ 3:18 pm · Edit
Hi writedit, May I remain as a co-PI on an SBIR grant if I move to new institute (500 miles away)?
October 25, 2012 @ 3:31 pm · Edit
I assume you mean co-investigator (since the PI must work at the small business applicant), but yes, so long as you have the resources and environment to complete the work for which you are being supported, the award (a subcontract from the small business) can move with you. You’ll need to work with grant administrators at your current & new university/institution and the GMS assigned to your SBIR to manage the administrative details.
Jennifer Gaddy said
November 1, 2012 @ 8:49 pm · Edit
This may be a silly question, but I am on an F32 Fellowship (which just started in August) and so theoretically I have 3-years of funding ahead of me. Will sequestration impact that? Can I lose my F32 due to the sequestration looming in January 2013? I only ask because my PI has made some weird comments about me trying to “wrap up” my projects before the first of the year…..
November 1, 2012 @ 11:43 pm · Edit
Not to worry (about your F32). You will receive your noncompeting renewals, and to the best of my knowledge, NRSA awards are not affected by budget cuts (that is, you should receive your full fellowship amount). You can check with your PO to be sure, though. I cannot begin to explain your mentor’s comments – unless he is worried about his budget for research supplies that likely contributes to your work.
new to the game said
November 9, 2012 @ 11:35 pm · Edit
This are a lot of informative discussions here. Thank you – I have learnt a lot by reading through the discussions.
I submitted an R03 to the NIDA B/START program in June 2012, and got a score if 19. The PO said its a very fundable score and could be picked by by either NIH or FDA (which meets about a couple if weeks after NIH council meets). In my case, I will have to wait till February 2013 because that’s when council meets. However, the PO advised me to still work on resubmission to show enthusiasm for the grant. Although the original grant could get funded, it will be good grantsmanship to do a resubmission. Any suggestions from others who have been in a similar situation? Thank you very much.
November 10, 2012 @ 1:19 pm · Edit
Yes, you are likely to have the A0 funded before the A1 even gets reviewed, but it is good insurance and a chance for you to think through your project more. Were you looking for advice on whether to prepare & submit the A1 or how to develop the A1 narratives?
new to the game said
November 12, 2012 @ 8:11 pm · Edit
Thank you so much for the reply. I was looking for advice on going through the resubmission process if the grant is likely to be funded. Having read your reply and talking to others who have been successful, it seems prudent to work on a resubmission (you’ve put it accurately – as an extra insurance).
November 18, 2012 @ 1:04 am · Edit
Great site! Learned so much already. I just submitted an NRSA (resubmit) to NIAMS and got a score of 25. The payline for FY 2012 is a 24, which gives me a little hope, but the payline for 2013 is 18! Any idea if the 2013 or 2012 payline will be used?
November 18, 2012 @ 1:47 am · Edit
The FY13 payline will be used (FY12 ended Sept 30th), though it may go up later in the FY, depending on what happens with sequestration etc. if it does, the higher payline will be applied retroactively to your application, but not until much later in the FY, and there is no guarantee the FY12 payline would be matched, so if you can submit an A1, you should.
November 18, 2012 @ 11:53 am · Edit
Ah, that doesn’t sound so promising. This was my A1; I was triaged last round.
November 18, 2012 @ 1:55 pm · Edit
I guess one question that I still haven’t seen addressed anywhere, is about how many awards are made beyond a scheduled payline? My PI seems to be quite optimistic, but I’m not finding any evidence to be hopeful otherwise.
November 18, 2012 @ 6:33 pm · Edit
It varies with IC & mechanism, but there are not a lot of awards above the payline (tend to be ESI & special programmatic priority). Your PO can tell you if your application is under consideration for select pay.
December 29, 2012 @ 7:56 pm · Edit
Dear writedit-looking for a little historical perspective here…
As it appears that the across the board budget cuts (sequestration) will not be addressed by congress—(and I find it hard to believe this will be fixed before Oct 1), I was wondering…. is this truly the “worst” time to be a biomedical scientist competing in the NIH for research dollars? I have heard things were bad before the budget doubled, but were they this bad?!?!?
December 29, 2012 @ 8:40 pm · Edit
The short answer, IMHO, would be yes. The decline in funding has been accompanied by an increase in applications and applicants, and even those applications receiving awards are being funded at levels below what was requested. During the doubling, Universities went on a buying/building spree, assuming they could rely on the NIH to keep funding their larger research enterprise. The ARRA stimulus added more bodies in need of continued support. Faculty are very much under pressure to cover their salaries, their techs, their grad students, et al. plus the higher costs of fancy toys and expensive reagents and mice.
With regard to sequestration, which seems inevitable for all discretionary programs, there is a chance that Congress could restore some funding to the NIH — though this would have been more likely if we had not lost so many key champions in the past year. However, all legislators have family members and constituents with disorders in need of additional research, so it is difficult to withhold funding from such an obvious and universal societal good. Plus, my guess is that every (or almost every) Congressional representative has someone in their district who receives NIH funding at some level (even a rural community practice participating in a larger trial), so there is the direct local support to maintain funding for biomedical research and simultaneously boost the regional and national economy. I wouldn’t expect funding to be restored to FY12 levels, but maybe something would be added back before the end of the FY. Again, depends on who at the table pipes up on behalf of biomedical research.
Keep those cards and letters touting the benefits of stable NIH funding going to your Congressional delegations and those with a voice behind closed doors. And don’t forget to let your POs know that you’re advocating on their behalf (well, the NIH’s behalf) … they need some cheering about now, too.
December 29, 2012 @ 9:27 pm · Edit
OK-I thought this was pretty much the worst, but just needed to check outside of my head and experience level. I know all postdocs feel pretty down right now. Especially those with K award scores which would have been funded in FY2012. But I think many of us are realizing that much of this is more a referendum on the system, as opposed to our science.
Thanks writedit and happy new year to you!
December 29, 2012 @ 9:41 pm · Edit
Oh, man, it’s absolutely not your science … and I hate to think of all the work scraping along or, worse, getting scrapped, when it merits full support.
Keep looking to professional societies, foundations, and wherever else you can find a few crumbs to keep the lab going. Some universities are trying to pick up a little of the slack with intramural awards and bridge funding (instead of buying new toys).
Best of luck to you with your research and your career path – and a happy and healthy new year!
December 29, 2012 @ 9:46 pm · Edit
Much respect writedit. Happy new year indeed!
February 8, 2013 @ 11:51 am · Edit
Dear writedit – do you think a score of 20% for A01 from NIGMS has a chance to be funded for FY2013? Hoping it may….
February 8, 2013 @ 12:13 pm · Edit
It has a slight chance only if your PO feels it is worth advocating for. You should contact your PO to discuss the summary statement and your response to concerns raised and let him/her know if you have important new data or publications since the application was reviewed. If you don’t work with your PO, your chances are almost zero .. and if your PO feels your application is not competitive with the others under consideration, he or she will have good advice on preparing the A1 so it is more compelling both for reviewers and for NIGMS to select for funding.
February 8, 2013 @ 12:29 pm · Edit
This was A1 competitive renewal submission for R01 grant. I guess there is no hope… Don’t have the summary statement yet but will wait to get it to call PO. Can you speculate on what the payline may be?
February 8, 2013 @ 3:53 pm · Edit
Don’t give up hope – you should still talk with your PO, especially since this is the A1 of a Type 2 submission. Your PO may want to help but would need your input. There is no payline – the program staff discuss applications within a certain range (my guess is that would include the 20th percentile) to select those recommended for funding. Before he left NIGMS, Jeremy Berg posted a nice explanation of how NIGMS selects applications for funding: https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2011/01/28/the-funding-decision-process/
March 5, 2013 @ 4:56 pm · Edit
I have been trying to contact my PO for several weeks now, but with no luck. He does not respond to any e-mails and any attempts to call him result in the secretary telling me that I need to e-mail him first to schedule a call. What to do in this kind of situation? Is it possible he will never respond to discuss my summary statement? I am at a loss…
March 5, 2013 @ 5:33 pm · Edit
Well, your PO is under extreme duress right now, though a brief response would be polite. Whether you want to go above him depends on the nature of your query. If it is just to ask about funding likelihood based on your summary statement, please wait and try again in April (he has your summary statement & score). If this was an A1 that clearly will not be funded, and you want to discuss next step strategies, you might try a message that says “Next Steps” in the subject line and asks how to repurpose the application for a viable June submission (no mention of asking whether the A1 might be funded). If you have a different question, word it clearly and ask for some dates and times on which he might be able to schedule a call (this is standard operating procedure, BTW, not a brush-off by the secretary at all). If in two weeks you still have no response, you could politely contact his or her branch or division head with your request for a phone conversation – but you should only do so if the discussion is unrelated to / unaffected by the current budget disaster and ongoing uncertainty (that is, it is not a question about, will I be funded).
March 5, 2013 @ 10:19 pm · Edit
It would be unlikely but not impossible thast GM would fund a 20%. But, you would have to make a very good case to the PO about they should fund you and skip over a better scoring grant. Of course, if the PO won’t respond that is hard to do. You could try calling a PO in the same Division and see what advice you can get.
February 13, 2013 @ 6:35 pm · Edit
I am confused: Just received a score on my R21 (NIMH) of 23, with a percentile of 4. I’m not sure what to think of this–4th percentile sounds great but it’s hard to get excited with such a seemingly mediocre score….could this be right and which number should I hang my hat on? Thanks for any insight!
February 13, 2013 @ 6:54 pm · Edit
SROs and Chairs are enforcing the spreading of scores this cycle, which is putting them out of sync with prior scoring trends (hence the delay in some scores being posted) and, at least in some SRGs, a fresh start to percentiling. When you receive your summary statement, you can check with your PO about how it will be handled.
February 13, 2013 @ 7:18 pm · Edit
Thank you so much for your input! I suppose I can’t know yet, then, whether 4th percentile still means the same thing as it used to? Is it possible that paylines will be drastically different this time around?
February 13, 2013 @ 7:38 pm · Edit
Oh, since they posted it to eRA Commons, your 4th percentile (possibly just a single SRG meeting ranking) should be viewed like any 4th percentile (usual comparison against prior two cycles) and would most likely be funded – even if sequestration goes through. What I don’t know is whether NIMH goes by score or percentile for R21s. If they go by score, they may need to consider yours in light of the percentile when ranking it against applications from the other two cycles, depending on how the scoring matches (or not). I just don’t know how that will work.
February 15, 2013 @ 3:53 am · Edit
Dear Writedit – I received a score of 18th percentile for a R01 grant at NINDS (A1 application). I am a new investigator. Do you think there is chance for funding? I am having trouble reaching my PO (for now). Thanks.
February 15, 2013 @ 9:48 am · Edit
You should wait to contact your PO until you have your summary statement – and if your question is about funding, not until after March 1. If sequestration goes through, the answer will be no. If it doesn’t go through, that score is still in select pay territory, in which case you would also probably be told no decision would be made until the FY13 budget was negotiated (which probably won’t happen until April or May). When you have your summary statement, you can talk with the PO about how best to repurpose the application … whether to try to scale back for an R21 or R03 or rework the aims for a new application.
February 15, 2013 @ 2:54 pm · Edit
Oh, the dreaded sequestration……hopefully it doesn’t go through. Thank you for the input. I am learning a lot from all the blogs here.
February 15, 2013 @ 6:10 pm · Edit
I have another question…. I submitted 2 R01s at the same time and don’t yet know the score on the 2nd R01. In case they are both in the gray zone of funding, or that 1 is in the gray zone while the other is in the fundable zone, will I still get the New Investigator advantage for both grants? I’ve submitted the R01s to different institutes.
February 16, 2013 @ 2:09 am · Edit
Whichever application gets funded first will end your NI status, which will be reflected at JIT for the second application. However, if the decisions are made at the exact same time, they would be made without knowing the other IC’s decision, so each would consider your NI status (but would know about the other application – not sure but do not think they communicate with each other about these things).
On Feb 15, 2013, at 5:10 PM, “Medical Writing, Editing & Grantsmanship”
February 16, 2013 @ 11:38 pm · Edit
I have an question that might sound odd. I am a new investigator with a recent R01. Since I am short on hands with just one post-doc, I end up working a lot on my own and have produced results that can result in some key papers.
But I would have to be a single author in at least a paper or two based on these results since the postdoc did not contribute anything…she is busy with other projects.
How does one handle this situation…a NI who is under resourced but has new results that they want published but it was not done as a team? Are single author papers, as opposed to senior author papers, viewed negatively by study sections? Of course I hope these results will yield new grants and I will be able to hire more people.
Thank you for any input.
February 17, 2013 @ 1:46 am · Edit
Well, I am always struggling to keep non-authors off manuscripts, so if you truly did conceive/design the study, complete all the experiments, analyze & interpret the data, and write the manuscript all on your own, then it is your paper. You can acknowledge people who gave advice, gave reagents (other than, perhaps, their first reported use, if they are central to the work’s success), critiqued your drafts, and so on. If you were a postdoc, it wouldn’t fly, but given the funding situation, and your signing off on the journal’s submission contract, a manageable piece of bench work could well be a single author paper these days. If the journal – & its reviewers – accept the work as solely your own, the grant reviewers should as well. I’m sure others will chime in if they have additional thoughts/opinions.
February 17, 2013 @ 2:22 am · Edit
Thank you writedit for the thorough and professional answer…as always !
yes I am funded independently and did the entire work…I was just worried if this will be perceived as being “selfish” whereas actually it was just lack of personnel.
February 17, 2013 @ 3:10 pm · Edit
Throw your post-doc a bone. Have her work on some of the figures for the manuscript, or write the introduction, or anything really. Then make her first author and you last author (or the other way around if you prefer). It’s good for her, it’s good for you (shows you can advance your people), it doesn’t look weird to the study section. Try to think strategically about your career and the people around you; this one is an easy opportunity to “pay it forward” at absolutely no cost.
February 21, 2013 @ 3:10 pm · Edit
My NINDS K08 got an impact score of 29. Fundable?
February 21, 2013 @ 6:49 pm · Edit
NINDS only funded 11 K08s in FY12, 16 in FY11, so I would doubt they would go that high up in the score unless your science is of high programmatic interest. Also, if you just got scored and the NINDS SRG is following the CSR model of spreading the scores better this cycle, that 29 might actually be comparable with lower scores from earlier rounds – but I have no idea how your group handled the scoring. After you get your summary statement and after the sequestration/FY13 budget are resolved (i.e., April), you should check in with your PO as to your likelihood of funding. Right now, he/she won’t know much. If this was an A0, you should certainly be working on the A1 for July, though.
February 21, 2013 @ 8:10 pm · Edit
My NIA K01 submission received an impact score of 16. I’ve been told by my PO that April is the earliest I will know if it will be funded due to the sequester/FY13 budget issues and that I should start preparing a resubmission for June. Not encouraging so far! but I just wanted to get your thoughts. I’ve heard that on the last cycle NIA K01’s were funded at score of 19 and below….. do you think that a 16 would suffice even if the sequester goes through? Any info would be great. Cheers!
February 21, 2013 @ 8:23 pm · Edit
I assume you mean last year (vs last cycle), as it does not seem that NIA has funded any new K01s yet in FY13. If sequester goes through, you might have a second chance, depending on how much might get added back in the FY13 appropriation (which wouldn’t be hammered out until April or May, is my guess). But even then, I am not sure Congress would add enough back to match the FY12 appropriation, in which case all paylines/pay lists would be lower. In the meantime, I would suggest that you certainly take your POs advice and submit your A1 in July (not June). Your PO should be willing to give some advice on your Introduction and planned revisions, which would be valuable since he/she should have heard the discussion of your application and will know what these reviewers look for in A1s.
June 24, 2013 @ 1:11 pm · Edit
Tadpole, is your NIA k01 funded or not? I have a same score as you.
February 21, 2013 @ 9:28 pm · Edit
Hi, I have recently submitted 2 grants, one just reviewed and another just submitted. In the first grant, I did not specify the primary funding institute. In the second grant, I picked an institute with bad payline. Do you think it is too late to suggest/change the funding institutes at this point? Also, is this really necessary? I am under the impression that if a grant is not fundable by one institute, it is automatically referred to a relevant institute for funding. Is this right?
February 22, 2013 @ 9:36 am · Edit
Well, you should always request an IC – and you should be in touch with a PO at that IC before you submit (have PO review your aims & give advice on your application). Otherwise, CSR will refer your application to an IC based on the abstract and perhaps the specific aims page. No IC is obligated to accept it, and there are cases of applications administratively returned because no participating IC will accept the application. Once the assignment is made, if the primary IC does not fund the award, it is unlikely that any secondary ICs (assigned at the application is submitted, not after the review) will fund the application; this does happen – but generally only if the PI has a good relationship with the POs (at the ICs involved). Your application will never be sent by CSR to another IC for consideration after it has been reviewed and declined by the primary IC. You need to select your IC based on programmatic relevance rather than payline, though certainly if your science can be assigned to more than one IC, you can and should strategically request assignment to the one with the most promising fiscal policy.
February 22, 2013 @ 11:37 am · Edit
Thanks a lot, writedit, for the valuable advice. But how do I compare the fiscal policies among the ICs? Based on payline or success rate? As institutes like NIGMS do not have a payline, I guess the success rate is a better measure? Also, in general, is the policy in previous years a good predicator of the current year policy?
February 22, 2013 @ 6:37 pm · Edit
You should pick the IC based on the science first and ensure that you have a PO who is enthusiastic about your science (in case you need an advocate at paylist discussions or select pay decisions). Some ICs participate in FOAs that are more appropriate (and more likely to result in an award to you), so that’s another consideration. Then, yes, you would check the success rate for a given mechanism, which will also tell you the number of applications reviewed (i.e., how much competition you will have). Payline varies according to each year’s FY appropriation – and of course the SRG has a bigger impact than IC, since you need the score/percentile from the SRG.
February 21, 2013 @ 10:11 pm · Edit
Hi, I got a priority score of 20 on my NHLBI K99 (new submission) in Nov 2012. On the notice of grant awards issued within the last 90 days, the NHLBI have funded 2 K99 applications (“type 1″ application – I assume this is new applications), with the notice of award date 05-FEB-2013. How likely do you think it is that I will get funded?
February 22, 2013 @ 9:18 am · Edit
Yes, the Type 1 is new (Type 2 is competing renewal, Type 3 is competitive revision/supplement, Type 5 is noncompeting renewal – the others indicate administrative changes in grantee, IC, etc.). I am a little surprised NHLBI has only made 2 awards, since they made 39 in FY12 & 22 in FY11 (i.e., they are not one of the ICs that only makes 1-5 awards per year). With that many awards, I would hope a 20 would be in the running till (would have last year). However, in addition to being conservative until the sequester & FY13 budget negotiation outcomes are known, they could be shifting resources among the mechanisms – but that is my speculation. When you receive your summary statement, you can check in with your PO about whether to start working on the A1. He/she won’t know anything for sure until April or May, but the ICs should be completing their sequestration contingency plans soon (internally), so your PO might have a better idea if the number of K99 awards overall will decline and where your score places you in the pile (won’t know how far down the pile will get funded until later in the spring though).
February 22, 2013 @ 1:41 pm · Edit
Thanks writedit. The advisory council met on Feb 12, so it is unclear to me if the grants funded on Feb 5 are from the October reviews or from before. I got my summary sheet in Nov, and there were only two minor comments but they were more technicalities than scientific. I spoke with the PO back in Nov, who said that not many people get between a 10 and 20, so my score was excellent, but that the payline started at 19 in FY2012, and ended at 25. Do you have any idea when FY2013 budget negotiations will take place/be completed, or is this on a per institute basis? Also I cannot go in for the A1 – too many years. But I guess I can re-purpose as an R01 for June submission…
February 22, 2013 @ 4:09 pm · Edit
The awards could have been approved via expedited Council review prior to the meeting. These are the first two K99 awards NHLBI has made in FY13, so it is hard to say if they were from Cycle 1 and 2 or just from Cycle 2. Either way, 2 whole awards. Wow. Additional applications that did not undergo expedited review might be processed for awards in the coming weeks.
The FY13 budget negotiations take place at the federal level (by Congress), and the entire NIH budget broken down by IC is in the appropriation for Labor, HHS, and Education. Congress can tweak appropriation levels to individual ICs, the Office of the Director, the Common Fund, etc. Whatever is appropriated is what the IC will receive then. By March 27, Congress must either renew the CR or pass individual appropriations bills or an omnibus budget bill. My guess is they will extend the CR so they have time to negotiate any adjustments that might be needed to “undo” parts of the sequestration, if that goes through (e.g., adding money back to the NIH for FY13, one hopes). Even if sequestration is headed off somehow, Congress also has the debt ceiling deadline in May, so I expect the FY13 budget negotiations will then also be tied in with that process (long term debt/deficit solutions).
Long way of saying … you probably won’t know until April or May what is happening with your K99. You can certainly start converting to an R01, especially if you have good preliminary data and some publications. Your PO might have some good input on this, including who else you might want to work with (science-based PO, that is, if you are currently working with a career developpment PO).
February 26, 2013 @ 10:49 am · Edit
Council review is complete on our P30 application to NIGMS and the e submission status now reads “Pending Verification.” Do you know what this means?
February 26, 2013 @ 11:23 am · Edit
Hmm. Usually the next status is either “Council Review Completed” or “Pending Administrative Review”. My guess would be verification of your JIT, if that was submitted, but you can just ask your PO at this point.
March 8, 2013 @ 2:40 pm · Edit
do you know if niddk use impact score or percentile as paylines for k99 applications?
March 8, 2013 @ 2:43 pm · Edit
I don’t know, but I imagine if they all have percentiles, that would be the benchmark. That’s an easy question for your PO.
March 8, 2013 @ 2:51 pm · Edit
ok thanks. the nhlbi use impact scores for k’s but percentiles for r01 so it’s a little confusing between the different ICs!
March 11, 2013 @ 3:25 pm · Edit
Does anyone have a clue as to the impact on the SBIR program? We just today received a score of 38 on the first submission of a Phase II, so it will be resubmitted, but curious to hear any feedback on funding of the overall program.
March 11, 2013 @ 3:40 pm · Edit
The sequester will be applied proportionately to the SBIR/STTR appropriation (which is based on a percentage of the overall agency budget). You don’t mention the IC, but I would be surprised if any will be funding that high a score. When you receive your summary statement, you can check with your PO to strategize your next move.
March 11, 2013 @ 3:59 pm · Edit
NIGMS is the primary. No, I would not expect to get funded but once we see the summary statement we can respond appropriately. Could have been worse!
March 11, 2013 @ 11:48 pm · Edit
Yes, a score is good, and a score in the upper 30s & 40s usually means there is something to fix that should improve your score (whereas a score in the 20s could be more difficult to improve, if that is as high merit the reviewers would assign no matter what you changed).
March 16, 2013 @ 7:41 pm · Edit
in my eRA commons showing my A1- R01 – not discussed but asking JIT.
Here in eRA common website saying this way. If your grant got score 10 -30, you will get JIT link.
[Important: The NIH provides the JIT (Just in Time) link in the Commons for applications receiving a percentile of less than 30 or for applications receiving a priority score of between 10 and 60 if no percentile is provided. Please await instructions from the NIH on whether to complete this information.]
March 16, 2013 @ 9:22 pm · Edit
That is strange. Perhaps the JIT was activated by accident. If your grant was not discussed then you won’t get funded.
March 17, 2013 @ 10:31 pm · Edit
Thanks SG. Should I contcat PO?
March 17, 2013 @ 10:42 pm · Edit
You don’t need to do anything. Per NIH policy: “For all applications, the eRA Commons JIT link will be opened and available for submission of JIT information within 24 hours after the impact score has been released. This supersedes NIH’s former business practice of only opening the JIT link for applications receiving impact scores within a certain range. Since the JIT link will be available for all applications, applicants should not rely on this as an indicator of the need to submit JIT information; instead they should rely on the JIT notification described above and any specific requests from NIH staff.” (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-12-101.html)
March 18, 2013 @ 7:06 am · Edit
Ackkk..So many policies….I am glad Writedit keeps up on them for us.
March 30, 2013 @ 8:09 pm · Edit
I submitted for the first time my NIMH application and received my summary statement as well as the impact score/percentage. My impact score is 24 and percentile is 14. I contacted my PO and she told me that the NIMH will not be able to fund my application as of now but that may change as the FY progresses. What are the chances of this happening? I am preparing for a resubmission soon. Thanks!
March 30, 2013 @ 8:15 pm · Edit
This is an F31 by the way…
March 31, 2013 @ 1:25 am · Edit
Congratulations on the excellent score on your first application to the NIH. Any other year, and you would have been funded. In an earlier review cycle, your score and percentile may have been better (lower), if your SRG was one of those to recalibrate their scoring. The ICs are still calculating how to distribute the cuts to their FY13 appropriation, and they all have their own priorities. Your PO knows what the current very conservative payline is for F31 applications (lower than 24/14th, obviously), but once NIMH figures out how much money it has and how it can best allocate it to new awards, your application might get picked up later in the FY. It is impossible to say whether this might happen at NIMH. Certainly you should prepare a resubmission – for the April receipt date if you can that quickly, based on the summary statement. However, if you are not ready to resubmit so quickly, please wait until August – there is no timing advantage, in terms of when you’ll learn about an award – to rush in if you are not ready, and you need to submit the most competitive application possible. If you submit the A1, the A0 will remain under consideration until Sept 30, 2013, so having the A0 withdrawn when you resubmit is not a concern. Any application you submit now will be considered for funding in FY14 in any case. Good luck with the A0 and the resubmission, if it is needed (hope not).
March 31, 2013 @ 2:13 pm · Edit
Good to hear that I’m not completely out of the running! Thanks for your advice!
April 4, 2013 @ 10:50 pm · Edit
Just wanted to share my timeline for a K99. This is how you get the bad news with a good score.
June 2012: Application submitted
Oct 2012: Review (Priority Score: 20)
Dec 2012 : Summary statement (great reviews with minor concerns)
Dec 20: Council review completed before council meeting
Feb 15th, 2013: Council meeting
April, 2013: I couldn’t take the “council review completed” status any longer: Mailed PO. PO directed me to the person who handles training grants. Prompt reply: decision has been made..unfortunately missed by a tight margin. She suggested revision if within 5 yrs or R01/R21.
This was my last chance so no revisions allowed. So after 10 anxious months no grant, and no jobs either. Any advice would be really helpful. Anyways this site helped me so much that I though its only fair to share when and how you get the bad news.
April 4, 2013 @ 11:49 pm · Edit
Oh wow. Thank you so much for sharing all the details. I expect some others might like to know the IC.
If your institution will allow you to submit an R21 as a postdoc (or will promote you to a status that will allow you to submit a grant application), you could certainly move forward with converting your research plan to an R21 … or an R01 if you have enough preliminary data. If you cannot submit a grant application (because you are a postdoc & will not get a contract at a status that allows you to apply), then your options are limited. You could ask your current institution if they would provide you with a letter of support guaranteeing an academic appointment (with or without tenure stream status) for another appropriate K application (i.e., K01 or K08, depending on your science). That is, you can apply for the other types of K awards with the promise of a position if you receive an award (it’s always a stronger application if you already have the appointment, not contingent on the K, of course). Your current institution knows you and your skills/promise, and they are currently paying you (can only apply from an institution at which you are employed – not on your own in advance of an offer).
If you were looking to leave anyway, I assume that your job search is both in academia and industry. Some universities have reasonable postdoc offices that can help with your job-seeking efforts. Otherwise, time to remember everyone you have talked with at meetings, posters sessions, seminars, etc. and see what leads they can offer. There are research-related options outside the lab (& academic stream), such as patents/tech transfer, administration, communications, and so on. I am watching (& trying to help – but I can’t make jobs appear) folks at BICO struggle with their next step, so I feel for your situation. Hopefully your publications, excellent application/review, and sound research plan (indication of your ability/capabilities) will get you in the door somewhere soon. Good luck.
April 5, 2013 @ 6:05 am · Edit
Thanks writedit, as always great advice. Sorry I skipped the IC: NIAID (they give only 6 k99s). I hate to leave the ideas that I had and switch abruptly to something completely different. I will probably still try the other K’s first.
April 5, 2013 @ 5:49 pm · Edit
noK99foru, I’m very sorry to hear about the decision made by your institute. Would K22 be an option for you as well? I believe NIAID limits the number of K99 awards in favor of K22. It’s only for two years but provides great support for your lab as well as the bulk of your salary.
April 6, 2013 @ 10:16 am · Edit
The K22 has the same 5-year postdoc experience restriction as the K99, and I had assumed the time limit (5 y) was why noK99foru could not resubmit the K99 application. If not, and if citizenship is not an issue, the K22 would be an alternative (for others with two strikes on their K99, too).
April 6, 2013 @ 4:01 pm · Edit
yes k22alumnus..its the 5 year limit that will prevent me from applying. In fact the summary statement recommends applying for K22 if eligible and K99 is not funded.
April 8, 2013 @ 8:48 pm · Edit
Hi – a newbie here for NIH funding. I see that some NIH institutes have either issues NoGAs or are in the process, but others are waiting till May–June. Shouldn’t it be uniform across the entire NIH?
April 8, 2013 @ 10:00 pm · Edit
Nope. Each IC is different, with its own culture and policies in terms of funding decisions. The ones that go strictly by the numbers can start issuing NoAs to the lowest scoring applications. The ones that develop paylists in particular will want to wait until they are sure of their final appropriation and how they can distribute the cut.
April 9, 2013 @ 3:36 pm · Edit
I just received an Impact score for my K99 with NIGMS. Does anyone know the range they fund in?
April 9, 2013 @ 3:52 pm · Edit
NIGMS develops paylists rather than use hard paylines. Last year, they received 115 applications and only made 15 awards, so your score will need to be low to be under consideration and your science of great interest. Because the ICs are just learning their FY13 appropriation and determining their strategy for distributing the budget cut, your PO probably won’t know for a few weeks still. If your application was reviewed for the May Council, then you would need to wait until after that in any case. You can learn how NIGMS makes their funding decisions here: https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2011/01/28/the-funding-decision-process/
April 9, 2013 @ 4:10 pm · Edit
Thanks for the reply, I’m happy about my score, but its hard to tell what it means. I guess I just need to sit still and wait.
April 15, 2013 @ 8:03 pm · Edit
so I put in my first NIH grant (DP2) and got a number back today. “Impact Score” of 35. No percentile given. What does this mean? Will it get funded? I read somewhere that overall/impact scores of <30 are highly likely to get funded, and between 30-40 may get funded. Considering that funds are tight I am thinking it probably wont get funded. They haven’t given reviewer comments back (probably arrive in the next month) so I dont have a sense of how they reacted. Why has the NIH given me one number without telling me what it means (for chances of funding)? Doesn’t make too much sense – or am I missing something?
Does anyone have experience with DP2 and can shed light on what this Overall/Impact score might mean for my chances of getting funded? Thanks!
April 15, 2013 @ 9:56 pm · Edit
Wow – that’s quite a mechanism to start with. There will be no percentile, so that is normal, as is just getting the one score with no indication of funding likelihood. Your score seems too high for such a competitive mechanism (congratulations on being scored though), but you can check with your PO about where roughly you rank in the group. Unless the reviews for these have changed, I do not believe you will get much back in the way of comments, but I am only familiar with one award/summary statement from the first year this mechanism was used.
April 16, 2013 @ 12:47 am · Edit
thanks for your reply, writedit! i’ll check with the PO to get an idea…
April 18, 2013 @ 1:54 pm · Edit
To writedit and others,
I got a lot of information from here, expecially during the anxious waiting period. I would like to share my timeline for a K99 (NIAID).
June 2012: Application submitted
Oct 2012: Review (Priority Score: 11)
Oct 2012 : Summary statement (great reviews with essentially no weakness, some concerns with data analysis and future collaboration with mentors)
Dec 2012: Council review completed before council meeting
Feb 2013: Council meeting
Apr 4, 2013: Requested JIT
Apr 12, 2013: Award prepared
Apr 18, 2013: NoA
I will continue to watch and support this very helpful website.
Best wishes to all applicants.
April 18, 2013 @ 2:00 pm · Edit
Woohoo! Congratulations and thank you so much for posting such a detailed timeline, which I know many other anxious applicants will greatly appreciate. Best wishes for success with your project and your career in biomedical research.
July 25, 2013 @ 6:01 pm · Edit
I have a question about my title during my K99 phase (NIAID). I possibly will be promoted to assistant professor very soon (still in K99 phase). Is it allowed? My boss said that he may use his grant to make up the salary. Or could I request addtional salary support from the IC? Thanks in advance.
July 25, 2013 @ 6:31 pm · Edit
If the award has been made, no, you cannot request more funding to cover your salary. I assume at NIAID you are just getting 1 year of K99 support, too. The $249K total per year for the R00 phase covers your salary whatever it is plus fringe, research costs, and indirect costs.
July 26, 2013 @ 11:05 am · Edit
Thanks a lot. That means It is OK to be promoted by the salary support from my boss? It is one year K99 support. In the middle phase of K99, I may be promoted to Assistant Professor at my current univeristy. Also, I am actively looking for jobs outside and have several interviews later.
July 26, 2013 @ 11:16 am · Edit
Yes, your boss can supplement your salary to make up the difference from what NIAID is covering. Congratulations on the promotion and best wishes for success in your job search and career in academic biomedical research.
September 20, 2013 @ 4:51 pm · Edit
Dear writedit, I got response from NIAID: Saying “Promotion to Assistant professor would end my K99 phase early since I would then no longer be in a mentored phase of my award.” Why I saw someone is in K99 training phase and meanwhile as assistant professor? Do they have soft policy?
September 20, 2013 @ 7:30 pm · Edit
Most ICs got a bit lax in how they administered K99s because it was so tricky to time them (most applicants start applying for jobs during the 1-2+ years after the initial submission), but the NIH has shortened the eligibility period and now expects awardees to complete a full year of mentored training in the K99. I thought they would be flexible for FY13, given the very extended delays in funding decisions (i.e., if the award had started on time, the promotion would be coming at the end of the award rather than in the middle). However, it seems they (or at least NIAID – and I suspect most if not all ICs) will now be strict about getting the full year of K99 in. I assume they will then let you transition to the R00 if you undergo the promotion during the K99 year.
April 27, 2013 @ 5:17 pm · Edit
Hey guys. I have a Transformative Directors R01 with an impact score of 15. The reviews were very good. No one seems to know how the process goes for these R01s and the PO said that I should optimistic but since there is no paylines and no %iles on these grants how can you even know if you have good chances or not?
April 28, 2013 @ 12:26 pm · Edit
You really can’t know, since the selection is based as much on subjective criteria (interests & priorities of the Director and those advising him) as on the score. The reviewer comments are probably as important as the score as well. If your PO is optimistic, this is good news – your PO must feel the review and content will be attractive to those making the final decisions.
May 3, 2013 @ 9:04 am · Edit
The era commons status for my NIA K01 (submitted in June 2012, reviewed in Oct) just changed to “pending administrative review”….. is this a good or bad sign…? Any information would be great. Thanks for the wonderful blog writedit!
May 3, 2013 @ 9:12 am · Edit
This is a very good sign. Have you been asked for updated JIT? You can check with your PO or GMS about the status.
May 3, 2013 @ 12:49 pm · Edit
I haven’t been asked for undated JIT yet. I submitted JIT information in Nov. I will check with my PO. Thanks!
May 3, 2013 @ 12:53 pm · Edit
My international R21 is waiting for clearance at the US state department for 2 weeks already. Does anyone know how long this process takes?
May 4, 2013 @ 9:07 am · Edit
I am not sure but assume it depends on the country involved. I have only worked with a few PIs collaborating with foreign investigators, and the process took on the order of weeks, though the sequester may add delays if there were any staff reductions (furloughed). You could check with your PO, but I would not be surprised if he/she will not know either.
June 6, 2013 @ 12:01 pm · Edit
Just got score of 18th percentile on A1 RO1 application for NIDDK. I am NI but no longer ESI. Does NIDDK do much select pay? ESI payline (interim) is 16, established investigator interim is 11.
What are the chances? Any?
June 6, 2013 @ 12:19 pm · Edit
You should talk with your PO about whether your application will be considered for select pay. You can see how many select pay awards NIDDK made in FY12 here: http://www2.niddk.nih.gov/Funding/Grants/FundingTrendsandValues.htm (many but not all of the awards above the NI/ESI payline are for new & ESI applicants)
June 9, 2013 @ 7:38 pm · Edit
Got an impact score of 40 and 30th percentile for my R01. I am an ESI and this was A0. What are the chances of this being funded. Institute is NIDCR.
June 9, 2013 @ 10:19 pm · Edit
Almost nil. Be sure to communicate with the PO about how the discussion went and your best strategies for the A1.
June 14, 2013 @ 7:20 am · Edit
thanks so much for your reply
June 14, 2013 @ 3:53 pm · Edit
I got an impact score of 23 for a K99 to NHLBI. I was wondering what will be the percentile score and whether there is any possibility of it getting funded without revisions?
June 14, 2013 @ 6:07 pm · Edit
You won’t get a percentile, and you won’t know for sure about funding until the end of the year (when it is more clear what will happen with the federal budget). However, you are within the FY13 payline for Ks (25), so you should be cautiously optimistic about receiving an award as I would not expect paylines to drop further next year (but possibly not improve, depending on how Senate-House negotiations go over the summer/fall).
June 14, 2013 @ 6:14 pm · Edit
Thanks writedit for the response. Do you think I should go ahead and submit a revision just in case after I receive the comments. This Oct would be my last chance to revise..please advise
June 14, 2013 @ 6:18 pm · Edit
You should talk with the PO when you receive the summary statement. An A1 would be due in November, and while I assume if you submit during October while you are still eligilble, that would be acceptable, it is another factor to clarify up front (i.e., does your submission date or the cycle date – Nov 5 – count when calculating whether you are still eligible).
June 14, 2013 @ 6:33 pm · Edit
I do have until Jan next year for the 5 years limit..I will talk to the PO after I get the summary. How long does it usually take to get the reviewers comments?
June 14, 2013 @ 6:37 pm · Edit
Depends on the SRO and application load, but generally no more than 6-8 weeks from the study section meeting. Probably sooner if your application was reviewed in an IC career development study section (again, depends on number of applications involved though).
June 18, 2013 @ 2:55 pm · Edit
How long from submission of an A0 RO1 do I have to revise and submit as an A1 of the same grant? I initially submitted June 2012, got comments around October 2012, and plan to resubmit either this cycle (Jul. 5) or the fall cycle–there must be an official rule on this but i can’t find it.
June 18, 2013 @ 3:04 pm · Edit
You have time – I believe the window of opportunity is 36 months.
June 19, 2013 @ 9:30 am · Edit
I had a bad priority score in a R21 application (NIAID), I do not know the critiques yet. It is worth resubmitting?
June 19, 2013 @ 12:14 pm · Edit
Wait for the summary statement to see if the concerns are fixable or if they were related to the significance of the science (not so fixable). Your PO should have additional insight about how the discussion went (should have attended the SRG meeting).
June 19, 2013 @ 4:58 pm · Edit
Just received a score of 34 on my K23 revision. This is better than the 56 I got on the 1st attempt, but is 34 good enough to get funded by NINDS? Thanks!
June 19, 2013 @ 11:42 pm · Edit
Probably not, unless the FY14 budget gets a considerable boost. However, NINDS could give significant weight to your significant improvement, so definitely check with your PO when you get your summary statement &, if the PO is not optimistic – and even if he/she is – strategize for an October submission (perhaps an R21 to fund a piece of your research project to get more data/publications for an R01).
June 21, 2013 @ 4:52 pm · Edit
My PO is not giving any hint if my grant (K99 impact score 23, NHLBI) would be funded. The council meet in Oct and she says that they dont know what the payline will be for the next year. I dont know if I have to think about resubmission or not.. I have not yet got the summary statement. I am worried becoz I just have until Jan 2013 for resubmission. What do you think I should do?
June 23, 2013 @ 8:29 am · Edit
No one, including your PO, will know for sure about funding until next year, in all likelihood, so you should plan to submit your A1 in November if your eligibility ends in January. Submitting the A1 does not affect the status of your A0 (still considered for funding), so there is no reason not to submit, just to be safe. You can talk with your PO about strategy for revising.
July 1, 2013 @ 11:30 am · Edit
Any ideas about how K01s at NIDA are being funded? Just received my impact score but have no idea what it means (with no percentile to go with it). Thanks!
July 1, 2013 @ 11:37 am · Edit
You won’t get a percentile for your K01. NIDA cut a few career development awards in FY13 to deal with sequestration, and whether they will be able to restore these or need to cut more will depend on what happens with the FY14 budget, which will not be known for months. You can ask your PO how your score would have fared in FY13 – I do not expect paylines to get worse in FY14 unless the Senate really caves to the House on appropriation levels. Wait until you have your summary statement, so you can also talk with the PO about strategies for an A1 submission (which you should probably plan on, even with a very good score).
July 1, 2013 @ 4:44 pm · Edit
Thanks so much for the information this blog has provided. I have a question regarding K99 submitted to the NCI. I recently got an impact score of 11. Not much info on the summary statement. The PO only said that “there is a high likelihood that your application is in the fundable range”. However, what other criteria besides just being within the range will my application have to go through at the council meeting in order to be funded????? What goes on at the council meeting? For example, someone in my lab was just funded for the K99 grant. Does that lower my chances? If the NCIs portfolio has too many “breast cancer” grants awarded does that lower my chances? The reason I ask is that I got a top score for my DOD fellowship but the council decided not to fund. So does the NIH really make a line in the sand or are their many more factors at play. thanks for your input
July 1, 2013 @ 7:55 pm · Edit
First, barring a complete budgetary meltdown and administrative issues with your research (e.g., missing IRB or IACUC approval), you should be in line for an award. Having other K99 awardees in your mentor’s lab or in your department won’t be an issue. NCI will not suddenly decide it is funding too much breast cancer research. Reviewers would not have given you a score of 11 if your work duplicated that of others in the field, and NCI relies on the study section (especially an NCI review committee) not to give exceptional scores to applications that do not stand out based on the science and your potential as a researcher. Council can raise concerns for individual PIs that have lots of funding through multiple RPG awards (R01s, P01, P50, etc.), which is probably what you remember reading. Council members read summary statements to be sure the review was appropriate, the project fits within the IC’s mission (again, especially not an issue when you were reviewed by an NCI SRG), and there are no administrative concerns. It is very, very unlikely that any Council member would raise any issues with your application. You can be hopeful, though you won’t be 100% sure for a few (to several) months yet, since it will depend on the federal budget status, and I don’t know if NCI would issue awards under a CR (continuing resolution).
July 2, 2013 @ 10:13 am · Edit
Hi all, just got the score back for Phase II SBIR. It was a 30, second submission, down from 39. I have two questions. First, the primary is NHGRI, and I know they don’t publish, but any have a clue if this is fundable? We’ve had good interactions with the PO for the Phase I and I know he’s interested in the technology. Next question is assignment to secondary institution, which is NLM. Since the technology is mainly computational, is it possible it would be picked up by them if NHGRI doesn’t fund it?
July 2, 2013 @ 12:49 pm · Edit
FY14 paylines/paylists are a long way off (not until the federal budget is settled), but your NHGRI PO should have an idea of how your score would have fared in FY13. Your PO would also be involved in any transfer of the application to NLM, so you can ask about that option, but any involvement of NLM would not come into play until NHGRI determines their level of interest/ability to pay. If you have already worked with a PO at NLM, you can ask how serious they might be about taking on your application, if NHGRI cannot fund it.
July 8, 2013 @ 1:24 pm · Edit
My NCI K22 score is 26 in June Cycle. This is my A1 application. Is there any chances of funding?
July 8, 2013 @ 1:41 pm · Edit
No one (not writedit, your PO, or Harold Varmus) will have no idea of what FY14 paylines will be for at least a few months, probably several. Your PO might be willing to say where your application would have ranked in FY13 – I certainly hope paylines will be better in FY14. You should probably rework the project for an R21 or R01 application, depending on your publication record and preliminary data (when you get your summary statement, you could ask your PO for specific advice).
July 9, 2013 @ 4:47 pm · Edit
This might sound silly (or paranoid), but with the sequester/bad funding climate, I don’t assume anything:
I had JIT requested for my K01 (NIDDK), then received an email saying that my “K award application has been approved for funding for 3 years of support”. Finally, my commons account says “Pending administrative review”.
Should I be more optimistic about this? It seems that I shouldn’t relax until I get the official award notice…
July 9, 2013 @ 5:01 pm · Edit
Congratulations and best wishes for success with your project and your career in academic research. They would have asked questions after you submitted your JIT if there were still administrative concerns. Soon your Commons account should soon say “Award being prepared” or something to this effect.The NGA might take a bit longer to be issued, but actually, at NIDDK, probably not much more than a week or two (at which point your Commons account will say Awarded).
July 22, 2013 @ 10:16 pm · Edit
My K99 score is 23. But the breakdown for the scores are:
reveiwer #1- average 1
reveiwer #2- average 1
reveiwer #3- average 1.4
How is my impact factor score a 23 in this case? my biohazards was unacceptable but does this make such a huge difference?
thanks in advance.
July 22, 2013 @ 10:35 pm · Edit
You were not dinged for your biohazards section (or your score was not), but one of your reviewers obviously gave you a score of 3. My guess is that you received impact scores of 1, 2, and 3 from the 3 assigned reviewers. You cannot use the individual criterion scores to calculate (or even guess) the overall impact score for a reviewer. If your PO attended the study section meeting, he or she can let you know which reviewer went high (so you know what concerns swayed the rest of the study section members), but it should also be reasonably clear from the Resume & Summary of Discussion, since the cited weaknesses in the discussion are usually lifted from one or more of the 3 reviews (for summary statement purposes). Depending on the IC, you could be fine with a 23 in FY14 … your PO will not know what your funding chances will be for a few to many months, but he or she could say how your score would have fared in FY13 (& I don’t expect FY14 to be worse).
July 31, 2013 @ 11:27 am · Edit
I applied for an R01 in response to an RFA that was reviewed by a special emphasis panel within the institution (not SRC). The grant was unscored (not discussed), but there is a JIT on my ERA page!
Does this mean anything?
July 31, 2013 @ 11:29 am · Edit
Sorry, I meant CSR not SRC
July 31, 2013 @ 11:33 am · Edit
The JIT link is automatic and nothing to get excited about. Hopefully you will be able to use the summary statement comments to revise the application for submission to another program announcement (since this was for an RFA, you can recycle it for the parent or other announcement).
August 13, 2013 @ 10:56 am · Edit
I am not sure if this the correct forum, but I have a question regarding how the CSR deals with scientific overlap. I have had an R21 reviewed and now I want to expand that grant into an R01. I assume having a large part of it being written verbatim and with significant scientific overlap will not be an issue since they are two different funding mechanisms. First, am I correct with that statement? Second, can I submit the R01 in one cycle and then resubmit the R21 in the next? I am very unsure of how this will be viewed/dealt with by the CSR. I am not planning on submitting during the same cycle, to avoid any issues. But maybe there would be none since they are two different funding mechanisms? Also, they will not be reviewed by the same study section.
My goal was to expand the R21 into an R01 but the R21 was scored really well (16%) on its first submission, so it has a decent chance on resubmission (although I have yet to see the summary statement). But since the science was supposedly well received I feel I should possibly shoot higher with it, as we have more preliminary data now.
Thanks in advance for any advice/opinions.
August 13, 2013 @ 1:21 pm · Edit
You can either resubmit the R21 or convert it to an R01 but not both (submitted in the same or successivegrant cycles). If the R21A1 does not get funded, you could then try the R01.The issue here is not one of overlapping aims for a new application submitted after the A1 isn’tfunded but one of having two essentially identical applications (mechanismdoesn’t matter) under consideration at the NIH (different study sections doesnot matter) the same time: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2012/nihgps_ch2.htm#similar_identical_applications. Otherwise, everyone would submit their projects as R21s and R01s and anyother appropriate mechanism at the same time. You could talk with your PO aboutwhether to skip the R21 A1 and go straight for the R01. Now, if you do gostraight to the R01 (& skip the R21 A1), you can keep the aims the same, ifthat is appropriate for the science, and expand or add to them for theR01-level support. This is where the different mechanisms come into play – forsomeone trying to submit essentially the same application for the third timefor the same mechanism (that policy is here: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2012/nihgps_ch2.htm#submission_of_resubmission).
August 15, 2013 @ 4:23 pm · Edit
The posts here are really interesting and it appears to be great website to get some insights.
I have a R21 that has a score above the NIAID payline but is being considered for EOY funding. I received a personalized email about two weeks ago asking for JIT. My PO also contacted me for some budget information soon after that. On 8/8/13 I noticed that at the COMMONS website the grant status has changed to “Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist”. Since then I haven’t heard anything from NIH. I contacted my GMS today, but no reply. What do you think is happening? What is the chance that my grant get funded?
Thank you very much in advance for sharing your information.
August 15, 2013 @ 4:41 pm · Edit
Congratulations – your application will be funded. Your GMS is probably very busy, since FY13 is almost over, and they have many awards to quickly process within the next month. You can sit tight and wait for your Notice of Award – no need to ask your PO or GMS anything else, and don’t worry about the lack of response. Nothing to worry about. You can talk with your university grants administrator about setting up an account for the award, if you want to be able to spend funds prior to or as soon as the award is issued.
As an FYI, there is even more discussion of what is going on at the NIH on this page of the blog: https://writedit.wordpress.com/nih-paylines-resources/
August 15, 2013 @ 4:49 pm · Edit
I was getting more and more anxious as time passed by. Your reply really calmed me down. Thank you so much again and have a nice day.
August 15, 2013 @ 4:52 pm · Edit
Happy to alleviate your concerns and help you relax. Best wishes for success with the research.
August 16, 2013 @ 11:22 am · Edit
Guess what, I just heard from our OSR that NIH has sent them the NGA!!! Thanks again for maintaining such a wonderful website.
August 16, 2013 @ 11:25 am · Edit
Woohoo! It is a sunny day for you. Congratulations again and best wishes for success with the research.
Ryan Harris said
August 16, 2013 @ 3:10 pm · Edit
I submitted an R21 in response to an NIDDK RFA. I received a priority score of 27. Anyone know the “payline” for this mechanism? any chance a 27 will get funded?
August 16, 2013 @ 3:24 pm · Edit
No paylines will be set for several months, since it looks like it will take a while for the federal budget for FY14 to be negotiated. When you receive your summary statement, you can talk with the PO about whether you should, based on reviewer comments, revise the proposal for submission as a new R21 to an NIDDK program announcement (if an applicable PA is available, since NIDDK does not participate in the parent R21 announcement). This would be allowable since your first submission was to an RFA, and any subsequent submission to a PA would be new. The PO likely attended the study section meeting and will know how your application fared in the discussion. Your PO might also be willing to say where you rank among the applications that were scored – but for an RFA, the score is not the only factor for funding decisions (programmatic interest may result in their picking & choosing from among projects with a wide range of scores). Given all these variables, your PO won’t be able to tell you your funding likelihood but could give advice on repurposing the application in the meantime.
August 20, 2013 @ 4:44 pm · Edit
After basically being told back in May that my K99 wouldn’t be funded (sent to NICHD, score of 20. Published pay line is 18), I received the following cryptic message today from the Grants Management Specialist at NICHD assigned to me:
I am reviewing the above grant. Please provide clarification on the Summary Statement comments below: The issue must be resolved before the grant can be fund. I also included your Program Officer ; you must work with her to get the issue resolves. Thank you.
The issue in question is a budget issue that I brought up with the PO when I got the summary statement back, so it should be resolvable (obviously, I’ve written to the PO at NICHD already and my grant office contact at my institution). My question is: does this mean my grant might be funded after all? Is this something that has been happening to other people? On eRA Commons, my status has now been changed to “Pending”
Is this a reason to have hope???
August 20, 2013 @ 4:52 pm · Edit
Congratulations. If the budget issue can be readily and rapidly resolved, you can more than hope for an award – you can count on it. At this point, just over a month out from the end of the FY, the ICs are seeing how much $ they really have left after covering better scoring applications and their highest priorities. With the K99s in particular, it could be that PIs of better scoring applications have since received faculty appointments, other awards, etc. that knocked them off the list and allowed the PO to go farther down the list of scored applications to make awards. However they managed to do so, NICHD has found the funds to issue your award, which they could not guarantee earlier in the FY. This is why PIs with potentially fundable scores should not give up hope until after Sept 30th. Lots happens in the last month of the FY.
September 5, 2013 @ 2:03 pm · Edit
Just an update. I got my NoA today for the K99! Thanks for all the helpful information you have here. Its been a long and confusing process.
September 6, 2013 @ 10:36 pm · Edit
Great news – best wishes for success with your project and career in biomedical research!
August 20, 2013 @ 5:00 pm · Edit
We received a decent score on our A1 submission of a Phase II SBIR. NIGMS doesn’t publish paylines, but based on previous years I’d say we are in the gray zone. Our secondary assignment was NLM, and we are below their payline. So I am interested to know what the chances are for being funded this year or next, or asking that it be transferred to NLM.
I’m trying to reach my PO to discuss the possibility of funding, but he has been unresponsive. I’ve tried email, phoning and leaving messages, and calling his admin. In the past he has been responsive and helpful, and I am sure he is swamped, but I really do need some feedback on how to proceed. Any suggestions?
August 20, 2013 @ 5:24 pm · Edit
If you just received your score this summer, then the A1 will be considered for funding in FY14, and your PO will have no idea about the SBIR pay range for a few months (maybe several months). You don’t need to be in touch with the PO about a score being considered for FY14 until after Congress has passed (and the President will sign) a budget for the federal government. Truly, they will have no idea before then, since so much is in flux with regard to the federal budget. You could contact your PO at NLM in the meantime about whether they are interested in picking up the application, though I believe they rarely do. They would only do so when NIGMS determined that they were not going to make an award, so, again, not for several months.
August 25, 2013 @ 5:57 pm · Edit
This is very exciting. I did not speak to the PO, but I just received an email from him asking if I can submit my JIT directly to him by COB Tuesday. The subject line of the email was 2013_10 Council and the grant submission number. They bumped the Council meeting up to 9/19.
5:30pm on a Sunday – they must be working very hard!
August 25, 2013 @ 11:28 pm · Edit
This is good news – you didn’t mention your score, but this confirms that you are being considered for funding. Nothing is guaranteed with a JIT request, but Council needs to know there are no administrative issues before they can concur with its consideration for an award. Fingers crossed as the process moves forward.
August 23, 2013 @ 10:32 am · Edit
Hi guys I have a question.
I have a transformative R01 with an impact score of 15 that has passed the Council of the Councils.
its initial number of 1R01 ODxxxxx
yesterday I received an email that it has been reassigned a number and its now under 1R01 HLxxxx so it is under the NHLBI
I called the PO and he said that this is a good thing and that I should be “cautiously optimistic” ….what does that mean? does that mean that NHLBI is interested in funding my TR01?
It is a confusing process…one year after submission….
August 25, 2013 @ 10:06 am · Edit
Congratulations. The Transformative R01s are administered by an IC, not the OD, so your change in grant ID number to HL means that NHLBI is taking steps to process your award. As defined here earlier, “cautiously optimistic” means you should receive an award, but it is not final yet (& an administrative or other unexpected issue could arise), so the PO cannot give you definitive news.
August 26, 2013 @ 5:24 pm · Edit
Thank you so much and I will let you know how things turn out.
I hope that you are correct 🙂
I should know soon i guess…
August 23, 2013 @ 4:53 pm · Edit
I have a question too. I made my PhD nine years ago and I want to apply to K01 training grant. I am wondering, does it matter when you finished your PhD to apply to this award? If theoretically no, how much does it affect review committee’s decision? Thanks, Yahya.
August 23, 2013 @ 5:05 pm · Edit
For the parent announcement, it doesn’t matter (in terms of eligibility), but some of the ICs have restrictions (e.g., NIDDK). Because you are so far out from your doctorate, you will want to explain in the Candidate section why you delayed in applying (especially if there was a break in your postdoctoral work due to family or other issues). Presumably you have a solid publication track record by now, so reviewers will wonder why you are not applying for an R01 or other RPG at this point (& what training/help from your mentor you still need). You should certainly talk with the appropriate PO in the IC you are targeting for advice on what mechanism to apply for (K01 vs R01 or other RPG) and whether the IC is likely to award career development funding to a PI with so many years of postdoctoral experience. Also, in case you were not aware, you must be a citizen/non-citizen national or permanent resident for K award funding (except K99, but you are not eligible), whereas this restriction does not apply to RPG applications.
August 23, 2013 @ 5:11 pm · Edit
Thank you writedit!
August 26, 2013 @ 5:06 pm · Edit
Quick question as I fill out the JIT. For multiyear pending grants do I need to break out the calendar months per year and dollar amounts per year as separate items? I have one key person who has a different time commitment per year.
August 26, 2013 @ 5:33 pm · Edit
Unless you were asked for more detail, you should be providing the standard (PHS 398) Other Support form page for each key personnel listed in your budget (see the example – you provide an overview for the entire project period). If there are concerns about scientific, budgetary, or commitment (ie, >100% effort committed) overlap, you will be asked for more details, but more likely at the time when the pending application’s award is being negotiated, should that happy day arrive. The $ amounts for your subsequent year (noncompeting renewal) awards are not set in stone, as you’ll quickly learn when budget cuts are handed down in subsequent FYs.
August 31, 2013 @ 7:43 am · Edit
I was denied tenure a few months ago. So I will either leave the school within a year, or stay as a research scientist rather than a professor if I can get some funding to support myself. I am submitting grants in Oct. Should I indicate this on my biosketch? How would this affect the score?
August 31, 2013 @ 8:02 am · Edit
No, you do not need to discuss any of this on your biosketch, which should reflect your position at the time of application. If your current institution will provide you with the time and resources to conduct the research as a staff rather than faculty investigator, then your appointment is irrelevant. If you change institutions, the IC will want to be sure you still have access to the required resources and expertise to complete the study as proposed but will not be concerned with your position itself.
August 31, 2013 @ 8:26 am · Edit
I can stay in the current institution for only 1 year, unless I get more funding. I am afraid that the reviewers may bring up the tenure issue anyway when they look at my biosketch, even if I do not mention it. Finally, technically, since July, my job title is no longer professor, but research scientist.
August 31, 2013 @ 8:50 am · Edit
We have plenty of research assistant professors with R01 funding at BICO. The science rather than their lack of tenure status won over the reviewers. You list your current title on the biosketch but do not discuss the situation – reviewers all know about young investigators not getting tenure due to lack of funding in these highly competitive times. If your publication record is weak, they would mention that though. You might consider getting a letter of support from your Chair, indicating you will have all the resources and support you need to conduct the proposed research (and that he/she is enthusiastic about the project, confident in your abilities, etc.).
September 3, 2013 @ 5:35 pm · Edit
Does anyone know when NICHD or other Institutes will decide on administrative supplement awards for 2013?
September 3, 2013 @ 7:50 pm · Edit
If you mean administrative rather than competitive (Type 3) supplements, you should just ask your PO. Time is running out for FY13 (ends Sept 30); FY 14 supplements would not be awarded before Nov – later if they need to wait for the NIH appropriation to be passed. However, your PO will be involved with the decision no matter what, so just ask him/her.
September 4, 2013 @ 2:33 am · Edit
Writedit, this is in response to your 31st August 2013 comment about research assistant professors: I thought research assistant professors are different from research scientists. Also I see at some universities they get tenured after particular time, may be slowly when they are promoted to full professor level…isn’t that equal to tenure.
September 10, 2013 @ 2:13 pm · Edit
I am not sure about “equal to tenure”. You have to write (and get) your grants and publish papers but you don’t have YOUR lab. You work for someone else, and that is annoying.
September 11, 2013 @ 1:51 am · Edit
I do know several research assistant professors having their own lab…so still confused..
September 12, 2013 @ 7:41 pm · Edit
Sorry for the delay in responding – I’ve been out of the country with limited access to electricity & the Internet. Every university is different though, and it depends on the internal policies. At BICO, tenure track assistant professors can be taken out of the tenure stream after 5 years, either to give them a little more time to get funding and publications (temporarily out of the tenure stream) or on a more permanent basis (research asst prof – though I have seen someone in this category get back in the tenure stream – and receive tenure – when he hit on a few grant applications). Research Asst Professors can also be hired as such directly (and some of them can transition to the tenure stream if they are productive with publications and funding). Researchers with any of these titles are allowed to apply for their own grant funding (as PI) – postdocs cannot though. Neither can staff scientists – usually (some senior scientists can, especially for equipment or core facility funding). So, it depends on the university and sometimes the school/department as to who can apply for independent funding to conduct in their own lab (or their own corner of a tenured faculty’s lab).
September 11, 2013 @ 9:45 am · Edit
First, thanks so much for this website. It is such a help (especially for newbies like me). Council review for my K99 is sometime in October. No one seems to be able to tell me who in general makes up the council … is it all NIH staff?
Second, I haven’t been asked yet for JIT info (although the link is available) – is this usually submitted before council review?
Can I modify the budget at this time? For example, my salary has changed (a little!).
Lastly, after council review when are you usually given a decision .. will it be another 4 months????
September 13, 2013 @ 12:55 am · Edit
You can see exactly who is on the Council for your IC: go to your IC’s Website and click on the “About” (or similarly named) link. You should see a link for advisory boards or something similar. The names and usually bios are listed for Council members, who are appointed by the IC Director and include researchers in the areas covered by the IC from academia, industry, foundations, etc. as well as public representatives. You should wait until you receive an email request for JIT, which will come around the time of Council (sometimes after). Your budget will be cut (that is a given), so if you want more salary, you will need to reduce the amount of $ for supplies or something else. You cannot ask for more $ now. You probably won’t know for a few to several months about whether you will be funded, since the federal budget is a complete unknown right now, and ICs will be very conservative in making awards until the Feb Council, I suspect. Your PO might give you an inkling as to whether to be “cautiously optimistic”. If you submitted an A0 (initial) application, you will probably be advised by your PO to submit an A1 application in November or March, if you are still eligible to apply for the K99. This is standard hedging of bets and generally a good idea unless your PO is confident about an award.
September 13, 2013 @ 9:47 am · Edit
Thanks so much for the detailed info. My score was an 11 so the PO (NCI) does not think that I should prepare to resubmit (would probably get a lower score) but he also won’t say even to be cautiously optimistic. My PI said it can still be a crap shoot and he thinks that I should apply to private funding. I can only apply to the award mechanisms that he suggests if I had a faculty position. He won’t give me a faculty (instructor) position unless the K99 is funded. So I am kind of stuck with regards to available funding mechanisms. I have only a year left on my current post-doctoral fellowship so I am not sure what the next move should be …. I am thinking to apply to faculty elsewhere in the interim??
September 13, 2013 @ 10:34 am · Edit
Wow – I would hope NCI will fund a K99 scored at 11. Your PO is correct in telling you not to resubmit. The NCI K22 would be another option for you, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense with a K99 scored so well. You can start checking on job leads, except you will need to complete at least 1 year of the K99 as a postdoc, so you would not be able to accept a faculty position elsewhere any sooner without risking the award. You can talk with your PO to see how flexible they are on timing – or if he has an idea when NCI might start issuing awards for FY14; depending on when your current position is slated to end, you do not want to wait until next spring to start job hunting, if that becomes necessary. Also, an appointment at your current institution to instructor during the K99 phase should be fine, since it is not tenure track and usually represents a high-level postdoc position – but you might ask your PO about that as well.
September 17, 2013 @ 2:39 pm · Edit
Hi, I was wondering if someone knows answer to my question. My adviser submitted a proposal several years ago on one research topic, but was not funded. I was not co-PI in that proposal. Now I moved to another university as a faculty, and now I want to submit similar R01 proposal on the same topic. Of course, with changed title and with new preliminary data. I wonder, will this be considered as a submission of the same proposal third time? I would expect NO, because I was not co-PI in that proposal and I am independent PI now. Am I correct? Thanks!
September 18, 2013 @ 7:18 pm · Edit
Sorry for the delay in responding – I’ll post the answer here, too, in case anyone following this page is interested. I assume by now the field has moved on and you have collected and published data since the original submission by your mentor, so the application should be new by definition (new aims, new approach). You do not need to avoid the same research focus certainly.
September 20, 2013 @ 4:40 pm · Edit
I got a score of 23 for a K99 to NHLBI. The council meeting is in Oct. Do you have any idea what the payline for NHLBI is going to be for the next FY? Do you think it will go below the current payline of 25?
September 20, 2013 @ 7:35 pm · Edit
If you have been following what is going on in the House and Senate with regard to the budget, you should realize that NHLBI will not know about their appropriation or paylines for months still. In the meantime, the payline will probably be at or a bit lower than the FY13 payline – the ICs are always incredibly conservative at the outset of the fiscal year, especially with another sequestration looming. However, the paylines will go up retroactively if the appropriation supports continuation of the full FY13 payline (or even higher). That is, your application will be considered for funding during the entire FY, and if the initial payline is below 23 and goes above 23 later in the FY, you would get an award.
October 7, 2013 @ 1:54 pm · Edit
Thanks for the response. I have one more question. If I submit a A1 and my impact score is worse, meaning it is greater than my previous score of 23; what score will be considered? will the score of my initial submission (23) be considered and will I get funded on that score?
October 7, 2013 @ 2:04 pm · Edit
Your A0 remains under consideration for funding even after the A1 is submitted and reviewed. My guess is that we won’t have a budget by the time Cycle 3 applications are reviewed next Feb/March, so if you submit in November, both scores would be available. Anecdotal evidence indicates that the A0 can be funded even after receiving a worse score on the A1, but each case is different. Your PO (if he could respond, which he cannot until the shutdown is over) would be able to provide some guidance on whether to resubmit in November. If you were planning to wait until March to resubmit (to get more data, publish, etc.), it won’t matter since the A1 would be considered for FY15.
September 26, 2013 @ 9:15 am · Edit
Hi, I am waiting to hear results from last week’s council meeting. I had spoken to the PO right before the meeting to see if there was anything else he needed, and his response was “Not at this stage. It goes through Council this week.” I just logged into the SO account and if I search on Application Status: Pending, that is the only grant application that shows up, but in the status field it shows “Council review completed.”
Should I be encouraged?
September 26, 2013 @ 9:37 am · Edit
This status change is completely neutral and uninformative. If not funded, your application status would remain “Council review completed” until it is administratively withdrawn in a few years. If your application is considered for funding, the status will not change for several months (unless you have an exceptional score), as the NIH is unlikely to know its final appropriation before the end of the year. Your PO will have no new information on funding likelihood until Congress passes (and the President signs) a budget, so time your queries a week or two after any progress is made on the federal budget.
November 12, 2013 @ 1:33 pm · Edit
Hi writedit and all,
First, thank you for all of your helpful comments. This is unbelievably useful as a new investigator.
I received a priority score of 20 and 7th percentile on my R15 A1 application (improved from 28, no percentile given). It will be going to the NIAID. I realize that there is much uncertainty in today’s environment. Can anyone predict likelihood of funding? The NIAID has not published paylines for 2014 R15 applications yet. 2014 paylines are: R01 percentages of 6%/10% for established and new investigators respectively. These appear to have dropped 2% from 2013. Are these worst case scenarios? The published funding rate for R15 was 20 in 2013 (though I was told that up to 27 or so could have been funded).
Thanks in advance for any wisdom or conjecture.
November 12, 2013 @ 1:47 pm · Edit
Congratulations on the excellent score. The interim paylines are always lower than the final paylines, so you shouldn’t be too concerned about the current percentiles. I certainly hope the final FY14 paylines will be no lower than FY13 (in which case you will be funded), but this depends on what happens with the federal budget in the next few months. The debt ceiling negotiations will be a challenge, but I think the NIH appropriation will be relatively safe from further cuts (deep ones anyway), and you can probably remain cautiously optimistic. If you have other projects to pursue, you could certainly be working toward a new submission in Feb or June in the meantime.
November 12, 2013 @ 2:07 pm · Edit
many thanks again writedit— this is very helpful. I think that we will also try to push out a R21 application since it does not appear that a PI can hold 2x R15s and I do not yet have enough data to try for a R01.
November 12, 2013 @ 2:26 pm · Edit
Well, you can’t have an R21 at the same time either, but you should have an application (either a different R15 or an R21) ready to go in as a back up, so you don’t lose time waiting for a funding decision. Hopefully you would know before you submitted, and if you receive an R15 award after submission, you would simply withdraw that application.
November 12, 2013 @ 2:47 pm · Edit
oh… I thought that it only disqualified simultaneous R01s (though honestly I haven’t fully researched it yet). I have some thinking to do. Thanks!
November 12, 2013 @ 2:52 pm · Edit
If you get an R21 or R15 application ready for resubmission next Feb or June and need to withdraw it (or not submit it) on the happy circumstance of receiving R15 funding (I believe you cannot hold any other RPG – research project grant – award, but you could check with your PO to be sure about which mechanisms are disqualified), you could repurpose the withdrawn (or never submitted) proposal for foundation or other non-NIH funding, depending on the nature of the project and so forth.
November 12, 2013 @ 5:22 pm · Edit
once again— many thanks—- very helpful.
November 13, 2013 @ 1:19 am · Edit
Do you have a guess on when NIAID publishes their payline on R21?
November 13, 2013 @ 1:32 am · Edit
Not even a bad guess … but maybe not until after everyone has caught up with the fall review session, which won’t be completed until December.
November 13, 2013 @ 3:13 am · Edit
Thanks a lot.
November 19, 2013 @ 12:52 am · Edit
Hi, my A1 submitted in July 2013 was ‘not discussed’ during the SRG review meeting that was held recently. I was very surprised by this since my A0 submitted in June 2012 received a 36 percentile. We have addressed most, if not all, the comments by the reviewers in A1 and published a senior corresponding author paper in peer-reviewed journal. I am also qualified as a new investigator. I called my PO today and was told to consult with SRO on how ‘non-discussion’ was decided on my grant. I did contact the SRO by email and the answer was ‘SROs do not discuss any review with an applicant. ……. all communication about the review should be with your program officer ‘. I have not received the reviewers’ comments for A1 yet.
Do I have any options other than submitting a new grant in the future?
NonEssential PO said
November 19, 2013 @ 8:08 am · Edit
Submitting a new grant is your only good option. What the PO should have told you was to call back after you get your summary statement. Since your app wasn’t discussed and the PO doesn’t have access to your summary statement until it is relased there isn’t much that he/she can tell you anyway. Even once the SS is released the only thing the PO has to go on is the written critiques. ALso, perhaps give you some insight about the culture of the study section…what the reviewers tend to like and not like.
There are some bad options. You could appeal (factual error or conlfict) or send in a grievance (complaint about fairness) but with an ND neither option is likely to be very helpful.
November 20, 2013 @ 12:30 am · Edit
Aside from the good advice you’ve already received, I will add that it is not uncommon for a scored A0 to be triaged as an A1. Not typical, but not unusual. The A1 reviewers were looking at the application fresh and had new/different concerns from the A0 reviewers. You need to be sure the next A0 is both sufficiently different from the A1 so as not to be returned as a surreptitious A2 and that your reviewers find it exciting and engaging.
November 22, 2013 @ 8:04 am · Edit
Many thanks to NonEssential PO and writedit. Your advice are very helpful. I am thinking about how to change A1 for submission as the next A0. Do I need to change all three aims and the title? Propose completely new experiments? Or I need to change everything, but for <50%, I can just reword? Should I consider a different study section? If I do not change study section, would my next A0 be sent to the same three reviewers? If yes, does it mean that I need to address all comments in the A1 summary statement? Thank you very much.
November 22, 2013 @ 12:08 pm · Edit
What do you need to change? The title should definitely change, mainly because the work proposed will change. The rule of thumb is that at least 2/3s of the aims and approach should be new – not just reworded. The question/hypothesis being addressed should be different, and hence so should the design of the study to address this new question (some of the techniques themselves may stay the same, depending on what the science calls for). You can show your PO your revised aims and planned approach to get confirmation that you have sufficiently modified the A1 to qualify as a new A0.
You should only change study sections if the science has significantly changed. In that case, study CSR and RePORTER to figure out who would be best to review your research. However, probably the current study section will still be the best reviewers, which is another reason to be sure your revised aims and approach are sufficiently revised – you may or may not get one or more of the same reviewers assigned. Depends on the timing (study section members rotate on and off and cannot participate in every review) and the expertise needed to review your science. You should take the A1 summary statement critiques into consideration, but you absolutely do not address them per se in the new A0 (and no introduction). Only use what is relevant to improving the new proposal.
November 19, 2013 @ 3:08 pm · Edit
Hey, I received an 11th percentile for an R03 at NICHD. In 2012 they funded at 11th percentile and 2013th at the 9th percentile. I only applied to NICHD because they had a specific PA that I thought they might have more money to fund. Turns out NINDS has better paylines for most grants and I should’ve applied there. If I’m borderline and a new investigator, and responded to a specific PA do I get special consideration at a council meeting? In other words, how does the council decide???
November 19, 2013 @ 11:25 pm · Edit
Greetings. One of my recent R01s got a priority score of 32. This was for an AHRQ RFA, and hence, no percentile score was given. Still waiting for the pink sheets and I suspect this is a hopeless score, but still thought of checking with everyone in this forum if you wanted to share any thoughts. Never tried for an AHRQ R01 mechanism before, so a total newbie! Thanks a lot.
November 20, 2013 @ 12:35 am · Edit
Not necessarily (a hopeless score). AHRQ is its own beast, so don’t let NIH scores guide you. I am afraid I have not been involved with an AHRQ submission in recent years so cannot say how that score stacks up, but I do know the program folks at AHRQ are very happy to work with PIs, so you should be able to get good insight and advice from your program contact there.
November 23, 2013 @ 9:03 am · Edit
Thank you very much again. I truly appreciate your advice!
December 17, 2013 @ 8:43 am · Edit
Greetings. My R15 proposal received an impact score of 16 two weeks ago, and is scheduled for Council discussion at NIGMS next month. How cautiously optimistic should I be in this very hard funding environment? Thank you for your expert feedback.
December 17, 2013 @ 8:55 am · Edit
Well, the budget situation will be better than in FY13, so I think you can be cautiously optimistic with that score. You’ll want to communicate with your PO about his/her assessment of your score and whether he/she needs any information from you with regard to any of the concerns raised in the summary statement.
December 18, 2013 @ 1:44 pm · Edit
What is the difference between an R01 vs a U01?
December 18, 2013 @ 2:13 pm · Edit
With the R01, you conduct the research on your own, with no involvement of the NIH extramural staff. With the U01, which is a cooperative agreement, there is programmatic involvement by NIH extramural staff; if the project is part of a consortium, there will be a Steering Committee and other shared governance of how the research is conducted. For a non-consortium U01 (which could be a multi-site clinical trial, but not with other U01 awardees), the NIH staff participate in trial design and oversight (regular confernce calls etc.). Sometimes an R01 clinical trial is converted to a U01 (large budget, complex trial, involvement of intramural researchers, etc.). There is no parent announcement for the U01, but many ICs require PIs to submit multisite clinical trials applications through a two-part process that involves an R34/U34 clinical trial planning gran) first, followed by a U01 application to conduct the trial itself. Otherwise, U01s are solicited through PARs and RFAs.
December 18, 2013 @ 4:06 pm · Edit
Also, you can read the cooperative agreement requirements for a specific funding announcement in Section VI. Award Administration Information. It occurs to me this question might have been prompted by the recently released FOAs for the BRAIN Initiative, 5 of which involve the U01 activity code.
December 19, 2013 @ 10:03 am · Edit
Depending on the IC it is also a way for the PO to act as (or pretend to be) a PI..; -)
December 20, 2013 @ 10:22 pm · Edit
As some brief background, I’m an intramural NIA post-doc (Ph.D. June 2010). I do neuroimaging work in humans instead of basic research.
My NIA first submission K99/R00 was reviewed today. My priority score is a 31. It’s very disappointing. Given FY2014 projections you recently posted for NIA (K’s at or below 20), I’m almost entirely certain the grant won’t get funded. I plan to do a resubmission during the next round, which I’m guessing will be the last round when I’m still eligible. Hopefully I can address concerns and not have a triaged A1.
I do have two questions:
1) Do you know if NIH is going to delay the next round of reviews, given that the October review period was delayed until December because of the Shutdown?
2) Congress cobbled together a mediocre budget deal to ameliorate some sequestration cuts. Does any of that alleviate the projected FY2014 cut to NIH? I’m curious to know what the situation is when I resubmit.
December 21, 2013 @ 10:19 am · Edit
Well, the interim paylines will go up, since yes, the recent budget agreement does remove the FY14 sequester. Appropriations are still being negotiated under the shadow of the looming debt ceiling deadline, so the outcome for the NIH remains uncertain, but it will be better than FY13, perhaps not quite back to FY12 funding levels. Not sure if that would cover your A0, but my guess is not. Your A1 application would be for FY15 funding, though, which won’t be known until this time next year (we should have some clues based on what happens for FY14). Unless there is another shutdown of the federal government in February (not likely unless GOP is feeling suicidal), the review meetings will be held as scheduled. Your PO can give you some insight into how the discussion went and what would be most important for these reviewers (in terms of making revisions).
December 21, 2013 @ 2:00 pm · Edit
I just wanted to encourage you to go ahead with your resubmission. My A0 K99 was triaged, but I managed to get my A1 funded, even in the middle of the budget sequester. It can be easy with the terrible budget situation to talk yourself out of putting in all of the time and effort to resubmit (I nearly did- I almost didn’t resubmit but was talked into it by a friend at the last minute). And anecdotally, it seems to be really helping my job search. Enough so that my advice to everyone is that its totally worth the effort.
December 22, 2013 @ 1:24 am · Edit
Thanks for sharing your experience, Sarah, and giving hope to triaged K applicants. I think career development applications are most likely to be able to move from triaged to funded (just told someone here at BICO this, so thanks for backing me up), and I realize I didn’t make clear in my initial reply to IntraNIA the importance of submitting the A1, so thanks for that encouragement, too.
December 22, 2013 @ 1:50 pm · Edit
I appreciate that WritedIt, thank you. Your initial advice helped me to stop worrying. Many thanks to Sarah and New PI also for their encouragement to submit an A1.
Barring the (apparently/hopefully) rare circumstance where the A1 is triaged or gets a worse score than the A0, I’m pretty sure my revision will score better and give me a decent chance.
I have a follow-up question re: TT job apps. Would you recommend I list my K99 and A0 priority score on my CV, or leave out the K99 altogether? On the one hand, it’s an encouraging if likely not fundable score. On the other hand, I’m not sure how search committees now perceive K99 applicants, now that one is required to be on the K99 part for at least 12 months.
December 22, 2013 @ 2:05 pm · Edit
Regarding the job applications, the idea of listing your score would be to show that you are proactive in submitting grant applications and capable of proposing science of interest to review committees. Whoever might consider hiring you would understand that you would not come with an award unless the appointment were postponed until after the K99 portion was completed, which could then be a negotiating point if you wanted both the K99 and the appointment, and the institution could wait on hiring.
New PI said
December 21, 2013 @ 6:24 pm · Edit
I encourage you to put in A1 as well. Get get input from PO and trusted experts on addressing weaknesses. My A0 IF score was 34 and my A1 was 13 – funded, and well worth it! Good luck!!!
December 22, 2013 @ 1:31 am · Edit
Thank you so much for sharing your experience & encouragement and congratulations on the award!
December 22, 2013 @ 1:51 pm · Edit
Many thanks, and congratulations! I hope my K99 trajectory follows a similar path.
December 22, 2013 @ 12:22 am · Edit
My first R01 (I am an ESI) was recently (last week) scored 23rd percentile (sadly!). My grant was assigned to NIDDK (primary) and NHLBI (secondary). 2013 paylines for ESI were ~ 16 and 21 for NIDDK and NHLBI, respectively. Is there any chance that I can convince anybody (PO) to switch my grant to NHLBI as the primary IC?
December 22, 2013 @ 1:36 am · Edit
It is rare for a secondary IC to pick up an application, but if you had an established relationship with the PO at NHLBI, it could be possible. If you had no contact with anyone at NHLBI, you should still email the PO there, in case your area is of programmatic interest. In communicating with the PO, you can also ask if you should request primary assignment to NHLBI for the A1, which I assume you will submit in March or July. Be sure to check in with your NIDDK PO also as to your status there, since they do pick up some select pay applications above the payline (which should be higher for FY14 – though almost certainly not the 23rd percentile).
K01 guy said
December 31, 2013 @ 8:53 pm · Edit
Disclaimer: I apologize in advance if this question is outside the scope of this website, however I thought it would be worth asking since your advice has been very insightful in previous exchanges.
I am in the second year of a K01 and am becoming confidently clear on the fact that continuing a career in academia is not the best fit for me. While I’m interested in the work that I am doing and am making forward progress, I don’t see a long term future for me as an academic PI. Concurrently, I have been sought out by a local biotechnology company that I would be very interested in working with and would be a great way to transition out of my academic position. The catch is that the timeline is short and I would need to take the industry position in the next 3-6 months.
Core question: given how early in my K01 I am, what are my options in terms of ending my award? Is there any way to pass a K01 onto someone who can continue the aims of the grant? Are there other options?
A key concern of mine is not burning bridges with my supervisors and the university by dropping the grant and making them look bad in the eyes of the NIH.
Any advice on how to handle the grant components of this situation would be greatly appreciated.
January 1, 2014 @ 1:07 pm · Edit
You can end your K01 at any point without repercussion to you or your mentor. There is no pay-back agreement, as with NRSA awards, and the funds are intended to advance your career development (the research project is a vehicle to do so vs the focus of the award), and your decision to move to industry is just part of this career development process. You cannot pass on your K01 to someone else – the award will simply be terminated. You can talk with your PO about whether the K01 can be transferred to the biotech company, but it depends on what you will be doing in the industry position (i.e., whether you can continue your project with sufficient protected time and receive mentoring).