Archived Comments: Discussion: NIH Scores-Paylines-Policy-Peer Review (2017-2019)

AD said

November 4, 2016 @ 8:32 pm · EditHi writedit,

I just received my R21 score for an application submitted to NIA. The impact score was 44 but the percentile was 19.

The september 2016 payline was 22% for grants focusing on Alzheimer’s for requested funds below 500K.
What can I make of this?
Thank you.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  November 6, 2016 @ 2:45 pm · EditIt sounds like your application was reviewed in a study section that was recently recalibrated, where the SRO enforced the spreading of scores (this results in high scores but competitive percentiles). If your application falls within their Alzheimer’s portfolio, then you should have a good chance of funding, depending on what happens with the election and the budget negotiations in the aftermath.
  
  Reply
  - AD said
    
    November 16, 2016 @ 7:05 pm · EditThank you.
- Ian said
  
  June 25, 2019 @ 8:14 pm · EditA lot of great discussion here. I just received my impact score for a K01 submitted to the NIDDK. Does anyone know how a score of 29 has faired historically?
  
  Reply
  - writedit said
    
    June 26, 2019 @ 8:45 am · EditI think that should be in the realm of possibility, but as with everyone else, you should wait for your summary statement and contact your PO for next steps (and think about how you would respond to concerns raised in the Summary of Discussion). you can also search this page and the archived pages for K01 NIDDK to see what scores have been shared as fundable in recent years.
  - 450 said
    
    June 26, 2019 @ 9:54 am · EditA few years back, My K01 was funded from DK with the score of 28. PO told me ‘I am on the fence’. It was A1 and got it with EOY funding opportunity.
  - writedit said
    
    June 26, 2019 @ 4:37 pm · EditCongratulations – thanks for taking a moment to share your experience!
Maureen Murphy said

November 16, 2016 @ 2:39 pm · EditIs a score of 23 on an S10 grant historically competitive? When does NIH learn what there next fiscal year budget will be?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  November 16, 2016 @ 3:36 pm · EditThe budget must pass both houses of Congress and be signed in to law by the President, so this will likely happen next year, after the administration changes. This score could be competitive, though funding decisions are not entirely score-driven. When you get your summary statement, you can talk with your PO about your likelihood, recognizing the PO will have absolutely no guarantees and no idea, really, about what the appropriation might look like (any feedback would be based on your summary statement critiques and historical trends).
  
  Reply
- Deep said
  
  November 13, 2019 @ 7:26 pm · EditMaureen, did you get your S10 at 23?
  
  Reply
John said

December 11, 2016 @ 12:45 pm · EditWe just received an award for a NIAID R01. In the same week we got the award, two of us (one of Co-PIs and primary Co-I) also received notice that we had been awarded a sabbatical semester, which is in the same year data collection will occur. I am scared of approaching my PO with this idea, but has anyone ever heard of deferring an R01 for a year?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  December 16, 2016 @ 10:57 am · EditWhat would have been best would be to suspend the NOA for a year (before issuing it or starting the work), which is not uncommon. Stopping in the middle is more difficult, depending on the project and the science. If you have already received the award and begun the work, then you will need to talk with your PO about developing a revised budget and plan that indicates how the work on the project will continue in your absence (including reallocating your effort to another investigator, if that is feasible). If only you and your co-I can do the work, then you need to demonstrate the science will not suffer if you suspend work. You will definitely need to talk with the PO no matter what, since both your effort will change by more than 25%, as it sounds as though neither of you can or intend to work on the project during your sabbaticals. If that is the case (ie, you cannot work on the R01 project and no one else can do the work), I would suggest that you consider requesting a delay in your sabbatical until the R01 project is complete (your institution should be thrilled that you need to due to an R01 award).
  
  Reply
Johannes said

February 6, 2017 @ 6:05 pm · EditHi Writedit,

I recently received the 2nd-year fund of my R21, which was 10% less than the originally approved budget (from $125k to $112.5k). Do you know why?

Thanks!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  February 7, 2017 @ 2:46 pm · EditThe NIH is operating under a continuing resolution, which means all awards are funded at 90% of the approved budget until Congress passes and the President signs a new budget. When this happens, the remaining 10% should be released (no increase or a cut to the NIH appropriation could affect your award, but I expect the NIH to at least maintain the same level as last year). See the CR notice for more details: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-17-001.html … except the current CR now lasts until April 28, 2017 (not sure why NIH did not update the notice, but the same policy applies).
  
  Reply
- fish_fish said
  
  August 10, 2017 @ 5:43 pm · EditHi, Justin,
  Did you get any updated information about your NCI K99? My lab member got 30 in June and he is still waiting for the council meeting.
  
  Reply
Justin said

February 22, 2017 @ 10:37 am · EditHi All,

I received a impact score of 29 (no percentile posted) for my K99 A0 submission to NCI. Does anyone have any idea where this score falls in terms of fundability?

Thanks!

Reply
- laurenecole610 said
  
  February 22, 2017 @ 11:05 am · EditHi Justin – I am in the same boat. Impact score of 31 but no percentile – submission to NCI for K99. Does anyone know when the percentile is typically posted after you receive your impact score?
  
  Reply
  - writedit said
    
    February 22, 2017 @ 11:29 am · EditAs I just mentioned, you won’t receive a percentile. When you receive your summary statement, check with your PO as to whether you should resubmit (which is the likely advice, since you can withdraw the resubmission if your application scored at 31 receives an award).
  - fish_fish said
    
    August 10, 2017 @ 6:25 pm · EditHi, laurenecole610,
    Did you get any updated information about your NCI K99? My lab member got 30 in June and he is still waiting for the council meeting.
- writedit said
  
  February 22, 2017 @ 11:27 am · EditYou won’t get a percentile. The score may be high – but it is hard to say what the NCI budget will look like for FY17. Although they received a boost of moonshot funding from the 21st Century Cures Act, little progress has been made (publicly) on the federal budget, though I don’t expect NIH to take a hit. When you receive your summary statement, you can check with your PO about the likelihood of funding and specifically ask whether you should resubmit. My guess is that will be the advice you receive, since you can withdraw the resubmission if this application scored at 29 receives an award.
  
  Reply
Gator16 said

February 27, 2017 @ 8:40 pm · EditI received a impact score of 30 on an A1 NHLBI K23 application. It looks like the payline is 32. What are the chances my application gets funded? Thanks.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  February 27, 2017 @ 9:31 pm · EditCongratulations – unless something goes terribly wrong with your administrative review (& you would have an inkling there might be a problem – it wouldn’t be a surprise), you will receive an award. Your PO won’t have an idea on timing for a while, but he/she can confirm this (best to wait until you receive your summary statement), after which you can sit tight until you are asked for JIT.
  
  Reply
  - Gator16 said
    
    February 27, 2017 @ 11:17 pm · EditThat is good news, thanks!
AnotherNewPI said

March 1, 2017 @ 10:04 pm · EditHi, I submitted an R21 to NIMH back in October, and I just received my scores today. Impact Score: 24 (percentile: 13th). I’ll consult with the PO once I have a summary statement, but can anyone give insight into whether NIMH has funded R21s at the 13th percentile in the past? Thanks!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 2, 2017 @ 9:53 am · EditI’ll be interested to see if anyone chimes in, but a 13th percentile falls in the zone of case-by-case consideration, in which case your PO will be the best indicator as to your funding likelihood (based on his/her enthusiasm for your work).
  
  Reply
  - AnotherNewPI said
    
    July 24, 2017 @ 9:44 pm · EditHi writedit — thank for the response and the excellent blog! My application was funded, so I wanted to share my timeline:
    
    06/28/2017 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
    05/26/2017 Pending administrative review.
    03/01/2017 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending.
    10/25/2016 Scientific Review Group review pending.
    10/17/2016 Application entered into system
Proton said

March 15, 2017 @ 2:02 pm · EditWhat the status “council review completed” really means? Council happened over 1mo ago, no changes after

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 15, 2017 @ 8:49 pm · Edit“Council review completed” is the final status for most applications (ie, those not receiving awards). You will hear from your PO (or GMS) with a request for JIT if your application is being considered for funding, at which point it will take on a Pending status of some sort. Otherwise, that status won’t change for years (until the IC administratively withdraws the application).
  
  Reply
W said

March 15, 2017 @ 6:27 pm · EditHi, I just got the impact score for my DP2 grant application. The number of the score is very high, which makes me feel bad. Although on the DP2 website, they say “It is difficult to interpret priority scores”, I am curious what is the score range for funding? Also, usually when will the summary statement be released? Thanks!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 15, 2017 @ 9:50 pm · EditYou should get the summary statement within a few weeks – though it can take up to 6 weeks (sometimes more). At that point, you can check with the PO to get a better idea where you stand. A very high score is unlikely to receive an award unless program really likes your science and is ready to take a chance – but it depends on the specific comments (about why reviewers were concerned).
  
  Reply
  - HW said
    
    March 15, 2017 @ 11:50 pm · EditDoes an impact score in low 30s have any chance to be funded for DP2 based on historic data?
  - writedit said
    
    March 16, 2017 @ 9:15 am · EditI am not aware of any historic data on DP2 scores, but your PO should have some insight.
SK said

March 15, 2017 @ 8:29 pm · EditWhat score is considered borderline for DP2 funding?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 15, 2017 @ 8:51 pm · EditThere is no specific score range, but when you have your summary statement, you can check with the PO for some insight as to where you stand.
  
  Reply
NewPI said

March 16, 2017 @ 12:17 am · EditCongrats on getting it through both rounds of review – a major achievement!

Reply
sk said

March 18, 2017 @ 11:25 am · EditIs scoring for DP2 similar to R01 i,e, scores from 10-30 have a good chance of funding (of course depending on institute/program fit). Since only 20% of the applications get an impact score, are the scores really spread out or do they tend to cluster in the 10-30 range?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 19, 2017 @ 2:33 pm · EditUnfortunately, I am not aware of current scoring and funding patterns for the DP2s. SROs do try to keep the scores spread, whether half or three-quarters of the applications from the original pool have been dropped, so you shouldn’t assume that all the scores are clustered below 30 (though they won’t be going to the far end of the range). However, I do not have any direct knowledge of how these review panels are run. Based on the DP2 awardees whom I know, program seems to focus on high-risk projects that would be difficult to secure funding through traditional study sections (eg, genuinely multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary projects that span multiple disciplines), so this might not necessarily result in funding based on assigned scores, though IC personnel would pay close attention to scientific concerns raised related to feasibility, rigor, etc.
  
  Reply
LCAS said

March 25, 2017 @ 9:40 am · EditHi,

I submitted a Phase II STTR January 5th to NCATS, and just received a score of 35.

NCATS states that it doesn’t have a payline, but rather a “fiscal policy”. What is their process for funding? Can they reach for a score like ours? In the past, our PO has been very supportive, and our topic area (organ-chips) seems to be a big focus of NCATS.

My other question is how does a January submission relate to the fiscal year? Is this a 2016 FY, or will we have to wait for more info on the continuing resolution?

Thanks in advance!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 25, 2017 @ 10:06 am · EditYour Jan 5 application will be funded in FY17 (started Oct 1, 2016 – currently under CR). NCATS does not fund according to a strict payline, though they are not likely to reach too far up except for science they really want to fund. When you receive your summary statement, you can talk with your PO about likelihood of funding and whether you should resubmit (even if just for insurance). If you have any update data or developments for your technology that might mitigate some of the concerns raised in the review, this would improve your chances of funding – so it depends on the review and any progress you have made since submission.
  
  Reply
Newbie said

March 29, 2017 @ 10:49 am · EditHello writedit,

I am an ESI applying for the junior NIGMS MIRA. This is actually my second time (not discussed first time). My application was reviewed last week and I received a score of 42. Does this mean that I should move one and there is little to no chance of being funded. Thanks in advance!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 29, 2017 @ 5:40 pm · EditLast year, scores were pretty high, too. After you receive your summary statement, you should check with your PO about next steps, including whether you should start preparing a different application for submission (eg, R01).
  
  Reply
  - Newbie said
    
    March 29, 2017 @ 5:47 pm · EditThank you for your response! Considering the recent depressing news about funding cuts, I am not holding my breath for this one! I have been looking for some data on the GMS website but it seems that there is no reported payline about MIRA.
  - writedit said
    
    March 29, 2017 @ 6:34 pm · EditTry searching this page and the NIH Paylines & Resources page for comments about MIRA (unfortunately, I cannot tag comments to make this easier, but using Find to look for MIRA etc. should work).
    
    >
  - Newbie said
    
    March 29, 2017 @ 7:30 pm · EditThank you and I was able to find some useful info. It seems that a score as high as 48 received funding last year. I will keep my fingers crossed and hope for the same outcome!
Weiti said

April 7, 2017 @ 11:11 am · EditAny experience with NIMHD? I got a R03 with score of 35. Can’t find anywhere discuss about this institution. Will talk to PO next week, but would like to have some idea which direction should I go. Thanks.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  April 8, 2017 @ 2:15 pm · EditNIMHD is hard to read since they do not fund as many research project grants. Higher scores are usually safer for R03s, but that seems a bit high – for other ICs anyway. You will probably want to plan on resubmission but can ask the PO for confirmation as to whether this will be necessary or advisable (as insurance). If so, you’ll want the PO’s take on the summary statement and any insight from attending the review meeting.
  
  Reply
vl said

April 18, 2017 @ 8:28 pm · EditHi! Writedit. I submitted the JIT request from GMO for my R21 1.5 months ago (NIA), but have not received NOA. I wondered if there will be any changes in this potential funding? Thanks!

Reply
BB said

May 1, 2017 @ 1:06 am · EditI am a 3rd year post-doctoral fellow, working on rare metabolic disorders. My current research focus on understanding the pathophysiology and developing new therapies for the rare genetic disorders. I would like to continue my carrier in academia. Since I’m in my last stage of the post-doctoral fellowship, I would like to know about the available grant opportunities that I could apply to pursue my carrier goals. Any directions and insights toward this would be greatly appreciated.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  May 1, 2017 @ 8:59 am · EditYou are just within the eligibility for a K99/R00 award (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-16-193.html), which would fund another postdoc year and give you starting research funds once you have a tenure-track position at an academic institution. If you are or will soon be a citizen or green card holder, you could apply for a K22 award (https://researchtraining.nih.gov/programs/career-development/K22), if your interests fall within those of one of the ICs participating in the K22 mechanism (NCI, NIAID, NIDCD, NIDCR, NINDS, NIMH, NHLBI). You could also look for scholar positions available on K12 or KL2 awards at various universities (these are internally funded career development slots, usually reserved for current faculty but also used to recruit & support new faculty). Otherwise, once you have a job somewhere, you could apply for K01 or RPG funding (R01 or R21, depending on the nature of the project).
  
  Reply
AA said

May 5, 2017 @ 4:52 pm · EditI’m a DP2 applicant with a score that the PO suggested might be picked up based on programmatic interest and might not (32). Are there any tea leaves to be read in the new 2 billion in appropriations to the NIH? I know there were lots of earmarks for cancer, Alzheimers, precision medicine, BRAIN and a smidge for antibiotic resistance. How does this money get spread around by funding mechanism? Might there be more DP2s this year? If my application fits one of the earmark groups is there anything else I can do?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  May 7, 2017 @ 9:26 pm · EditThere is nothing else you can do to increase your chances of funding. The “earmark” funds for priority areas flagged by Congress will likely be used mainly to increase R01 and other RPG awards (since Congress likes to track the number of R01s), but ICs could use them for other mechanisms such as DP2 (or funds freed up by these “earmark” funds). You shouldn’t count on that, though, and the budgetary emphasis on certain areas will not increase your likelihood of funding specifically. Rather, an IC reviewing your application will need to be excited by you as an investigator and your science.
  
  Reply
JL said

May 11, 2017 @ 5:24 pm · EditHi- I recently received word that my SBIR application was recommended for funding during the advisory council meeting. How much stock should I put into the likelihood of funding based on that information (e.g. should I keep holding my breath or allow for a moment of celebration as I continue to wait)?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  May 11, 2017 @ 10:31 pm · EditWell, almost all applications sent to Council are recommended for funding, but not all of them will receive awards (an application cannot be considered for an award if Council does not approve it first). You are on the paylist, but until your PO says you are being considered for an award and/or you receive a JIT request from the PO or GMS, then you should probably hold off on celebrations. If your PO says you can be “cautiously optimistic”, then you can put the champagne in the fridge. Alternatively, you can ask the PO if you need to resubmit for insurance (though often a PO will say to resubmit even if you have a reasonable chance of an award, since they don’t want to risk your losing a cycle).
  
  Reply
bug said

May 12, 2017 @ 5:33 pm · EditDP2s are starting to get assigned to ICs. Mine just got transferred to an institute a few days ago (16 Impact Score). From talking to two POs, they may fund earlier this year than usual (e.g. as early as June/July in some cases). Not sure if that is specific to my situation or more generally applicable. Good luck to all…

Reply
- writedit said
  
  May 12, 2017 @ 11:31 pm · EditGreat – thank you so much for sharing your intel – and congratulations and best wishes for success with your research!
  
  Reply
- AA said
  
  May 15, 2017 @ 11:42 am · EditAs a fellow DP2 applicant, that’s really great to know. Thanks for sharing and CONGRATULATIONS!
  
  Reply
  - AA said
    
    May 18, 2017 @ 10:24 am · EditWoah. Just got assigned to an institute as well. Keeping fingers crossed that institute assignment is as predictive of funding this year as it was in years past. The information on this blog has been extremely valuable. Thank you!
  - writedit said
    
    May 18, 2017 @ 10:33 am · EditWoohoo – good luck and please keep us posted!
  - bug said
    
    May 26, 2017 @ 11:04 am · EditCongrats! Counsel met on 18th… Gah! Need to get my new IACUC protocol approved asap.
  - AA said
    
    June 27, 2017 @ 3:26 pm · EditBug, have you heard anything about your DP2? PO for the award had told me that “decisions would be made by the end of June.” It sounds like he said similar things to you. If that’s the real timeline then I’m worried having been assigned to an IC in May wasn’t worth very much.
  - bug said
    
    July 20, 2017 @ 4:24 pm · EditLooks like notification to at least some awardees was sent today, official NOAs “in the next few weeks”.
  - AA said
    
    July 20, 2017 @ 8:46 pm · EditCongratulations! This is so exciting! And see you in Bethesda in June 2018!
  - HW said
    
    July 25, 2017 @ 6:12 pm · EditAA, You got any update after institute assignment ? Mine was assigned to an IC in mid-July, but no further change since then.
- AA said
  
  July 25, 2017 @ 6:23 pm · EditHW, yes. On the 20th I got an unofficial email saying I was a recipient and that i would get an NOA in the next few weeks. For what it’s worth the PO had said to me in the spring that there might be a delay in notification between the awardees whose funding is coming from the OD vs the awardees whose funding is coming from some of the institutes (though I am among the institute funded). Also, the press release will have similar timing to previous years (October), so there is still time. Good luck!
  
  Reply
  - HW said
    
    July 25, 2017 @ 7:22 pm · EditAA, congratulations and thank you so much for sharing your intel !
NewPI said

May 13, 2017 @ 3:18 pm · EditHi Writedit,
Just received NOA from NIA and wanted to share timeline if it helps others.
Timeline as new faculty:
06/05/2015 – 1st submission to regular study section = not discussed (At first, I was admittedly very embarrassed … now I tell any new PI so they see it can end with a positive outcome… one step at a time).
12/16/2015 – Revised but sent to PAR for AD as A0 = impact score 47, 41%
06/07/2016 – Revised and sent to same PAR for AD as A1 and included all suggested changes and new data = impact score 29, 14% (*last cycle for ESI status). I let my PO know that I was losing ESI after this cycle and that seemed to be a relevant fact.
Council 01/2017 and PO on fence about state of budget and funding
I emailed PO periodically – through March 3rd – PO had little info to share but always responded and provided a date to follow-up. Have always had good interactions with NIA POs!
3/3/2017 – PO indicates application on list to be paid
5/15/2017 – NOA; but cut in budget despite being AD (~20%)

What is your advice regarding conversations with PO to scale back the science so it can fit into the revised budget?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  May 13, 2017 @ 11:08 pm · EditYou should first ask how much, if any, of the cut will be restored once NIA receives its appropriation. Certainly not 20%, though, so you can then ask about adjusting one or more aim. You should have an idea in advance of how you would alter your approach (and aims) to be feasible with the reduced funding level.
  
  Reply
- writedit said
  
  May 13, 2017 @ 11:10 pm · EditAnd thank you so much, too, for sharing your detailed timeline. Again, best wishes for success with your research!
  
  Reply
  - NewPI said
    
    May 14, 2017 @ 12:20 pm · EditWritedit, you have literally been helping me since 2011 starting with advise on my K99/R00 that was eventually funded! Sharing my timeline is the least I can do! Thanks a million!
R21 said

May 16, 2017 @ 12:31 pm · EditThank you so much for this valuable resource.

When including other personnel in an application (e.g., a named postdoc), is it necessary that they have an eRA commons account (to list on their biosketch)? Or is this something they can register for if the application is funded?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  May 16, 2017 @ 12:56 pm · EditIt is not required, but it takes so little time that your postdoc might as well register now.
  
  Reply
DesperateNewPI said

May 18, 2017 @ 12:57 pm · EditAnyone can share the score led to funding of NIH director’s innovator award? I got into the second round review but had no estimate payline.

Reply
- Lili said
  
  May 18, 2017 @ 1:07 pm · EditCongratulations on going to second round. That really is something! About the score. I know people with 15 that got it and people with 40 that got it. I also know people with 25 that DID NOT get it. I am pretty confident that for this particular DP2 mechanism the summary statement is very important. You want the reviews to unanimously agree with the “innovativeness”. In other words “approach” is less important (and that can equal to a less than optimal score for example). If the reviews say it is very innovative, flaws like “approach” you can try to address on the two-page rebuttal.
  
  Reply
  - DesperateNewPI said
    
    May 19, 2017 @ 12:40 pm · EditThanks Lili, that is helpful.
- bug said
  
  May 27, 2017 @ 5:26 pm · EditScores I know of from prior years :
  10 got it
  16 got it
  19 got it
  27 got it
  33 didn’t
  34 got it
  37 didn’t
  40 didn’t (my first try)
  76 didn’t
  
  If you don’t get it on first try, rework it and resubmit. Feedback helped me find the right angle.
  
  Reply
  - writedit said
    
    May 29, 2017 @ 10:21 pm · EditCongrats on all your “got it” scores – thank you so much for posting this span of scores that did and did not receive awards (and your encouragement to those feeling discouraged).
R01 hopeful said

May 23, 2017 @ 6:20 am · EditHi –

I have a quick question about NIH JIT request: is it always the case that if an application is to be considered for funding, NIH will ask for JIT “before” council meeting? Could there be a situation when JIT is requested (and, the grant subsequently funded) “after” council? We have an R01 which seems to be within fundable range (with NIEHS), but our PO hasn’t been very responsive. We haven’t received a JIT request as well. Any advice?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  May 23, 2017 @ 7:54 am · EditThe request can certainly come after Council meets. IC procedures differ in terms of the timing of JIT, but they have internal discussions after Council about which applications in the gray zone or submitted to RFAs/PARs should receive awards, so those JIT requests are definitely delayed. If your PO has responded but not been very clear or informative, this isn’t unusual (you might ask if you should resubmit, which is an easier question for him/her to answer), since the final appropriation hasn’t reached NIEHS yet. If your PO hasn’t responded at all (even to acknowledge your contact), unless you do need to know if you should resubmit, then you should wait until mid June (PO may not have information until after Council). If you haven’t had any response since submitting (and/or need to know if you should resubmit in July), then check for the chief of your branch and politely indicate you would appreciate guidance as to your application status/need to resubmit.
  
  Reply
PO_repellant said

May 25, 2017 @ 12:12 pm · EditHi — Writeedit and others,

I’ve been benefitting from this blog for many years now! I first stumbled upon it when trying to figure out whether my F32 was fundable (it was), and since then based on lots of advice here, I’ve had a K01 and R21 funded. In many instances, this has been more accessible than my mentors! Thank you!

I now seek advice about how to engage my K01 PO. In short, he has never ever responded to me by email in any way. From the time when I simply wrote to welcome him to his new position (he assumed the job just shortly before I learned about the funding decision – 1.5 years ago), to when I was email to ask about a funding time line (1 year ago), to more recently when I have a budget question when I have emailed him 3 separate times when he has not acknowledged or responded.

My sole interaction with him was at a NIH booth at a national conference, when I introduced myself, and briefly told him what we were doing within the K01 project. He appeared supportive and enthusiastic, and told me to email him and discuss the specifics of the question. I have emailed him twice since (the emails were a month apart)…again no response. Not even automated emails indicating vacation or acknowledgements that email was received.

So now, I am at a loss of how to approach my PO. Do I keep sending emails into the void of cyberspace? Do I cold call him (I have tried once, left a message, and no response)? Or should I start engaging the supervising PO (if there is such a position)?

I do not want to upset him as I know I will have to work with him for many years to come, but this is the least responsive of any PO that I’ve ever interacted with at any agency…

Your advice is much appreciated.

PO_repellant

Reply
AMP said

June 6, 2017 @ 12:50 pm · EditHi,

My R21 missed the payline by one point at NIAID (payline at 28 now). The PO says that it is on the list for potential payment with end of year funds. But cannot guarantee funding and we should know in the next few weeks which applications will be funded. I am hesitating whether to submit a new application for this coming cycle on June 15th. Any suggestions? Thank you!!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 6, 2017 @ 4:18 pm · EditYou should absolutely submit your application. If your current R21 is picked up for funding, you can administratively withdraw the June 15th application. If your R21 is not funded, you don’t lose a cycle.
  
  Reply
AD said

June 6, 2017 @ 7:15 pm · EditHi Writedit,
My NIA R21 (AD related) was reviewed in October 2016 and January 2017 council (percentile 19; pay line 28 for 2017). JIT has been showing since October but did not receive any request for the JIT documents.
My status since January has been “Council Review Completed”, but changed to “Pending Administrative Review” on 6/2/17.
I have not received anything from GMS or PO. Should I work on the JIT documents before someone contacts me, or should I wait to hear something?
Thank you!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 6, 2017 @ 9:05 pm · EditThat is unusual for your status to change before JIT is requested (and no request soon after). You should check with your PO (or GMS) as to whether you should submit JIT now. I assume you proactively, based on your score, took care of any approvals needed (IACUC, IRB, etc.), such that you can send the JIT straight away.
  
  Reply
  - AD said
    
    June 7, 2017 @ 12:12 pm · EditThank you for the reply.
    My IACUC has not been approved yet but is under process because I was not within the initial pay line and the pay line changed mid of May and I am now within the pay line. The PO was not responsive. As suggested by my mentors, I did turn in my IACUC last week that is under review.
    This morning I received an official JIT request with the documents due by Monday. I am not sure how this is going to work because my IACUC is still pending.
    Any thoughts?
    Thank you!
  - Lili said
    
    June 7, 2017 @ 1:05 pm · EditHi AD, congrats on your award! I had a situation where the IACUC was only approved after the NOA. In the letter of award (September 30) there was a note saying that I had to provide an approved IACUC before Dec 1 or else the contract would be terminated. Naturally I sent the IACUC approval like mid-october and it was fine.
  - writedit said
    
    June 7, 2017 @ 7:16 pm · EditAs Lili noted, either your NoA or the actual release of funds will be delayed until you have IACUC approval. In Lili’s case, the IC had no choice but to issue a NOA (to get it in before the next FY started on Oct 1), whereas they may just delay your NOA. You should send the rest of the JIT with the IACUC review date (estimate if not known). This will allow them to process the rest of the JIT and prepare the award, though no funds can be released until the regulatory approval is submitted.
AD said

June 7, 2017 @ 1:40 pm · EditHi Lili,
Thank you for calming my nerves (have my fingers crossed). I will keep the blog posted on what happens.
Thanks again!

Reply
Nosehair said

June 7, 2017 @ 2:48 pm · EditHello roops,
Just wondering whether you were able to get your salary portion of the K22 to a postdoc/tech? Thanks, -NH

Reply
YK said

June 9, 2017 @ 1:52 pm · EditHi, I just got priority score 28 for an R21 at NIAID. The payline is 28 for R21s….anybody could chime in if this might be paid? it was a resubmission and the score improved from 42. I so much need this grant to be funded……

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 9, 2017 @ 2:24 pm · EditPayline is up to and including 28, so you’re good, assuming there are no administrative issues (be sure to get any IRB, IACUC, or other regulatory approvals you might need).
  
  Reply
grant_writer said

June 16, 2017 @ 5:42 pm · EditHi, avatar, I am in the same situation as yours. I wonder if the secondary IC has funded your proposal? Thanks-

Reply
YJ said

June 16, 2017 @ 6:01 pm · EditHi writedit, My R01 application to NIGMS was scored 17/6%. My current ADC is slightly over $500K, and for this r01 application I proposed $250 ADC. If this R01 is being considered for funding, is the NIGMS well-funded lab policy (>$750K)?
Per NIGMS site, “Prior to considering awards to investigators whose total research support from all sources, including the pending award, exceeds $750,000 (annual direct costs), special analysis and justification should be required”.

In fact, large portion of my current funding (200K) is one-year grant, which will be completed in 2018 summer. Also, I am expecting NIGMS standard budget cut of the R01 application, so it may not exceed >$750K total, but
I am just worried if this is considered under a well-funded laboratory at the Council meeting. Your advice will be greatly appreciated!!! Thanks!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 17, 2017 @ 5:46 am · EditYou can talk with your PO, but you shouldn’t have anything to worry about. Council takes your individual situation into consideration, including the one-year award, when reviewing applications bumping against the $750K ceiling. Your PO can let you know if you can/should prepare a brief justification for consideration at Council.
  
  Reply
  - YJ said
    
    June 21, 2017 @ 5:58 pm · EditThanks for your response! In fact, I received another r21 scored well (NCI, 6%). Both R01 and R21 will be at this fall Council though these will be treated at different institution. Do you think if this R21 will influence the funding decision of the R01 because of the $750 ceiling?
  - writedit said
    
    June 21, 2017 @ 10:08 pm · EditI don’t think the NIGMS policy is limited to NIGMS awards, so your R21 might be considered as part of Council’s consideration of your situation. If the awards are all for different projects (different areas/disciplines), then you are more likely to be granted an exception, especially since the R21 is just 2 years. However, with the ICs needing to support the new NGRI policies and a big question mark with regard to the FY18 budget, Council might be more strict. When it gets closer to the meeting date (and we have an inkling, hopefully, of the budget situation), you can check with your PO.
Frank said

June 17, 2017 @ 4:00 pm · EditHi writedit,

I had one K award and this award ended already. Now i want to submit a R01 grant based on this K award. Is it Okay for me to use some paragraphs in my K award? More specifically, i want to use some paragraphs from my own K award for one sub aim of one aim of my new R01 grant proposal (there are 3 aims and 6 sub-aims in total).

Thanks

Frank

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 19, 2017 @ 11:44 pm · EditYou can recycle the text as long as the work has not already been completed as part of your K project. However, even if you did not do the proposed work, I would hope that you would have enough new knowledge from your K project to, at the very least, update the aim itself (including rationale and anticipated findings) and the wording of the text.
  
  Reply
Bing Lu said

June 19, 2017 @ 5:10 pm · EditHi, I submitted my R01 in Feb 2017, got a good score in June 2017, 10 percentile (2017 payline 13 percentile). But the council meeting will be in Oct 2017. Can my grant use 2017 payline, or 2018 payline? Thanks.

Bing

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 19, 2017 @ 11:41 pm · EditYour grant will fall under the FY18 payline, which will not be known for many months – probably not until next year (calendar year 2018), though hopefully sooner than that – and with a better budget than was proposed by the White House. Depending on the IC, a 10th percentile should be safe – or one would hope.
  
  Reply
  - Bing Lu said
    
    June 20, 2017 @ 9:43 am · EditThanks a lot. But I am just wondering, so FY2017 just funds the applications submitted in Oct 2016? If so 2017 money should have a lot left. Is that right? I am confused why FY2017 does fund 2017 applications.
    
    Thanks again.
    Bing
  - writedit said
    
    June 20, 2017 @ 10:05 am · EditThe NIH cannot carry any funds over from one FY to the next – they have to spend everything they receive (like the ARRA spending frenzy about 8 years ago). Due to the lag time between submission, peer review, and Council review, applications submitted in one calendar year (eg, Feb, June, & Oct cycles in 2017) are awarded under the next FY (eg, FY18). Special FOAs (RFAs, RFPs) can have applications and awards in the same calendar/FY year, but these are the exceptions. Theoretically, the first cycle applications (~Feb) should receive awards in December of the same year, but due to federal budget delays, this is rare now.
ABD said

June 21, 2017 @ 11:43 am · EditHi WritedIt,

I submitted an NHLBI K99 award in February 2016 and received a 35 (payline 32). The status has said “Council Review Completed” since October 2016 but this morning it changed to “Pending.” My PO had mentioned that it would be re-reviewed for select pay probably in June. Does this status change simply mean they are re-reviewing or perhaps is this more hopeful of a change? Thank you!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 21, 2017 @ 11:47 am · EditThis is good news – they have conducted a programmatic review of your application for select pay and have begun an administrative review, which is likely to result in an award, assuming no regulatory or budgetary issues arise. You can check in with your PO for an update and to ask if he/she needs anything else from you.
  
  Reply
  - ABD said
    
    June 27, 2017 @ 8:22 pm · EditThanks for the response! How often would you say it’s ok to check in with your PO? I haven’t heard a response in over a week and don’t want to send a follow up if that’s too persistent.
  - writedit said
    
    June 27, 2017 @ 11:32 pm · EditI’d suggest you check back after July 5 if your status hasn’t changed, maybe even not until the following Monday (they will get in touch if they have a question or concern). ICs only received their appropriation in late May or early June, so they are still catching up on scores of applications from the first two funding cycles. If you check some of the timelines posted by prior commenters, you can see the “Pending” status can last from weeks to months (the latter won’t occur in your case, though – you’ve already waited your months).
  - ABD said
    
    August 7, 2017 @ 3:51 pm · EditHello again,
    
    You were absolutely correct! Received my NOA this morning. As you can see below my journey was a bit longer than usual, so my advice would be to not get discouraged. Thanks for continuing to provide such a helpful resource.
    
    07/31/2017 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
    06/21/2017 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
    10/27/2016 Council review completed.
    06/13/2016 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
    02/22/2016 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
    02/11/2016 Application entered into system
  - writedit said
    
    August 7, 2017 @ 4:25 pm · EditWoohoo! Congratulations on the award (finally) and persevering! Thank you so much for sharing your experience all along the way as a great example of not getting discouraged (sorry you had to endure ~18 months of waiting to provide this example, though). Best wishes for success with your project and your career in biomedical research!
JRM said

June 22, 2017 @ 3:58 pm · EditI would really thank the people here for the very helpful discusuions. Just had a quick question. Lately I see that the Award Document Number appers in the eRA commons site. I was wondering if this number is always there or it appers just before a NOA is about to come? Thanks
Jyoti

Reply
- John said
  
  January 23, 2018 @ 8:30 pm · EditHi JRM, do you have any anwser on the Award Document Number? I have the same question, I noted today a Award Document Number appers in the eRA commons site.
  
  Reply
  - writedit said
    
    January 24, 2018 @ 12:17 pm · EditI am so sorry that I never answered this. I do not know for sure, but I would assume that the Award Document number is for the NOA. You can ask your GMS or PO to be sure, but if you had an application being processed for an award, then I would assume this is the case.
  - Jeremy said
    
    October 28, 2019 @ 5:02 pm · EditHi John, JRM and writedit, I have this same question. Did you find out that you were funded? Is that Award Document # always there and I just didn’t notice until now? I don’t trust my memory :). My status is “pending council review”. According to the PO, the council review meeting took place this month.
  - edta said
    
    October 28, 2019 @ 6:56 pm · EditNo, unfortunately, award document number is (automatically) assigned at some point during the process and not an indicator of real award. I have a few ND proposals with AD#.
  - writedit said
    
    October 28, 2019 @ 10:40 pm · EditThanks for chiming in on this, edta.
    
    >
VV said

June 23, 2017 @ 3:50 pm · EditHi WritedIt,

I submitted an NIDDK K25 award and just received a 45 impact score. I would like to know what the paylines are for the NIDDK K25 awards are since I could not find it online. Any help would be highly appreciated!

Thanks

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 23, 2017 @ 4:49 pm · EditNIDDK does not usually post a lot of paylines, but 45 is a bit high. When you receive your summary statement, you can check with your PO about next steps, including how best to respond to reviewers in your resubmission.
  
  Reply
fringe_funds said

July 5, 2017 @ 7:35 pm · EditI’ve just been funded by the R15 program. I’d like to obtain supplemental funds to replacing aging equipment. Are there any examples of such applications? Thanks!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 6, 2017 @ 10:18 am · EditIf you mean an administrative supplement, then you should talk with your PO. These supplements do not go for peer review but instead are discussed internally. You don’t need an example so much as insight into what information the IC will want to have available as part of their discussions. These are just 6-page narratives, you would essentially explain why the equipment is needed to complete the funded research. Now, the IC may wonder why you proposed doing the work if you didn’t have the equipment (or didn’t request it in your original budget), so this is again a conversation you should have with your PO to be sure you are asking in a way the IC will honor your request.
  
  Reply
R01_Waiting said

July 6, 2017 @ 3:22 pm · EditI have a well scored R01 application (6th%) that has been in limbo (council met in Oct 2016), and several weeks ago the status in Commons changed from “council review completed” to “pending administrative review.” I received a formal request for JIT docs, which I subsequently sent in, and when I connected with my PO, she said they were trying to fund it, but nothing is final until NoA is sent. On 7/3, I noticed in Commons the status has now moved back to “council review completed” which has me a bit anxious. Is that typical?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 6, 2017 @ 5:00 pm · EditHmm. It is hard to believe a 6th percentile application reviewed in 2016 for FY17 has not been funded at all, much less that it is in limbo, unless there are regulatory or budget issues. Unfortunately, the switch from pending back to “Council review completed” is not especially good news. It doesn’t mean that it won’t go back to “administrative review”, but you should check with your PO to find out if there was a problem in your JIT. If they think you are getting too much funding for this line of work, they might take you out of consideration. If that is the case (well-funded PI and/or overlapping funding) and you can make a case for this award, it would be good to do this sooner than later.
  
  Reply
- PA said
  
  July 20, 2017 @ 1:41 pm · EditI’m in the same position- R01 was scored at 5th percentile in review session from June 2016, council approved in September 2016, and no word about funding yet. Has anyone received an NOA recently?
  
  Reply
  - writedit said
    
    July 20, 2017 @ 3:13 pm · EditIf this is truly June (SRG) and September (Council) 2016, your application should be moving forward for processing, and I am surprised it has not as yet. You should definitely check with your PO for an update. I assume you submitted JIT materials already (if not, then definitely contact the PO) and that no problems were flagged (regulatory, overlapping funding, etc.).
looking for funding said

July 17, 2017 @ 4:52 pm · EditHow easy is it to get a minority supplement for a URM student in the lab? Is it competitive and based on the student’s grades from undergrad? I am a relatively new PI, and I haven’t graduated any PhD students yet. There is a URM student I want to take, but probably won’t have money for after the first year unless she gets a fellowship. People tell me that I can just get a minority supplement, but I have no experience with this. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Reply
- AA said
  
  July 17, 2017 @ 4:57 pm · EditDon’t know if you’ve sen this already, but I found it extremely helpful. It doesn’t answer your question exactly, but part of the answer is that it depends what mechanism you are using. http://drugmonkey.scientopia.org/2016/11/18/grant-supplements-and-diversity-efforts/
  
  Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 20, 2017 @ 10:45 pm · EditTalk with your PO about what you intend to propose. As long as your award qualifies (has enough time left) and your PO concurs with your broad plan, you should be in good shape, since these are discussed internally (vs going to peer review). You can have more than one supplement if you have more than one URM interested (or say a high school or undergrad URM interested for a summer or a postdoc in need of support until they can get an F32 or K in).
  
  Reply
YJ said

July 18, 2017 @ 1:38 pm · EditHi writedit,
I received JIT request from NIGMS for my R01 application. In fact, I also received a CTSI intramural funding recently, designed for supporting pilot research (e.g. generating preliminary data, 50K only for one year) for acquiring subsequent long-term extramural funding (e.g. NIH R01). Hence, there is some scientific overlap between this pilot grant and specific aim 2 of the R01 proposal.
I discussed with my institutional administrative team about this issue, and their suggestion was to justify this overlap by stating that “This pilot research support will be used to accomplish Aim2 despite the shortfall in NIH funding due to standard budget cut (expecting 24% standard budget cut)”. However, I feel like that this justification is not strong enough, so what I am thinking is to end the intramural funding early in case of the r01 funded (before the start date of the R01).
“This is an intramular pilot research funding program, designed for generating preliminary data of the pending R01 application. If the pending application is awarded, this pilot research funding will be terminated immediately”
What do you think?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 18, 2017 @ 2:27 pm · EditDid you already receive the entire $50K (and just not spent it yet), or is it being paid out monthly? If the pilot award generated preliminary data for your R01, submitted last fall (I assume), then it should be running out soon in any case – and your R01 PO already knows you have the pilot funding (would have been listed in your application). Your CTSA will also have to report back to NCATS about your pilot funding progress (NCATS will be happy about the R01), so you want to be sure they are happy with how the $ was used, too. You could use whatever of the $50K you haven’t spent yet to extend/collect more data for Aim 2 (ie, more samples, additional data from each sample, analyze data in additional ways, etc.) – hard to give examples without knowing if this is clinical or bench or computational or what, but essentially, extend the work in Aim 2 in some way vs simply help fund what was proposed in the R01. You can ask your R01 PO about this approach (vs use pilot $ to make up for R01 shortfall in Aim 2 work); if you are ESI, then you may not have a significant budget cut (a 24% cut is not “standard” across the NIH in any case, once the federal government has moved from a CR to final budget). The NIH likes to see its funding leveraged, so you don’t need to decline the rest of the $50K but instead put it to good use in meeting/expanding the peer-reviewed goals of the science. What you should not worry about is any impact of the pilot funding on receiving your R01 – this decision is independent of what happens with the pilot $. NIGMS just wants to be sure you are not receiving duplicate funding to do the exact same work (ie, using one award to pay for Aim 2 and pocketing $ from either NCATS or NIGMS). You don’t need to say you will terminate the intramural funding because you think it endangers your R01.
  
  Reply
  - YJ said
    
    July 18, 2017 @ 2:39 pm · EditThanks your suggestion! Suggestion of using the money to get more data for Aim 2 will be appropriate.. In fact, I have just received an award letter of the pilot grant and no money has been spent so far. I am not an ESI, have multiple NIH fundings (one R01, two R21), so I am expecting significant budget cut..
  - writedit said
    
    July 18, 2017 @ 3:00 pm · EditAha. I thought you were saying that you had actually used the pilot $ to generate preliminary data for this R01. That should still be okay (extending Aim 2 of R01), but now you should probably check with your CTSI, too, since they may need approval from NCATS for the $ to be used in that manner (extending/expanding Aim 2 of R01 vs generating preliminary data). If there is any additional work related to the R01 but in a new direction (so still more in the vein of generating preliminary data, but leveraging the R01 to launch a new tangent), that might be another option … but NCATS may be fine with just extending the work on Aim 2 (still probably a better strategy than saying you’ll use NCATS $ to make up for anticipated budget shortfall in NIGMS award).
Resubmission Novice said

July 20, 2017 @ 9:30 pm · EditWritedit – I would your appreciate your insight on this situation. I resubmitted a renewal and my application was scored (likely not fundable). I expected the resubmission would score better than it did since I addressed all reviewer comments and had additional preliminary data. Regardless, I received a call from the SRO after my score was posted stating that I forgot to include a progress report section in the research strategy portion of the application. I did include that section in the first renewal. Apparently I misinterpreted the instructions and didn’t think I was suppose to include a progress report when resubmitting the renewal. I’m embarrassed – what a mistake. I guess the lack of a progress report wouldn’t have been caught ahead of review by NIH? Also, since my grant was scored can I assume that my scored was negatively impacted because I included only a preliminary data section and not a progress report describing work done on the specific aims of my previous award. Really appreciate your thoughts. Sincerely. Thanks.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 20, 2017 @ 10:42 pm · EditIt’s interesting that the SRO contacted you after your score was posted, since I’m not sure what the point of that would be – whereas I am surprised that he/she did not contact you at the time your application was being assigned for review – if nothing else to confirm that you intended to leave out the progress report and, if not, did you want to withdraw your application and resubmit (since this was your last chance to renew your R01 or whatever the mechanism is – your next submission will be a Type 1 A0 starting from scratch). Since you only say the score is “likely not fundable”, then you should certainly contact your PO, explain your omission, and offer to send him/her your progress report along with any rebuttal that might be necessary once you receive your summary statement (if reviewers had concerns other than the missing progress report, which did not allow them to fully assess your progress made). And, if this is the first renewal of your first R01 or if you are within 10 years of your first R01 or if this is your sole support, then also ask your PO if the NGRI policy (https://grants.nih.gov/ngri.htm) applies to you.
  
  Reply
rodger said

July 24, 2017 @ 11:08 am · EditJust received NOA from NHGRI for my R01. I used modular budget and got no budget cut. I am a new investigator but not an early stage investigator. Impact score 25, percentile 8.

Effect Date Status Message
07/19/2017 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
03/13/2017 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
02/07/2017 Council review completed.
10/06/2016 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
10/06/2016 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
06/20/2016 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
06/06/2016 Application entered into system

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 24, 2017 @ 2:30 pm · EditCongratulations and thank you so much for posting your timeline. The delay between pending administrative review and award prepared will hopefully be reassuring to many who have been anxiously waiting to hear about their applications. Best wishes for success with your research!
  
  Reply
Eliud said

July 27, 2017 @ 10:46 am · EditDear writedit,
During the last month my status at eRA commons went from “Council Review Complete”, to “Pending”, and now (07-25-17) is “Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist”. This is a SC2 SCORE (NIGMS). Do you think a NOA is underway? Approx date?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 27, 2017 @ 11:10 am · EditYes – congratulations! You should have a notice soon (this week or next). Unless you have a specific question, there is no need to contact your GMS or PO (except to thank them). Best wishes for success with your research!
  
  Reply
  - Eliud said
    
    July 27, 2017 @ 11:32 am · EditAlright, thanks. Will do. And thank you for your posts, very useful.
- deep said
  
  July 27, 2017 @ 11:10 am · EditEvery case is different but I have never seen Award prepared not pan out eventually, in a week or 10 days at the most.
  
  Reply
notanewbie said

July 31, 2017 @ 10:11 am · EditThought I would also share some info. The below is for an R34 to NHLBI that was reviewed by a SEP.

Effect Date Status Message
07/27/2017 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
06/14/2017 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
06/08/2017 Council review completed.
03/20/2017 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
10/20/2016 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
10/17/2016 Application entered into system

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 31, 2017 @ 11:18 am · EditCongratulations and thank you so much for sharing your timeline. Some viewing this site might be interested in your impact score as well, since few R34s are posted here. Best wishes for success in planning the trial and moving forward with your multi-site study.
  
  Reply
  - notanewbie said
    
    July 31, 2017 @ 12:47 pm · EditThank you, and also thank you for the invaluable service you provide in maintaining this site.
    
    Impact score was 34. Based on past experience, I did not really expect that to be good enough to be funded, but am grateful that it was.
    
    Any idea/sources of how often a funded R34 leads to a funded R01?
  - writedit said
    
    July 31, 2017 @ 2:36 pm · EditThe R34 is an underutilized mechanism and one the ICs like PIs to use to avoid starting big trials that founder two years in. I know of an R01 multisite trial that scored competitively but was converted to R34 to cover the planning period before the trial started. ICs rarely fund the R34 if they do not intend to fund the R01 trial. However, if you cannot pull off the planning phase (cooperation among sites on IRB, SOPs, operations manual, etc.) or discover that the sample size will not be feasible to enroll (for whatever reason), then they would likely recommend that you not apply for the R01 – but you would find that out before you made the effort. The fact that they might have reached to fund your 34 probably means they like the trial concept underlying the planning phase – I assume your PO has been supportive.
FinalYrESI said

August 4, 2017 @ 7:24 pm · EditI want to thank writedit for this wonderful blog. After struggling for 2.5 years, I am sharing the timeline for a recently funded R01 (ESI status).

07/26/2017 NoA, NIGMS
07/20/2017 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
05/31/2017 Council review completed.
04/15/2017 JIT sent
03/30/2017 JIT request
02/11/2017 Scientific Review Group review completed. 15 % tile
11/08/2016 Scientific Review Group review pending
11/01/2016 A1 resubmission. Application entered into system

Reply
- writedit said
  
  August 5, 2017 @ 8:52 am · EditCongratulations and thank you so much for sharing your timeline – and your tale of perseverance. Best wishes for success with your research.
  
  Reply
NSI said

August 8, 2017 @ 6:48 pm · EditHi Writedit, I submitted a new R01 in Feb 2017 as a new investigator and got a score in the grey zone in June. Have talked with the PO and was notified that it is hard to tell due to the unclear FY2018 budget. He suggested a resubmission in Nov. Recently, I got a JIT email from NIH to request Other Support to be sent to eRA Commons and also the PO in two days. Since this request is before the council meeting (September), I am wondering whether this is normal and whether this indicates that I have a chance to be funded? Sincerely, Thank you!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  August 9, 2017 @ 12:03 pm · EditI can’t tell if you mean the PO sent a request for JIT or if eRA Commons sent a request. If it came generically from the NIH, it is the automated request that everyone receives. You can ignore the automated request, but you could check with the PO to be sure, if you have any question as to whether he wants it now. Even if it is a real JIT request, no matter what, you would not receive an award until the end of 2017 or more likely 2018, especially if there is a problem getting the budget passed due to debt ceiling and tax reform negotiations, so the timing of the request before Council does not suggest anything about the likelihood or timing of funding.
  
  Reply
  - NSI said
    
    August 9, 2017 @ 1:40 pm · EditThanks! Actually, the request comes from the PO’s assistant. She wants the update in eRA Commons and also the copies to her and PO. So, I am kindly confused. Sincerely, Thank you very much for your response!
  - writedit said
    
    August 9, 2017 @ 2:37 pm · EditThis is good news – not an automated request, so they are working to get you on the paylist (for the IC Director to consider funding – not all applications on the paylist receive awards). And it is not unusual for them to request JIT before Council meets, especially if your application is on the list they plan to send to Council for electronic approval en bloc in advance of the meeting. You should continue with the November application preparation, though, since nothing is guaranteed, and you may not know for several months still (so your PO does not want you to miss a cycle waiting).
question said

August 17, 2017 @ 1:56 pm · EditOur NIDDK R01 scored a 4 percentile as an ESI. We received a pre-award letter in July, but as yet remain to receive a Notice of Award. We requested the award start 8/1. I understand this can take a while… but is this common?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  August 17, 2017 @ 4:28 pm · EditThis year, it is not surprising, since NIDDK (and the rest of the NIH) has been scrambling to make most of their awards (for the entire FY) starting in mid-July, due to the budget delays. Your start date is not an expiration date, and you will definitely have your Notice before the end of the FY – hopefully before the end of August. If you need to start spending now, you can set up an account for pre-award spending since you are within 90 days of award.
  
  Reply
NewPI said

August 20, 2017 @ 9:21 pm · EditWhen does council meet for PARs at NIA?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  August 21, 2017 @ 8:08 am · EditThere is only one Council meeting, and NACA next meets on Sept 26-27. However, assuming you are on the paylist that went to Council for approval (your PO can tell you this), and unless you have a clearly competitive score, you still won’t know about funding until after the federal budget passes, which probably won’t be for some time still. If you want to gauge when your PO might have news, watch for when the President signs an omnibus spending bill into law (though actual spending activity by ICs is typically delayed another 4-6 weeks after this).
  
  Reply
PA said

August 28, 2017 @ 12:35 pm · EditAfter a long wait, the status of my R01 recently changed from “council review completed” to “pending” (in a yellow box). What exactly does this mean? Any idea of how long we should expect to wait before the next step?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  August 28, 2017 @ 1:23 pm · EditThis means they have begun the administrative review of your application in preparation for an award. Your PO or GMS will let you know if they have any questions, but barring any unanticipated issues, you should be receiving good news in the weeks ahead (definitely before Sept 30).
  
  Reply
CA said

September 1, 2017 @ 9:01 pm · EditI submitted an F31 award last December, and since March 2017, the status has been “SRG Review Completed”. The status changed today to “Pending”. As opposed to others who typically saw this status change after “council review completed”, I’m wondering what “pending” means in this case… “pending” what?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  September 1, 2017 @ 10:55 pm · EditFellowship applications do not go to Council – they are just discussed internally at the IC. Your status changed to “Pending” because they are doing an administrative review in preparation for a possible award (assuming no issues arise & money is available). You can check with your PO for confirmation and to see if they need anything from you.
  
  >
  
  Reply
Needhelp! said

September 27, 2017 @ 8:09 pm · EditI received a impact score of 20 (no percentile provided; March 20, 2017) for my R21 submission to NIAAA. Does anyone have any idea where this score falls into the fundable range?

I have contacted my PO after council meeting (May 3, 2017), but…no response….after 2 weeks, I emailed him again…Finally, he emailed me back, but he did not know the budget allocation for R21 yet. And I waited for additional two months, and emailed him again (July 6, 2017)..but no response….so far. Now, I can see that NIAAA started giving the R21 awards from this August.

Please advise me whether I should contact the PO again or not.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  September 28, 2017 @ 12:08 am · EditNo, you don’t need to contact your PO until Congress passes a budget (December or later). Your award is for FY18, not FY17 (which ends on Saturday), and no paylines will be known until the NIAAA knows what its appropriation will be, which won’t happen until the federal budget is signed into law. If Congress can keep the increase in NIH funding they have proposed, your score should be promising – but a lot can happen between now and Dec.
  
  Reply
  - Needhelp! said
    
    September 28, 2017 @ 1:01 am · EditThank you so so so much for your response !!!
    
    I just want to confirm again about the FY 2018.
    
    Here is the timeline of my R21 application.
    
    11/15/2016 Application entered into system
    11/23/2016 Scientific Review Group review pending.
    03/07/2017 Scientific Review Group review completed.
    05/03/2017 Council review completed.
    
    As you can see, I submitted my application in November, 2016. So, I thought my award is for FY2017.
writedit said

September 28, 2017 @ 8:59 am · EditI am so sorry – yes, I misread the SRG date as when you submitted. This is an FY17 application. However, if you have not heard from your PO at this point (and have not been asked for JIT), then you should assume you are not receiving an award. You might look around NIAAA to see if another PO would be appropriate for your science, since this PO should have been more responsive, given your score. If this is the best person for your science, then later next week (after FY changes), I would suggest you call to have a discussion about the R21 – where the payline ended up, what you could do to get the score in funding range (based on what he heard at study section).

Reply
- Needhelp! said
  
  September 28, 2017 @ 11:33 am · EditI have been asked for JIT. But, that was an automated notification from the NIH (era-notify@mail.nih.gov), but from my PO. I guess I am not receiving an award then.
  
  Thank you for your help and great advice. It helped me a lot.
  
  Reply
  - Ds said
    
    September 28, 2017 @ 11:50 am · EditNeedhelp
    Dont lose hope. Sometime PO may not ask for JIT. He may ask for updated JIT. I hope you submitted your JIT in response to automated notification. Good Luck.
  - writedit said
    
    September 28, 2017 @ 12:09 pm · EditIf it weren’t September 28th, I would agree, but all awards must be processed by tomorrow, so the PO or GMS would have asked for updated JIT earlier, even if they weren’t sure whether an award would be issued (they need to have the JIT processed in advance of any last-minute funding decision, and the eRA Commons status would indicate if that had started already).
  - Needhelp! said
    
    September 28, 2017 @ 12:21 pm · EditThank you. Yes, I have submitted my JIT.
    
    I just emailed to my PO. Surprisingly, he emailed me back this time.
    
    He sent me the following email.
    “The score is usually effective for 2 years. The application will be considered for an award whenever funds are available during this period. At the same time, you can also choose to resubmit it as a new application.”
    
    Does it sound promising?
  - writedit said
    
    September 28, 2017 @ 1:33 pm · EditTo be honest, this is a rather odd response. You should definitely resubmit. All applications remain active beyond their submission FY, apparently 2 years, before they are administratively withdrawn. However, unless your PO is actively pushing for your application to be funded, or a special priority for your particular science arises in the coming months, it will go to the back of the line after all the better-scoring applications for all of FY18 are funded (& NIAAA then sees what funds are leftover, if any). The main reason that I know of an IC going back to a prior FY award is if a subsequent resubmission scores worse, so the IC goes back and funds the better-scored application (assuming the science is of special interest to them – something conveyed by the PO). You want to be sure the science is a priority for NIAAA (ie, POwould go to bat for a score of 20 vs que sera sera), and it would be nice for you to know the general tone of the study section discussion in preparing your new application, so I would still suggest calling the PO rather than emailing again, since you seem unlikely to get an insightful response electronically (and he may not want to put some thoughts into an email).
  - Ds said
    
    September 28, 2017 @ 1:50 pm · EditNeedhelp
    I agree with writedit this is a odd response. If they are not funding impact score 20 what are they funding? There has to be some explanation may be this is not priority area of research or some administrative issues like IRB, Animal etc.
    You need some clarification from PO about their decision not to fund your application. You submitted in response to RFA or parent R21?
Needhelp! said

September 28, 2017 @ 2:50 pm · EditYes, I submitted in response to RFA.

I know someone who got an R21 award from NIAAA with a score 25 two years ago. So, I was so excited about my score. But, nothing happened.
No…I am very frustrated. If I can’t get funded with impact score 20..then…..what should I do …..

However, thank you for both your advice! I really appreciate it.
I will contact him again to get more information.

Thank you.

Reply
- Ds said
  
  September 28, 2017 @ 3:01 pm · EditNeedhelp
  Sorry about your situation. As you applied in response to RFA there are possibilities : 1) your research area is not responsive to the RFA; 2) there can be many other application with similar score and they have pick few broad appliactions to fund with limited money.
  Few years back I applied for RFA and scored 22 for RO1 application. However it was not funded. Reason there was another application similar to mine with 19 impact score.
  RFAs are tricky. I am sure your science is excellent as you scored 20. Good Luck
  
  Reply
- writedit said
  
  September 28, 2017 @ 4:12 pm · EditWell, RFA awards are not decided based on solely on score – if program sees an interesting approach they’d like to support, they will fund applications out of order (this is true of all applications to an extent, but especially RFAs & PARs). I assume, too, that only a prescribed and limited number of awards were going to be made, in which case general paylines do not apply. If you do not have funding from NIAAA currently, then I would still suggest you check to see if there is another PO (other than RFA PO) who is appropriate for your science and communicate with them before submitting. The RFA SRG discussion may or may not be useful for general submission, since there would have been very specific research objectives listed. Now, it could be that the RFA PO is hoping for more $ for his program (in which case he might be able to make additional awards) – but again, this seems highly unusual and would not be clear until after the federal budget passes (not before December and possibly not until next year).
  
  Reply
  - Needhelp! said
    
    October 10, 2017 @ 4:19 pm · EditThank you for your advice.
    
    I am resubmitting a new application. However, if my new application gets a score higher than 20, would it badly affect the chance of my previous A1 grant being awarded?
  - writedit said
    
    October 10, 2017 @ 5:24 pm · EditNot necessarily. I know a PI whose subsequent submission was not discussed but still had the prior (essentially the same) application funded. If your PO likes the science, he/she can advocate for the application with a score of 20,
Me said

September 28, 2017 @ 3:33 pm · EditHi Writedit, My R01 received a priority score of 42, 27th percentile (NICHD). I am an ESI/NI. Any ideas what my chances are? I guess I am not hopeful of funding.

Thanks.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  September 28, 2017 @ 4:18 pm · EditNot great, since the Next Generation Researchers Initiative is likely not to expand funding beyond the 25th percentile, and the NIH appropriation (which will determine level of ESI funding) will not be known until December at the earliest, so you should plan to resubmit no matter what. When you receive your summary statement, you can talk with your PO about the SRG discussion and his/her recommendations in planning your revised application. A score like that can mean that there are weaknesses in the approach that could be fixed (and hence improve your score), but you’ll know whether the concerns were about the approach (fixable) or the significance (more difficult to fix).
  
  Reply
  - Me said
    
    September 28, 2017 @ 4:31 pm · EditJust what I thought. Thanks
Neurite said

September 28, 2017 @ 7:44 pm · EditGot 36 on K08 A1 resubmission. Down from 50 (A0). The score is not great but appears to be in the gray zone according to my last discussion with my PO in April (grants scored < 30 were definitely funded). Since the council won’t meet until January, should I assume that I won’t know the fundable score until then? I already prepare to resubmit (an A0).

Reply
- writedit said
  
  September 29, 2017 @ 11:58 am · EditYou can ask your PO for confirmation, but I would say so. The 36 A1 will remain under consideration even after the next A0 is scored, so you have nothing to lose. You would want the PO’s input on the SRG discussion to know how to craft the new application in any case, so you should touch base anyway.
  
  Reply
  - Neurite said
    
    October 1, 2017 @ 10:18 pm · EditThanks. PO replied and seemed to imply that it is a borderline score. He wants to wait until I have the Summary Statement.
  - Neurite said
    
    October 4, 2017 @ 4:24 pm · EditBy the way any idea about the funding outlook for NINDS in 2018?
  - writedit said
    
    October 5, 2017 @ 11:19 pm · EditIt should be as good as if not better than FY17, but that will become more clear as budget bill is worked out in the months ahead.
K01 applicant NIDA said

October 13, 2017 @ 5:06 pm · EditI am still waiting to hear about my K01 who was scored with 24 in September. Today I received an email that starts like this: “Dear NIH Funding Recipient:
Have you heard of the NIH Loan Repayment Programs (LRPs)? Each year, these programs help to repay educational loan debt of thousands of researchers across this country! If you meet the basic LRP eligibility criteria, you may be eligible to be a recipient of many benefits of this program!

Should I be optimistic?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  October 16, 2017 @ 10:20 am · EditNo, the LRP is a separate program altogether for MDs to receive some medical school loan repayment in exchange for research time. The LRP notice goes out to everyone (with MD listed & eligible graduation date, I presume). You will not know for sure about your K01 until the federal budget passes later this year or next year.
  
  Reply
Waitinginanticipation said

October 13, 2017 @ 5:31 pm · EditHi writedit,

I recently received my R21 score for an application submitted to NCI. The impact score was 30; percentile was 12. Should I be optimistic for finding or should I start planning for a resubmission?

Thank you

Reply
- writedit said
  
  October 16, 2017 @ 10:22 am · EditYou can ask your PO if you should resubmit. With a 12th percentile, you could be in range, but NCI will not know for sure until the federal budget passes. I suspect your PO will suggest that you prepare a resubmission for insurance, but you can see what he/she says first.
  
  Reply
- YJ said
  
  October 17, 2017 @ 5:00 pm · EditPer my recent conversation with NCI PO, the R21 payline is currently 7%.
  
  Reply
  - writedit said
    
    October 17, 2017 @ 5:42 pm · EditThanks, YJ – I should have checked. The R21 payline is at the 7th percentile currently and probably durably as well, looking at FY17 and FY16: https://gsspubssl.nci.nih.gov/blog/articles?funding_patterns/2016#R21 I had thought they raised it later in the FY in 2017, but no – my mistake.
Lili said

October 17, 2017 @ 4:22 pm · EditThis is bit different. Anyone has ever applied to a OT1 pre-application for the SPARC program (NBIB)? We did like August 1, 2017. We were supposed to get a response whether we were encouraged to submit a full application-OT2 within 4 weeks. It has been 10 weeks. The program manager told us to basically wait. Anyone has any insight on this?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  October 17, 2017 @ 5:52 pm · EditFor a program with an Other Transaction award like this, you really just need to wait to hear from the POs. Not hearing is not necessarily bad news – it is easiest for them to say “no” quickly. Because the OT2 portion is also very flexible, they could be waiting for more insight on what will happen with the federal budget before accepting applications for that funding. Your OT2 application due date will be based on when you hear about the OT1 proposal, so you don’t need to worry about “missing” a deadline … but if you would like to submit your science elsewhere, you can discuss this with the PO. In the meantime, you can certainly keep moving the science forward, whether for an OT2 application or for other NIH or industry funding.
  
  Reply
MR said

October 22, 2017 @ 11:10 am · EditMy K22 NCI application received an impact score of 30, does anyone know whether my application has a chance to be funded? do we know what were the last impact score funded for previous rounds of application? Thank you so much.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  October 23, 2017 @ 9:50 pm · EditWhen you receive your summary statement, check with your PO about how this would have fared in FY17 and whether you should resubmit. Having the summary statement in hand first is important. Even if NCI was not typically funding K22 applications up to a score of 30, the reviewer comments and/or your science could affect whether they might try to fund your application, assuming it is close. Plus, if your PO recommends resubmission, you can then discuss strategy for the next application and response to reviewers based on what the PO heard during the discussion.
  
  Reply
  - MR said
    
    October 24, 2017 @ 7:33 am · EditThank you.
Charm3 said

October 23, 2017 @ 9:38 am · EditThis has been very helpful. I just received my R01 score from NHLBI and got a 25%. As an ESI, I would have been within payline for 2017. My PO said that we have to wait for the 2018 budget to see if the payline is the same. Do you have any predictions for the budget appropriations for 2018? I am really hoping it stays the same at least.

Thanks!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  October 23, 2017 @ 10:15 pm · EditWe’ll have to see what happens with the NIH appropriation as the budget and tax cut bills take shape, but currently, the NIH is on track to do as well if not a bit better for FY18, in which case you should be fine (especially with any increased ESI resources under NGRI, though how this will play out is unclear as well). However, no one will know for sure until the FY18 budget is signed into law, so your best clues will come from monitoring how these bills (& NIH in particular) fare in Congress. You can ask your PO in the meantime if you should resubmit – a “yes” doesn’t mean that your 25th percentile won’t get funded though (just an abundance of caution as insurance).
  
  Reply
  - Charm3 said
    
    October 24, 2017 @ 10:13 am · EditThank you so much for your response. I have been reading a lot about budget and it looks promising for NIH. I don’t have my summary statement but will talk to my PO once I have it. Just an FYI, I actually got an R56 last year with this R01 submission, so my PO really knows me by now (female minority, going up for tenure this fiscal year and last year as ESI). Again, thank you for all these info.
  - writedit said
    
    October 24, 2017 @ 11:10 pm · EditAha – in light of all this additional information, I would guess that you will be okay, assuming there is nothing dire in the summary statement (this is what your PO probably wants to confirm) and that the anticipated NIH appropriation stays intact during the federal budget process.
  - Charm3 said
    
    December 7, 2017 @ 9:37 am · EditJust wanted to let you know that my PO told me that I am getting my R01. NHLBI posted their 2018 payline and it made it! Thank you for all your knowledge. This website is really very helpful!
  - writedit said
    
    December 7, 2017 @ 10:10 am · EditWoohoo! Thanks for the update – congratulations and best wishes for success with your research!
Emily said

October 24, 2017 @ 10:31 am · EditHi,
My R21 to the NICHD ( NRCS study section) was scored with an impact factor of 26 and in the 14th percentile. I don’t have my comments yet but am curious if you think this will be funded
Thx!!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  October 24, 2017 @ 11:13 pm · EditHmm – very hard to say, especially without knowing what will happen with the FY18 budget. When you get your summary statement, check in with your PO and ask if you should resubmit (PO won’t know about funding likelihood due to budget uncertainty – might tell you whether it would have been funded in FY17 – if so, good news). He/she might say yes, you should resubmit, just so you have some insurance (the 14th percentile application can still be funded even after resubmission scored).
  
  Reply
  - Emily said
    
    January 18, 2018 @ 10:22 am · EditA new update on this grant is that recently the PO asked me to change the title before council meets–what do you think that means?
  - writedit said
    
    January 18, 2018 @ 11:06 am · EditHmm. This is a new one for me. Council reviews the quality of peer review, so I am not sure why Council would care what the title was – but the key is getting your application on the list sent to Council for approval (that is, applications that the IC can consider for funding, pending IC Director award decisions & appropriation levels). I assume your PO wants a stronger title that clarifies or amplifies the significance of the work to be done to ensure the IC Director puts your application on the paylist (for consideration, again – not a guarantee) before it is sent to Council for approval. Clearly your PO believes in your science, which is great, so hopefully the two of you came up with a title that will sell your research to those deciding which proposals should be considered for funding.
  - SaG said
    
    January 19, 2018 @ 7:45 am · EditMy guess is that your title could possibly feed some “trolls”. , http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2017/06/congress-says-your-work-wasteful-now-what
    
    Or perhaps they want want you to change a word to make it clear that your proposed work closely aligns with the goals of the RFA.
Jim said

October 25, 2017 @ 5:45 pm · EditI just received a K99 score of 31, no percentile, from NIDA. Any idea if this is fundable, and should I consider resubmitting for the November 10th resubmission deadline??

Reply
- writedit said
  
  October 25, 2017 @ 10:39 pm · EditAfter you receive your summary statement, you’ll need to check with your PO about the score. You can’t resubmit until you have your summary statement in any case, and you don’t want to submit without enough time to address the reviewer concerns (the same reviewers will know you ignored them if you do). If you have new publications since the review (as rationale for quick resubmission), let your PO know that, too.
  
  Reply
DenDritic said

October 29, 2017 @ 5:26 pm · EditThank you for this exciting blog. My question regards the impact of NGRI. Will this result in official published paylines of 25% for ESI? (all subject to budget of course). Or will this be a discretionary case-by-case review? And has there been an impact for FY17 grants?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  October 29, 2017 @ 11:23 pm · EditThe final policy is still being worked out, but ICs will have latitude in how they implement NGRI (so proportion of ESI to established PI funding rates reaches a desired level) vs an across the NIH 25th percentile payline for ESi applicants. It’s being phased in, too, I believe, as increasing $ levels are shifted into NGRI.
  
  Reply
  - DenDritic said
    
    October 30, 2017 @ 7:31 am · EditThank you for the helpful reply. The original NIH announcements generated hope that we could see, say, NCI funding 25% ESI R01s but I guess the NGRI might just end up increasing paylines by couple percentage points in “tough” ICs..
  - writedit said
    
    October 30, 2017 @ 10:57 am · EditYep. The long-term goal might be a 25th percentile payline for all ESI, per the initial announcement, but the NIH cannot dictate this for all ICs (some would have to significantly cut funding to established PIs and programmatic priorities to accommodate that payline), so each will implement their own thresholds to raise the proportion of ESI applicants funded.
DenDritic said

November 1, 2017 @ 10:05 am · EditThank you for the insightful reply. I hope I am not becoming annoying by persisting but here is what I do not understand. In the rationale for NGRI it was clearly stated that 193 (I believe the number was) ESI R01s </equal 25% in FY2016 were not funded, hence they aimed for 200 extra such awards in 2017. It would seem that they are willing to cover most of that territory. Moreover, and this perhaps is in contrast to what I read earlier in the blog, presumably the 200 will not be equally divided among ICs: for example, NHLBI ALREADY has a 25% published ESI payline. Although I understand a blanket 25% payline is not to be expected any time soon, should we routinely expect to see NCI PO’s delving into the 15-25% territory for programmatic interest?

Reply
- SaG said
  
  November 1, 2017 @ 10:46 am · EditIt depends on how much pressure The Lords of NIH can effectively put on the Emperor of NCI.
  
  Reply
- writedit said
  
  November 1, 2017 @ 5:19 pm · EditAlso, I asked an NIH PO in September about the status of NGRI guidelines/implementation, and he said everything was still being worked out. I am sure the NIH will eventually announce how this will work, but until then, just assume the descriptions put out initially are concepts rather than concrete.
  
  Reply
NIA-ADRD said

November 7, 2017 @ 3:21 pm · EditThanks for very informative blog! I submitted my R01 to NIA (Alzheimer’s Disease) have recently received a priority score (41) and percentile (32%). As an ESI, the published payline is 33%. What do you think of my chance of funding? Thanks!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  November 7, 2017 @ 3:56 pm · EditSince the FY18 paylines should be about the same as FY17, you could be okay – but this depends on what happens with the federal budget in the months ahead (eg, Congress could start reducing agency budgets to pay for tax cuts). Your PO will not know anything about funding until the federal budget is closer to completion, but when you receive your summary statement, check in with him/her about whether you should resubmit.
  
  Reply
  - NIA-ADRD said
    
    November 7, 2017 @ 4:22 pm · EditThank you very much for your quick response. I guess this can be a long wait. I will follow up when I have any news!
andreapais said

November 14, 2017 @ 9:59 pm · EditHi Writedit, we received a priority score of 30 on our SBIR to NIAID. They just posted the interim Paylines for 2018 today. Given that the interim payline is set at 30 which is down 2 points from 32 in 2017, How likely are we still to receive an award? And when do they generally begin to start sending out NOAs?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  November 15, 2017 @ 10:59 am · EditThe payline includes applications with an impact score of 30, so you should be fine. You can ask your PO for an idea of timing for the NoA – maybe not for your start date, but that’s not an issue. Now, if your application still needs to go to Council (can’t tell if you were just reviewed this fall or last summer), then you won’t be looking at an award until next year – but on time for your start date.
  
  Reply
  - RA said
    
    November 15, 2017 @ 11:14 am · EditHi! Thanks for your quick response. We submitted on April 5 2017 and went through the October council. We submitted with a start date of Dec 5th. On the status is said council review completed but the application says pending.
  - writedit said
    
    November 15, 2017 @ 12:45 pm · EditAha – that means they are processing your award now, so you should be in good shape for a Dec 5th start, but you can check with your PO to be sure (should probably check in with him/her if you have not done so in a while).
  - RA said
    
    November 15, 2017 @ 5:29 pm · EditHI! Thanks so much for the response. We haven’t yet got any JIT email though. When do you they send this? Is it after NOA?
  - writedit said
    
    November 15, 2017 @ 5:46 pm · EditBefore – so you should get a request soon. If you need any IACUC or IRB approvals, you need to have those in order first.
WH said

November 16, 2017 @ 11:48 am · EditHi wirtedit,

I am just curious whether it is possible to postpone the NOA of an R01 application?

Basically, my situation is: as an ESI, I submitted my first R01 (to NHLBI with a proposed start date of April 1, 2018) this June and got a good score (11%) in Oct. My PO told me that although 2018 budget is not finalized yet, it is very likely that I will get funded. After submitting the R01, I also submitted a DP2 in Sept, on a totally different topic. Now my problem is if I get a R01 before DP2, I will automatically get disqualified for the DP2. For the DP2, I won’t know the score until the end of next March, and the funding decision would be in next summer. Thus, I am curious is it possible to postpone the start date of this potential R01 for 6-7 months? If so, may I know how should I approach my PO about this issue?

Thanks so much!!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  November 16, 2017 @ 2:26 pm · EditAlthough the FY18 budget may not be settled before next March, your ESI 11th percentile means you could be processed for an award under the continuing resolution. I would suggest you simply talk with your NHLBI PO now about your situation. It could be that the PO can delay your Council review until May, or it could be that you would need to go to Council in Feb and then have the NoA itself delayed. I know the activation of awards can be delayed (such as when a PI knows he/she is moving and does not want an award to start – with the cooperation of the original awardee institution and IC – until the move is complete), but I am not sure how the ICs handle NoA timing requests. Talking with your PO now will offer the most flexibility – and your PO will know about your DP2, so there is no reason to delay. Since the science is different, you don’t need to worry about NHLBI “reconsidering” your R01 if you have enough FTEs to work on both awards (if you don’t have enough FTE, this would be another discussion).
  
  Reply
- writedit said
  
  November 16, 2017 @ 2:32 pm · EditActually, sorry, I just went back to read the wording on DP2 eligibility: “Applicants may submit or have an R01 (or other equivalent) grant application pending concurrently with their NIH Director’s New Innovator Award application that does not overlap substantially with their New Innovator Award application. However, if that pending grant is awarded prior to the NIH Director’s New Innovator Award, then the applicant is no longer eligible to receive the New Innovator Award.” You can still talk with your NHLBI PO, but I suspect they will not want to interfere with the “spirit” of the DP2. That is, you applied for and should (based on normal NIH timing) receive the R01 before the DP2 can be awarded, which the NHLBI PO may not be able or want to violate in this situation. Of course, the good news is that you will receive funding no matter what.
  
  Reply
EH said

November 20, 2017 @ 1:46 pm · EditI got a 27 on my first K01 submission at NIMH, but have not gotten summary statements yet. Is there anyway to tell with a K01 about likelihood of funding this round? Or just have to wait until summary statements? Thanks!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  November 22, 2017 @ 12:59 pm · EditYour PO can give you an idea of funding likelihood after seeing your summary statement. Be patient just a little longer …
  
  Reply
RA said

November 24, 2017 @ 2:09 pm · EditHi, We just received a JIT email from NIAID for our SBIR application. The request asks for among others a statement of intent (line of credit). I am not able to get in touch with anyone at NIAID perhaps due to the holidays but I was hoping someone here could answer my question: Does a revolving business loan qualify for the line of credit request? Could you give me suggestions on best programs to approach for establishing lines of credit for SBIRs? Is there a minimum amount that we need to be approved for?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  November 25, 2017 @ 8:53 am · EditI truly do not know, but your PO or the SBIR help desk can and would be happy to help you with this, including the best approach to take in setting up a line of credit. The small business program in general is very helpful, so don’t hesitate to ask there.
  
  Reply
f31app84 said

December 6, 2017 @ 10:34 am · EditHello I received a 12 on my F31 – Scored in July. Was told not to resubmit but just wait. Any idea when this mess is gonna get sorted in congress?

I have been told sometime in December in the best case scenario but that seems very unlikely. Now they are saying it could be as late as february or march? would that really delay all the f-31 award determinations until then?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  December 6, 2017 @ 5:16 pm · EditThe federal budget will take that long to sort out (til late Dec or next year), but I would expect your IC to process an F31 with such a good score in December or January (i.e., under the CR). Now, the NIH was very late in getting its CR funding even, so I expect this has delayed the Dec 1 awards (ie, Cycle 1 applications scoring well enough for CR funding) irrespective of the rest of the federal budget negotiations (or lack thereof). This still means you’ll still need to be patient for a little longer – but hopefully you won’t need to wait for Congress to get its act together.
  
  Reply
Sam said

December 22, 2017 @ 1:22 am · EditDear Writedit,
Can I submit my R01 application before the open date of a new FOA? My ESI expires on March 31st 2018. There is a new FOA recently announced whose open date is April 7th. I am wondering whether I can submit my application on or before March 31st for that FOA to have an ESI status. I would appreciate any comments.
Thanks

Reply
- writedit said
  
  December 22, 2017 @ 6:50 pm · EditHmm. If you submit to grants.gov by March 31 (probably best a day or two before to ensure you can address any errors if needed and remain within the cut-off), your application will be flagged as ESI. However, if the FOA is not open for submissions until April 7, then you cannot submit to that FOA on March 31. You could contact the PO of the FOA to confirm the open date and describe your ESI situation to see if there is some way your application could be considered for the FOA. If not, then you should submit for the Feb 5 or March 5 parent R01 or another appropriate FOA open for submissions (this FOA PO or your current PO, if you have one, could give advice). The FOA indicates IC interest in the scientific area, so unless this is an RFA or other FOA with set-aside funds and a special review panel, you are no less likely to receive an award if you submit the application through another R01 FOA (ie, IC is interested in that topic, regardless of how it receives the application).
  
  Here is the ESI policy: The ESI status of the PD/PI(s), on any R01 Equivalent application will be determined at the time of submission. If the PD/PI(s) on the application is/are classified as ESI on the date the application is successfully submitted to Grants.gov, the application will be flagged as ESI and will receive special consideration during the review and funding process. If the application status does not correctly reflect the NI or ESI status on the day of submission, contact ESINIH@od.nih.gov
  
  Reply
- SaG said
  
  December 27, 2017 @ 12:32 pm · EditI don’t think grants.gov will let you submit an app before the open date of the FOA. Do you have any breaks in your career since your Ph.D. that might extend your ESI status for a month? (https://grants.nih.gov/policy/early-investigators/esi_extension_add.htm)
  
  Reply
BD said

January 24, 2018 @ 12:37 pm · EditVery informative discussion group. Thanks for sharing!!!Could you please guide me how I can add a new question about my grant.

From NIAID- R01 I got 12%. Pay line is 9%. I don’t have R01. This will be first one, but this is is MPI, where I am contact PI. But my Co-PI is established PI, so I lost ESI status.

Fortunately my PO like our science and forwarded for Council meeting, I submitted JIT.

My PO also suggested to resubmit ASAP.

is there any hope will award this grant as forwarded for Council meeting?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  January 24, 2018 @ 4:47 pm · EditBeing on the list of applications sent to Council for approval does not mean you will receive an award … Council is saying that all applications on that list can be considered for awards – the Director of NIAID will decide which ones actually receive funding (Council always approves more applications than NIAID has money to fund). Also, all applications have the status update, Council review completed (including every application that is not funded) – I assume your PO said that your application was on the paylist, but if you think Council reviewed your application based on your eRA Commons status (Council review completed), then you cannot assume that you were on the paylist. Similarly, if you submitted JIT based on the eRA Commons request, then that does not mean anything – you need a request from your PO or GMS. If your PO requested the JIT, that is a good sign, but again, not a guarantee.
  
  Your PO is recommending that you resubmit for insurance, since he cannot guarantee funding. If your 12th percentile application is funded, the resubmission will be withdrawn … if the 12th percentile application is not funded, you have another chance with the resubmission, depending on the score. You only lose your ESI status if you receive an award (not just by applying), so right now, you still have your ESI status (assuming you are still within 10 years). If you do resubmit, you might consider applying as a sole PI (with your established PI as a senior investigator) so the application is reviewed and considered for funding as an ESI application (again, assuming you are still within 10 years).
  
  Reply
  - BD said
    
    January 24, 2018 @ 4:58 pm · EditThanks. Council meeting date is January 29. But era Common saying council review completed. I talked to PO about this. He again tole, My application is on pay list forwarded for council review.
    I heartily appreciate your feedback.
  - writedit said
    
    January 24, 2018 @ 5:01 pm · EditAha – great. Council approves applications that need no further discussion en bloc electronically before the scheduled meeting, which is why your status changed before the meeting. This does not increase your chances of receiving an award but does mean it is possible for you to be considered for one.
BD said

January 24, 2018 @ 6:17 pm · EditThanks. Then why my P.o. told he has nominated my grant for Selected pay line.

Reply
- pom4pom said
  
  January 25, 2018 @ 8:09 pm · EditHi,
  
  This discussion group is very useful.
  
  My study section is not listed on https://public.csr.nih.gov/StudySections/SpecialEmphasis/Pages/default.aspx website. When will the new study section list?
  
  Thanks NixieR
  
  On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:18 PM, Medical Writing, Editing & Grantsmanship wrote:
  
  > BD commented: “Thanks. Then why my P.o. told he has nominated my grant for > Selected pay line.” >
  
  Reply
  - writedit said
    
    January 25, 2018 @ 8:35 pm · EditRosters of any study section are not released until 30 days before the scheduled review date. If your SEP is scheduled to meet within the next month and is not listed, you can ask the SRO when the roster will be posted. If your SEP is not scheduled to meet within the next month, check again closer to the review date.
Neurite said

February 2, 2018 @ 3:28 pm · EditI have previously mentioned that I received a very borderline score on my A1 K08 submission. The Summary Statement is overall positive but mentioned multiple minor weaknesses. My PO has requested a “rebuttal” before the Council and suggested to hold off on a resubmission until the decision on this submission is more clear. Now the council meeting is just over. Should I wait for a week or two and shoot him an email?

I am also wondering how soon the applicants receive the “rejection” email after the council meeting. Last time it was about a week for my A0.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  February 2, 2018 @ 3:46 pm · EditYou have a very good PO, if he tells you when you are not going to be funded. It is not NIH policy to send a “rejection” letter, so you are the exception rather than the rule. Most POs do not do this, and even then just for applicants with whom they have been directly communicating, such as in your case (vs the IC doing so as an internal policy).
  
  With regard to your K08, your PO should have a better idea of whether you are on the paylist after internal discussions that follow Council meeting (depends on IC with regard to timing). I am not sure when these might be scheduled, and since your PO seems to be so good about communicating with you, I would suggest you wait to hear from him. If you don’t hear from him in 2-3 weeks, then you could check in, but I am pretty sure he will be in touch when he has actionable news.
  
  Reply
  - Neurite said
    
    February 2, 2018 @ 11:36 pm · EditThanks. The “rejection” letter was sent out by IC, not my PO, but my PO is indeed very supportive. I will check with him in 2-3 weeks per your advice.
  - BD said
    
    February 2, 2018 @ 11:46 pm · EditUsually how long it takes to know the status of your grant after council meeting.
  - writedit said
    
    February 4, 2018 @ 9:07 am · EditCouncil does not make funding decisions – they just approve applications for funding, with the IC Director deciding which applications on the Council-approved paylist will receive awards. Timing for award decisions depends on the application score and federal budget status. If you are well within payline (ie, below 6-10th percentile, depending on IC) or applying to an RFA, you should hear not too long after (weeks), since the money is there (based on 90% of FY17 appropriation). Applications that are likely to get paid but depend on the IC appropriation won’t be decided until the federal budget passes (so no official update for weeks to months later, depending on when the IC gets its FY18 appropriation).
  - BD said
    
    February 4, 2018 @ 10:44 am · EditThanks for your information. My PO told Council approved my grant. it was 12%. Not sure how long take to get NoA.!!!!
  - Neurite said
    
    February 5, 2018 @ 12:54 pm · EditThe status of my A1 was changed to “pending” this morning. I have not received a request for JIT yet. Should I be optimistic?
  - writedit said
    
    February 5, 2018 @ 2:04 pm · EditIf it went from Council Review Completed to Pending, yes – it means your application is being processed (so your JIT request should come soon). The process might not be fast, but at least something is happening.
  - BD said
    
    February 5, 2018 @ 2:23 pm · EditThanks for your information. My PO told Council approved my grant. it was 12%. Not sure how long take to get NoA.!!!! But today morning I checked, it shows Council review completed. Should I call GMS.
  - Neurite said
    
    February 5, 2018 @ 3:16 pm · EditYes it was changed from Council Review Completed to Pending! Indeed, I just received the JIT request as your expected! I am hoping to share my experience/timeline soon once I receive the NOA.
  - Neurite said
    
    February 23, 2018 @ 11:15 pm · EditMy application (K08 at NINDS) was funded! The start date is March 1st (next week)! It is amazing how fast it was processed. The Council met on the first this month! Thank you all for the informative comments. My timeline is as follows:
    
    02/19/2018 NOA (Start date: 03/01/2018)
    02/16/2018 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
    02/08/2018 JIT submitted
    02/05/2018 Getting an email from GMS requesting JIT.
    02/02/2018 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
    02/02/2018 Council review completed.
    12/13/2017 Rebuttal submitted per PO’s request (Summary Statement was overall positive but mentioned multiple minor weaknesses, mostly technical. I was able to more or less address all comments).
    09/27/2017 Scientific Review Group review completed. Impact Factor: 36 (no percentile). Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
    07/19/2017 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
    07/11/2017 Application entered into system
    
    05/25/2017 Getting an email from IC notifying me that the application was not selected for funding.
    05/19/2017 Council review completed.
    03/03/2017 Scientific Review Group review completed. Impact Factor: 50 (no percentile). Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
    10/20/2016 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
    10/12/2016 Application entered into system
  - writedit said
    
    February 23, 2018 @ 11:27 pm · EditWoohoo! Congratulations and thank you for posting your timeline. That is fast turnaround, but I’m glad it didn’t drag on for months while we await a final federal budget (especially after you had persisted for so long as it is). I hope this means NINDS (& other ICs) recognize that career development awards can’t linger indefinitely (especially since they are not the big money awards, so not as big a fiscal risk). Best wishes for success with your project and your career in academic research!
BD said

February 6, 2018 @ 11:00 am · EditThanks for your information and this forum is very helpful. On January 30 ( Last week), My PO told Council approved my grant. it was 12%, NIAID, R01. Not sure how long it will take to get JIT and NoA from GMS. I have already submitted JIT in December ( normal JIT from NIH) not from GMS.But today morning I checked, it shows Council review completed. Should I call GMS. Kindly advice.

Reply
SaG said

February 6, 2018 @ 11:51 am · EditCouncil Approval does not mean it will be funded. Current NIAID payline is 9%/13%….PI/ESI. Are you an ESI?

Reply
- BD said
  
  February 6, 2018 @ 12:13 pm · EditThanks SaG. I am PI but not ESI ( as my collaborator is an established PI), but I don’t have R01. This is my First R01. My PO nominated my grant for Selected Pay line. I talked to him last week, Council approved, but I have to wait for GMS JIT. So how long it will take ?
  Should you advice, I will call GMS. Thanks for your
  
  Reply
  - SaG said
    
    February 6, 2018 @ 3:37 pm · EditYou can send in the JIT info any time through ERA Commons. The real issue is when NIH will get a full year budget. As it stands now money runs out Thursday night.
  - BD said
    
    February 6, 2018 @ 8:37 pm · Edithttps://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/grants-fiscal-year-timeline
    
    Still till today my eRA common showing Council review completed.
    From this forum, I found, for others changed to Pending status.
    So Should I contact to GMS ( Grant Management Service) to know about my status and when I expect mail from them.
  - writedit said
    
    February 7, 2018 @ 3:41 pm · EditYou can watch your eRA Commons account for status changes. You do not need to contact the GMS or PO. They will contact you when they need to. You should be prepared to wait and not see a change in status immediately, so don’t worry if nothing happens soon.
AR said

February 8, 2018 @ 4:09 pm · EditWhat does it mean when the council designates a grant application as being a “low program priority”? Does that mean it definitely won’t be funded even thought it received an impact score within the payline?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  February 8, 2018 @ 5:21 pm · EditPossibly. The IC Director, not Council, makes final funding decisions, but some applications scoring well within the payline (even the 1st percentile) do not receive awards if the Director feels the IC is already spending sufficient $ in that area, is already funding several similar projects, is not seeking to fund research in that area, etc.. This could happen if an IC had an RFA, and one of the unfunded applications is submitted as a new R01 that scores well (IC has just invested several million dollars in multiple awards so does not want to immediately make more awards in the same field). ICs have limited dollars, so well-designed, competitively scored research is not guaranteed an award if the IC believes its funding is better directed to other projects. Usually this is avoided through a conversation with the PO (and/or by checking RePORTER for recent or current funding of multiple projects in the same area, absence of funding by the IC in that area, etc.). I would certainly hope that no competitive application specifically encouraged by a PO (with exceptions such as the post-RFA resubmission noted above) is ultimately not funded due to low programmatic priority (if so, conversation with the PO is in order).
  
  Reply
LMM said

February 9, 2018 @ 2:17 pm · EditWith the budget deal passed this morning, will NIH be able to set paylines for FY18 now or will it still need to wait until March, when the details of the appropriations are hammered out and signed into law?

Reply
Vic said

February 10, 2018 @ 1:08 am · EditHi Writedit, my R01 (A0) was reviewed in June 2017 and scored at 17%. I am an ESI. Payline for FY2017 was 25% (NIA). The council meeting was held in October. Since 2018 paylines will not likely be known till later this year, I still put in a resubmission (A1). However, the A1 got scored in Feb 2018 at 40%. Will the A1 score override the A0 score? I am worried that my A0 at 17% might have been fundable later this year (going by last year’s paylines), but once the A1 is scored, will the A0 score still be considered for funding? Please advise!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  February 10, 2018 @ 7:58 am · EditThe A1 does not knock the A0 out of contention. Wait until you get your summary statement to get in touch with your PO (and we all need to wait for federal budget in any case), since that is when he/she will be able to give you the clearest guidance. You will probably need to provide a rebuttal for one or both reviews, but NIA can fund the A0 on its own merit despite the A1 score (even A1s that are not discussed do not prevent competitive A0s from receiving awards).
  
  Reply
Questioning said

February 23, 2018 @ 3:58 pm · EditTwo questions regarding programmatic review and funding decisions post-Council: 1) is there a predetermined percentile (e.g., up to 25%) that gets discussed, whether ESI or not? 2) do grants in which there is a stark dissent in scores but overall within range (say, 2 reviewers give 1-2’s, third gives 5) get routinely discussed?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  February 23, 2018 @ 4:52 pm · EditOn #1, no – not uniform across ICs, and not uniform from cycle to cycle. The IC will send Council a longer list of applications under consideration for funding than can receive awards, but internal discussions are used to select and rank applications above the payline, with the IC Director making all final decisions.
  
  On #2, you should discuss the scoring and critique discrepancy with your PO, who is the one who would advocate for your application at internal IC discussions. This is not automatically done – only if a PO pushes for a select pay application with a robust rebuttal that addresses the discrepancy. However, generally the Resume & Summary of Discussion notes which set of reviewers prevailed during the discussion. In any case, you would want to talk with your PO, who likely attended the review meeting (or knows a colleague who did), to be sure you know how best to revise the application for resubmission.
  
  Reply
GD said

February 25, 2018 @ 6:24 pm · EditDear Writedit. I am an established investigator and my NCI R01 renewal (A1) was scored 17%. I also have a dual assignment for this application at NIA. Since the payline for NIA was much higher (19% last year), I was wondering if it was common to request the application to be moved to NIA, in the small hope it could get funded here, and how to proceed. IN advance, thank you!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  February 25, 2018 @ 10:55 pm · EditIf you were just reviewed, you will need to wait for your summary statement and then talk with the NCI PO (or do so now, if you already have the summary statement). NCI needs to determine whether they want to consider your application for funding before relinquishing it to a secondary IC (this is not automatic – and nothing you can do). You should talk with your PO at NIA, also, to determine if they would accept it (this is not automatic, either). If NCI wants to give it up and NIA wants to fund it, the NCI PO will take steps to make this happen. However, NIA is only paying that high for Alzheimer’s applications, not general aging applications (these are down at the 9th percentile), so I am not sure how an Alzheimer’s application could be assigned to NCI as the primary IC.
  
  Reply
  - GD said
    
    February 26, 2018 @ 12:01 pm · EditI see. Thank you, that is very helpful.
Bridesmaid said

March 2, 2018 @ 2:59 pm · EditThis discussion has been very useful; thank you! I just received my R01 score (32) and percentile (18th), first submission. NHLBI payline is 15th but for ESI is 25th. I am an ESI. My question is, as an ESI, does this automatically bumps our application into funding approval (as we’re above 25th) or could there be programmatic or Council decisions that could cut us out? I received the JIT request in the system, but still waiting for summary statement to talk to PO. Council meeting is in May.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 4, 2018 @ 9:36 pm · EditCongratulations on the positive outcome of your first submission! You should be fine. Your ESI 18th percentile means you will be considered for funding pending an administrative review (unlikely to alter your funding chances, but nothing is final until the NoA is issued). Your PO or GMS should contact you closer to the Council meeting date (could be before or after, so don’t panic if it isn’t until after). When you get your summary statement, you could contact the PO to see if he/she needs anything from you in the meantime.
  
  Reply
HRoark said

March 3, 2018 @ 11:48 am · EditReceived impact score of 44 from an RFA through the NIDCR. Because it is an RFA, there is no percentile score. Summary statement is still a month away, but does it make sense to contact the PO and ask about the possibility of funding? It seems from the above discussions that RFAs appear to operate under a different set of rules than Parent awards, and thus while I’m not optimistic about funding (they said there were only going to fund 3-4), based on programmatic objectives, there could be a slight chance. Am I misguided? Thank you.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 4, 2018 @ 9:39 pm · EditThere is a slight chance, since this is an RFA, and program will want to pick the science in which they are most interested. However, there is no need to contact your PO until you have your summary statement, because that is what the PO will need to wait for to comment on your chances (both your summary statement and those of the other applications submitted to the RFA). At that point, you can ask if you should resubmit the work as a regular R01, too – and what suggestions the PO might have for improving the proposal (based on summary statement & discussion).
  
  Reply
Jeff said

March 3, 2018 @ 11:54 am · EditDear Write Edit. I just received a 30 impact score (no percentile listed) on an NHLBI R21 that we submitted in response to RFA-HL-12-004. I can’t seem to find any info on payline for an R21 at NHLBI for FY2018. Any thoughts on chances of this being funded?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 4, 2018 @ 9:45 pm · EditR21s are as or more competitive as R01s, but with an RFA, it depends as much on what program is looking for in the science as the score. When you get your summary statement, you should check in with the PO to see if he/she needs anything from you (ie, rebuttal to the critiques) and if you should resubmit as a regular R21 or R01 (and if so, what advice does the PO have based on the summary statement & discussion).
  
  Reply
NCI_K08_2018 said

March 5, 2018 @ 8:06 pm · EditHI. This is a great blog to find fellow researchers struggling with similar questions in this semi-transparent system. I applied for a NCI K08 award and here is my timeline.

Feb 2017- A0 application

June 2017- Impact score 30

Oct 2017- Council review completed. Summary Statement Discussed with PO. Who said she cannot promise anything, doesnt have the budget for 2018. Reapply to be safe.

Nov 2017- A1 resubmission

March 2018- Impact score 25.

These are my questions.

1. My PO had said that a score of 30 was in the gray zone, so is there still a chance that the A0 will be funded.

2. If there are other NCI K08 applicants here who already got their notice of award, can you share if this is a fundable impact score?

Thanks.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 6, 2018 @ 12:29 pm · EditSince the A1 scored even better than the A0, your PO could push to have the A0 funded – but it could be that all gray zone applications will be decided as part of cycle 3 awards, in which case both the A0 and A1 would be considered at the same time (ie, you wouldn’t get funded earlier via either route). However, your PO should know more after March 23, assuming we finally have a federal budget signed into law for FY18.
  
  Reply
  - NCI_K08_2018 said
    
    March 6, 2018 @ 1:23 pm · EditThanks, have a few questions-
    
    1. What is cycle 3.
    
    2. Should I contact my PO now or after March 23rd budget.
    
    3. For my A1, the council review is in June. So I am confused about whether I should apply for a different A0 for the June 12th deadline.
    
    Thanks
  - writedit said
    
    March 6, 2018 @ 2:59 pm · Edit1. Cycle 3 are applications submitted in Sept-Dec (third application cycle of the year). Your A1 was submitted in November, so falls in cycle 3.
    
    2. There is nothing that your PO can tell you now. You should contact your PO after March 23 (or whenever the federal budget passes) – or after you receive your summary statement. Probably easiest just to wait to contact your PO until you have your summary statement.
    
    3. You will not need to wait until the June 24-25 NCAB meeting to know whether to apply again. Your PO will know before then whether you should plan to submit an A0 for the June 12 deadline. When you get your summary statement, you can ask whether you should plan to apply again in June.
Sunny said

March 6, 2018 @ 2:38 pm · EditHello Writedit, I just received a 28 impact score (no percentile listed) on NCI K01. Do you know what is the range of payline for K01? I cannot find any websites listing payline for NCI K01. I also wonder if it is okay to contact PO and ask the chances of getting the award or should I wait until I get the summary statement (about 30 days)?

Thanks,

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 6, 2018 @ 3:11 pm · EditNCI does not post paylines for K awards, but you should wait until you have your summary statement to contact your PO about whether your score will be competitive or whether you should plan to apply again in July. The funding range for K applications varies depending on the number of applications (submitted & scored competitively) and available funds. Last year, NCI funded almost a third of K01 applications (7/22), whereas the year before (2016), it funded just under 20% (5/26).
  
  Reply
LMM said

March 6, 2018 @ 3:06 pm · EditHi Writedit, I see a common theme in your advice to wait for a summary statement before reaching out to a PO for advice, so I am wondering how long I will have to wait. My K01 application was reviewed on February 1st by a chartered SRG at NIA (not CSR) and the “next steps” info given says that for these applications summary statements will be available no later than 30 days before council meeting. Will I really have to wait until the end of April (nearly 3 months) to get my summary statement?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 6, 2018 @ 3:15 pm · EditMost summary statements are out within 6 weeks of the review meeting. You can contact the SRO if you haven’t heard within 2 months of the meeting – and you shouldn’t have to wait 3 months, especially for a K application. The reason for waiting for a summary statement is that if you are in the gray zone, the PO can assess whether he/she can advocate for your application for select pay and give better advice on resubmission (both whether you need to and best strategies). Right now, it is hard for POs to gauge funding likelihood due to the lack of an FY18 budget, so the summary statement is even more important.
  
  Reply
RB said

March 7, 2018 @ 1:19 am · EditHi Writedit, I just received a impact score of 30 (Percentile 15%) for a NICHD R01 A0 application. I am an ESI. NICHD has no paylines for 2018. Prior NICHD R01 ESI paylines were 13%. What are my chances?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 7, 2018 @ 11:56 am · EditThat should be a promising score for an ESI application … as I keep telling others, I would suggest that you get in touch with your PO after you receive your summary statement to ask about funding likelihood and whether you should submit an A1 in July.
  
  Reply
Irasleepless said

March 10, 2018 @ 12:24 am · EditDear Writedit,
I just received the impact score of 26 for my ESI MIRA. I know MIRA is relatively new mechanism, but what are the typical fundable scores? Is 26 good or bad for MIRA?

Thank you!
Irina

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 10, 2018 @ 4:06 pm · EditI believe that MIRA scores have been all over the place, but I think a 26 would be at least borderline, based on what folks were posting previously (you can search NIH Paylines and the Archive page for June 2015 – December 2016 to find posts about MIRA, though not all are specific to the ESI MIRA). It obviously depends on the number and quality of applications, which can vary from year to year, so it’s difficult to say. When you get your summary statement (discussion comments also play a role in funding decisions), you can check with your PO and ask whether you should start working to convert the MIRA to an R01.
  
  Reply
  - Irasleepless said
    
    June 19, 2018 @ 9:40 pm · EditUpdate: my ESI MIRA with impact score of 26 was recommended for funding.
  - writedit said
    
    June 19, 2018 @ 9:46 pm · EditWoohoo – congratulations! Thank you for sharing this update for your score, and best wishes for success for your project and your career in biomedical research.
Deep Blue said

March 10, 2018 @ 9:52 pm · EditHi Writeedit, where do you see NIAID R01 pay lines going at the end of the year?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 11, 2018 @ 9:54 am · EditIf there are no surprises in the FY18 budget that finally passes, then I would think at least FY17 levels.
  
  Reply
  - Deep Blue said
    
    April 2, 2018 @ 6:23 pm · EditThanks. Clearly no surprises in the budget.
Craig said

March 13, 2018 @ 4:28 pm · EditWe have an SBIR at the FDA that is listed as “Pending Council Review” now for more than 2 weeks. The PO said to wait for council review, but we could resubmit before April 5 if we knew the result. How long to wait?

Reply
- SaG said
  
  March 14, 2018 @ 7:00 am · EditAssuming FDA follows the same rules as NIH (both part of HHS) then you can resubmit as soon as your summary statement is released. You do not have to wait for Council review.
  
  Reply
  - Craig said
    
    March 14, 2018 @ 10:45 am · EditThe current Application Status is listed as “Pending Council Review”, so, we don’t know if we are currently funded or not.
  - writedit said
    
    March 14, 2018 @ 11:07 am · EditYou won’t know for months. As SaG noted, at the NIH, PIs can reapply once they have their summary statements. The policy is that a PI cannot resubmit the same (or nearly the same) application while another is under review. An application is under review until the summary statement is issued, at which point an A0 or A1 application proposing the same science can be submitted (this is spelled out in the SBIR FOAs, in which FDA participates). Your FDA contact may be suggesting that you wait to see if you receive funding prior to resubmitting in April, but you can go ahead and get your application ready and submit for April 5 if you have not heard back (there is no policy that you must wait for a funding decision before resubmitting). What was your score?
Craig said

March 14, 2018 @ 3:38 pm · EditImpact = 37. But one of the reviewers had a conflict of interest and we brought this up. That’s when it suddenly went to Council Review.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 14, 2018 @ 4:34 pm · EditAll applications have the status “Council review pending” and then “Council review complete”. Not all applications are sent to Council to consider for funding (only those within a certain scoring range and/or of programmatic interest are sent to Council for approval), and not all applications approved by Council for funding receive awards (IC director makes that decision at NIH). Your impact score of 37 might be a little high, since I think your PO would have just said you were in good shape for an award if that were a competitive score, and thus require internal discussion of the COI to determine whether it should receive an award. Did your FDA contact say when their “Council” will meet and decide? The date should be in your eRA Commons status, but this is probably not the actual date. Looking at the FDA website, I do not see anything like an advisory council that would review grant applications, and the FDA version of “Council” could be quite different than the NIH (e.g., just an internal discussion at the Office or Center that would fund your proposal). If you do not know the actual date by which you will have an answer, you could ask your PO again for clarification; if she doesn’t know, and you don’t have an answer by April 5, I would suggest that you resubmit (let your PO know that you don’t want to miss this deadline and risk not having funding or an application in the pipeline).
  
  Reply
Confused said

March 15, 2018 @ 2:59 pm · EditHi Writedit,

I submitted a K99 (October) and my application status showed “unscored” a week before the study section met. The impact score said ‘no IRG recommendation’. After the study section met, I now have an impact score (48) with an active JIT link. I dont have a percentile. It also says Pending Council Review. I am not going to hold my breath on actually getting funded, but what is going on? I don’t understand if I am scored or not. Any insights?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 15, 2018 @ 3:27 pm · EditYou won’t have a percentile, and with an impact score of 48, you should plan on a resubmission, but you’ll need to wait to receive your summary statement (and then talk with your PO about how the discussion went and strategies for preparing your resubmission). You can ignore the automatic JIT link – only a direct request from a PO or GMS is meaningful (in terms of potential funding). Your eRA status will say “Pending Council review” until the Council at your IC meets, at which point it will change to “Council review completed” – and almost certainly stay that way. As an FYI, all non-fellowship applications have the status “Pending Council review” and “Council review completed” – absolutely no information in those status designations, even if you had a competitive score.
  
  Reply
  - Confused said
    
    March 15, 2018 @ 4:48 pm · EditThank you! I will talk to the PO once I have my summary statement.
  - Confused said
    
    July 23, 2018 @ 11:25 am · EditHi Writedit,
    
    Following up on my K99 NEI submission in October 2017, the eRA statuses has been nothing short of confusing. On 03/06/18, the status was SRG review completed: Application unscored. On 03/14/18, the status was SRG review completed: Council review pending. I got a score of 48 and my summary statement.
    Today, I noticed my status today went from “Council review pending” to “Application administratively withdrawn by IC”. That seems rather puzzling. Should I contact my PO and ask him about this? I intend on resubmitting again in November. I am also unsure if I should treat my application as triaged or as one with an impact score of 48 for how I rework my application for the resubmission.
  - writedit said
    
    July 23, 2018 @ 12:46 pm · EditYou need to talk with your PO about this. NEI would only withdraw the application if they were funding a different iteration of it (ie, they withdraw the A1 application when the prior A0 … or subsequent A0 … is funded) or if the application was found to be ineligible for review or award (eg, you were not an eligible K99 applicant or you submitted a duplicate application). I can provide no insight about what might be happening, and because you plan to submit again, you need to talk with your PO. Given the erroneous messages you have already received for this application, the “administratively withdrawn” message could be yet another error that will be corrected eventually (and an indication of someone in grants management who clearly needs additional training) – but you still need to let your PO know what happened previously (unscored, then 48) and the current situation.
  - Confused said
    
    July 24, 2018 @ 2:03 pm · EditThank you so much for your immediate response. I truly appreciate your insight. I emailed my PO asking about it and he informed me that it wasn’t an error and that because my grant wasn’t funded it was administratively withdrawn. I was under the impression that any submission which is discussed stays active for about 2 years. I am not sure what I am missing here. But I should still be ok resubmitting the application as A1 even though my A0 was withdrawn?
    Thanks again.
  - writedit said
    
    July 24, 2018 @ 4:00 pm · EditThis is very odd, because, like you, I have not seen applications administratively withdrawn 2 or so years after review – especially A0s … especially scored A0s (since there is always a remote chance they could get picked up for funding later). If you are eligible to apply for the K99 again, then you should be able to do so – but given these unusual circumstances, I’d suggest you check with your PO to be sure and ask at the same time about resubmission strategy (ie, describe the revisions you intend to make and ask if the PO thinks they will address concerns raised during the discussion).
Questioning said

March 15, 2018 @ 10:55 pm · EditDear writedit
How are PO’s assigned to CSR-reviewed applications prior to initial scientific review? Does CSR assign? Does the Institute assign PO before CSR review? Or does the SRO assign PO’s at the same time as assigning study section reviewers? Thank you

Reply
- SaG said
  
  March 16, 2018 @ 8:08 am · EditAn NIH Institute(s) is assigned to applications by the CSR Division of Receipt and Referral. Then the Institute assigns the PO. How that happens varies by Institute. Institutes should assign POs before review.
  
  Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 16, 2018 @ 9:13 am · EditAs SaG said, if you don’t already have a relationship with a PO (which you should mention in your optional cover letter, just to alert the SRO that you have been communicating with someone at your IC), then the IC to which CSR assigns the application assigns the PO. I would urge you to do homework to identify a PO prior to applying (and then communicate with this PO in advance of applying) and to identify the best SRG for your science – and then complete the referral form in the application package requesting the IC and SRG. CSR is assigns the application based on your abstract and will get it to a qualified review panel, but you want to be sure it is at the best panel for your work – and you want to understand the reviewers on the panel when preparing your proposal.
  
  Reply
WQ said

March 20, 2018 @ 10:05 am · EditDear Writedit, Just curious whether you have any insights on the MIRA-ESI from NIGMS. I recently got an impact score of 20, but there is no percentile. Thus, I don’t know the likely hood of funding with this score. What makes my situation a little bit complicated is that I also have an R01 within a fundable score from a different institute (NHLBI). It seems that I may have to give up one. Any suggestions? Thanks!

Reply
- WQ said
  
  March 20, 2018 @ 10:08 am · EditMy MIRA-ESI and the R01 are on totally different topics. Is it possible that I can get both? Any suggestion is appreciated! Thanks!
  
  Reply
  - SaG said
    
    March 20, 2018 @ 11:11 am · EditFYI, If you get the NHLBI grant before the ESI MIRA you will no longer be an ESI and therefore ineligible to get the ESI MIRA.
- writedit said
  
  March 20, 2018 @ 11:47 am · EditThe NHLBI R01 does not make you ineligible per se, but you need to have 51% effort available, the science on the R01 and MIRA need to be different, and the $750K threshold might come into play, depending on your composite funding situation. The MIRA impact score sounds competitive, so if after reviewing the MIRA eligibility criteria again (https://www.nigms.nih.gov/Research/mechanisms/MIRA/Pages/default.aspx) you are still concerned about your funding situation in terms of MIRA eligibility, I would suggest you talk with the MIRA PO.
  
  Reply
  - SaG said
    
    March 20, 2018 @ 1:22 pm · EditThe PI has to be an ESI at the time of award to get an ESI-MIRA. ….https://www.nigms.nih.gov/Research/mechanisms/MIRA/Pages/mira-webinar-summary.aspx#17
Lili said

March 26, 2018 @ 5:53 pm · EditDear Writedit, I apologize for this somewhat silly question but I recently submitted my first R01 with a group of people. I am a PI but not the main. Even though the NIH eRA FAQ states that all PIs have access to submitted proposals, this one is NOT listed in my eRA commons. Am I doing something wrong? As ever.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 26, 2018 @ 11:23 pm · EditAre you sure you are a PI as part of a multi-PI submission, or just a site PI on a multisite study … or just a senior/key personnel (with the slang of “co-PI” is irrelevant for NIH applications). If you are a PI as part of a multi-PI submission, you should communicate with the Contact PI to be sure the submission was entered into eRA Commons, and then using the assigned application number, inquire at eRA Commons Help Desk as to why it isn’t listed in your account. If this is your first R01 ever, then you might be better off as simply a senior/key personnel (not a PI as part of a multi-PI submission), so you don’t risk losing your new or ESI applicant status (which would happen if one of the other PI(s) is established & the application is funded).
  
  Reply
  - Lili said
    
    March 27, 2018 @ 12:21 am · Editahhh I think I may just be a site PI (role is PI with a subcontract). I’ll ask the contact PI. (Don’t think I have ESI anymore due to DP2). THANK YOU!
  - writedit said
    
    March 27, 2018 @ 8:02 am · EditAha – yes, you are not a PI on the main application, so it won’t show up in your eRA Commons account. Congrats on the DP2! (correct, no ESI status, since the DP2 counts as your first major award)
Abha said

March 28, 2018 @ 11:25 am · EditWe just had a new R21 submission with NINDS scored at 30 (15th %ile). The current NINDS payline (under continuing resolution) is at 12 %ile.

I’m trying to understand the likely impact of the recent budget appropriation on the NINDS paylines and funding strategy. Last year, they lowered their payline from 15%ile to 12%ile ostensibly because of a) uncertainties regarding the budget. But, despite the $2 billion increase in the NIH budget, paylines were not revised. The Director justified this with a) the launch of the R35 and b) significant out-year commitments (which he also said, would ease a bit in 2018). In 2018, under CR, the payline remains at 12%ile. Is the larger budget appropriation any more likely to budge it?

Our PO was pretty clear that 15th %ile is not going to be funded this round because the payline is at 12 %ile (and NINDS seems to have hard paylines).

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 28, 2018 @ 1:08 pm · EditIf your PO said no, then no. A lot of the extra money in the NIH budget is earmarked for specific types of research, and NINDS will likely increase funding in select areas rather than across the board to maintain Congressional enthusiasm for their work. Unfortunately, with long-term uncertainty in both the political and economic climate, ICs will be hesitant to take on too many long-term commitments … though this mainly applies to R01s rather than R21s or R03s (and other budget- and time-limited awards), so I am a little surprised that they won’t show more generosity for R21s especially (to explore novel science that could then move to the R01 pipeline). NINDS does offer limited select pay, as shown on their Funding Outcomes page (https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Funding/About-Funding/Outcomes-Data), but these result from PO advocacy for specific applications, which does not sound likely for your situation. You might ask your PO for advice on resubmission, including whether any modifications might make your work a higher priority for NINDS (to push your application over the edge for funding if the score is close again).
  
  Reply
  - Abha said
    
    April 25, 2018 @ 3:21 pm · EditTurns out we hear from our PO that the payline has been raised and we should prepare JIT documents.
  - writedit said
    
    April 25, 2018 @ 4:07 pm · EditYes – that’s right … raised to the 15th percentile. Congratulations and best wishes for success with your research!
writedit said

March 29, 2018 @ 3:36 pm · EditMore than score goes into decisions, and I also know DP2 scores up through the low 30s have received awards – but there is no hard payline (and scores that high, such as yours, are definitely on the bubble, depending on how everyone else did). When you get your summary statement, you can check with the PO, to see if he/she has any insight about the score/review comments (which will determine whether an IC picks up your application). If you already know a PO in the IC most likely to take your application, you could check with him/her, too (or check in RePORTER to see which PO(s) in your IC tend to oversee DP2 awards).

Reply
kate said

March 29, 2018 @ 4:09 pm · EditI have a R21 (7th percentile) . I have sent several emails to my PO but never received any response. Is there anyone know if NCI will increased the payline for R21.

Thanks

Reply
Vencent said

March 30, 2018 @ 6:21 pm · Editwhen can we get a result for R21 submitted on June 12, 2017?

Reply
- BD said
  
  March 30, 2018 @ 6:29 pm · EditUsually by November 2017
  
  Reply
  - Vencent said
    
    April 2, 2018 @ 11:27 am · EditThe following is information about my application. I asked PO but not received any response. Experts, please take a look at it and see if it has a chance to be awarded.
    Application
    Award Document Number:
    FSR Accepted Code: N
    Snap Indicator Code:
    Impact Score: 33
    Percentile:
    For information about next steps: Click here
    Early Stage Investigator Eligible:
    New Investigator Eligible:
    Eligible for FFATA Reporting: Yes
    Study Section
    Scientific Review Group: CMAD
    Council Meeting Date (YYYY/MM): 2018/01
    Meeting Date: 10/19/2017
    Meeting Time: 08:00
    Study Roster: View Meeting Roster
    Advisory Council (AC)
    Meeting Date: 01/19/2018
    Meeting Time: 04:00
    Institute/Center Assignment
    Institute or Center Assignment Date
    NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING (Primary) 06/14/2017
    NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING (Primary) 06/19/2017
    Status History
    Effect Date Status Message
    10/20/2017 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
    06/22/2017 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
    06/14/2017 Application entered into system.
  - writedit said
    
    April 2, 2018 @ 12:19 pm · EditYou didn’t mention the activity code, which could make a difference. If you have not heard from your PO by early May, check in with him/her again for an update and ask whether you should resubmit in July (if you have not already submitted an A1). You should probably be planning on a resubmission, though. If your PO does not reply to email or phone calls in May, then look at the NIA website to determine your PO’s branch chief (I assume in the Division of Aging Biology – but if not, in the appropriate Division) and ask this person for guidance on your application and next steps.
- writedit said
  
  March 31, 2018 @ 6:39 pm · EditIf you mean a funding decision, then you should hear from your PO in a month or so, if your score was borderline. (you should have received an impact score and summary statement last fall) If you haven’t contacted your PO in a while, try in early May for an update, both on your application status and whether you should submit again in June/July.
  
  Reply
  - Vencent said
    
    April 2, 2018 @ 1:34 pm · EditOther information:
    
    R21 Research Projects Exploratory/Developmental Grants To encourage the development of new research activities in categorical program areas. (Support generally is restricted in level of support and in time.)
    Meeting Date: 10/19/2017 RFA/PA: PAR17-039
    Council: JAN 2018 PCC: 3BFNDBW
    Requested Start: 04/01/2018
    By the way, my topic is associated with Alzheimer’s disease, which seems to have a good pay line.
  - writedit said
    
    April 2, 2018 @ 2:52 pm · EditAha – lots more useful information. Because this is a PAR, programmatic priority will play as big a role as score, so you are in the running, though I still cannot say how competitively (depends on scores of other applications). There will be no percentile both because it is an R21 and because it is a PAR (though it was reviewed in a regular study section than a special IC panel). Don’t worry about missing your start date – that is not an expiration date. Your start date can be as late as September 30, 2018 (but won’t be in this situation). It could be your PO has not responded because he/she still does not know how much money that special program will have to spend (and therefore how many applications can be funded). My earlier advice still applies – hopefully you’ll hear something by May.
BD said

March 30, 2018 @ 6:33 pm · EditThanks to all for this nice discussion group. This is very helpful.
Finally, I received my R01 Notice of Award from NIAID. It was reviewed October 19, 2017. I got 12%. My PO was extremely helpful.
I followed lots of your advice and approached very professional way. I got through selected pay line.
THANK YOU ALL!!!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 31, 2018 @ 6:40 pm · EditCongratulations and best wishes for success with your research!
  
  Reply
- Deep Blue said
  
  April 2, 2018 @ 6:30 pm · EditBD, new investigator/ESI? or established? I just refused the offer of a 4 yr select pay at 11%ile, since I am convinced the final payline will move at least two points from the current 9%ile. Lets see if the risk is worth it.
  
  Reply
mic2018 said

April 3, 2018 @ 4:49 pm · EditHello,
when should we expect the summary statements from MIRA applications? The scores were sent in mid March.
Thanks for this very useful website!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  April 3, 2018 @ 8:15 pm · EditSummary statements can take up to 6-7 weeks, and they are released as they are completed (vs all at once), so some PIs have probably received theirs, while others, like you, are still waiting. If you have not received anything by early May, you could touch base with the SRO for an update on timing.
  
  Reply
  - Deep Blue said
    
    April 3, 2018 @ 10:16 pm · EditThe PO has to prep NI’s/ESI’s first in any case, and then are more likely to work on the applications with the best scores earlier.
mic2018 said

April 4, 2018 @ 8:53 am · EditThanks!

Reply
Jo said

April 11, 2018 @ 12:15 pm · EditHello. Thank you for this really helpful website.
I have a resubmitted K01 application at NICHD that received an impact score of 10 in March. After receiving the summary statement I contacted the PO just to double check if there was any other information that she thought might be helpful as the application moves on to council review, but have not heard back from her. I need to make some career decisions that are fairly contingent on the K01 getting funded (or not) and wondered if you have any advice on what to do next. I’m hopeful for funding, as I believe the interim payline is 14, but am anxious that I may be in for a long wait before knowing for sure….

Reply
- writedit said
  
  April 11, 2018 @ 12:32 pm · EditWow – if they do not fund an application with a perfect score (10), something is not right with the world. Looking at their success rate data, they fund from 5-8 K01 applications per year, and I am sure the others cannot all be scored at 10. Your PO might not have replied since there is nothing you should need to add. I would suggest you need to let her know about the need for feedback due to the timing of your career decisions based on K01 funding; she cannot make any guarantee, since nothing is guaranteed until the NoA arrives, but she should be able to give you a little piece of mind about the high likelihood of funding barring any completely unforeseen event.
  
  Reply
  - Jo said
    
    April 11, 2018 @ 3:26 pm · EditThank you so much! I really appreciate you getting back to me so quickly and for the great advice.
  - Jo said
    
    May 11, 2018 @ 11:20 am · EditJust following up: my PO has replied, but says that she cannot provide any information about the likelihood of funding at this time. It’s a little frustrating but I guess I will just have to wait and see….
  - writedit said
    
    May 11, 2018 @ 1:26 pm · EditWow. Well, I still cannot imagine a scenario (or at least not many) in which NICHD does not fund an application with a perfect score, since they have a history of funding at least 5 applications per year (it might be different if they only funded one), but thanks for the update, and please keep us posted.
  - Jo said
    
    May 11, 2018 @ 1:43 pm · EditThank you! Will do.
  - Jo said
    
    July 9, 2018 @ 11:32 am · EditMy status changed to “Award prepared” today! I wanted to say thank you for all of the great advice and information on this thread. It’s been hugely useful and reassuring during this long process.
K08_App said

April 12, 2018 @ 9:42 am · EditI applied for my K08 revision and was scored 25. This was an improvement from initial score of 30. The summary statement was much more positive than the score –

“..Candidate is adequately responsive to the critiques of previous submission and the CDP, mentoring and research plan in resubmission is significantly improved.”

All reviewers gave me 1s and 2s and were highly positive with mostly “no weakness” comments. And there was only one reviewer who gave me a three for research plan (and a 1 for everything else). So I didn’t understand why my overall score didn’t improve much.

I tried to discuss likelihood of fundability with my PO. They have asked me to just wait for council review and didn’t offer even a phone discussion.

I am stuck now. No way to get any input till June. Not sure if I should re-apply for a new K08 in June.

What would you do, if you were in my position. Re apply or wait?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  April 12, 2018 @ 10:36 am · EditYou don’t mention the IC, which would make a difference, but I assume you know the prior/interim K paylines if your IC posts theirs (if your IC does post paylines, and you are within last year’s or the current interim, then you are fine). If you did not specifically ask about whether to resubmit in your last message, you could send an email with just that one question – would you recommend that I submit another K08 application in June? – and see if you get a response.
  
  Reply
  - gainesvillehome said
    
    April 12, 2018 @ 10:54 am · EditIt’s at the NCI. I don’t think they publish paylines for K. Where would I find it if they do. With the budget increase will they be adjust pay lines?
    
    Ihave asked the PO specifically regarding new application for June and got a generic email that its up to me and they can’t say anything as I need to wait for council review.
  - writedit said
    
    April 12, 2018 @ 3:20 pm · EditHmm. Rather unhelpful. I guess I am especially surprised in the career development program (where you need to make career decisions). Saying “it is up to you” could mean that you will be okay – but only if you know this PO would have recommended that you definitely apply again at a score of, say, 40. Did the PO specifically say to resubmit when you received the score of 30?
    
    Looking at the NCI success rate for K08 applications, it looks as though they fund about a third (or slightly fewer) applications – but this of course requires knowledge of the number and scores of the other applications to be useful for your situation.
    
    If your mentor has a PO who might be able to provide better insight, you (or your mentor) could ask this PO. We’ll see if anyone else posts here (haven’t seen any NCI K08 scores posted in the last couple of years).
    
    I know it is a lot of work, but I guess I would suggest preparing a new application, just to have insurance, since you won’t know until after the June deadline passes (if your 25 is funded, you can withdraw the new application).
Kay said

April 19, 2018 @ 9:00 pm · EditI submitted R21 and R01 to the NEI. Before submission, I was informed that R21 and R01 will be reviewed by different study sections. But, I just checked the commons status showing both will be reviewed at the same study section. Do you have any idea whether R21 and R01 are normally reviewed at the same study section? The problem is that the R21 may cause some conflict issues, reducing the chance of my R01 getting funded.
Thank you.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  April 19, 2018 @ 10:59 pm · EditYes, both R01 and R21 applications are generally reviewed in the study section (also R15s, Fs, and other activity codes). Even if you request a different study section for each application, CSR can still assign them to the same SRG. If they are both most appropriate for the SRG to which they are assigned, then you should leave both applications there.
  
  I am not sure what you mean by a “conflict”. The SRO will instruct reviewers to ignore your other application during the discussion, and each application is scored according to its scientific merit, independent of all other applications, including others from your lab. In other words, having both applications should not affect the review, though the IC might not want to fund both (though this can happen – having both applications funded at once).
  
  Now, if you mean that there could be a conflict due to overlapping science, then you need to talk with your PO soon. If there is significant overlap between two applications currently under review, both applications will be withdrawn by CSR, unless you first withdraw one yourself (hard for me to say what “significant overlap” might look like for your applications, but a PO who knows your science would be able to judge & advise).
  
  Reply
Irasleepless said

April 25, 2018 @ 4:44 pm · EditDear writedit,
I have submitted ESI MIRA and a multi-PI RM1 as a co-PI. The RM1 has not been reviewed yet, but MIRA got a competitive score. What should I do? Should RM1 be withdrawn if I get the MIRA? Should I adjust my status to a “collaborator” on the RM1 before it gets reviewed?

Thank you!

Reply
- SaG said
  
  April 26, 2018 @ 10:54 am · EditAt this point do nothing. But, you can’t have both grants. If you get the MIRA you can’t accept any money from the NIGMS RM1. You can be listed as Co-I but you have to use your MIRA money to fund your portion of the work.
  
  Reply
  - writedit said
    
    April 26, 2018 @ 1:13 pm · EditThanks for jumping in with this great information!
  - Irasleepless said
    
    April 27, 2018 @ 8:06 am · EditThank you!
Jun Yang said

April 27, 2018 @ 7:23 am · EditDear writedit,

I had my R01 scored yesterday. Since it was in response to special NCI RFA I only had an impact score of 37. I am a new and ESI but I felt it might not be promising with this score. The council meeting will be held on May. I guess it will take at least 2 weeks to get the Summary. Considering the unusual timing, shall I contact my PO now to ask if the score is promising, so I can decide if to resubmit as a regular R01 in June? Or I wait until I have the Summary?

Thanks

Jun

Reply
- writedit said
  
  April 27, 2018 @ 4:52 pm · EditYou need to wait for your summary statement before you can submit the same science – and to find out from your PO if the RFA application has a chance of funding (your PO will not be able to comment on funding likelihood based on your score alone). Your summary statement should arrive by the end of May, but it might not be sent until after June 5, in which case you would need to wait for Oct 5. It is your call as to whether you want to try to revise without having any reviewer comments (and without knowing if you will be able to submit for June 5). If you look at the RFA itself, it will state the Council review and the earliest start dates (so you can see if it will go to the May Council).
  
  Reply
Jun Yang said

April 27, 2018 @ 5:37 pm · EditThanks. I will wait the summary statement.

Reply
RR said

May 23, 2018 @ 2:54 pm · Edithey All, looking to share experience/insights with current DP2 applicants. I haven’t heard anything yet and was also not asked for JIT. Not sure if that is any indication. Curious if anyone has heard on status change yet? thanks!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  May 24, 2018 @ 10:43 am · EditYou can search this page and the archived pages for DP2 to see when people reported action on their DP2s last year … you shouldn’t panic yet, certainly. You can probably check in with your PO for an update in June, if you haven’t heard anything before then.
  
  Reply
HEHJ said

May 29, 2018 @ 6:53 pm · EditHello, the status of my R01 application was changed from ‘Pending council review’ to ‘Pending’ from the panel of list of applications/awards. However, when I clicked my grant number, the status still shows ‘Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official’. Can anybody explain me this situation?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  May 29, 2018 @ 9:22 pm · EditThe discrepancy should resolve one way or the other quickly. If your application is under consideration for an award, you’ll get a JIT request, if you haven’t already. If the change to Pending was a mistake, it will go back to Pending Council review or Council review completed. Don’t worry or read too much into it until it becomes clear whether your application is pending administrative review or still with Council.
  
  Reply
  - HEHJ said
    
    May 29, 2018 @ 9:33 pm · EditThanks much for the quick response! As the council meeting was done last Friday, I hope it will be changed to ‘Pending administrative review’.
SDD said

June 1, 2018 @ 12:49 pm · EditDear Writedit,

I submitted an NIGMS K99 award in Oct. 2017 and received an impact score of 16 in April. I have contacted the PO in early April regarding the funding possibility. He said the score was great and funding decisions would probably be made within weeks after the May council meeting. Now my status has changed to “Council Review Completed” but I haven’t received any JIT request. Is this common? I think JIT is usually sent out early by PO for competitive applications, right? Thank you so much!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 1, 2018 @ 1:33 pm · EditNot necessarily. Based on your score and your PO’s comments, I don’t think you need to worry at all. It sounds like you’ll get your request in the next 2-3 weeks (but don’t panic if it’s later). The procedures for R01s & other RPGs are not necessarily the same for Ks, which are handled as a group by activity code (rather than science) – and especially for K99s (confirmation of postdoctoral status & absence of job offers, etc.).
  
  Reply
  - Carfield said
    
    June 4, 2018 @ 4:51 pm · EditHi Writedit, could you elaborate a little bit on the procedures? What did you mean by Ks are handled by activity code rather than science? And how does NIH confirm postdoctoral status for K99s (like what documents should we prepare in advance from our institution?). Thanks!
  - writedit said
    
    June 5, 2018 @ 11:13 am · EditMy comment about the Ks is that there are POs just for career development awards, though they are broken out by Division (but one for entire Division vs multiple POs per Branch specializing in targeted disciplines). Because there are so many fewer K applications compared with R01s, I don’t think it is as critical for those POs to send out JIT until they know the applications likely to be funded, so I don’t think you should be concerned about not getting a request yet. On the postdoctoral status, I mention this because some K99 applicants start job hunting while waiting for updates on their award – especially if they receive a good score, and some POs will use this to disqualify them for the K99 (with the rationale that if they are interviewing for/have offers for faculty positions, they probably don’t need an additional year of mentored training). If you indicate your postdoctoral position will continue at the same institution (ie, not changing universities/research institutions – which also happens with some applicants) through at least the first year of K99 support, you are fine – no special documentation needed. You absolutely should not panic about this – again, I mentioned it only because some POs will probe to be sure K99 applicants are not on the job market before their K99 is done (or started).
  - Carfield said
    
    June 5, 2018 @ 4:19 pm · EditThanks very much for your detailed reply, Writedit! I have a quick follow-up question. Hypothetically, is a postdoc allowed for promotions to other ‘trainee’ positions within the same institution after the K99 is awarded? For instance, in some institutions, the position of research assistant professorship (hence non-tenure track) is still being mentored as a trainee and does research within the mentor’s space/resources. Will NIH (specifically NICHD) allow such promotions during the K99 award period?
  - writedit said
    
    June 5, 2018 @ 4:53 pm · EditI believe as long as it is not tenure track and not a new job opportunity that you sought out, you should be okay. If this happens after the K99 starts, in which case you can visit that issue with the GMS to confirm it is within NIH policy (and within salary restrictions). At worst, NICHD will say no, and you will have to delay/forego the promotion (usually made to allow you to submit grant applications, I believe, plus increase salary/benefits). If anyone else has experience with the research assistant professor appointment during a K99, please chime in.
  - Carfield said
    
    June 6, 2018 @ 12:59 pm · EditThanks so much for your feedback, Writedit!
Tom Therramus said

June 5, 2018 @ 12:18 pm · EditI have an established investigator NHLBI RO1 application that scored at the 18th percentile last December and its status just moved to pending in COMMONS in the last few days. The present NHBLI RO1 payline in 15. I know this sounds like a not so bright question, but based on others experience is this cause for optimism ?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 5, 2018 @ 1:45 pm · EditPerfectly valid question. Yes, if it changed from “Council review completed” to “Pending”, it means a human is working on your application, possibly getting it ready for award processing. NHLBI makes selective pay awards based on the scientific review and programmatic priorities, and as the end of the FY grows closer (Sept 30), ICs begin going back to see how many applications above the set paylines they can and might want to fund. Now, this does not mean you are getting an award, but you should certainly check with your PO (and/or GMS) to see if they need any information from you, such as an updated JIT. Now, sometimes the status changes when there is some administrative work related to an application but unrelated to award processing, so there is the chance it will just go back to “Council review completed”, but your PO’s response will clarify why the status changed and what to expect.
  
  Reply
  - Tom Therramus said
    
    June 5, 2018 @ 1:50 pm · EditThanks. Your answer is much appreciated.
  - Tom Therramus said
    
    June 22, 2018 @ 11:59 am · EditA note of update to say that we received our NOA yesterday : )
  - writedit said
    
    June 23, 2018 @ 8:59 am · EditWoohoo! Congratulations and best wishes for success with your research.
BHASKAR said

June 7, 2018 @ 5:11 pm · EditI just got impact score 31 of my R21 grant from NIAAA. Is there any hope I can get funded? Please advise.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 7, 2018 @ 6:07 pm · EditThat is a bit high, but because your application is for FY19 (I assume it was submitted for standard deadline in Feb), your PO will have no clue until the FY19 budget passes, which probably won’t be until next year. However, when you receive your summary statement, ask your PO if you should resubmit in November. My guess is that the answer will be yes (for insurance, even if there is a chance of funding the score 31 application). Then also ask if your PO has any recommendations on strategy for responding to the review/preparing your resubmission (since PO may have been at study section meeting and heard how the discussion of your application went).
  
  Reply
  - BHASKAR said
    
    June 7, 2018 @ 6:12 pm · EditThanks for your insightful thoughts.
RA said

June 13, 2018 @ 2:25 pm · EditNHLBI had a council meeting yesterday, but no change of status in my COMMONS yet. Has anybody noticed a change in his/her COMMONS?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 13, 2018 @ 2:36 pm · EditNothing will change immediately after Council meets. There will be internal meetings to finalize the paylist, and then the status will change on a case-by-case basis only when an application on the list is selected for processing – no mass change in status just because Council met.
  
  Reply
Bridesmaid said

June 13, 2018 @ 5:25 pm · EditI know NIMHD does not publish paylines, which makes it very hard to figure out potential for funding. I am wondering if anyone has experience with them and can mention at what score did they get funded (or not) by NIMHD. I just received an impact score of 32 (no published percentile) on an R21 for an RFA. The summary statement is not in yet and will take some time so I’d like to get a sense about any potential for funding, until reading the SS and talking to the PO in a few weeks.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 13, 2018 @ 5:43 pm · EditHopefully someone will chime in with a funded R21 score – you can also search the archives of these pages. Of course, your application is for FY19, but for now, you could consider it likely to be in line with FY18 paylines. When you get your summary statement, the first key question for your PO will be whether to resubmit in Oct/Nov – and if so, any recommendations for strategy based on the study section discussion.
  
  Reply
ST said

June 14, 2018 @ 11:14 am · EditHi All,

I am in a tricky situation and would appreciate some advice. I am currently supported by an F32 award. I have a K99 application that had a below-the-payline score and PO was positive about its fundability. It is currently in the post-council phase. In the meantime, suggested by my mentor, I have accepted another Career Development Award from a non-profit organization starting July 1, but haven’t discussed it with my K99 PO. So, as I need to terminate my F32 very soon and partially reveal that I will be supported by another grant, I am concerned that my early F32 termination (before K99 NOA) will negatively affect the post-council consideration of my K99 application. Any advice?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 14, 2018 @ 2:25 pm · EditThe bigger problem will be any overlap. NIH can only fund you for the project and training plan that was reviewed at study section. If this is being covered by the non-profit, then your K99 funds cannot be repurposed for another aspect of training that you hadn’t proposed. Usually what is better is to accept the NIH award and then ask the non-profit to adjust their award to meet your remaining needs (since foundations/societies typically have more flexibility). You will obviously need to disclose the non-profit career development award eventually as part of your JIT, so it would be better to talk with your K99 PO as soon as possible to review areas where there is and is not overlap. If there is no overlap, then you’ll be fine – though that seems unlikely given these are both career development awards, and the NIH will not want you pursuing a second mentored project on top of your time commitment for the K99. The PO will be key to making it work – and if you plan to apply to this IC for funding in the future, then you want to be sure you work with them on this (vs wait and try to keep both awards without disclosing any information until the last possible minute).
  
  Reply
  - ST said
    
    June 14, 2018 @ 3:02 pm · EditThank you Writedit. I just spoke with our on-site grant specialist, and she suggested the same thing, ie contacting the PO and telling upfront that I have accepted another Career award and I will terminate should I receive my K99 award.
NSI said

June 16, 2018 @ 12:56 am · EditHello Writedit, I got my first R01 early this year and thank you so much for the ideas/suggestions shared here. We have one project ongoing and kindly some preliminary data from it can be used for another R01 proposal. As a junior faculty, I am worried that NIH may not be willing to fund another project from my lab in the following years. Any suggestions for my case will be highly appreciated. Thanks!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 16, 2018 @ 4:02 pm · EditThe NIH wants to fund the best science, and new investigators can certainly have 2 R01s if the science is of interest to the IC. If it is possible for you to target a different IC and/or study section with your second application, that would help distribute your funding (and review) sources (just a good strategy in general) – but it is not uncommon for one IC to award more than one R01 to the same PI. If the science is outstanding (per peer review) and an IC priority (talk with your PO about your ideas), the IC will not withhold funding just because you are a new investigator.
  
  Reply
Cornfield said

June 18, 2018 @ 5:14 pm · EditHi Writedit,

I’m wondering if you have any insights on re-budgeting PI’s salary during at pre-award or post-award phases? My council has approved my grant last month and I’m currently waiting for the JIT requests. My institution is considering a salary increase due to my past performance (still within the NIH cap). But I’m not sure if NIH will allow that increase, or my institution has to pay for the difference? Or do we need to ask for NIH’s approval before they issue the award if that makes their job easier?

Reply
- Rob said
  
  June 18, 2018 @ 6:06 pm · EditI actually have the same question. This for a K99/R00 application, and I expect to receive the request for JIT soon that includes the budget. I was wondering if it’s safe to discuss an increase in the salary portion (of the K99 phase because of the following promotion) with the PO at this point.
  
  Reply
  - writedit said
    
    June 18, 2018 @ 11:14 pm · EditIn your case, the PO’s question would be, what promotion? During the K99 portion, you cannot accept a tenure-track position (or even research assistant professor). If you mean that you are getting a promotion from postdoc to instructor, that should be okay, but ICs do not like to see their K99 awardees being promoted during the K99 phase, since they are technically still in training under a mentor. Your salary would need to be within the IC limits for the K99 phase, too.
  - Cornfield said
    
    June 19, 2018 @ 8:15 pm · EditHi Rob, just to follow up with your post, I’m in the same situation about a potential promotion. Was your institution considering the promotion before or after the award is made?
- writedit said
  
  June 18, 2018 @ 11:10 pm · EditYou can ask your grants administrator (at your institution) if they have experience with this, but I think the salary increase would need to be in place at the time you ask for an adjustment (vs increasing the salary allocation in anticipation of an increase). If this will happen soon, you can address it during the JIT process and award negotiation. I would suggest you let your grants person know both the level of increase and timing so they can take it into consideration in negotiating the award (or going back to renegotiate, having alerted the IC to the future change, if the salary change happens after the award is issued). I assume this is for an RPG vs K – if the latter, then the salary increase would also need to be within the salary limits of your IC sets for that activity code.
  
  Reply
  - Cornfield said
    
    June 19, 2018 @ 11:12 am · EditThanks so much for your input, Writedit. This is for a K and there is a salary limit. What happens if the salary increase goes above the limit? Say if the limit is $70,000, but the salary structure at my institution is set at $75,000. Will it be the case that the NIH still pays the limit of $70,000 and my institution covers the extra $5,000?
  - writedit said
    
    June 19, 2018 @ 11:37 am · EditYes – the salary limit on the FOA is as much as the NIH will pay, but your institution can pay you more (as is often the case in high COL areas). You could ask the PO about budgeting above the salary cap, but it would need to be well justified (and may not be possible at all to be fair across the board).
  - Cornfield said
    
    June 19, 2018 @ 2:04 pm · EditThat makes a lot of sense! I guess I’m just a bit confused on whom to reach out to for salary re-budgetting issues. Should we usually contact the PO or the Grants Management Specialist (who I assume will issue the JIT request)? Thanks!
- Rob said
  
  June 19, 2018 @ 3:16 pm · EditHi Cornfield, I talked to the PO of my K99 application about re-budgeting the salary part, and he said they make the playlist based on the proposed budget during application, and they likely can’t pay beyond it. But, he suggested discussing it with my GMS after receiving JIT request to see if they can cover it if it’s a small amount. Also, he said they don’t mind that the institution pays any remaining part of the salary to the awardee.
  
  Reply
  - Cornfield said
    
    June 19, 2018 @ 3:34 pm · EditThanks for sharing your experience, Rob. Since I am still waiting for the JIT request, I guess I will just wait and discuss with my GMS after the request is issued. If you don’t mind me asking, in your case, did you have a successful experience re-budgeting your salary with GMS, and which IC was your application in? Also, how much time did it take for you to receive the JIT request? Many thanks!
  - writedit said
    
    June 19, 2018 @ 4:16 pm · EditThanks so much for your great input, Rob!
    
    Yes, I think waiting to discuss with the GMS at the time of JIT would be best. I was assuming it was a difference of just a few thousand dollars, but if it is a significant increase and you are above the salary limit, you will probably be asked to have your institution cost-share the amount over $70K (pro-rated to your effort, if you are not 100%).
  - Cornfield said
    
    June 19, 2018 @ 8:19 pm · EditThanks for your advice, Writedit. So should I have the salary increase in place already when I talk this with my GMS at the time of JIT? My institution seems unwilling to give the increase unless they are sure the award will be made, which would only happen after the JIT and I would miss the chance of re-budgetting with the GMS at the time of JIT.
  - writedit said
    
    June 19, 2018 @ 9:40 pm · EditIf everything is set (ie, dollar amount) except the final okay, that can come when you get the JIT request. Your grants administrator will need to be able to give the GMS your salary when JIT is submitted (which doesn’t need to be immediate, though you don’t want to dawdle). Rather than agonize over it, you can just ask your PO if a salary increase (and give your PO a $ amount) can be accommodated by the award. If not, you’ll still get your increase, but on your institution’s dime.
  - Cornfield said
    
    June 20, 2018 @ 3:49 pm · EditThanks Writedit for your advice. Do POs usually ask the reason of a salary increase?
  - writedit said
    
    June 20, 2018 @ 5:34 pm · EditNot sure, but I doubt it. If your title changes (academic rank), that is what they will notice and may ask about.
- Rob said
  
  June 19, 2018 @ 4:03 pm · EditNo problem. I am actually in the same boat, still waiting for the JIT and haven’t talked to GMS yet. The PO (NHLBI) said the paylist could take between 2 to 4 weeks after council to be prepared, and once it is ready, the GMS will send requests for JIT docs.
  
  Reply
  - Cornfield said
    
    June 20, 2018 @ 3:51 pm · EditThanks for sharing the timeline, Rob! I guess now we will just be waiting!
HEHJ said

June 19, 2018 @ 11:46 am · EditDear writedit,

Previously, my program officer suggested me to submit an amended application of my R01 while I’m waiting for the council since it was just above the payline (it was under the NIH special practice for new investigator R01). Now, the status of my R01 is pending administrative review, but I did not receive the NOA yet. The thing is that my amended application will be reviewed in 1 month, and they published the roster. Should I ask my program officer to kill it or just wait until I get the NOA?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 19, 2018 @ 3:45 pm · EditNIH will automatically withdraw the amended application when the original application receives an award. You don’t need to do anything. If it will be reviewed in a month, it is too late to save reviewer time in any case, though at least it won’t knock another application out of discussion (assuming you have your NOA by then).
  
  Reply
  - HEHJ said
    
    June 19, 2018 @ 3:56 pm · EditThanks much for the clarification!
Need Help! said

June 20, 2018 @ 7:28 pm · EditI just got my R01 score (impact score: 38; percentile 21).

The award rate for NEI is anticipated to be approximately 25% and payline is not published. I also found that NEI staff is encouraged to identify and give special consideration to first time investigators in making funding recommendations.

I am a new investigator but not early-stage investigator. I wonder whether my proposal is within the fundable range or not? Is there any hope I can get funded? Please advise me. Thank you.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 21, 2018 @ 1:55 pm · EditSince the NEI FY18 fiscal policy only mentions ESI applicants receiving a break, you won’t get an automatic payline bump, but you could be considered for select pay, depending on your PO’s enthusiasm for your work. When you have your summary statement, ask your PO if you should submit again (I expect the answer will be yes, no matter what). This is for FY19, and it will be a long time before we know those paylines, so your PO will not want you to risk missing a funding cycle waiting to hear about this application.
  
  Reply
Human Subject Determination Change said

June 21, 2018 @ 11:59 am · EditOur R43 proposal has moved to “pending” status. We initially identified the human subject portion of our study as non-exempt … but have since learned that our study is exempt (E1) … and we have a determination from letter indicating that from an external IRB. When moving from non-exempt to exempt, the GMS said that we needed an approval from our program officer (he is fine with it) and that an internal NIH human subject expert would be involved. What are the chances that this becomes a roadblock for us (changing from non-exempt to exempt)? Any thoughts or advice about this?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 22, 2018 @ 7:59 am · EditThis should not be a problem at all. The NIH does need to confirm the change in approval status (non-exempt to exempt) before an award can be issued, but with your IRB documentation, you should be all set. The human subjects protections folks are part of every administrative review that involves human subjects research, so they would have been involved without your knowing it if your GMS had not said anything.
  
  Reply
Kaden said

June 22, 2018 @ 5:37 pm · EditHello,
First of all, thanks for your patience and time in answering our questions! My K01 A0 application to NIDDK got a score of 40. My A1 application received 30. I’m waiting for my summary statement and then talking to the PO. Over the past 5 years, the success rate of this particular K-award has been between 25% to 43% (average around 32%). I know few people who received the same award with scores 32 and 35 in the past year. I understand that things are different in each cycle and the programmatic relevance of applications play a role in the institute’s decision. Do you think I should be prepared for a new A0 submission while still being hopeful? I appreciate any input.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 23, 2018 @ 9:53 am · EditYou would be submitting in October, so you have plenty of time, but yes, you can start thinking about the next A0 while maintaining hope for the A1. The improvement in score is good, and if the summary statement concerns are easily addressed with your PO, he/she could have traction for a case for funding (and maybe the payline will be going up). You can start working in earnest on the A0 if the PO recommends that you do so (which I expect will be the case – if not, really good news, of course).
  
  Reply
  - Kaden said
    
    July 4, 2018 @ 1:36 pm · EditThanks for your comment. As the council meeting will be held in October, I’m assuming that this would be considered FY19, am I correct? In that case, will everything depend on when and what the Congress passes for FY19?
  - writedit said
    
    July 4, 2018 @ 3:57 pm · EditCorrect – you will need to wait for the federal budget to pass, whether as individual appropriations bills (this fall) or the typical omnibus bill (likely next year). Both the House and the Senate have approved increases for the NIH appropriation, though, so paylines will be the same or go up in FY19.
  - Kaden said
    
    August 1, 2018 @ 11:05 pm · EditI was surprised that my PO asked me to avoid submitting another A0 because my A1 has adequately addressed the previous reviews and those minor remaining concerns are not likely to be mitigated till October. He sounded very positive about my application but he thought that my score is not likely to be improved in this particular study section. Instead, he asked me to put together a rebuttal letter to address the remaining concerns. Of course, he didn’t promise funding, but he was generally speaking highly of my application, which was surprising given how conservatives POs are in their conversations. I am still confused as to why the PO was strongly against submission of a new A0.
    Thanks.
  - writedit said
    
    August 1, 2018 @ 11:18 pm · EditWell, my experience is that NIDDK career development POs are on top of the funding situation, and perhaps having read your summary statement and knowing the study section so well and knowing the FY funding line, your PO feels the score will not get significantly better (ie, maybe a 25 at best next time) and/or your application will be funded at 30. It looks as though the NIH will get another increase in appropriation no matter what happens with the federal budget, so your PO probably feels more confident than usual at this point. I think that you can trust that your PO would not steer you wrong in this situation, work on the rebuttal to make it as strong as possible (especially if you have new data and/or new publications-abstracts accepted – including updates on your mentor), and then wait for word in the fall.
  - Kaden said
    
    September 26, 2018 @ 6:00 pm · EditIn light of the new defence-labor-HHS bill that was passed by the Senate last week and by the House today, and assuming that the President will sign it, as he indicated today, what would be the timeline like for those applications that received scores in the 3rd cycle of 2018, for funding in FY19?
    
    From your previous answers, I gather that it could be months between President’s signature and the actual funding, but do applicants hear earlier about whether they will get funded, say in October-November?
    
    Summary of my application: my K01 A1 application to NIDDK received a priority score of 30 in the June 2018 study section. PO was generally positive and asked me to write a rebuttal letter. PO also asked me to avoid submitting another A0 in October.
    
    I much appreciate your input.
  - writedit said
    
    September 27, 2018 @ 9:13 am · EditThe appropriation must first go to HHS, then to the NIH, and then to your IC (NIDDK), with each transition taking a week or two, meaning NIDDK won’t know their final appropriation for another 6 weeks or so (after appropriation bill signed into law). The processing of awards will begin before then, so JIT requests and eRA status changes (Pending) will indicate activity in the meantime, though awards will still need to wait for the money to arrive. This is part of why the standard start date is Dec 1 (assuming appropriation is signed by Oct 1). The fact that your PO advised you not to resubmit is an excellent indicator of your likelihood of funding, though not a guarantee, of course.
  - Kaden said
    
    November 26, 2018 @ 6:00 pm · EditI was hoping that by now (last week of November) the status of my application would change to pending or at least I would hear from the PO asking for JIT. Since the standard start dates for my cycle (study section: June 2018, council meeting: September) tend to be December 1st, do you think this might take longer? Is it normal for this cycle to take until December before we hear back?
    
    Summary of my application: my K01 A1 application to NIDDK received a priority score of 30 in the June 2018 study section. PO was generally positive and asked me to write a rebuttal letter. PO also asked me to avoid submitting another A0 in October and wait for FY19 to be signed into law.
    
    Thank you very much for your time.
  - writedit said
    
    November 28, 2018 @ 11:20 am · EditThe Dec 1 start date isn’t an expiration date, and it’s been decades since the NIH had an appropriation in time to make December 1 awards. Your IC could just be behind processing awards. You can check in with the PO and/or GMS on the status of your application and whether you should prepare your JIT, especially if you might like to receive authorization for pre-award spending, since, unless they are delaying a decision until the end of the FY, you should be within 90 days of award (even if you haven’t submitted JIT yet). POs almost never put PIs at risk by suggesting they not resubmit, but you would also want to know whether you should be preparing a February submission, if the PO was in fact overconfident.
George said

June 23, 2018 @ 10:37 am · EditDear Writedit,

I just received my R01-A1 (NCI) score at 11th percentile. 2018 NCI payline is 9%. Whether I should contact PO to see whether have a chance to get funding? In addition, my R01 is also eligible to NINDS with 15% payline. Is it possible to request transfer the application to NINDS? Thanks very much!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 23, 2018 @ 10:43 am · EditYou won’t know about this application until next year, since it falls under FY19. Your application would not be considered by NINDS until NCI released it – but again, nothing will happen until next year (or at the earliest, the end of this year). When you get your summary statement, you can first talk with your NCI PO about next steps (whether to resubmit). If you already have a PO at NINDS, you can talk with him/her, too, to determine whether they would be interested in your application if NCI declines to fund you. Just because it is assigned to NINDS does not mean they would fund it if NCI declines – the science must be of sufficient interest and priority to edge out an application for which NINDS is the primary IC.
  
  Reply
  - George said
    
    June 23, 2018 @ 11:04 am · EditDear Writedit,
    
    Thanks very much for your quick reply and great suggestions! I am pretty familiar with NINDS PO who likes our research very much, while only talk with NCI PO once through the phone during last resubmission. I regret not to request to NINDS when submitting application. I will contact both PO for suggestions.
    
    Sorry I am confused for FY19. Our proposed R01 start date is 09/1/2018, which is falling into FY19?
    
    Thanks very much!!!
  - writedit said
    
    June 23, 2018 @ 11:30 am · EditI assume that any applications submitted in early 2018 that would be considered for FY18 (Sept 1 start) will be reviewed at the June NCAB meeting, with those considered for December 1 reviewed at the August meeting (since next NCAB meeting is not until after Dec 1). You might have asked for a Sept 1 start, but NCI does not need to honor that. Since you don’t have your summary statement yet, that means the NCAB members don’t have it either, and that is what Council reviews (the quality of the review – based on the summary statement – and appropriateness for IC mission).
    
    If you are focusing on primary brain tumors, then your work would be welcome at NINDS (where there is an exceptional PO, as you apparently know). A change in IC assignment would need to be made at the time of submission (if not in the form requesting assignment, then immediately after referral by CSR). Your cancer center should be welcoming any opportunity to distribute funding among other ICs, such as NIGMS, NINDS, NIDCR, et al.
George said

June 23, 2018 @ 11:09 am · EditMy appointment is in cancer center where push PIs to submit R01 to NCI. Its payline is lowest…

Reply
- George said
  
  July 1, 2018 @ 8:20 pm · EditDear Writedit,
  
  I talked with NCI PO by phone, who said that the priority for considering funding for the R01 applications above 9th percentile is for PIs losing or going to losing any fundings. While PO also said he will support my application for internal review and asked me to write a rebuttal letter to him when receiving summary statement. PO also asked me to resubmit the application as new in this Oct.
  
  Due to the low payline of NCI, I am thinking to request the application assigning to NINDS in next submission. Should I tell NCI PO that? Don’t know whether it will affect his enthusiasm for supporting my current application for internal review.
  
  Thanks very much!
  
  Reply
  - writedit said
    
    July 1, 2018 @ 9:08 pm · EditYou don’t need to tell your NCI PO that when you submit again, you will request NINDS as your primary IC. You can just do that, assuming the NINDS PO is willing to receive your application, which it sounds like he/she is. It is good news that your NCI PO will go to bat for your application. If your NCI PO is told that your application cannot be funded, that is when you should ask about releasing it to NINDS. You’ll still get an application ready for October, in case it is needed, but maybe NINDS will pick up your 11th percentile application once NCI declines.
  - George said
    
    July 1, 2018 @ 10:50 pm · EditThanks for great suggestions! I talked with NINDS PO as well, I was told that it is very unlike to successfully transfer my application to NINDS for funding although NCI deny due to a lot hurdles and also requiring leadership approval. Since NCI also fund brain tumor grant, it looks bad if they don’t approve funding for my application, which will incur NINDS leadership doubt my application quality and will also not consider it.
    
    NCI has a big grey period for funding applications above their payline. Last year payline is 10th percentile, don’t know why it drops to 9th although NCI received more budget this year. In 2017, NCI even funded applications at 18th-20th percentile, but left out around 40-50% applications at 11th percentile without support. It is really uncertainty for selective funding for applications above payline. Any colleagues have experiences in this situation for NCI? Thanks!
  - George said
    
    July 24, 2018 @ 5:51 pm · EditDear Writedit,
    
    Thanks very much for your great suggestions! I would like to follow up my NCI R01 application situation with 11th percentile reviewed in this June. My PO asked me to write a rebuttal letter. I sent it to him recently. The PO also asked me to do some preliminary data and send that to him in mid September in order to help him for internal discussion. PO told me he will support my application for selective consideration. But also suggested me resubmit it in Oct.
    
    One week later, I had another NCI R01 application (A1) was scored not good, which is far below than A0 that is a good score. Actually Reviewer #1 made incorrect comments and gave bad score. I indicated this to this new PO who is different person with my first one, The new PO is in the same branch with first one and is chief of the branch. The new PO agreed me the mistake made by reviewer and almost suggested me to appeal, but finally she asked me resubmit it as new submission on Oct 5th. I discussed with the new PO for my 11th percentile R01 and asked her support. The PO suggested me wait the decision for 11th percentile R01 until January 2019. If it is not funded, then resubmit it as new in Feb. The PO asked me to focus on second R01 (not score well) resubmission in this Oct. She said hope my 11th R01 could be funded. Since the new PO is the branch chief, she should also participate in the discussion for my 11th percentile R01.
    
    My question is what should I do? should I listen second PO/Chief not resubmit my 11th R01 in Oct? or I should contact the first PO for the decision.
    
    Thanks very much!
  - writedit said
    
    July 25, 2018 @ 11:34 am · EditIt sounds like she wants you to concentrate on the A1 for October (rather than both), which is a good plan. That she thinks you can wait until January to make a decision about the 11th percentile is good news, because she is the one who will push for awards to applications above the 9th percentile (or whatever the FY19 payline will be at NCI, but probably no higher than 9th, especially early in the FY). If she currently thinks you have a good case, then you probably do – especially since POs are so conservative in giving advice. I suspect too she recognizes that she can only advocate for one application over the payline per PI per cycle, so, for example, if your A1 and the 11th percentile R01 were both submitted in Oct and both scored in the 10-13th percentile range, she could probably only push hard for one application, unless they were both of significant programmatic priority, due to the number of PIs who need support at all (vs for 2 R01s in the same cycle).
  - George said
    
    July 25, 2018 @ 11:35 pm · EditThanks very much for your input! I will contact both POs in September that they asked me to update my progress.
ESI said

June 25, 2018 @ 9:07 pm · EditDear Writedit,

I submitted an R01 with a modular budget. However, in the NGA the committed budget for years 2-5 has been cut by more than 20% (direct cost for most years is <200K). Since I am starting my lab (ESI) and do not have any other sources of funding currently, this is really worrying me as I am not sure I will be able to support myself, a postdoc, and student in subsequent years. My question is, is it possible to talk to the PO or grants management specialist to request at least 200K per year? The grant is set to start in a month.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 26, 2018 @ 12:58 am · EditYes, you can talk with your PO about this – usually ICs want to help ESIs as much as possible. You don’t mention the IC or whether your application was funded as select pay (above even the ESI payline), but it’s always worth reaching out to negotiate, especially in your situation. No IC wants to invest in an ESI and yet set him/her up for failure due to insufficient funds. Although not ideal (since you’d rather have enough $ to do everything you proposed), you could also ask about reducing your Aims so you are not held accountable for completing all your aims with so much less money (will look better at renewal).
  
  Reply
  - ESI said
    
    June 26, 2018 @ 1:25 am · EditThank you Writedit, my grant is funded by NIA and it is actually within the general payline (did not need to avail of the NI/ESI bonus). I think NIA is reducing the budget by 18% for most grants. Can I talk to the PO about this, even though the NGA is already posted on Commons?
- SaG said
  
  June 26, 2018 @ 7:46 am · EditDidn’t you get a start up package?
  
  Reply
  - ESI said
    
    June 26, 2018 @ 8:08 am · EditHi SaG, no. I am at the same university where I did my postdoc, so there was no start up package.
  - SaG said
    
    June 26, 2018 @ 8:41 am · EditThat sucks. Is it a tenure track position at least? They might/should offer you one now given the indirect costs you are bringing in. You might consider (and let them know) that you are interviewing for other jobs. Something to get the Dean and Chair worried.
  - NewPI said
    
    June 26, 2018 @ 8:46 am · EditWhen this happened to me I worked with the folks in my grants office to lay out what aspects of Aims couldn’t be accomplished with the cut (exactly as writedit suggested) – they helped me draft a request to PO to restore funds and this was eventually granted. This is time to celebrate – by the way. An R01 of any size is not easy to come by – so pat yourself on the back and build a strong team! Enjoy!
  - ESI said
    
    June 26, 2018 @ 9:03 am · EditThank you SaG. It is a tenure-track position, in one of highly rated universities. It hasn’t been easy without any startup funds, so was really looking forward for this R01 to start. Not sure brining in IDC helps any with departmental support here.
    @NewPI, thanks. I will try discussing with my PO. Trying to be enthusiastic, but also a tad worried right now. By grants office do you mean the ORA at your institute, or the GMS at NIH?
  - NewPI said
    
    June 26, 2018 @ 9:12 am · EditTalk to the grants people at your home institution – they will have experience with this. If not, let me know and I will contact you offline.
  - writedit said
    
    June 26, 2018 @ 9:28 am · EditNew PI/ESI, I can put you in touch with each other offline, if you would like that (no need to post contact info here). Thanks for sharing your experience, New PI, which is what I had in mind. Start the conversation. Letting the PO know there is no start-up package is worth mentioning, too. Again, your PO doesn’t want to set you up for failure, since your award is part of his/her portfolio.
NewPI said

June 26, 2018 @ 8:48 am · EditMy student got a impact score of 32 on his F32 at NIDDK. I don’t see paylines posted – does anyone know about his chances on funding?

Reply
- NewPI said
  
  June 26, 2018 @ 8:48 am · EditI mean my postdoc;)
  
  Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 26, 2018 @ 9:33 am · EditAs I said on the other forum, that could be within the funding range, though this will be for FY19, so the PO won’t know anything definite for quite some time. When the summary statement is back, consult with the PO about next steps (whether to resubmit or not in the fall). If anyone here knows F32 scores that received awards this year, that would be great to know.
  
  Reply
  - Sori said
    
    June 29, 2018 @ 12:37 pm · EditNot sure if this helps, but I submitted an F31 at NIDDK in April and also just got my impact score (24). My PO said that “in the past” a score of 25 would get funded “about half the time.” He also confirmed there are no pay lines or percentages provided for Fellowships at NIDDK. he advised me to prepare for resubmission and hope that I don’t need to.
    
    Also, he said funding decisions will be made late July to mid-August. This was all communicated via email, and haven’t been able to get him on the phone yet, but working on it. In the meantime, would be great if you could post any updates if you learn more!
  - writedit said
    
    June 29, 2018 @ 11:18 pm · EditThanks for sharing all this – you have a great PO. Best wishes for success with your application – and your training and doctoral project.
Grant said

June 27, 2018 @ 1:58 pm · EditDear Writedit,

I benefit from this forum a lot. This morning I received my K99 NOA. I got my score in grey area but lucky to fall in the payline for FY2018. I would like to share my application time line with people here. Hope it will be helpful.

I also have a minor question about the salary. There is a salary cap of 75K per year in the institute, we made a budget as 75K, but NIH cut my salary as 70K. Is there any way to adjust it to the originally proposed level? Can I negotiate this with my GMS or just deal with within our department? Thank you in advance for your suggestions.

06/27/2018 Application awarded
06/21/2018 Award prepared
06/20/2018 Pending administrative review
01/24/2018 Council review completed
10/03/2017 Scientific Review Group review completed
06/20/2017 Scientific Review Group review pending
06/12/2017 Application entered into system

Thank you!
Best

Grant

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 27, 2018 @ 10:12 pm · EditCongratulations on the K99 (after quite a long wait)! You can certainly ask the GMS why $5K was cut from your salary. If you proposed 100% effort, then they might have a policy about not paying 100% of salary – depends on the IC. It could be too they changed their ceiling of support across the board (not just you). It’s always worth asking – you don’t risk losing anything or having more taken away. Your institution’s grant administrator might know why the salary changed, too, so you might ask there first, and then communicate with the GMS if they don’t know why the change was made.
  
  Reply
Faculty.Grants said

July 1, 2018 @ 9:14 pm · EditHi Writedit,

Could you provide guidance on the types of grants that only researchers with faculty appointment are eligible to apply, versus those that are open to anyone, including postdocs and non-faculty research scientists? Many thanks!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 1, 2018 @ 10:06 pm · EditEach FOA indicates the eligibility criteria for the PI. Usually what prevents a postdoc or non-tenure track faculty member from applying for RPGs (vs fellowship or career development awards) is their institution, though often non-tenure track applicants are also not as competitive candidates in review groups if they are permitted to apply (fewer publications, limited independence, questions about job stability/security, etc.). Postdocs are trainees rather than employees (even if they are acting in the role of staff scientist or non-tenure track faculty), so most, if not all, universities do not allow them to apply for research grants.
  
  Reply
Bob said

July 5, 2018 @ 1:42 pm · EditHi Writedit,

Im in an interesting situation (but a good one)

My ESI NCI R01 was scored at 11th percentile (FY18 payline 14th for ESI) at study section in early June. This was an A1 application with my last shot as ESI within the 13 month resubmission window.

I just received an excellent score on an mPI R01 that was reviewed at study section at the end of June, which should be funded.

If the mPI is awarded first will that then disqualify me from ESI consideration for the NCI R01 or is ESI status at time of review the important factor?

I’d appreciate any help on this.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 6, 2018 @ 12:17 am · EditESI status is based on your status at the time of application, so technically, even if the mPI application receives an award first, your R01 would still be considered ESI, and I have seen applicants receive two R01s in the same cycle as an ESI. ICs are flexible in their implementation of ESI policies, though, so especially if the mPI award is also at NCI and is above the 9th percentile, that might be more likely to be at risk than your ESI R01, since NCI is putting a lot of emphasis on ESI awards (if the mPI application is at or below the 9th percentile, then it should be funded though). Your PO will be aware of both competitively scored applications, so you can talk about how this will be handled at NCI (especially if both applications are there – though FY19 paylines won’t be set for quite some time still) and whether you should be looking to resubmit either application.
  
  Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 6, 2018 @ 12:26 am · EditOh, and congrats on the two great scores – hope you are able to pursue both projects.
  
  Reply
  - Bob said
    
    July 6, 2018 @ 10:49 am · EditThanks for the response, the mPI is at a different IC. I was hesitant in contacting my NCI PO until the FY19 paylines are decided, until then I dont think there is much she can do.
  - writedit said
    
    July 6, 2018 @ 4:19 pm · EditIf you think you might want to submit the 11th percentile again in October as a new (non-ESI) application, you might want to ask your PO first if you need to do so (based solely on ESI 11th percentile – you don’t need to mention the mPI application, since that might not get awarded either, so it’s not part of the resubmit equation). Your PO won’t know paylines, of course, so you don’t ask about award likelihood. My guess is she will say to submit again for insurance, but maybe not – but of course that would be wonderful news for you. Now, if you would just wait until next February or June to submit next no matter what (ie, you want to get more data, publications, etc.), then you don’t need to talk with the PO about submission strategy (unless you want an inkling of her confidence level …).
Sue said

July 6, 2018 @ 10:10 pm · EditI am a new investigator, and I Just received my score for my A0 R21 through the NIA, specific call for ADRD. My impact score was 39, percentile 28.
The NIA payline is 28% for ADRD grants. Does the payline correspond to the impact score or the percentile? Thanks so much.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 7, 2018 @ 6:41 pm · EditThe payline is for the percentile and is inclusive (ie, up to and including 28th percentile). However, if you were just reviewed, your application will be funded in FY19, and those paylines won’t be known for some time – but will probably be the same or better based on what both houses of Congress are writing into the NIH appropriation bill.
  
  Reply
  - Sue said
    
    July 8, 2018 @ 10:02 am · EditGood news. The timeline makes sense as the committee does not meet until October. Thanks so much for your response and for this blog. As a new investigator, it is totally invaluable.
Rob said

July 17, 2018 @ 3:06 pm · EditHi All,
My K99 application has remained in “Pending Administrative Review” status for about a month, and I have not yet received a personal JIT request. About a month ago I talked to PO, and he was convinced that I should hear from them very soon. My question is that “is it common for an application to remain in this status this long without any word from NIH?”, And if yes, what could be a reason for that? In any event, would you recommend reaching to GMS for an update?
Thanks

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 17, 2018 @ 11:02 pm · EditIt is not uncommon to be in limbo so long, which usually occurs at two points: while ICs are awaiting passage of the federal budget and during the mad scramble at the end of the FY. You shouldn’t panic, but you could check with the GMS about getting your JIT ready (might not realize it hasn’t been requested). I assume you have any necessary regulatory approvals and training certificates in hand.
  
  Reply
  - Rob said
    
    July 18, 2018 @ 2:04 pm · EditThanks writedit
NCI_K08_2018 said

July 17, 2018 @ 6:03 pm · EditHI.
I am so excited that finally received my Notice of Award after months of waiting and after months of checking my eRA Commons status obsessively!

Here is my time line. Hope it helps future K awardees-

Feb 2017- First application

June 2017- Impact score 30

Oct 2017- Council review completed. Summary Statement discussed with PO. Who said she cannot promise anything, doesn’t have the budget for 2018. Reapply to be safe.

Nov 2017- Resubmission

March 2018- Impact score 25.

April-June 2018- No specific promises or signs of hope from PO. JIT submitted in May.

June 29th- Council meeting.

Jul 9 2018- Notice of Award.

This blog has been a great source of support and camaraderie, the only place to be able to see other people facing similar problems. If a K was this long-drawn, i can only imagine how R01s are!

Thanks writeedit!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 17, 2018 @ 10:58 pm · EditWoohoo! Congratulations and thank you for sharing your timeline and experience. Best wishes for success with your project and the growth of your career in biomedical research.
  
  Reply
- EJ said
  
  October 30, 2018 @ 2:00 pm · EditCongrats! Do you know what was the final impact score cutoff for your cycle?
  
  Reply
Vijay Rangachari said

July 18, 2018 @ 6:08 pm · EditMy R01 was discussed by a special emphasis panel and I received an Impact score of 43. Surprisingly, there is no percentile listed on it. I am guessing because this was a new RFA, and that there is no way to make a %ile point, as it involves the data from previous two panels. But I could be wrong. First, i would like to know if my guess is appropriate or not. Second, if it is true, how are the funding decisions made based on impact score alone? I will appreciate any inputs.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 19, 2018 @ 11:01 am · EditRFAs do not receive a percentile because they are (almost) always one-off reviews, so no historic panels for calculating percentiles, as you note. Also, neither the score nor a percentile would necessarily reflect funding likelihood, because these decisions are made internally based both on science and scientific merit. That is, a high-scoring but scientifically interesting (to the receiving IC) application may receive an award, whereas a low-scoring but scientifically duplicative (of other funded research) or incremental proposal may not. When you receive your summary statement, talk with your PO about whether you should submit the project as a new R01 (to parent or other funding announcement). I suspect the answer will be yes for insurance, but your PO may give you an indication of programmatic enthusiasm for the science, too.
  
  Reply
  - ADD said
    
    July 19, 2018 @ 12:42 pm · Editthank you so much for your insight
  - nole said
    
    July 19, 2018 @ 11:05 pm · EditIf the applicant is a new investigator (no R01s), will that further help the chances of funding?
  - writedit said
    
    July 20, 2018 @ 11:46 am · EditIt depends on the IC. Some ICs only give a payline break to ESI applicants, while others still give some break to new investigators who are not ESI. You can check the IC funding policy/strategy page for clarification, or ask your PO if it is not spelled out on the IC website.
I Heart Science said

July 19, 2018 @ 11:43 am · EditI received notice there was a change to my DP2 application. When I went into eRA Commons the only change is that now it’s in the office of the Common Fund. Is this good news or a nothingburger? As Tom Petty sang, “waiting is the hardest part.”

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 19, 2018 @ 4:28 pm · EditAny activity suggests your application is being looked at, so I would take it as a positive – unless you were previously assigned to an IC. Your PO should be able to provide some insight – it could just be some routine processing, too.
  
  Reply
- 2018 DP2 Applicant said
  
  July 22, 2018 @ 7:10 pm · EditI also received a notice about a week ago, but in my case my application was transferred from the Common Fund to an IC. Are you sure your latest assignment wasn’t to an IC, as we were all assigned to the Common Fund back in September? Have you heard of anyone getting a notice that they received the award? Common Fund decisions were supposed to occur at the end of June. Hopefully we receive some good news soon– waiting is definitely the hardest part.
  
  Reply
  - SaG said
    
    July 23, 2018 @ 10:59 am · EditI think all funded DP2s are managed by an IC (https://goo.gl/M6Qz2D).
    
    The OD pays for a certain number (and transfers them to an IC) and ICs have the option to pay other DP2s with their own money. So, if it was transferred to an IC it means either it will be funded or the IC might pay it with end of year funds. No guarantees of course.
  - Another DP2 applicant said
    
    July 23, 2018 @ 1:33 pm · EditI also received reassignment notice about 2 weeks ago but my application got reassigned to both the Common Fund and IC. It would interesting to hear if anyone got an official or unofficial notice that they’ll be getting the award. I believe we were originally told that decisions about the Common Fund funded apps will be made in early July.
  - 2018 DP2 Applicant said
    
    July 23, 2018 @ 1:58 pm · EditThanks. It looks like I was also assigned to the Common Fund and an IC. I do not know of anyone who has received official or unofficial news– I’ll keep you posted if I hear anything.
  - SaG said
    
    July 24, 2018 @ 9:17 am · EditLooking in NIH reporter it seems that only 1 new DP2 grant has been awarded so far in 2018. It was by NIDA. https://bit.ly/2v1lSAt Not sure what the delay is.
  - writedit said
    
    July 24, 2018 @ 3:11 pm · EditThe NIH announces awardees all at once at the end of the FY (last year’s award start dates spanned Sept 1-30, with most on Sept 30 and only 2 prior to Sept 1), so those in contention will probably start getting JIT requests in August to be sure awards can be processed by September. NIDA has their own Avenir DP2 program (RFA-DA-18-004) separate from the Common Fund program (RFA-RM-17-006), which accounts for the award that SaG found.
  - MEJ said
    
    July 24, 2018 @ 6:08 pm · EditI received an informal email today stating my DP2 app will be funded. Nothing formal yet, I was told it will take some time to be processed, but the OD did contact my PO stating they intend to fund it.
    
    If you haven’t heard anything yet, not to worry, there is still time to hear some good news. I know some people last year didn’t find out until late August.
    
    Good luck!
  - writedit said
    
    July 25, 2018 @ 11:30 am · EditCongratulations and best wishes for success with your research!
  - RR said
    
    July 24, 2018 @ 6:39 pm · Editthanks for sharing this MEJ, congratulations!! Did you get this email from OD (Ravi) ? Or your PO conveyed this to you? Also did your status change to “pending”, curious. thanks!
  - MEJ said
    
    July 24, 2018 @ 6:50 pm · EditThanks RR!
    
    I got an email from my PO telling me that he had received an email from OD saying they intend to award my application. I believe he received this email from OD last week. It has now been assigned to NINDS for management, but will take some time to wend its way into the NINDS process.
    
    My status has not yet changed in eRA.
  - Another DP2 applicant said
    
    July 24, 2018 @ 7:12 pm · EditCongratulations MEJ!!! Very exciting!!! I am curious when did your application get reassigned to NINDS and did you get a JIT request? Thanks for sharing.
  - MEJ said
    
    July 24, 2018 @ 7:32 pm · EditThank you!
    
    My application got reassigned to NINDS last week, and my PO also changed at that time, to the NINDS PO. I reached out to my new PO yesterday, and that’s how I found out my app was being awarded.
    
    I actually received a JIT request a while ago, I think at the end of May.
- I Heart Science said
  
  July 25, 2018 @ 11:27 am · EditLooking closer, I have gone from Common Fund to an IC and back to the Common Fund. Not sure what to make of that.
  
  Reply
  - writedit said
    
    July 25, 2018 @ 11:36 am · EditHmm. You might get assigned to a different IC, if internal discussions identified a better fit … but if the IC to which you had been assigned was most appropriate, then this is less promising – but I am really not sure about the logistics of this program. The funding comes from the Common Fund, but I’m not sure if ICs have a limit on the number of DP2 awards they can administer (ie, NIH wants to spread the awards across ICs); if that is the case, it could be ICs reassign applications back to OD once they’ve picked “their” DP2 applications. If the OD really likes an application, though, I think they can find a way to have it funded. If you had a PO assignment while your application was listed at the IC, you could contact them for clarification. Otherwise, you can check with Ravi Basavappa.
  - I Heart Science said
    
    July 25, 2018 @ 11:44 am · EditThank you for your reply. I will contact Ravi and see what’s up.
RFAq said

July 19, 2018 @ 2:17 pm · EditDear writedit; How are PO’s assigned for RFA applications? Is it always someone from the specific RFA “team”? Or someone with relevant portfolio whether in the RFA team or not? I guess what I am also asking is, with regard to your reply to Vijay above, who makes these internal RFA decisions? Thank you

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 19, 2018 @ 4:35 pm · EditUsually one PO manages an RFA initiative (or a small group, if it is a complex RFA with collaborating ICs), and this PO is named in the FOA. The PO(s) affiliated with an RFA have shepherded it through a long process of internal approval, Council approval, and OER approval of the concept (including associated $ for awards) and FOA. When awards are made, if a scientifically more appropriate PO is available, I imagine the application can be shifted to this person’s portfolio, though I suspect this varies from IC to IC. If you have a PO with whom you currently work who is not the PO for an RFA (but is in the same IC), then you can chat with your usual PO about the application, but though he/she may not have any direct input on the RFA initiative (not sure how this is handled, but you can always as your usual PO and they’ll indicate whether they have any role or information to share). Now, if your usual PO is not in the IC that issued the RFA, then you will need to communicate with the assigned RFA PO.
  
  Reply
nailbitinglyanxious said

July 20, 2018 @ 12:16 pm · EditHi all,

Since the NCAB Council Meeting on 6/29 my K08 eRA commons status shows “Council review completed”. I received a JIT email from the GMS on 7/6, indicating a start date of 8/1 if funded, and submitted the JIT on 7/11. I contacted the PO and received the response: “This application is being reviewed administratively for a possible award”. The eRA commons status has not changed from Council Review Completed. Does this mean the award is still in doubt, or should I take this as a positive sign? Thank you.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 20, 2018 @ 12:37 pm · EditThis is all positive. Your status hasn’t changed because your materials are probably sitting in the queue , which is quite long at the end of the FY. Even if you don’t start on Aug 1, you could still get an award any time up until Sept 30, so just sit tight and assume the best (no news is good news in this case).
  
  Reply
  - nailbitinglyanxious said
    
    July 20, 2018 @ 3:08 pm · EditThank you for your reply and for this incredibly helpful blog.
RMKV said

July 28, 2018 @ 9:54 am · EditDoes a PI have the authority (or means) to cancel/transfer a sub-contract (co-I) issued to another institute in an R01 award? If so, i am assuming it to be cumbersome process. I will appreciate your thoughts.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 28, 2018 @ 4:22 pm · EditYour institution is the awardee of your R01, not you, so you yourself would not be able to change anything. Your institution would need to ask the NIH for permission to change a subaward because the award is based on reviewer recommendations. If the subawardee did not want to have the contract cancelled, then I believe the burden would be on you and your institution to show why they have not fulfilled the terms of the contract (or no longer have the required expertise and/or facility-resources to perform the work as proposed) and therefore should not continue the work. If it is a standard service performed using a recognized SOP (ie, any qualified contractor could do the work) and you have a less expensive source for the exact same work, that might be an easier sell for the NIH, but I am not sure how each IC handles changing subawardees (both those who bring special expertise contributing to the actual science and those who are simply providing a third-party service). Your grant administrator at your institution can probably provide good insight on the likelihood of your being able to make the change you want; if your grants folks think you should be able to do so, then the next conversation is with the PO or GMS, depending on the reason for the change.
  
  Reply
  - RMKV said
    
    July 28, 2018 @ 9:41 pm · Editgreat.. thanks a ton!
harrindy said

July 29, 2018 @ 3:04 pm · EditDoes the starting date on my application matter? NIH website indicates that for Cycle I if council meeting is in August, the earliest starting time is Sep; if in October, it is Dec.

In my recent R03 submission, I had the starting date to be Sep, but apparently, it should be Dec since the council meeting time is 10/2018. Will this mistake (“earlier” starting time) affect the possibility of funding?

My impact score is 27, I have received an automatic request for JIT, the current status of my application is “council review completed.”

Thank you.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 29, 2018 @ 3:14 pm · EditWhat you put as start date is irrelevant to both when the application is funded and whether it is funded. The start date is not an expiration date (so you can be funded anytime after it), so you don’t need to worry. If you haven’t been in touch with your PO, you can ask whether you should resubmit in November (and if so, any suggestions for strategy).
  
  Reply
  - harrindy said
    
    July 29, 2018 @ 9:11 pm · EditThank you. This is already a resubmission, improved from 47 to 27. I am not sure whether I can still resubmit it. I have emailed PO. The response was that my score could have been in a fundable range in FY18, but because mine is in FY19, everything has to wait for the Congress approves the budget for FY19. It seems the approval is going take a while, like till November, is it? Does “council review completed” mean any bad news?
  - writedit said
    
    July 29, 2018 @ 11:30 pm · EditAha. Well, your PO’s comment is excellent news, as FY19 should be as good or better than FY18 in terms of paylines. The NIH appropriation is in good shape, but the rest of the appropriations bill in which it resides is more contentious, but it looks as though Congress wants to get these passed before the midterm elections, which would be great news for all NIH applicants. Just remember that even when the President signs an appropriation bill, the money takes up to 2 months to filter down from HHS to the NIH ICs (not at all like direct deposit). Don’t worry about “Council review completed” – every application spends a lot of time in this status before (if selected for funding) being processed for an award (at which point the status changes to Pending and so on). Now, again, it sounds like your PO is positive, but you could certainly submit this project as a new A0 application if needed (but hopefully not).
  - harrindy said
    
    July 30, 2018 @ 11:06 am · EditDear Writedit, thanks a lot for this information. I will be patiently waiting for the approval of FY19’s budget. In the meantime, I will contact my PO about whether it is needed to submit it as a new A0. Thanks for suggesting this excellent strategy.
Rob said

July 30, 2018 @ 11:40 am · EditHello Writedit, I have an application in NHLBI, and I was curious why three council dates has been listed for Cycle III, while there is only one for each of Cycles I & II. For the case of 2018, the dates are:

August 28 (grant review only)
September 5 (Wednesday)
October 30 (Tuesday)

Are the applications for Cycle III shared between the last two dates?
Thanks,

Reply
- Rob said
  
  July 30, 2018 @ 11:42 am · EditSorry, I meant Cycle I. Cycles II and III each have one council date.
  
  Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 30, 2018 @ 3:33 pm · EditLooking at the 2017 meeting minutes, the August date will likely include a smaller than usual set of applications for consideration in FY18 (Sept 1 start date) or FY19, while Oct 30 will be the main review date for Cycle I (Dec 1 start) applications. The Sept 5 meeting is with their Board of External Experts and will focus on updates and future initiatives. However, knowing the date on which your application will be sent to Council won’t necessarily affect when you’ll learn about funding likelihood, since that depends on the status of the federal budget and whether NHLBI has received its appropriation.
  
  Reply
  - SaG said
    
    July 31, 2018 @ 8:20 am · EditSome ICs use the August review date (usually electronic) to approve grants that can be considered for funding with the previous fiscal year’s money (2018). By the time of Sept. Council it is too late and they have to wait for a 2019 appropriation.
donttakenoforananswer said

July 31, 2018 @ 10:36 am · EditI have an R21 to NIA that was scored at the 6th percentile last October, approved by Council in January, and for which all JIT information was provided in February. I was assured by my PO in May that I did not need to plan on a resubmission, but the grant has been stuck at ‘Pending’ since that time. Emails to the GMS go unanswered. Any suggestions or advice?

Reply
AP said

August 1, 2018 @ 6:01 pm · EditI have an R01 application in NHLBI that was scored above the payline. But the PO thinks that it is an area that needs further research and that he will put my application in his “watch” list in case any funding is available towards the end of the fiscal year. Is this a good sign? Should I prepare for resubmission? Or follow up with the PO sometime this month? Thank you so much for maintaining this website.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  August 1, 2018 @ 11:28 pm · EditYou would be submitting in either October or November, depending on if your current R01 is an A0 or A1 application, and your PO will know the outcome by mid September, which should give you time to prepare a submission for either date (though perhaps tight for October). If you need to submit a new A0 application in October, you might want to start drafting it, recognizing that you might not need to submit. If you are looking at an A1 for November, then you can probably wait to hear from the PO, and if you need to resubmit, ask for advice on resubmission strategy to emphasize this priority area of research.
  
  Reply
PO question said

August 2, 2018 @ 5:34 am · EditHow are POs assigned? I have an R01 application that was recently reviewed. I’d been in contact with the PO on my K01 while preparing the R01 application (the R01 is an extension/expansion of the K01) and had assumed he would be the PO on the R01, given the similarities in the projects and science. No PO is listed for this application in my Commons account, but I e-mailed the SRO after review and was told who my PO is – not the PO on my K01. Reviewing this PO’s interests and portfolio (in NIH Reporter) indicates she has a very different background and portfolio than my R01 application (e.g., she is linked with projects that include animal models and molecular genetics, whereas my project is MRI with young, high-risk children). I spoke with the PO by phone and she had some general guidance for preparing the resubmission, but her suggestions were most helpful in terms of general grantswriting, rather than the science behind the project. Is it possible to request a different PO for the resubmission? If so, who would I contact and how would I go about that? Thanks again for this incredible resource.

Reply
ESI R01 Recipient said

August 15, 2018 @ 11:31 am · EditI was recently awarded an R01 – yay! great news! It is an MPI award that is also ESI/NI. We used a modular budget, and we had a 12% administrative cut as per NIAMS website. Is it possible to negotiate this budget cut with NIH (post NoA)? I was told by my PO that this was the across the board administrative cut. I was wondering if you have any knowledge or experience with this. Is it futile? I appreciate your help! Thanks for keeping this blog up!

Reply
- SaG said
  
  August 15, 2018 @ 2:09 pm · EditMy understanding is that the success rate for getting an across the board budget cut reversed is less than the success rate of getting an R01.
  
  Reply
- writedit said
  
  August 15, 2018 @ 10:52 pm · EditSaG is probably correct on the odds, but if you do want to ask your PO (especially since you’re both ESI), you would want to have specific requests and rationale for restoring the funds – not just a generic request to have the cut funds restored. If you can articulate what can’t be done as a result, you might have a case – but still a long-shot.
  
  Reply
Mary Montoye said

August 17, 2018 @ 10:23 am · EditWhat does a status of “Council Review Completed” mean?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  August 18, 2018 @ 1:33 pm · EditIt just means that your IC’s Advisory Council has met. If your status changes to this in advance of the scheduled Council meeting, it means your application was on the list sent to Council members to review and approve electronically in advance of the meeting. Council approval does not mean funding – it just means the IC Director can consider an application for funding.
  
  Reply
edta said

August 21, 2018 @ 5:27 pm · EditHi writedit, I have been getting very mixed comments from PO(s) and wondering what’s happening.

It was NCCIH R01 RFA. Received not spectacular impact score so contacted PO for the re-submission plan (including how to reroute this, since the original was RFA). Reply was, ‘it’s too early but we could possibly be moved forward for further 2018/2019 funding consideration’-and was told my proposal was forwarded to another PO as the portfolio redistribution.

Then second PO contacted me saying ‘it is out of payline and unlikely to be paid’ but ‘still considering for the further opportunity’. Agh. OK.

Then received rather urgent request for JIT, mentioning ‘we are considering this proposal for funding (without the commitment, of course)’.
Does it mean that they are really considering mine for funding, or just sent a carbon-copied header?

Now council review is done and AC is mid Oct. Earliest start date is Dec. Should I consider Oct-Nov deadlines for resubmission through some other FOAs?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  August 22, 2018 @ 9:19 am · EditFirst, I hope you submitted your JIT. I assume they are actually considering it for FY18, if the JIT request was urgent. If your status changes to Pending, then they are definitely looking at this for FY18, and you would know the outcome by September. Your next submission would be a new (A0) submission, so you would be looking at the October 5 deadline. If you need to do a lot of work on the proposal, you might start revising – but I doubt in this case that they are asking for JIT if they aren’t reasonably sure about an award (since it is so late in the FY).
  
  With RFAs, the score is only one part of the decision, which is based more on programmatic interests and priorities (via internal discussion). RFA initiatives can be pretty fluid, so POs often don’t know how funding decisions will be handled (and whether any awards will be made) until the very end, so your second PO’s comments are not unexpected.
  
  Now, if you do submit a new application, I would suggest you talk with one or both POs about how you might strengthen the application both in consideration of reviewer comments (ie, which of their comments, based on the discussion, were of most concern to the panel – first PO probably attended study section) and to address IC priorities and interests.
  
  Reply
  - edta said
    
    August 22, 2018 @ 9:39 am · EditYes I did submit my JIT as well as my response to the reviewer’s comments, which was requested by PO personally about two weeks ago. I also thought they might consider end-of-year funding opportunity, but was perplexed since I thought this RFA is for FY19 (earliest start date Dec 2019). Is it even possible that an RFA proposal submitted for FY19 can be funded during FY18, if they have money to be spend in FY18?
  - writedit said
    
    August 22, 2018 @ 9:51 am · EditThey can fund in FY18 if they have the money available now, which they might due to the late federal budget and higher (than anticipated) appropriations.
  - edta said
    
    August 22, 2018 @ 12:09 pm · EditI see. Then big fingers crossed! Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts.
  - SaG said
    
    August 29, 2018 @ 8:27 am · EditAre you an ESI? They could be trying to fund it to help make their ESI “quota” for 2018. I hear some ICs are not doing so well. YOu can guess who they are..
  - edta said
    
    August 29, 2018 @ 9:25 am · EditYes I am. I talked with the PO again-he liked the impact of the science, and told me that my proposal is in their ‘waitlist’, without clear forecast. So I will go ahead and resubmit-if anything positive happens, I can just withdraw.
  - SaG said
    
    August 29, 2018 @ 11:23 am · EditGood plan. Though a decision should be made before the next R01 deadlines.
  - edta said
    
    September 6, 2018 @ 1:25 am · EditUpdate: With no further notice from the PO, now the status has been changed to ‘pending’. Does it mean anything?
  - writedit said
    
    September 7, 2018 @ 4:17 am · EditIt means they are processing your application for an award (i.e., reviewing your JIT). Not a guarantee, but you probably won’t need to submit another application.
Rob said

August 22, 2018 @ 1:54 pm · EditHello All, I learned a lot from this forum. I wanted to share the timeline for my K99 application to NHLBI here

A1 Submission:

08/22/2018 Application awarded.
08/20/2018 Award prepared.
08/01/2018 JIT requested.
06/20/2018 Pending administrative review.
06/14/2018 Council review completed.
03/09/2018 SRG review completed: Council review pending.
11/13/2017 Application entered into system

A0 Submission:

03/03/2017 SRG review completed: Application was Not Discussed.
10/12/2016 Application entered into system

Also, as a side note, you have the chance to revise your budget at the time of JIT request. In my case, they accepted the revised budget which was asking for a little more.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  August 22, 2018 @ 4:48 pm · EditWoohoo! Thanks so much for sharing your timeline and tip – congratulations and best wishes for success with your project and in your career in biomedical research.
  
  Reply
bgrantsdaya said

August 27, 2018 @ 5:15 pm · EditDear Writedit,

I have submitted an Administrative Supplement for RO1 which was due on Aug 6 to NCI. In the FOA it was written that earliest start date will be Sep 1. Does that mean the selected supplements may have already been notified by Program Officers? From your experience is it possible to have decision from PO and division so fast in 3 weeks?

Thank you so much in advance

Reply
- Bioinorganic Chemist said
  
  August 27, 2018 @ 5:46 pm · Editsimilar situation here- but submitted an administrative supplement for Alzheimer’s research in June and have not heard back. Do they inform you if you don’t get it? Can they inform you after Sept 1? Just holding out for some good news!
  
  Reply
  - writedit said
    
    August 27, 2018 @ 9:10 pm · EditAs I just told bgrantsdaya, administrative supplements can be paid any time up to Sept 30th (and often they are the last to be paid since ICs use these to use up leftover pockets of money throughout their appropriation and therefore wait until full grant awards are settled). But again, if you worked with your PO in advance of submitting the supplement and received encouragement to submit, you should be in good shape. If you didn’t talk with your PO in advance, you won’t know until September 30th (though you could ask in mid September, since the remaining budget situation should be pretty clear by then).
- writedit said
  
  August 27, 2018 @ 9:06 pm · EditAdministrative supplements do not undergo peer review but are discussed internally and can be paid up through the end of the FY, so probably POs won’t know anything definite until the supplement money runs out. However, if you had worked with your PO in advance of submitting the supplement, which you should always do, you would have a better idea of how you would fare – especially since your PO would advise you not to submit something that he/she knew wouldn’t be funded and would give suggestions for what could be funded.
  
  Reply
PJ said

September 6, 2018 @ 9:28 am · EditThank you Writedit and everyone here for the helpful comments. This site has been tremendous help to me! I have just received NOA for my R01 funded by the NIA. Here is my timeline:
09/05/2015 NOA received
08/30/2018 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
07/09/2018 JIT materials requested and submitted
06/27/2018 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
05/23/2018 Council review completed.
03/01/2018 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
10/25/2017 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
10/05/2017 Application entered into system

Reply
Ken said

September 20, 2018 @ 10:18 am · EditDear Writedit,
My PO said there’s a potential that my R01 (gray zone) could be funded by the end of this fiscal year, but everything is still uncertain. He asked for the response to reviewers comments (in case of any discussion at funding meeting) but did not asked for the JIT. After the funding meeting which was done last Thursday or Friday, I haven’t heard any new from him. I am wondering is there still any possibility that I will get funded. Sept. 30 is approaching and without further request of JIT, what could be the chance for my R01?

Thanks!

Ken

Reply
- writedit said
  
  September 20, 2018 @ 10:55 am · EditNot impossible, but it’s worth asking your PO or GMS (if assigned) if you should submit your JIT material. I would have expected the request sooner, though, with the acknowledgment that it might not lead to an award (done in advance so an award could be quickly processed as appropriate).
  
  Reply
  - Ken said
    
    September 20, 2018 @ 2:56 pm · EditThanks for your quick reply. I have contacted the PO asking after the council meeting but haven’t heard from him ever since. I am planning to submit the JIT anyway just in case that will be requested in the coming days. I could always update the JIT as many times and needed, right? Thanks!
  - Ken said
    
    September 20, 2018 @ 3:12 pm · EditAs for the GMS and PO, I can see the contact info via eRA Commons. Is this the one I should contact? Thanks!
  - writedit said
    
    September 20, 2018 @ 3:48 pm · EditYes – and you can either just submit your JIT via the automatic link or wait to hear back from them. An NIDDK R01 timeline just posted at NIH Paylines & Resources lists Council review completed on Sept 10, Pending administrative review on Sept 14, Award prepared on Sept 14 (!), and Notice of Award on Sept 20 … so an award can happen that quickly.
  - Ken said
    
    September 20, 2018 @ 3:52 pm · EditThanks, I will keep my fingers crossed!
- George said
  
  September 22, 2018 @ 3:48 pm · EditWhich institute is your R01? and percentile sharing. I have a similar situation in NCI with 11th percentile R01 application. The council occurred in this August but no any news yet.
  
  Reply
KLP said

September 24, 2018 @ 12:35 pm · EditDear Write edit,
My A1 application in the month of June (R01) received 13 % and the IC is NCI, I discussed with the PO few weeks back and sent a rebuttal letter for the summary statement, as all 3 reviewers agreed that addressed all the queries and there were no major concerns. The PO said the application is within their programmatic priority, but I have not heard from the PO yet. In commons account it shows Council Review Completed, but I do not see assignment of GMS. Do you think I should still hope for the funding or I should submit as a new application. Another question is, will this be still considered during 2019 funding year, as the budget may increase for NCI. this is stressful time for me because my tenure will be in question and the position.
Thanks and appreciate your great work and service

Reply
- writedit said
  
  September 24, 2018 @ 12:56 pm · EditIf you submitted in March and were reviewed in June, your application will be funded in FY19 (December), unless NCI has the funds and programmatic urgency to make an award in FY18. Even if you requested a Sept 1 start date, the Feb/March submission is typically used for the first cycle of awards made in the following FY (FY19 in this case), so you should be fine (and your PO may be waiting to answer until after the scramble of final FY18 awards, since your application is not urgent whereas many others require the PO’s immediate attention).
  
  Reply
KLP said

September 24, 2018 @ 2:19 pm · EditThank you write edit for your quick response. I understand that if the NCI budget passes through, there may be a good chance right ? It may not be a right question, in general would you suggest to wait until February 2019 cycle to submit an A0 application ?
Thanks a lot

Reply
- writedit said
  
  September 24, 2018 @ 3:31 pm · EditI would urge you to ask your PO if you should submit again at all. Best case scenario is that the PO says to sit tight. If your PO says to submit again and you can do so by October, you would be part of the last round of FY19 funding (where we know the FY19 budget will have an increase for the NIH); if you wait until February, you would be waiting for what could be a contentious FY20 budget, in which case there would probably be no rush to submit by February, due to the likely delay in the FY20 budget, if waiting until June would allow you to publish or obtain more preliminary data.
  
  Reply
Nole blood said

September 25, 2018 @ 9:48 am · EditI have been awarded a bridge R56 for a year for my R01. How likely is my next round of R01 will be scored and funded.. just curious…

Reply
- writedit said
  
  September 25, 2018 @ 11:09 am · EditHaving the R56 does not increase your chances of funding per se, but the year of funding and time to collect more data and publish should allow you to improve the application, which in turn should increase its likelihood of being scored well and thus being considered for funding. It’s on you to do well with the year of funding, though – you don’t get a review or payline break just because you received the R56.
  
  Reply
Christina Perry said

September 25, 2018 @ 12:54 pm · EditMy proposal was reviewed in study section this summer and received a score above the institute payline, but close to it. It was recently taken to Council. In era commons the status is “council review completed.” Does this mean the proposal was not recommended for funding, because the application didn’t move into a “pending…” status?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  September 25, 2018 @ 1:37 pm · EditNo, every application first changes to “Council review completed”. Because your application won’t be considered for funding until FY19, it will stay that way for quite a while (so don’t worry about the status not changing again). I would suggest you ask your PO if you should resubmit in November (or submit a new application in October or February) … the PO will likely recommend that you do this for insurance, since FY19 paylines won’t be known for some time, and you don’t want to lose time waiting for a decision that may be months away.
  
  Reply
  - Rainbow Connection said
    
    September 27, 2018 @ 7:30 pm · EditMy current situation is similar to Christina, my proposal received a very borderline impact score and was discussed at the Sept 2018 Council, but my status is still on “council review completed”.
    
    The NIH spending bill was approved by Congress today and sent to the President, who confirmed yesterday he would sign the bill. How much time should I allow for NIH / my PO to figure out who gets funded?
    
    My current plan was to email my PO one week after the bill becomes enacted (around Oct 8th), which would still give me breathing space to resubmit by my mid-November deadline (my revisions are fairly easy). Is this a bad idea? Should I contact my PO now instead?
  - writedit said
    
    September 28, 2018 @ 11:04 am · EditYou should ask your PO now if you should plan to resubmit in November (but do not ask about funding chances). Your IC won’t know their final appropriation for 4-6 weeks after the bill is signed into law: the funds go first to HHS, then to NIH, then to individual ICs – with $ skimmed off at each step, and then each IC needs to first take out prior-year commitments before knowing how much is left for new awards. In other words, your PO won’t have any new information about funding likelihood until after it is too late for you to submit your A1, whereas he/she should know now whether you would want to resubmit for insurance. My guess is that the answer will be yes, to resubmit – but you can see what the PO says (if you are told not to resubmit, then you can be pretty confident about an award later in the year).
DPnew said

October 3, 2018 @ 1:22 am · EditDear Writedit, we received an impact score 28 on our R15 proposal. The panel summary seems very positive though some of the reviewer’s scores donot exactly correlate. We have emailed the PO about her advice but received no reply. Is there any person other than the PO who can be contacted? What is the possibility of receiving an R15 award with this score given the cutoff is 25? Thank you.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  October 3, 2018 @ 5:49 pm · EditFirst, please ignore the criterion scores. They are not used to calculate your impact score and often do not reflect the final score because reviewers do not go back and adjust these after the discussion of your application (during which the reviewer may have been convinced to go up or down in score). Your PO will have nothing to say about the individual criterion scores (since they have no bearing), though he/she can comment on how the discussion went, if you want advice on resubmission strategies. You absolutely do not want to think about an appeal or any other argument about the criterion scores or even reviewer comments with which you disagree. Because FY18 just ended and everyone at the NIH is wrapping up that fiscal year while preparing for FY19, and a question such as yours isn’t urgent (in the greater scheme of NIH things, that is), there could be some delay in a reply as your PO triages priorities over the next week or so. There isn’t anyone else to contact, so you should sit tight and wait for the FY storm to pass. Also, your PO will have no idea about paylines or funding likelihood for another 4-6 weeks at least (that is how long it takes the appropriation to trickle down from HHS to NIH to your IC to each program area). What you can do in the meantime is send the PO a brief, single, focused query about whether you should resubmit (on Oct 25 if you can be ready by then or Feb 25 for FY20). Your PO can readily give advice on whether to resubmit; my guess is that the suggestion would be to go ahead and do so for insurance.
  
  Reply
  - DPnew said
    
    October 5, 2018 @ 8:40 am · EditDear Writedit, thank you very much.
R15 In Holding Pattern said

October 3, 2018 @ 6:03 pm · EditI’ll leave a comment based on past and current experience. Whether your R15 will receive end of year funding when you are outside of the payline is impossible to guess and the POs will usually not comment since its a guess for them as well. I can tell you that I have had a 25 and 29 at NIAID and neither was funded. Very frustrating because the 25 just missed. Bottom line, if my R15 scores any where above the payline (last years payline if the new one isn’t posted), I resubmit without hesitation. That’s the best advice I can give based on 15+ years of R15 submission and review experience.

Reply
- DPnew said
  
  October 5, 2018 @ 8:44 am · EditThank you very much. It would be very hard to accept if a proposal is denied even after receiving a score of 25.
  
  Reply
- writedit said
  
  October 5, 2018 @ 5:44 pm · EditThanks so much for chiming in with your experience!
  
  Reply
namaska97@gmail.com said

October 16, 2018 @ 11:01 am · EditDear Writedit, I applied for K08 (A0, NCI) this June and my impact score came back as 29. I wonder if this is fundable score. I would appreciate any advice or suggestion. Thanks.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  October 16, 2018 @ 11:25 am · EditWe’ll see if anyone chimes in with recent first-hand experience with K08 scores at NCI, but you should certainly ask your PO if you should resubmit in November. Unless he/she is confident based on the current application score range, the PO will probably say yes (resubmit) since NCI won’t know about their final appropriation for another few weeks, which wouldn’t be enough time for you to resubmit, so your PO will want to be sure you have an application under review for insurance.
  
  I’ll add that an FY18 NCI K08 applicant reported receiving a score of 30 on their first submission and 15 on resubmission, which was funded.
  
  Reply
moxit0314 said

October 25, 2018 @ 12:18 pm · EditGot my NCI Omnibus R03 impact score today. It is a resubmission and the impact score I got is 40 (from an impact score of 41 for initial submission). Any thought on how NCI funds those applications outside the 25 impact score payline reported

Reply
- writedit said
  
  October 25, 2018 @ 1:58 pm · EditFor special announcements, NCI might reach above the payline, but not for the omnibus PAs (except in exceptional cases). Because your score stayed essentially the same, program is not likely to consider payment (and your PO is not likely to advocate). If your score had dropped from 40 to 26, maybe, but essentially, the reviewers are saying this is a good but not exceptional proposal (and two different groups agree that the work is not sufficiently exciting to deserve a better score). If the problem is that they do not find the science or impact to be significant, you probably want to substantially overhaul the work proposed or focus on a different area of your science altogether. If they have a continuing concern about the approach (but not the significance), especially the scope of work (ie, overly ambitious for an R03), then you can consider specific (but still substantial) changes to increase your likelihood of a competitive score.
  
  Reply
  - moxit0314 said
    
    October 25, 2018 @ 2:06 pm · EditThanks for your quick response, I’ll wait for the summary statement. The first submission was deemed to be important in terms of significance.
NINDS_Career? said

October 29, 2018 @ 6:29 pm · EditMy K99 application to NINDS was just reviewed and my Impact score was 24. This seems like a good score, but since they do not give percentiles with K99s, it is hard to know what is fundable or not. Does anyone here have any clues about what has been funded in the past?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  October 31, 2018 @ 11:13 am · EditThis will be a question for your PO once you have your summary statement (also ask, if you are eligible to apply again, if you should prepare another application). Your score seems like it should be in the range considered, but it will depend on the distribution of funds and scores.
  
  Reply
TN said

November 3, 2018 @ 2:34 pm · EditDear writedit, thank you for the blog and it greatly helps me as a new faculty. Last week, I received the summary statement of my first-ever R15 submitted to NIH/NCI and the comments are generally positive. However, the impact score is 28 which is higher than 2018 payline (25). I would like to ask that how likely NCI funds proposals outside the fundable range? Also, as you suggested above, I will contact the PO to ask for their advice on resubmission and addressing concerns. I wonder if I should bring up my ESI status and that my state (Nevada) receives the least NIH funding nationwide. Many thanks!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  November 5, 2018 @ 4:49 pm · EditYour ESI status does not officially “count” in the R15 category (and given the activity code, probably most applicants are new if not ESI), but you can reinforce this with the PO – that you are launching your research career, and funding is so critical at this stage … especially in the state with the least NIH funding (Nevada? Really? wow – wouldn’t have guessed that). You’ll need to bolster your scientific argument, too, to justify the PO’s advocating for your proposal, and he/she will need more than your applicant status and state funding status. When you communicate with your PO, be sure to get advice for a resubmission (which I suspect the PO will recommend preparing) based on the panel discussion (PO was likely there) and NCI priorities.
  
  Reply
  - TN said
    
    November 6, 2018 @ 1:16 am · EditNevada might not be the absolutely least funded but it is consistently in bottom 5 with only $31M in 2016. Many thanks for the suggestion. I will contact the PO for suggestions, especially based on panel discussion and NCI priorities. I will let you know how it goes. Best
  - Dip Blue said
    
    November 12, 2018 @ 8:12 pm · EditWow, I am also NIH/NCI R15 with impact score 28. Not lucky as far as I can tell.
  - TN said
    
    November 14, 2018 @ 5:09 pm · EditAccording to the PO, it is likely that I need to resubmit since recent paylines for R15 at NCI is 25
drwasy said

November 8, 2018 @ 6:10 pm · EditThanks for this site–it is terrific! I just spent over an hour reading through and will recommend to my colleagues.

My R01 was submitted 1/31/2018 to a PA and assigned to NIA. It does have an Alzheimer’s focus. It was reviewed by HSOD in June and received an Impact score=23 and percentile=6.0. I was very happy with these scores, and the summary statement was complementary with nothing that could not be easily addressed. I submitted information for JIT request when requested by my grants office.

Council review on 9/13/2018, and emails to PO went unreplied. Then I received a request for a 1 page rebuttal letter to the summary statement, which I emailed as requested on 10/26. My status on era remains “Council review completed’. My PO remains unresponsive. I remain perplexed, worried, and wondering if I should reach out to someone else at NIA? If I need to resubmit, I will, but sure would like some guidance on how to proceed. Thanks so much!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  November 9, 2018 @ 10:51 am · EditCongratulations on the outstanding score! Given that you are within the normal payline, and well within the AD-ADRD payline, I suspect your PO is concentrating on PIs who are preparing applications and whose scores are less certain. However, this is absolutely no excuse for not replying at all, which is there job. Since your JIT is in, they will probably begin administrative review later in November, at which point your status will change to Pending administrative review. If there is a GMS assigned in your eRA Commons account, you could contact that individual to be sure nothing else is needed and for an update on the timing of your review, especially if you are interested in engaging in any pre-award spending.
  
  Reply
  - drwasy said
    
    November 14, 2018 @ 4:51 pm · EditThanks–a great suggestion to contact the GMS. I always feel like I am ‘nagging’ the good folks at NIH. Pre-award spending would be useful, as we have a big data use request to submit.
  - drwasy said
    
    November 20, 2018 @ 9:56 am · EditWell, I contacted the GMS, who responded promptly that I should contact the PO, who was copied on the response. Still nothing from the PO. I guess she’s having a tough few months. Not having any information is not only annoying, but stressful, as graduate student and staff support are on the line…
  - writedit said
    
    November 20, 2018 @ 9:49 pm · EditHmm. You could reply to this effect (that support is critical for student, especially, and staff) – hopefully the GMS will be in touch directly with the PO, too. If you don’t hear anything by early December, you could try to call the PO and, failing any response again, get in touch with the branch or division chief just to say you need some guidance on pre-award spending (not complain about PO).
MD_PhD_Student said

November 12, 2018 @ 10:23 am · EditThank you for providing an open forum for this topic! I learned so much reading through the comments. I’m a 1st yr MD/PhD and submit an F30 to NIA in August. I just received an impact score of 20 (no percentile or summary statement yet). Can I glean anything from that score with respect to my chances of receiving funds? I saw your post about paylines and I think NIA has hovered around impact of 25-28 for fellowships in recent years. I’ve contacted my PO about this and a logistical question; it seems like my proposal was assigned to NIA, NIAMS, and NIBIB. I understand my institution assignment request is only “considered” but I was a little confused about why ERA listed multiple.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  November 15, 2018 @ 11:02 pm · EditCongratulations on the outstanding score. You should be okay with a 20, but when you receive your summary statement, you can check with your PO. The CSR (not ERA) referral officers contact POs at potentially relevant ICs to ask if they might be interested in your application as secondary ICs (in case the primary IC, NIA, declines to fund it). It is not common for ICs to fund applications for which they were not the primary IC, but it does happen (even if you had not requested them as secondary).
  
  Reply
  - MD_PhD_Student said
    
    April 13, 2019 @ 2:37 pm · EditHi Writedit
    
    Thank you for maintaining this blog! I was awarded my F30 with NIA and wanted to paste my timeline below for others to reference. My requested start date was 4/1/19, which was approved. I submit on 8/8/18.
    
    03/29/2019 NOA received
    03/26/2019 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
    02/25/2019 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
    11/08/2018 Scientific Review Group review completed. Refer any questions to Program Official.
    08/16/2018 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
    08/08/2018 Application entered into system
    
    Also: I never received JIT request.
  - writedit said
    
    April 14, 2019 @ 9:30 am · EditThanks so much for sharing your timeline and good luck with your career in biomedical research! The research through which you receive training has already passed administrative review (ie, you could not work with animal or human research subjects without passing training required under your advisor’s IACUC or IRB protocol) and a grad student is unlikely to have overlapping research funding, which is generally the focus of the JIT review.
PhD In-Training said

December 2, 2018 @ 8:46 pm · EditHi All, I would really appreciate some advice!

I am a PhD student and I am fortunate to have received a training grant (T32) this month. This week, my GMS sent a JIT request for my fellowship grant (F31) that moved to “pending admin review”, which I assume means there is a high chance it will be funded.

I am in a dilemma since both grants have unique benefits, but I also think the F31 is better long-term since I am listed as PI. Since both the T32 and F31 are 2-year grants until May 2020, I would ideally like to use T32 funds for Year 1 (now-Aug 2019), and then transition into my F31 for Year 2 (Sept 2019-May 2020) since I cannot be funded by both concurrently.

Some questions I am wondering:
1) Does my plan sound feasible? In particular, I was told I could push my F31 start date later as long as it is still in the 2019 fiscal year, which is why I am thinking Sept 2019 as my ideal start date.

2) If my plan is feasible, I am not sure how I should handle my JIT request my GMS sent me. Specifically, I am wondering if it is safe to report my T32 award (even though I haven’t received any funds yet) and when/who I should negotiate my F31 start date so that I can benefit from both grants.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  December 3, 2018 @ 9:39 am · EditYou should discuss the plan moving forward with your mentor/advisor and the T32 director. If your F31 will cover more than a year, which it should, then that is the award to go with for as many years as you have funding (I assume you asked for more than 1 year of support in the budget). I expect the T32 Director would rather that you use F31 funding than a T32 slot as well (your slot would be available for another student). If you need more years of support beyond the F31 duration, then the T32 could pick you up later in your training as needed, assuming you have not exceeded the 5-year limit on NRSA funding for predoctoral training (sounds like you have not had any prior T or F funding). However, if it is too late for the T32 to support a different student, they might want you to keep their funding for a year and then initiate the F31. Again, this is a discussion you need to have with the training grant director and your advisor.
  
  Reply
- 450 said
  
  December 17, 2018 @ 4:56 pm · Edit2) By the rule, now you should report your T32 in JIT (other support) as an ‘active support’. Assuming your F31 will be approved for 2 years(24 months), if your T32 director/admin agrees, you could ask your PO to start your F31 at end of 1st year of T32 (probably before the end of FY19), so that you can maximize your support period. T and F combined support is max 3 years, so also keep that in your mind.
  
  Reply
  - writedit said
    
    December 17, 2018 @ 5:40 pm · EditNRSA predoctoral support can add up to 5 years on T32+F31 activity codes (6 y for MD/PhD on T32+F30 … postdoc is limited to 3 y combined T32+F32). I was assuming from the original wording that the T32 appointment hadn’t started (just approval for slot), in which case the T32 Director might like to use that slot for someone else (if there are eligible students – not always an easy task). However, if T32 support already started, then the F31 activation could be delayed until September 2019 (or before, depending on start date of T32 slot). If the T32 slot started or will start after September 2018, the T32 director would need to obtain IC approval for an appointment of less than one year (such approval should be straightforward to allow activation of F31 in FY19, though).
  - 450 said
    
    December 17, 2018 @ 6:00 pm · EditOh, mea culpa-thought F32+T32.
  - PhD In-Training said
    
    December 18, 2018 @ 12:48 am · EditThank you @writedit and @450 for the advice!
    
    To clarify my situation, I was indeed only awarded a T32 “slot” and I have not received any funds yet, which I expect will begin in Jan 2019. As @450 suggested, I am planning to report my T32 as other support for my F31 JIT.
    
    I really think both grants are beneficial, so I received approval from my T32 Director to use T32 funds until Aug 2019, then activate the F31 funds Sept 2019 until I graduate in May 2020. I think the F31 may cover me for more months, but I am itching to start a post-doc to finally be done with my PhD training!
    
    I emailed my GMS multiple times to see if I can push the F31 start date from what I suspect will be Jan 2019, to Sept 2019 instead. I hope the NIH will be flexible!
Deliang Guo said

December 6, 2018 @ 11:20 pm · EditIn my remarks on Tuesday at the joint meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board (NCAB) and Board of Scientific Advisors (BSA), I described our plans for the fiscal year 2019 budget. I would like to share this information with you all as well.

As you know, NCI has benefited from strong bipartisan Congressional support, with five years of increases to our annual base appropriations, as well as additional funding over the past three years for the Cancer Moonshot℠.

These investments have yielded impressive dividends in terms of scientific and public health advances. As the Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer reported in May 2018, we are seeing continued declines in incidence and prevalence for many cancer types, including some of the very worst. 2018 was a watershed year for cancer immunotherapy, with multiple key advances that have the potential to fundamentally change patient outcomes in a number of diseases. In addition, there have been several recent successful clinical trials in chronic lymphocytic leukemia, lung, breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers, and others.

These and many other advances in recent years are powerful evidence of the tangible gains that are possible with sustained support for cancer research. I believe that these advances along with the focus on cancer research provided by the Cancer Moonshot and other factors have fueled a dramatic increase in grant applications—up nearly 50% over just five years—reflecting great enthusiasm and innovative spirit across the cancer research community. We must not squander this energy, but instead foster it and keep the vibrant research field moving forward, including continuing to attract the brightest minds and support them as they establish their careers.

In FY 2018, we were successful in maintaining forward momentum in cancer research by: providing the largest increase to research project grant (RPG) funding since FY 2003; exceeding our goal of funding 25% more Early-Stage Investigators (ESIs) than the previous year; increasing the total number of RPG awards compared with FY 2017, while sustaining the trend of increasing award sizes.

In light of the successes and achievements of recent years, I believe that adherence to certain principles will be essential to our continued momentum. I and the other NCI leaders believe we must:

Preserve the RPG pool. Specifically, support a greater number of new R01s than we funded in FY 2018.
Stay true to the vision of the Cancer Moonshot. Support the initiatives crafted in response to the Blue Ribbon Panel with the full allocation provided by Congress.
Continue to prioritize early-stage investigators, to ensure a robust cancer research workforce pipeline.
Congress’s strong support for NCI has continued into FY 2019, with a base appropriation of $5.74 billion (a $79 million increase from FY 2018) and $400 million (a $100 million increase from FY 2018) for the Cancer Moonshot. Also, for the first time in 22 years, the appropriations bill was passed before the start of the new fiscal year, avoiding the prospect of potential shutdowns and providing NCI with our entire appropriation on October 1. The realities of the costs of biomedical research are such, however, that the increase to our base appropriation for the current fiscal year is largely consumed by factors outside of our control. Increased costs include:

Assessments and transfers for NIH and Department-wide requirements to support activities across Institutes, Centers, and Agencies.
Potential Congressionally-mandated pay increases for federal employees.
National Research Service Award (NRSA) and other stipend increases meant to sustain a healthy biomedical research workforce.
Increasing commitments to the continuing grants in the RPG pool.
To live within the budget we received and honor the principles that are key to continued progress, reductions must come from everywhere – intramural and extramural programs; investigator-initiated and RFAs/contracts; scientific and administrative functions. With that in mind, we will:

Make internal budget adjustments across NCI, including all Divisions, Offices and Centers, which will operate at 95% of FY 2018 levels.
Fund non-competing grant continuations at 97% of the committed level, with the exception of Cancer Center Support Grants, Cancer Moonshot grants, and NRSA awards.
Change the funding policy reduction to competing new and renewing grants (Type 1s and Type 2s) by 2% compared to FY 2018, from 17% to 19%
Fund new grants up to and including the 8th percentile.
Maintain the ESI payline at 14% or better.
More information about NCI’s funding strategy can be found at deainfo.nci.nih.gov/grantspolicies/FinalFundLtr.htm.

I believe we have another bright year ahead of us, in which we can continue to make meaningful advances in multiple aspects of cancer research, from basic science to translational and clinical research, and from primary prevention to survivorship and quality of life. While the adjustments to our spending necessitated by budgetary realities pose challenges both internally at NCI and for our colleagues in the extramural community, I am confident that our approach is both responsible and strategic.

Thank you as always for your commitment to cancer research and your many invaluable contributions to NCI’s mission and programs.

Sincerely,

NCI Director

Reply
- George said
  
  December 6, 2018 @ 11:22 pm · Edit2019 NCI payline is 8th percentile.
  
  Reply
  - writedit said
    
    December 7, 2018 @ 12:08 am · EditWow. Down a percentile for new/established R01s, and all other paylines the same as FY18. They clearly like the model of using the SPLs to determine funding distribution for a large percentage of awards.
Hope said

December 7, 2018 @ 1:12 pm · EditDear writedit, could you please explain more on what “the model of using SPLs…” means.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  December 7, 2018 @ 4:03 pm · EditI agree that is it discouraging. The NCI seems to have shifted more of its appropriation from funding applications based solely (mainly) on peer review of scientific merit to more internal evaluation by the Scientific Program Leadership in an effort to ensure topics of special interest to NCI are being addressed (not always achieved using payline thresholds alone). See https://www.cancer.gov/grants-training/apply-grant/peer-review (scroll down to Funding Outcomes and Funding Selections). All ICs set aside a certain proportion of the competing awards budget for discretionary selections (in the past, this was more like 5-10% of competing awards), but with the hard payline so low, I assume a larger proportion of the budget at NCI is being set aside for select pay decisions that involve the SPL.
  
  Reply
  - Hope said
    
    December 7, 2018 @ 5:14 pm · EditThanks
George said

December 7, 2018 @ 3:19 pm · Editit is so discourage that NCI budget keeps increase, while payline for R01 for new/established PIs are keeping drop. Wondering how can persuade PO for supporting applications above 8th percentile.

Reply
Kmentorchange said

January 3, 2019 @ 11:41 pm · EditHi Writedit,

I recently received a NIH K award. However, it turned out that my primary mentor is no longer available to be on my training plan. The institution does provide me with a well-qualified mentor to substitute, but I’m wondering if that is permitted by NIH? Should I ask PO’s permission before making the change within the institution? Is there a formal process to go through for this kind of changes? Thank you!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  January 4, 2019 @ 2:53 pm · EditYou must obtain permission from your PO before changing primary mentor. As long as the new primary mentor conducts research and publishes in the same field as your work, the change should be fine, but you must send your PO the new mentor’s Biosketch and Other Support (and whatever else the PO might need) before finalizing anything (and also explain why the primary mentor in the application can no longer serve in that role). Your original primary mentor was a key component of the peer review process, and the NIH needs to be sure the new mentor has equivalent credentials and availability to advise you.
  
  Reply
K99 Trainee said

January 3, 2019 @ 11:46 pm · EditGood evening Writedit,

I am in my first year of the two-year K99 award. With PO’s permission, I’ve already started looking for faculty positions, which might require early termination of the K phase, depending on the institution’s timeline. Should I keep PO posted through the interview process, or only after a job offer is made?

Appreciate your help!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  January 4, 2019 @ 3:07 pm · EditThe activation of your R00 cannot happen until after an offer is made and accepted, but your PO would appreciate hearing from you when you feel an offer is likely (ie, after very good interview or if second interview or call scheduled) — and the PO needs to know about your transition to an independent position at least 6 months in advance. Also, unlikely, but if you have any concerns about a potential institution being able to support the science described in your R00 component (ie, due to lack of infrastructure, equipment, research subjects, etc.), then you probably want to check with your PO before pursuing the opportunity too rigorously, since the IC may not activate the R00 if the new institution does not seem capable of supporting the work submitted for peer review.
  
  Reply
Shut Down said

January 4, 2019 @ 10:36 am · EditThanks for maintaining this site. It’s really wonderful. Do you have any thoughts about how the government shutdown will affect funding? Will review panels and advisory councils still meet? I have an R44 proposal that received a score of 25 from NIGMS … so we are quite hopeful for funding. The AC is supposed to meet on 1/24 … but are concerned that the shutdown will delay everything.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  January 4, 2019 @ 11:29 am · EditCongrats on the great score. Because DHHS received its appropriation at the start of the fiscal year, the NIH is not affected by the shutdown, so there should be no delays in that regard.
  
  Reply
  - Shut Down said
    
    January 4, 2019 @ 6:11 pm · EditThank you! Your willingness to share your experience and knowledge are quite remarkable. May the wind always be at your back!
- writedit said
  
  January 4, 2019 @ 2:57 pm · EditThankfully, because the DHHS – and hence the NIH – received their appropriation at the start of the fiscal year, they are not affected by the shutdown. You can check in with your PO for an update on funding likelihood and whether he/she needs anything from you, but if the PO indicates you can be cautiously optimistic, then any delays will be related to typical post-award processing bureaucracy.
  
  Reply
DP2 said

January 7, 2019 @ 6:32 am · EditI submitted DP2 and waiting for the next step. When do I know my application will move on to the next step or not? If my application is selected for further review, then will they let me know during January or are there any changes in era commons? Any experienced awardees comments and writedit? Thanks.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  January 8, 2019 @ 11:53 am · EditYour eRA Commons status will not change until after full peer review of all applications is completed, which is when you will you will receive your score (or not). Think of it like peer review for any other application: the status of applications that are triaged (ND) does not change until after the study section meets to discuss those applications that receive a sufficiently competitive preliminary score.
  
  Reply
Vincent said

January 8, 2019 @ 4:14 pm · Editmy Scientific Review Group was changed from ZRG1 MDCN-E (56) to ZRG1 MDCN-A (56). What does this mean?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  January 8, 2019 @ 5:42 pm · EditIt means you were changed from one special emphasis panel to another, probably due to a conflict with one of the reviewers in the first SRG (E). You can look at the membership of both panels when they are eventually posted: https://public.csr.nih.gov/StudySections/SpecialEmphasis
  
  Reply
  - Vincent said
    
    January 9, 2019 @ 10:38 am · EditThank you Writedit for your explanation. But do you know what each letter (A to P) means?
  - writedit said
    
    January 9, 2019 @ 11:20 am · EditThere is no meaning to the letters other than the panel designation (different people on the panels). It’s not like the CSR standing study sections, where the letters are abbreviations of a thematic group with defined areas of interest. There are recurring SEPs, but these are generally tied to a funding mechanism in a specific area or announcement.
Nikhil said

January 15, 2019 @ 6:19 pm · EditMy RO1 proposal was reviewed in October 2018 and received an impact score of 28 and a percentile of 8.0. The NEI advisory council met on 01/11/2019, but I have not heard anything from my PO. I got the JIT email but our research office is advising me to wait for an email from PO. I am an ESI and eagerly waiting for your suggestion.

Reply
- Nikhil said
  
  January 15, 2019 @ 6:21 pm · EditOne more thing, I got the JIT email in November 2018.
  
  Reply
- writedit said
  
  January 17, 2019 @ 11:23 pm · EditIf you haven’t contacted your PO, you can certainly email him/her to see if you should send the JIT material – if a GMS has been assigned to your application, you could contact this individual, too. You can mention that your institution will not act on this until you have a direct request for it. If you need to get IRB and/or IACUC or other regulatory approval, you should start that process before hearing from the PO, since with an 8 percentile ESI application, you should certainly be considered for an award.
  
  Reply
  - Nikhil said
    
    February 1, 2019 @ 2:00 pm · EditThanks for the information
HW said

January 18, 2019 @ 8:19 pm · EditWritedit, thank your so much for your insight and encouragement as I have been pursuing my R15 grant. I finally got NOA this week. Here is my timeline:
Submission 1: ND
Submission 2: 40 impact score
Submission 3: 30 impact score
Submission 4: 19 impact score
01/16/2019 Received NOA
01/10/2019 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
11/16/2018 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
08/15/2018 Council review completed.
05/29/2018 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
03/05/2018 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
02/21/2018 Application entered into system

Reply
- writedit said
  
  January 19, 2019 @ 10:14 pm · EditCongratulations and thank you so much for sharing your story of perseverance! Your timeline is as or more valuable than anything I can tell folks. Best wishes for success with your research!
  
  >
  
  Reply
Allison said

January 26, 2019 @ 10:26 am · EditI wanted to share my timeline since I found this resource to be so incredible! Especially during the times when I would check ERA which updates before emails and notices go out! My K01-A1 was recommended for funding last year but the IC maxed the K budget before funding mine. I was encouraged to submit a new K01-A0 which was scored well but not quite as well as my A1- the study section had just been completely rearranged. During a discussion with my PO in Dec 2018 about my new A0 score I was told my A1 was being recommended at the upcoming council.

01/24/2019 . Award Prepared
12/26/2018 . Official JIT
12/18/2018 Pending administrative review.
05/15/2018 Council review completed.
03/23/2018 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
01/16/2018 Scientific Review Group review pending.
01/08/2018 Application entered into system

1st submission Sept 2017 Impact 37 (A0)
2nd submission Jan 2018 Impact 30 (A1)
3rd submission Sept 2018 Impact 33 (new A0)

Cannot wait to get the official NOA!!!!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  January 29, 2019 @ 10:43 am · EditWoohoo – congratulations and thank you so much for sharing your detailed and informative timeline! I always appreciate hearing from investigators whose POs worked to get an earlier, better-scoring application funded to reassure those whose scores get worse on resubmission. Good on you, for your perseverance – best wishes for success with your project and your career in biomedical research.
  
  Reply
Christina said

January 31, 2019 @ 4:15 pm · EditHello. I just received the summary statements for my career development application, and there were four reviewers. Under what circumstance would four reviewers be assigned instead of three? Thank you.

Reply
- Neuron said
  
  January 31, 2019 @ 4:18 pm · EditIn my situation it was the A1, especially if A0 receives mixed reviews.
  
  Reply
- writedit said
  
  January 31, 2019 @ 6:05 pm · EditOne or more extra reviewers is not necessarily unusual, though it is not typical. It could be that your IC routinely assigns 4 reviewers for K mechanisms … or it could be your mentor team/career development plan and/or research plan required diverse expertise that could not be covered by 3 reviewers … or it could be that an unassigned reviewer decided to review your application (okay as long as not conflicted). Plenty of other more mundane possibilities, too, and as Neuron notes, it could be that the SRO wanted an extra opinion to address conflicting views. You shouldn’t read anything unusual or special into it. If the extra review is an outlier, you can ask your PO how seriously to take it, especially if you need to submit again (you’ll want your PO’s input on all the critiques and the panel discussion).
  
  Reply
edta said

February 2, 2019 @ 11:02 am · EditHi,

I posted a couple of questions about NCCIH RFA and FY18 EOY funding back in Sep. It did not make the opportunity at that time-my proposal went into administrative review but ‘bounced back’-very frustrating. However, it was waitlisted for FY19, went to admin review again in Dec, and I was lucky enough to receive the award just now. Below is the timeline.

01/28/2019 NOA
01/22/2019 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
12/12/2018 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.

09/20/2018 Council review completed.
09/04/2018 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
08/15/2018 Council review completed.
07/16/2018 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
03/22/2018 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
03/19/2018 Application entered into system

Thank you for the helpful comments and the great resource!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  February 3, 2019 @ 6:45 pm · EditCongratulations and thanks for sharing the details of your experience! Although not typical, it is possible for ICs to make awards the following FY, and yours is a great example. Best wishes for success with your research.
  
  Reply
Nervous said

February 7, 2019 @ 2:24 pm · EditHi, how soon after council review does the status change to council review completed please. My R01 was 23% (ESI/NI) but the PO said there might be some interest, but no promises. I emailed my PO last week, but no word yet. Thank you very much for an excellent thread.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  February 8, 2019 @ 9:42 am · EditIn your case, you (and your PO) won’t know right away, and, although hopefully you will hear sooner, a final decision may not come until this summer, when the IC knows how much discretionary funding is left to cover above-payline awards. I assume your PO recommended that you prepare a resubmission (if not for March then for July). If you submit and have the 23rd percentile awarded, the resubmission will just be withdrawn (and your 23rd percentile could still be awarded even if the resubmission scores worse).
  
  Reply
  - Nervous said
    
    February 8, 2019 @ 10:13 am · EditThank you so much for your thoughtful reply. Will certainly post my outcome and timeline whatever happens. This is a wonderful resource.
KSoo said

February 15, 2019 @ 9:40 pm · EditI received an impact score of 30 for NINR K23- does anyone know the likelihood of that being funded?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  February 17, 2019 @ 12:24 am · EditFor most ICs that would be on the bubble, but your PO can give good insight when you get your summary statement. In FY18, NINR received 14 applications and funded 6, which I view as positive for your application.
  
  >
  
  Reply
  - kim said
    
    February 25, 2019 @ 1:09 pm · EditThank you this is helpful. Waiting for the summary statement…..
Jenni said

February 18, 2019 @ 3:02 pm · EditHi I just received an impact score of 42 for a percentile of 30% for an ESI R01 first application submitted to the NIDDK. I was surprised that the percentile ranking was so different from the impact score. Is there a decent chance for a re-submission to be successful? Thanks.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  February 19, 2019 @ 1:00 am · EditProbably – my guess is that there are fixable concerns with the Approach versus lack of enthusiasm for its significance, but you’ll know when your summary statement arrives and can discuss it with your PO (who was hopefully present for the discussion of your application). The low percentile means that the scores were spread appropriately and perhaps the SRG was recently recalibrated (due to scores all clustered at the low end).
  
  >
  
  Reply
tim said

February 22, 2019 @ 11:20 pm · EditThis is a very helpful thread. Really appreciate all the information. I am a new investigator but not an ESI. I got my R01 impact score of 34 and percentile of 13% in October 2018. I spoke to the PO in NIGMS. The PO said he is optimistic about funding the proposal. The PO requested JIT in November 2018. The council meeting is finished in late January 2019. Since then, the status of my proposal remains as council meeting completed.

I saw many threads here talking about after the council meeting if there is a request of JIT from the GMS or the PO, it is a sign of funding. My question is will there be another JIT request from the PO and GMS after the council meeting even they have asked me prior in November 2018? Are there different documents PO and GMS ask pre- and post-council meeting? By the way, my proposal does not contain human subjects and requires IACUC approval. Thank you.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  February 24, 2019 @ 3:35 pm · EditNIGMS requests JIT for all applications under consideration for funding – some ICs only ask for JIT for applications they intend to fund (assuming no issues raised during administrative review. You can check back in with your PO for an update – you probably won’t get another JIT request unless there was something on your first JIT that might need to be updated (eg, pending grant applications).
  
  >
  
  Reply
  - WQ said
    
    February 25, 2019 @ 6:01 pm · EditHi writedit,
    
    Thanks so much for providing a lot of helpful information on this website. I have one about R21 grant. I submitted an R21 application last Oct to NIAID and recently I got an impact score of 29 (there is no percentile). Based on the NIAID payline, currently, the interim payline for R21 is an impact score of 30. My questions are: a) What does interim payline mean? Does this cut-off change within the fiscal year? b) Is this interim payline usually set in a conservative fashion or not? I am curious about this as you can see my score is just close to the interim payline. Thanks!
  - writedit said
    
    February 25, 2019 @ 11:45 pm · EditIf anything, the interim payline will be adjusted up (to a higher score than 30) but definitely not adjusted down, so you can be cautiously optimistic with a priority score of 29 (ie, barring any unforeseen event or discovery in your administrative review, you are likely to receive an award at that score). When you receive your summary statement, you can check in with your PO for confirmation and next steps (still need to wait until summer for an award).
  - tim said
    
    March 4, 2019 @ 1:00 pm · EditThank you writedit for the response. It is very helpful. I notice today that my status has changed from council meeting completed to pending (yellow). Is this pending status the same as described in this thread as administrative review pending? Does that mean NOA is likely to be issued within a month? Thank you.
  - writedit said
    
    March 4, 2019 @ 1:30 pm · EditYes, the Pending status means that the administrative review of your application has begun. Assuming no problems are encountered, it does not guarantee that you will receive a NOA within a month, though, since the timing is quite variable, so don’t worry if it takes longer (though hopefully it won’t, especially with an R21).
Mike said

February 26, 2019 @ 1:56 am · EditHi writeit,

I just received an impact score = 44 but a percentile of 10% for an A0 R01. This is with NIDA, which doesn’t publish paylines. Do you think I have a chance at getting funded? Thank you for any advice.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  February 26, 2019 @ 8:25 am · EditYes – the 10th percentile is the numbers that matters here. Your SRG must have just been recalibrated, which would explain the high score and low percentile (I’ve seen scores in the 30s with single-digit percentiles). When you get your summary statement, you can check with your PO.
  
  >
  
  Reply
  - Mike said
    
    February 26, 2019 @ 9:10 am · EditThank you very much! I will contact my PO once we receive the summary statement.
Christina said

February 27, 2019 @ 10:28 pm · EditFunded peers. How much time lapses between your JIT request and a NOA?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  February 27, 2019 @ 10:43 pm · EditIf you use the Find function (control F or under the Edit menu) to search for the word “timeline” on this page and/or on https://writedit.wordpress.com/nih-paylines-resources/, you will find lots of timelines shared by funded investigators, many of whom give the date for JIT and NOA. It can be months. And months. Depends on the IC, your score (within payline or not), and your Council/funding cycle (II or III).
  
  Reply
Questioning said

February 28, 2019 @ 5:59 pm · EditHi, I have my R01 (first submission) application (to NIA) reviewed in July 2018 with 4%ile score (early-stage investigator). Council approved it in September 2018. JIT documents were requested Dec 4, 2018, and were submitted Dec 10, 2018, and application status moved to “pending” in a yellow box. Radio silence since then and PO doesn’t respond to my emails inquiring about the status of the application. Any thing to worry about or to do? Is it possible I will have to wait till the end of the fiscal year in Sep 2019?

Reply
- BHASKAR said
  
  February 28, 2019 @ 6:01 pm · EditSTRANGE!!! usually within a month you should get NoA!!!
  Call to GMS
  
  Reply
  - Questioning said
    
    February 28, 2019 @ 11:55 pm · EditGM said “Final decision is pending regarding your project’s start date. I will let you know as soon as final decision is made.”
- Questioning said
  
  March 8, 2019 @ 12:02 pm · Edit@writedit any thoughts on that?
  
  Reply
  - writedit said
    
    March 8, 2019 @ 12:12 pm · EditI apologize – I thought I had answered this (especially noting that NOAs do not always (or even usually) come within a month of a JIT request). This is really late for such an exceptionally scored ESI application in the first cycle. The second cycle awards are going out soon. However, if the GMS said the final decision is pending about your start date, this means whatever is happening is out of both your PO’s and GMS’s hands (but there is no question that you will receive an award). If you need to start spending (ie, hiring personnel, ordering reagents or animals, buying equipment, etc.) in preparation for starting the work, you can probably ask your institution about setting up a pre-award spending account, since you are certainly within 90 days of award (and the GMS can confirm this). You won’t have to wait until the end of the FY, though. If the GMS had not answered, you could have gone to the Director or someone in a supervisory position at the Division of Extramural Activities (https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/grants-funding/about-division-extramural-activities-staff-listing) for some insight, but since your GMS is responsive, that is your best point of contact (plus continuing to try to communicate with the PO, whose input you will need as the research progresses).
Ping said

March 6, 2019 @ 11:43 am · EditHi, I submitted a R03 to NIBIB, reviewed in October 2018. I received an impact score of 23 and percentile of 7%. My proposed start date is April 1st 2019, but I haven’t received the JIT request yet. I checked with the PO and he told me to wait. I am getting a little worried. How likely my grant will be funded?

Thank you

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 7, 2019 @ 5:54 pm · EditYou don’t need to worry, especially if the PO said just to wait (vs anything else more specific). I suspect because R03s are small, simple awards, he is not concerned about the timing, and the start date is not an expiration date, so you’ll be fine if April 1 passes without a NOA. If you need to start spending in advance of the award (and your institution will set up an account for this), you can confirm with your PO that you are within 90 days of award.
  
  Reply
  - Ping said
    
    March 7, 2019 @ 7:04 pm · EditThank you much for your reply!
BHASKAR DAS said

March 6, 2019 @ 5:30 pm · EditI just got Impact score 16 from NIAAA my R21 grant. Is there any hope I can get it.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 7, 2019 @ 5:56 pm · EditThat seems like a competitive score to me, but when you have your summary statement, you can communicate with your PO about next steps (and whether you need to consider resubmitting).
  
  Reply
  - BHASKAR DAS said
    
    March 7, 2019 @ 6:19 pm · EditThanks a lot. I wrote to my PO. My po told that , my will go to council meeting. Then they will take decision. Based on your previous experience, is there any one can guide em. What to do.
    I need this grant.
  - writedit said
    
    March 7, 2019 @ 6:32 pm · EditIf your PO did not ask for any other information, there is nothing you can do to affect the decision making among IC leadership, and you’ll just need to wait until summer. In the meantime, again, you can ask your PO if you should prepare a resubmission for insurance, in case the current application does not receive an award.
  - BHASKAR DAS said
    
    March 7, 2019 @ 6:38 pm · EditThank you very much. Council review is on May. My PO told me that, After SS, I can contact her.
    Thanks again for your kind help. Bit anxious to know what is history of NIAAA R21 Impact score funded.
Cheryl said

March 9, 2019 @ 10:47 pm · EditDear Writedit,

I just got impact sore of my K01 to NHLBI. It’s a resubmission and only got 45. The first time it was not discussed. I felt so disencouraged. Does this mean they are not really convinced that I training plan/research plan has potential? Should I totally overhaul it instead of submit it again as a new K01?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 10, 2019 @ 12:58 pm · EditYour PO heard the discussion of the more recent application, so if the concerns of the reviewers are not clear in the summary statement, your PO can fill in some impressions based on the tone of the discussion. I suspect there are concerns about the science beyond the career development plan, so these would be critical to address – if they can be addressed. If the concerns are with the significance, though, this is harder to address by tweaking the application unless the story wasn’t presented well. Your PO and mentor(s) should be the ones to provide guidance, but you’ll certainly be starting with a significantly changed (or brand new premise) application, no matter the mechanism.
  
  >
  
  Reply
  - Cheryl said
    
    March 10, 2019 @ 6:17 pm · EditThank you very much for your thoughts! These are helpful!
Current and Pending said

March 16, 2019 @ 11:04 am · EditIn the last year, our small business has been successful at winning several SBIR awards. We are in the process of applying for additional SBIR projects. Can you tell me how NIH staff interpret current/pending support? I’m beginning the assumption that no person can be funded for more than 12 months in a year — on their collective projects. Is that true? Also, does the number of grants matter? Or, is it just time allocation per year? I have looked around the internet for guidance on this, but I can’t locate anything. If you can provide a link, that would be really great.

Reply
- SaG said
  
  March 18, 2019 @ 7:18 am · EditIt is true that NIH will not allow you to work more than 100% of your time. This isn’t football where giving 110% is the norm. Yes, most Program Officers will look at how many grant you have too. 10 grants at 10% effort each as a PI doesn’t look good. Finally ,they will look at how successful you have been at moving on to phase 2 and commercialization; the ultimate purpose of an SBIR. They don’t like to fund SBIR factories (places that keep applying for phase 1 grants but never commercialize anything). Exact numbers will vary depending on the Institute doing the funding.
  
  Reply
  - Current and Pending said
    
    March 18, 2019 @ 4:58 pm · EditThanks so much!!! This website and your insightful, supportive, and honest feedback is very helpful. Keep on keepin’ on!
Daniel said

March 18, 2019 @ 4:30 pm · EditDear writedit,

Thanks so much for providing and maintaining this wonderful resource. I recently obtained an NIGMS SCORE SC2. Below is my timeline.

02/05/19 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
12/04/18 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
09/17/18 Council review completed.
07/13/18 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
01/25/18 Application entered into system

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 22, 2019 @ 9:47 pm · EditCongratulations and thank you for sharing your timeline! Best wishes for success with your research.
  
  >
  
  Reply
PJMask said

March 20, 2019 @ 2:41 pm · EditI received an impact score of 29 for an R35 grant. I am an early stage investigator. Does anyone know the likelihood of being funded?

Thank you.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 23, 2019 @ 5:23 am · EditYour PO will be able to give advice on next steps when you get your summary statement.
  
  >
  
  Reply
Patiently_Waiting said

March 21, 2019 @ 4:33 pm · EditI am also curious to know what kind of impact scores have been funded for ESI MIRAs/R35s, since there is no percentile listed. Has anyone compiled any information to that end? Thanks!!

Reply
- SaG said
  
  March 22, 2019 @ 9:06 am · EditYou can probably get more info from your Program Officer. They can tell you how optimistic to be or whether to keep submitting. Especially since scores from previous rounds might not correlate well with scores in later rounds. Ans, as with most things GM, there isn’t a hard payline.
  
  Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 22, 2019 @ 9:38 pm · EditI don’t know about this year, but last round, scores seemed to be all over. You can search this and the archived pages for scores and awards from the past.
  
  >
  
  Reply
NINDS_Career? said

March 22, 2019 @ 10:06 am · EditHi All,

I received my NGA for my K99 (my impact score was 23)! I wanted to give the timeline so that other people who apply for K99s from NINDS could have a better idea of the timeline to expect. Also, while not on the official timeline, there is a training council meeting that happened in early January where which K99s were ranked/recommended to be funded to advisory council.

06/08/2018 Application entered into system
06/18/2018 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any
questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
10/29/2018 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review
pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
11/19/2018 Received summary statement
02/15/2019 Council review completed.
02/19/2019 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to
Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
03/06/2019 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management
Specialist.
3/11/2019 NGA Received.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 22, 2019 @ 9:36 pm · EditCongratulations and thank you for sharing your timeline! Best wishes for success with your career in biomedical research.
  
  >
  
  Reply
Pending? said

March 28, 2019 @ 10:33 am · EditThe eRA status for my R15 application changed to “Pending administrative review” a few weeks ago. Since then, I have received multiple requests from a Grants Management Specialist, requesting things such as a copy of my institutions F&A rate agreement with the NIH, and more recently clarifications of our sabbatical policy and details pertaining to it. Is this kind of back and forth at this stage of review… typical? Either good or bad? Emblematic of the NIH trying to crack down on certain practices? In reading over comments here, I haven’t come across examples of this.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  March 28, 2019 @ 11:10 am · EditThe NIH just changed their policy on R15 awards/awardees, so I suspect they have some new administrative items in the SOP, and it could be the GMS is unfamiliar with processing an R15 (and/or your institution). You shouldn’t take it as a bad sign, certainly. Your PO would be in touch if there were an item of concern.
  
  Reply
Pending or not pending? said

April 3, 2019 @ 2:22 pm · EditHello writeit,

I received a 16 for my K01 resubmission. I then got a JIT from my GMS and shortly after my My eRA commons changed to “pending”. A few days later my PO emailed me for a DSMP and after I sent that over he asked me to call. He started asking questions about my resources and environment, stating that there was some concern about my ability to do the proposed work and if I had the resources to do so. All of that information is clearly spelled out in several areas of my grant. Does this mean that they do no intend on funding my grant? Thank you for your perspective on this!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  April 3, 2019 @ 3:23 pm · EditIf you were able to answer the PO’s specific questions about available resources (I assume he had questions beyond what you included with the application), then you should be okay. If you only sent boilerplate text about the institution and department, I can see where some concern may have arisen – especially if you did not include any information on your startup or other resources available specifically to you as a new/junior faculty member (and/or equipment and facilities specific to your project). It’s hard to know based on what you’ve said here, though. Now, I am surprised there is a DSMP required for a K01 proposal, since usually there is no human subjects research involved … but with the change in the Common Rule, perhaps (though I still would be surprised about a clinical trial as part of a K01). However, if you are talking about data sharing (vs data safety and monitoring of human research participants), then I am surprised your mentor and your institution’s research office allowed you to submit the application without one, since this is an NIH requirement (& preparing the K01 application is in itself a teachable moment – especially with a mentor who is genuinely engaged). However, if you were able to address all your PO’s concerns, then the administrative review should move forward without incident. This is the sort of inquiry that occurs during the administrative review and is not necessarily an indication that they don’t plan to make the award.
  
  Reply
  - Christina said
    
    April 4, 2019 @ 10:57 am · EditMy K required a DSMP and DSMB. Whole new world.
pawpatrols said

April 18, 2019 @ 3:35 am · EditHello Writedit,

I received an impact score 36 and percentile 22 for my R01 (new submission) from NIDA. I am an early stage investigator as well as new investigator. Does anyone know the likelihood of being funded? Thank you!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  April 18, 2019 @ 10:54 am · EditThat’s probably a stretch, but you can talk with your PO when you get your summary statement, both about whether there is any possibility of funding this round and advice for preparing your resubmission (which you should plan on no matter what). Your PO probably heard the discussion of your application and can give guidance in developing the amended proposal.
  
  Reply
MIRA said

April 20, 2019 @ 4:05 pm · Editanyone know fundable score range for ESI MIRA/R35 this year? Not sure how to interpret my 37 score, no percentile

Reply
- Patiently_Waiting said
  
  April 22, 2019 @ 10:37 am · EditThere’s a nice Google Sheet that’s been curated to help applicants better understand where they may stand: https://twitter.com/bozdags/status/1109172998681096192
  
  Some advice from POs has suggested scores up to the mid 40s in impact have been contenders for funding. You can certainly talk to your PO about your chances, but council also meets mid May, so not too long from now to have a better idea…
  
  Reply
  - writedit said
    
    April 22, 2019 @ 11:27 am · EditThis is fantastic – thank you so much for sharing! Talking with the PO can give applicants insight into the PO’s level of enthusiasm and advocacy during internal paylist discussions.
  - MIRA said
    
    April 23, 2019 @ 1:14 pm · Editthanks, that’s an interesting list!
    
    No idea where I stand–PO hasn’t responded (only been a few days), but I did get a JIT cc-ing him.
  - Bhaskar Das said
    
    May 20, 2019 @ 11:32 am · EditDear rhino1207:
    I just received an email from PO.
    Here is the text of email.
    “Council did agree with the scientific review of your R21 application. The next step is discussion at the program level and then recommendation to the Director, Dr. Koob, who make the decisions regarding funding”.
    Is there any hope I can receive this funding?
    Thanks
  - writedit said
    
    May 20, 2019 @ 11:51 am · EditYes, though still not a guarantee. The IC Director always makes final funding decisions, so it depends on where on the paylist your application sits and how far the money goes.
Toulouse said

April 27, 2019 @ 4:16 pm · EditI received a status update “Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.” I believe that this means that my JIT is being reviewed by the GMO?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  April 29, 2019 @ 3:54 pm · EditYes, they are reviewing your JIT and application. Program staff working on your application can change your status – it requires a human, if that’s what you mean.
  
  Reply
rosie19 said

May 2, 2019 @ 1:22 pm · EditI sent my JIT in on Friday (April 26) and yesterday (May 2) the status on my K01 was just updated to “award prepared: Refer questions to Grants Managements Specialist.” Does that mean the NOA should come soon? Does this ever precede awards that are ultimately not funded??

Reply
- writedit said
  
  May 2, 2019 @ 1:51 pm · EditYes, your NOA should arrive soon – congratulations and best wishes for success!
  
  >
  
  Reply
rhino1207 said

May 17, 2019 @ 7:06 pm · EditDear Writedit,

I appreciate you and so many colleagues for providing helpful suggestions.
On 3/29, I received a score of 30 at NCATS for an RFA application. Regarding the funding possibility, my PO said as “Certainly possible” and let me wait, and he told me at that time, I don’t need to submit JIT yet. Then on 5/6, I found it has assigned to NIAID as secondary institution. However, after council meeting (5/16), today (5/17) the status has become “Council review completed”. Does this status mean that there is no possibility to be funded? Because I have many applications scored at 32-40 that have not been funded just ended at this status (from yellow color “Council meeting pending” to gray color “Council review completed”.

Thanks in advance for answering my question!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  May 20, 2019 @ 11:56 am · EditCouncil review completed is a standard status and means nothing other than the Advisory Council for that IC has met. Neither the color nor anything else reflect on funding likelihood. The late addition of a secondary IC is interesting, and it could be that NIAID has agreed to accept your application for co-funding as part of the RFA (I assume NIAID was participating in the RFA). If you know a PO at NIAID, you could contact him/her via email to ask. Otherwise, you mostly need to sit tight and wait – there is nothing you can do about this application, though you can certainly be thinking of a possible June submission (or October, if you hadn’t already started to prepare the RFA application for submission as a new A0 in June).
  
  Reply
  - Rhino1207 said
    
    May 20, 2019 @ 2:03 pm · EditDear Writedit,
    
    Thank you very so much for this excellent suggestion! I actually have a very good PO at NIAID, so I will write to him now.
    Yes, this RFA is a common fund mechanism, so every IC participated in this RFA, and the contents of my proposal is related to NIAID.
  - writedit said
    
    May 20, 2019 @ 3:53 pm · EditSounds like a good plan – NIAID would be responsible for administration of your award if one is to be made (& I don’t think they would have gotten involved if they weren’t considering you for one).
    
    >
Bhaskar said

May 17, 2019 @ 9:08 pm · EditDear Friends:
Very helpful discussion group.

My R21 from NIAAA got 16 Impact score. It reviewed in March first week.

Meeting Date: 03/05/2019

Then in March 15,
Changed like this in my eRA commons.

Effect Date Status Message
03/15/2019 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.

I submitted JIT 04/15.

Advisory Council (AC) :Meeting Date: 05/14/2019

I just wrote an email GMS. She replied and wrote she doesn’t knwo just council completed, please contact your PO.
I wrote to my PO, no reply.
In my eRA commons:
it showing like this.
Status: Council review completed.
Last Status Update Date: 03/15/2019

I Am bit confused, so could you please guide me.

Reply
- rhino1207 said
  
  May 17, 2019 @ 9:54 pm · EditHi, Bhaskar, I just wonder if the status will be automatically changed after finishing the council meeting. Mine is in the same situation. and I found the status bar become from yellow to gray
  
  Reply
  - Bhaskar said
    
    May 17, 2019 @ 9:59 pm · Editdon’t know what to do. no reply from po
- rhino1207 said
  
  May 17, 2019 @ 10:06 pm · EditI also contacted my PO today but nobody pick the phone. I think we may need to wait one more weeks to see if the status change. Good luck to both of us!
  
  Reply
  - SaG said
    
    May 20, 2019 @ 9:44 am · EditFYI, generally POs won’t answer cold calls. You should email them first and set up a time to talk.
- writedit said
  
  May 20, 2019 @ 12:10 pm · EditI suspect the March 15 eRA Commons Status was a clerical mistake, especially since you had not submitted JIT yet (this is what triggers the change to administrative review). Alternatively, given your score, it could be that NIAAA wanted to do a quick review prior to including it on a list of applications for electronic approval en bloc in advance of the Council meeting. If the latter was the case, then the change to Council review completed is normal (Council approved your application for consideration for funding), and your application will continue to be considered for an award. Did you receive a request from the PO for JIT, or did you just submit after the automatic request was sent by eRA Commons? If the latter, you’ll need to wait to hear from your PO about the actual status of your application (PO might not have news for another week or so); if your PO requested the JIT in April, then you probably just need to sit tight and let the bureaucracy take its course.
  
  Reply
Guohua Yi said

May 20, 2019 @ 11:56 am · EditThanks, SaG. I also wrote to him and no response from him. I will wait one week to see if the status change. If not, I will write a follow-up email.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  May 20, 2019 @ 12:02 pm · EditYou should wait more than a week. If you have not had a request for JIT, then you need to wait for that. Your PO will have no news until he has the green light from his superiors to proceed with award processing. If your application is selected, you’ll receive the JIT request – but your PO will have nothing else to tell you before then, so you don’t want to bug him needlessly.
  
  Reply
  - Rhino1207 said
    
    May 20, 2019 @ 1:03 pm · EditHi, Writedit, Thank you so much for your suggestion! I will definitely wait!
Dana Rose Garfin said

May 22, 2019 @ 7:22 pm · EditIn case people are interested in my K01 timeline (score: 27)

June 12, 2018 – submitted / entered into system

06/20/201 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.

10/31/2018 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.

02/13/2019 Council review completed.

04/05/2019 Just in time request from PO/grant specialist

04/16/2019 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.

04/26/19 Sent in Just-In-time

05/01/2019 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.

05/06/2019 Notice of Award

It look almost a year and I ended up submitting a revision but it was withdrawn when my first grant was awarded.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  May 22, 2019 @ 10:33 pm · EditCongratulations and thank you so much for sharing your detailed timeline with us! Best wishes for success with your project and career in biomedical research.
  
  >
  
  Reply
- k_limbo said
  
  June 25, 2019 @ 3:13 pm · EditHi Dana,
  
  What was your project start date? I’m in a similar boat, impact score of 24, PO said would recommend for funding before I received summary statement. Since then status has been updated to council review completed and I submitted JIT ahead of council review. Project start date is 7/1, but no word yet. Thought I would check here before reaching back out to PO.
  
  Writedit- would appreciate your insights as well.
  
  Reply
  - writedit said
    
    June 25, 2019 @ 4:41 pm · EditThe start date is not an expiration date, so don’t worry if you haven’t heard anything, and the status hasn’t changed. You can be funded up through September 30, though I suspect your PO will have some sort of update much sooner than that.
Nerves of rubber said

May 29, 2019 @ 6:44 pm · EditThanks so much for this resource!

I have an NICHD R01 application with an Impact score of 20, percentile 6. I am an established investigator. JIT was submitted on 1/11/2019. Council was on 1/24/2019.

This grant has had a status of “Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist” since 02/21/2019. I have emailed the GMS twice over the last three months, but gotten no response. The PO emailed after I asked for a status update two weeks ago ” I think this is just waiting for your grants management specialist to finish up and release the award.”

Is this abnormal? I am not sure what to do? Do you think the decision has been made about this grant and it is just bureaucracy?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  May 31, 2019 @ 9:33 am · EditIt’s not normal, especially for an application with such a good score and a normal federal budget year, but it’s not unheard of. There are plenty of other Cycle 2 (April 1 start date) applications still being processed, so you’re not alone. That your PO wasn’t overly concerned is a good sign, and likely you should have a status update soon.
  
  >
  
  Reply
  - Francesca Cole said
    
    May 31, 2019 @ 10:15 am · EditThank you!
2018 DP2 applicant said

June 4, 2019 @ 10:13 pm · EditHi All, looking for sharing insights with current DP2 applicants. I haven’t had any update yet since the completion of Scientific Review Meeting, even after the council meeting was completed on May 17. Wondering if anyone has any status change? such as council review completed or assigned to specific ICs. thanks!

Reply
- DC said
  
  June 6, 2019 @ 5:25 am · EditI am also waiting for any updates to the DP2. Has anyone been assigned to specific ICs or had changes to their status in era commons?
  
  Reply
  - Yet another DP2 applicant said
    
    June 6, 2019 @ 11:50 am · EditI also haven’t had any update since the completion of the scientific review meeting.
  - DC said
    
    June 7, 2019 @ 3:36 pm · EditDP2 just got assigned to IC. Anyone knows what that means?
  - writedit said
    
    June 7, 2019 @ 4:57 pm · EditShould be cautiously good news, as it means an IC accepted your application. You can check with the DP2 PO and/or the PO at the administering IC for further insight.
Sag said

June 5, 2019 @ 9:57 am · EditLooking at NIH reporter, only 1 has been awarded so far this year. The other is a supplement.

Reply
BB said

June 7, 2019 @ 9:26 pm · EditHi all, I received a impact score of 33 (no percentile posted) for my K99 A0 submission to NIA. Does anyone have any idea where this score falls in terms of fundability? The NIA website says payline for career award is 21 for non-Alzheimer’s, does that mean my score is most likely not fundable? Thanks!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 10, 2019 @ 8:43 am · EditThat’s probably too high for funding, especially for a non-AD application, but talk with your PO when you have your summary statement both about whether there is any chance for this application (in case the science is of special interest) and what strategy to take with the resubmission (which you should prepare no matter what – if you are still eligible), since the PO will likely have heard the discussion of your application.
  
  Reply
  - BB said
    
    June 10, 2019 @ 2:49 pm · EditThank you for the reply writedit! I will contact the PO when I get my summary statement
  - BB said
    
    June 10, 2019 @ 2:49 pm · EditThank you for the reply writedit, I’ll contact my PO once I have the summary statement
2018 DP2 applicant said

June 7, 2019 @ 11:36 pm · EditThanks for sharing the update, DC! Congrats!

Reply
ahrqk01 said

June 11, 2019 @ 12:13 pm · EditI received an impact score of 38 for an A0 K01 submission to AHRQ. I am waiting for the comments and planning to resubmit. Given AHRQ is small and funds few K awards annually (especially K01s), I am hoping for any insights in terms of how to understand my score. Thanks!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 11, 2019 @ 3:31 pm · EditThe AHRQ PO will be a great source of information once you have your summary statement. Also, if you or your mentor know any recent K01 awardees listed in the AHRQ online database (especially anyone at your own institution), you could probably reach out to them for advice and insight.
  
  Reply
Tk08 said

June 11, 2019 @ 9:34 pm · EditHello,
Has anyone ever received or heard of a L award (K08) receiving a percentile. My A1 application to NIDA received a score of 30 but percentile of 13.0. I don’t know what to make of this? I contacted my PO but am just wondering if anyone here has any insight? Thanks!

Reply
Tk08 said

June 11, 2019 @ 9:47 pm · EditI meant K Award (not L) – they usually don’t get percentile ranks so I’m not sure what to think…

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 12, 2019 @ 12:06 pm · EditK applications are reviewed at the IC, which is why there are usually not percentiles (no need to have a mechanism for comparing scores across different study sections for the same IC), but it could be that NIDA was seeing scoring issues over time (score clustering that was no longer useful to the IC in making funding decisions) and decided to implement percentiles to keep scoring consistent across cycles.
  
  Reply
YJ said

June 12, 2019 @ 2:03 pm · EditHas anyone received NIGMS-MIRA R35 this or last year? What is the fundable impact score? I received 33 and wonder if this is fundable score or not. Thanks.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 12, 2019 @ 11:35 pm · EditThere is a running Google doc that collates MIRA scores and outcomes: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10f1MDXXW57r5pYxwqTnAKM_NRY_SmvC0s0b3joyO_Zo/edit#gid=0 Scroll up this page a bit to see the prior discussion (thanks to Patiently Waiting for the Google doc link, https://wordpress.com/comment/writedit.wordpress.com/71365).
  
  There has also been plenty of MIRA discussion on NIH Paylines & Resources. You are potentially in range with that score, but score alone does not decide awards.
  
  Reply
MC_Max said

June 14, 2019 @ 1:30 pm · EditHi, thank you all for the great information we get here.

I just got my score and percentile for my A0 R01 application (Institute is NLM. I requested NLM after I have talked to the PO in October who encouraged me to request NLM). My score is 33 and percentile is 18th. Is there any chance to be funded or very likely needs a resubmission.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 14, 2019 @ 2:53 pm · EditYou should definitely talk with your PO about this after you get your summary statement (PO can’t say much without that). Your score is within their range, but NLM uses a lot of programmatic discretion in making final decisions, so your PO can give you guidance on resubmission and whether he/she might want a short rebuttal to the summary statement for use in advocating for your application (it sounds like your PO is already a good advocate). Even if your PO suggests resubmission for insurance (ie, withdraw the A1 if the A0 is funded after all), he/she can also give advice on tweaking your resubmission to address reviewer concerns, since the PO probably attended the study section meeting and heard the discussion of your application.
  
  Reply
- MC_Max said
  
  June 14, 2019 @ 5:19 pm · EditThank you very much for the feedback. Highly appreciated.
  
  Reply
Bhaskar said

June 14, 2019 @ 3:15 pm · EditMy R21 status today changed from COuncil review completed to Pending ( NIAAA). Impact Score was 16. After council review completed, I talked to PO. According to PO, I submitted one page how to do specific experiments ( May 31st). Then my PO told to present all cases to director ( NIAAA) and and Director will take final decision.
After 14 days- today my eRA common changed to PENDING.
Do you think is good SIGNAL that I will get funded? or Should I contact my PO again.
Thanks for your Advice.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 14, 2019 @ 6:34 pm · EditYes, the change to Pending status is very good news, since it means NIAAA is reviewing your application for potential funding. This is not a guarantee, but you can check with your PO about what’s happening with your application.
  
  >
  
  Reply
K Ernst said

June 14, 2019 @ 3:51 pm · EditWe received a score of 32 on an R21 at NIAID for the fiscal year 2019, and the payline was 30. The payline is now 31. We resubmitted and addressed the comments but now got a score of 37. I have had someone tell me that the original score of 32 could still be funded if the payline shifts in the next calendar year. Is this true? Would they not use the most recent score? We were thinking our best bet was to submit a new proposal in October after we get the summary statement back. Any advice would be very helpful.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 14, 2019 @ 6:39 pm · EditFor FY19, the final impact score is 31. If it were interim, it might still bump up to 31, but this looks to be it through Sept 2019. ICs will fund earlier lower scores, but you would need to ask your PO about select pay for the 32 application … and for advice on resubmission if the PO says your application won’t be considered for select pay.
  
  >
  
  Reply
  - KCE said
    
    June 20, 2019 @ 8:21 am · EditThank you very much. I will talk to the PO and see if there is any chance of select pay.
K23 NINDS said

June 17, 2019 @ 6:16 pm · EditWe received an impact score of 39 on a K23 re-submission to NINDS. Prior submission was ND. Status is “Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.” Based on the thread, I get the sense that this high of an impact score is likely not going to be funded. That being said it looks like NINDS often funds 40% of K23 applications. Should I contact the PO or just wait it out? this is already my re-submission, so I am not sure if I can resubmit again.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 17, 2019 @ 11:16 pm · EditYou can submit as many times as you want – the next time you submit, it would be a new A0 (new application, with no mention of the prior application and no “Introduction” or response to the prior review). You should definitely communicate with your PO once you have your summary statement about both the likelihood of funding with the 39 and for advice on preparing your next submission (since PO would have heard the discussion and can give you additional insight and suggestions).
  
  >
  
  Reply
maria said

June 17, 2019 @ 9:22 pm · EditHello,

I just got the score (40) and percentile (42%) for my first A0 R01 application (NCI). I am an ESI. Any chances this application could be funded?
Thanks a lot!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 17, 2019 @ 11:17 pm · EditProbably not unless this was an RFA. When you receive your summary statement, contact your PO about both funding likelihood and guidance in preparing your A1 application (PO will have likely attended the study section meeting and have suggestions based on the discussion of your application).
  
  >
  
  Reply
twoR01s said

June 17, 2019 @ 10:17 pm · EditDear Writedit

I come to you for help regarding a question that I am unable to get advice for. The summary of my question is, is it unusual to submit two R01s to the same study section? They both apply the same technoligy to different disease applications (clinical studies).

let me elaborate on how I got there…

I submitted an R01 last october which got reviewed in February.The criticisms were extremely helpful. This R01 was to evaluate a technology for application X. We have since addressed the criticisms very well and are preparing to resubmit for July 5.

In the mean time, we obtained new preliminary data for applying the same technology for application Y, and submitted a new R01 for the June deadline. Many of the critiques in the other R01 were incorporated into this since the concerns were relevant to this project one as well. There is a small budget overlap, but much of the two projects need independent funding.

While I requested a different study section, CSR assigned the new R01 to the same study section. I have still requested them to change it.

So now I am wondering whether to resubmit for July (in which case both will be reviewd at hte same time!) or hold off for November, or whether to resubmit the old R01 and withdraw the new one.

I am very confused. Your advice is greatly appreciated.

Thank you

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 17, 2019 @ 11:31 pm · EditIf the same study section is the best place for both applications to be reviewed, they should both go to the same study section. This does happen. The SRO will instruct reviewers to evaluate each application on its own merit and not consider the presence of a second application (much less its substance). The more important question may be whether the IC will fund both applications, which would be a question for your PO. Again, ICs do fund 2 R01s to the same PI in the same cycle. Now, I assume they go to the same IC (e.g., NIBIB), but if they are going to different ICs, then this is not an issue – though you still want to make sure both POs are interested in supporting each R01 (independently). If you decide to submit only one, then choose the one with the strongest preliminary data and spend the time until fall working on new data for the second application and/or publications for either. Given the political climate in DC, the federal budget may be exceedingly late for FY20, in which case the time differential for awards in cycles 2 & 3 won’t be significant (ie, your June/July application might be funded only weeks or a couple months before the October/Nov application).
  
  >
  
  Reply
  - twoR01 said
    
    June 18, 2019 @ 12:01 am · EditThank you Writeedit. This makes me feel much better that this is not illegal.
    
    I have requested a different institute for the new submission but it might end up with the same institute in the end.
    
    Your point about the time differential is also interesting and makes me rethink if I should bother resubmiting X now. My thinking was that I am addressing the reviewer concerns in the resubmission for X, which pertains to the Y as well. So basically I wanted to thank the reviewers through the resubmission for X and acknowledge there that we were lead to a new project Y.
    
    But as you are saying reviewers are supposed to view the grants as independent so this may not matter.
    
    If I decide to resbmit X for November, do you think reviewers will be confused about the Y grant? They have seen something similar 6 months ago and made suggestions, and now I come back with grant Y where I incorporate those suggestions but where is grant X? etc., I know they are too busy to be recalling such detaisl but I am just wondering ….
    
    Thank you
  - writedit said
    
    June 18, 2019 @ 3:24 pm · EditNo, not “illegal” at all, but you don’t want to refer to application Y in resubmission X or indicate that the reviewers inspired a parallel application (though you can thank them for stimulating to rethink the options for implementation or however they helped you improve the original A0). You want to have distinct preliminary data for each application (resubmission X & new A0 Y), though some can be in common. If the PO for resubmission X doesn’t know about new application Y, they will eventually, so I would still recommend that you explain the situation to them and seek their advice on the timing of your resubmission X (both in same cycle, or delay resubmission to obtain more data, especially if FY20 budget might be late). Reviewers definitely aren’t supposed to talk about what was discussed in a prior cycle (and the roster changes with each meeting anyway). If you submit in separate cycles, you could ask the SRO to assign different reviewers (you won’t know who, of course) for the A1 than were assigned for the A0; if you submit in the same cycle, I am pretty sure the SRO would assign different reviewers to each application – unless the expertise needed to review it was limited to just a few panel members.
NIAR03 said

June 19, 2019 @ 4:27 pm · EditDear Writedit,

I submitted an R03 proposal to NIA in October 2018. Got an impact score of 42, 26%. Contacted the PO in March 2019 and the PO suggested a resubmission. However, the PO emailed me on April 23 saying my project is currently being considered for funding by NIA and requested a response to summary statement. I sent the PO the response early May. The council meeting was on May 21. I contacted the PO on June 4 (two weeks after the council) regarding the next steps and the PO said although the council meeting is complete, the funding decision meeting hasn’t occurred yet, which will happen later this month. I am wondering if I should contact the PO again to see if I should put in a re-submission this July cycle. Your advice will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 20, 2019 @ 12:04 am · EditYour PO won’t know anything until after the NIA leadership meets at the end of June, so you should just wait for your PO to contact you (or at least wait until July 1 to reach out, if you haven’t heard before then – but your PO knows you need to know whether to resubmit). Since the R03 is only 6 pages and a small budget, I assume you could have it ready for submission in July if your PO does not have good news for you. Indeed, because the R03 funding level is more like a supplement (in fact, a lot less than the supplements NIA is paying these days), it could be the NIA is looking at awarding a bunch of small grants to help spend down its appropriation now that we are approaching the end of the FY.
  
  >
  
  Reply
  - NIAR03 said
    
    June 20, 2019 @ 9:14 am · EditThank you very much!
R21 NIA said

June 21, 2019 @ 4:53 pm · EditGreetings. We submitted an R21 proposal to NIA in Feb 2018. The proposal was scored 38, 20 percentile in June 2018, and the comments were positive (NIA payline FY2018 was 23%). PO suggested resubmitting the proposal, which we did in the October cycle 2018, but got a far worse score. We tried multiple times to reach the PO regarding the next step but no luck. As the fiscal year is approaching the end, we wonder what we should do with the proposal. Any suggestions that you have will be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 22, 2019 @ 11:30 am · EditIt’s not too late for funding consideration of the A0, but if you don’t hear from your PO by July, you might check with either another appropriate PO or the chief of the branch to which your application is assigned to indicate you have been trying to reach your PO for guidance on next steps (sometimes the PO is away or busy with an initiative, but you should get some sort of note back). You don’t need to be critical of your assigned PO, but you should be able to get some feedback in time to prepare a new application (though now you would need to wait for October anyway).
  
  >
  
  Reply
  - R21 NIA said
    
    June 24, 2019 @ 8:34 am · EditThanks so much for your comment.
k01stress said

June 21, 2019 @ 10:48 pm · EditI received an impact score of 38 on a K01re-submission to NHLBI(Payline k 32%). Prior submission was ND. Status is “Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.” Do you think I should resubmit my application as A0

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 22, 2019 @ 11:44 am · EditWhen you get your Summary Statement, you can check with your PO for guidance on next steps. It could be that your advancing from ND to a 38 (and a brief rebuttal) would give the PO some room to advocate for select pay funding (to save you another submission), but even if this is not likely, the PO can give you good advice on resubmission strategy for the A0 based on the review panel discussion of your application (not possible with the ND).
  
  >
  
  Reply
  - k01stress said
    
    June 22, 2019 @ 12:24 pm · EditThank you
Forwardqun said

June 24, 2019 @ 5:48 pm · EditDear Writedit,

I just got my R03 review (impact score 26/percentile 7%) to NIBIB. Since I am a 1st year PI, I have no clue about funding probability, especially NIBIB. Can you estimate my chance? Thanks so much!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 25, 2019 @ 4:04 pm · EditNIBIB uses select pay for all R03 awards, which means decisions will be made based on a mix of scores, review comments, and scientific priorities. When you receive your summary statement, think about how you would respond to the concerns raised in the Summary of Discussion and then contact the PO for insight and guidance. My guess is that your 7th percentile means you should be under consideration, and the PO might ask for a written rebuttal to make the case (internally) for why your application should receive an award.
  
  Reply
AP said

June 25, 2019 @ 4:10 am · EditDear Writedit,

I got my NCI F99/K00 impact score of 33. Can you estimate my chances for funding? Thanks!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 25, 2019 @ 4:18 pm · EditMy guess is that you are on the edge of funding, but when you receive your summary statement, you can contact your PO for guidance on next steps (including resubmission strategies, if you are still eligible). You should be thinking about how to respond to the concerns raised in the Summary of Discussion paragraph in particular.
  
  Reply
  - AP said
    
    June 25, 2019 @ 6:07 pm · EditThank you for the response!
    Yes, I think my score is on the edge. There are no resubmissions for this fellowship, it is once/year. I am in my fourth year, so can’t re-apply next year. I applied last year and the app was not discussed, this year I got 33. I was very hopeful this year, and now I am concerned about this and would like to have your suggestions on the best approach to communicate with the PO. Also, I am curious to know if responding to the questions from the summary statement to the PO help in any way (for consideration)?
  - writedit said
    
    June 26, 2019 @ 8:29 am · EditThe fact that you went from not discussed to 33 and cannot apply again may help your case, especially if your science is of special interest. Your PO will need a brief (1-2 p) rebuttal to the summary statement (just the Summary of Discussion points) if he/she plans to advocate for your application, so you could draft this and send in advance of your conversation, so this can be part of the discussion (if the PO wants to push for select pay). If you have any updates about abstracts submitted for poster or oral presentations or manuscripts submitted to journals, this would be good to relay as well.
  - AP said
    
    July 17, 2019 @ 8:53 pm · EditThank you so much! I just received my summary statement. As an applicant, all reviewers gave me an excellent score (score of 1-2). I scored less for the sponsor (score of 3-4) because my sponsor is a new PI and has no R01 (at the time of application) and I am the first grad student. (She recently got a great R01 score and has a high possibility to be funded) But I also had a co-sponsor who is very experienced, with a great track record of mentoring and funding and all reviewers liked it. Research training plan got an average score (3-4) as well, with some comments like lack of clarity and not an impressive alternative hypothesis/approaches, but all reviewers liked the concept and ideas for the research. Can I contact the PO for advice? DO you think there could be any possibility of getting funded? I would really appreciate your advice on contacting the PO. Thanks!
  - writedit said
    
    July 18, 2019 @ 10:19 am · EditDefinitely let your PO know about your sponsor’s R01 – that will be very important information to pass along, as I expect it accounts for much of the group concern. You don’t need to worry about the individual reviewer scores and comments – just concentrate on the weaknesses raised in the Summary of Discussion (this reflects what the entire panel felt needed to be addressed). As I mentioned above, your PO will probably ask for a short (1 page) rebuttal to the concerns raised in the Summary paragraph, so you might draft that and then contact the PO to discuss both your sponsor’s new R01 and your strategy for addressing the panel’s concerns. If your PO thinks you have a shot at funding, he/she will use this information to advocate for your application during internal discussions about award decisions. Ultimately, the decision is up to the Director and SPLs (Scientific Program Leaders) at NCI, but you can help your PO make a good case for your application.
- AP said
  
  August 8, 2019 @ 11:56 am · EditI just spoke to my PO over the phone. The PO said it straight that my app will not be funded. PO did mention that my score is very close to the fundable range but wasn’t considered. I described my situation that I was nominated for 2 years and made significant improvements even after my application submission. After I got the SS, based on a reviewer’s comment (weakness), I did a quick experiment to test the hypothesis and got some good results and I also discussed it with the PO. My sponsor got outstanding scores for two pending grants (including RO1). I told the PO, that I can send a document addressing the weaknesses of my SS, but PO said not to send anything because it wouldn’t make any difference. PO gave some good suggestions on future grants and how to apply them, looking for good postdoctoral mentors/labs, etc.
  The advisory council hasn’t met yet, would they make final decisions already?
  Thank you!
  
  Reply
  - writedit said
    
    August 8, 2019 @ 3:21 pm · EditFellowship applications are discussed internally at the IC and don’t go to Council, so your PO is correct in saying nothing else can be done now, unfortunately. That is heartbreaking to be so close, though I’m glad your PO took the time to give you additional advice. If you go on to apply for an F32 (or future K99 or other funding mechanism), this PO can help introduce you to other program POs at NCI (and help give advice on study sections). I wish you the best as you move forward with your training and your career in biomedical research.
  - AP said
    
    September 11, 2019 @ 7:55 pm · EditHello, I don’t see any updates on the era-commons for not being funded. The status says: Scientific Review Group review completed. Refer any questions to Program Official.
    Do I still have any chance?
    After I discussed over the phone with my PO last month (when she said my app will not be funded and my score is on the edge), I received two awards, including a scholarship and a manuscript was just accepted today. My boss got a grant approved this week, so I have really addressed most of the concerns raised by the reviewers.
    Can I inform the PO and let her know about the updates? Would this help in increasing the chances at all anymore if they have any funds left or someone declines the award (which is less likely)? Or it would be inappropriate to contact the PO again.
    I am really not sure if there’s any hope or if it’s worth another try because I do not see any updates on my era commons yet. I am also not sure if award decisions were already made and announced.
    I would really appreciate your advice. Thanks!
  - writedit said
    
    September 12, 2019 @ 2:08 pm · EditeRA Commons does not have a status for “not funded”. Your application will remain at “Council review completed” until it is funded or administratively withdrawn (in a couple of years). Since the first component of your application is a fellowship, it might sit at “Scientific review completed”; given your timeline, I will assume F99/R00 applications don’t go to Council, just like other fellowships. SaG’s advice is correct – can’t hurt, although it likely won’t change anything this late in the FY. It looks as though NCI just funded 1 F99 so far this year (on Sept 6), though others may show up in RePORTER soon. When you complete your PhD and move on to your postdoc, you can look at K99/R00, F32, and K22 opportunities and put your experience applying for the F99/R00 to good use.
  - writedit said
    
    September 13, 2019 @ 5:15 pm · EditActually, I forgot that the NIH has added a new Unfunded Application notice, but this will not be posted until 14 months after the Council meeting date. I suspect this replaces the administrative withdrawal notice, but it means the same thing – no possibility of funding for that application. (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-19-133.html)
  - SaG said
    
    September 12, 2019 @ 11:59 am · EditIt can’t hurt but it is likely that all of the money is spent. Even if they wanted to fund you the piggy bank is empty till next Fiscal Year.
R15 In Holding Pattern said

June 25, 2019 @ 3:19 pm · EditI asked my PO to recommend my R15 scored 29 for end of year funding. Does it mean anything at all if the PO selected it for consideration at end of year? In other words are there many more grants submitted for end of year than would ever actually have a chance to get last minute funding? Thank you in advance for your thoughts.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 25, 2019 @ 4:46 pm · EditYes, every IC has a list of applications approved for funding that far exceeds its budgetary capacity. They need to do this in case applicants withdraw an application, cannot get needed approvals or address other concerns raised on their summary statement, or simply cannot turn their JIT around in time for award processing. If the GMS or PO gives you a deadline for JIT or other information/materials, you need to meet that deadline, or they will move on to the next application on the list – at the end of the FY, they have no time to make accommodations.
  
  Reply
Panh2019 said

June 27, 2019 @ 11:22 pm · EditI submitted an F32 application last cycle in December to NIDCR and got a score of 33. Resubmitted in April and got a score of 36. I don’t have the comments yet but does this score mean it’s hopeless?

Reply
MIRA said

June 29, 2019 @ 6:28 pm · EditApplied for ESI R35. Borderline score. My PO notified a bunch of people of awards yesterday, but silence for me, does that mean no or TBD for borderline score? Previously emailed him and he said just wait, grey zone score, he wasn’t sure.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  June 30, 2019 @ 3:19 pm · EditThey have a paylist and will process awards in order until they run out of money, which may or may not be after they reach your application’s spot on the list. Your PO has no way of knowing either – these are complicated grants to negotiate and manage, so you’ll just need to be patient and take heart that your PO thinks you have a chance.
  
  >
  
  Reply
Heather Limbert said

July 1, 2019 @ 4:13 am · EditHi
I got the impact score of 32 for my K08 with NHLBI. This is my first submission. The Pauline for the past few years has been 32.
– Do you know what my chance would be to get the award?
– Can the chair of my department talk to my PO in support of my application?
– What shall I discuss with my PO (possibly in order to increase the chance of finding)? I assume she will be my advocate at the council.
Thank you
Heather

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 1, 2019 @ 9:46 am · EditYour Chair should not talk to the PO – this is your application, not the Chair’s. Intervention by your Chair would not be well received (the letter of support provided should speak to the Chair’s support of your career). Your PO does not attend the Council meeting on your (or any applicant’s) behalf. The role of Council is to assess the quality of the review, not make funding decisions. They approve applications on the list sent by the NHLBI Director for consideration for funding. IC Directors make final funding decisions, though there are internal discussions of applications not clearly within the payline being considered for awards, and it is for these meetings that POs sometimes request a one-page rebuttal to the review in advocating for specific applications. If the FY20 payline stays at 32, then you are fine and shouldn’t expect to need to do anything. However, the payline depends on the federal budget. While the NIH appropriation should either stay flat or go up slightly, no one (certainly not your PO) will know for sure for several months still, so projections of funding likelihood will not be possible until after the budget is signed into law (whether via an HHS or omnibus spending bill). Your only question to the PO right now should be whether you should resubmit for insurance (just in case the payline does go up) and if so, guidance on revising the application based on the study section discussion.
  
  Reply
  - Heather Limbert said
    
    July 1, 2019 @ 5:09 pm · EditThank you very much, very helpful.
    And I am trying to understand the role of council. Would they look at my summary statement and the critiques, or they will just consider the impact score?
    If the payline remains 32, considering the impact score of my application is 32, do the content of critiques affect the decision for funding?
Linda said

July 1, 2019 @ 5:02 pm · EditMy A0 RO1 application to NIAMS was reviewed in June and got 34 impact score (20 percentile). I am an ESI. NIAMS’s payline for ESI in FY2019 was 22. Since FY2020 payline will be not out until next year, I may not get funded this year or may get delayed until next year. I also submitted a different A0 RO1 to the same IC in June 2019, assiged to same study section too. In this case, my two RO1 may be considered at same time next year. Is that possible that IC will fund two grants or they only fund one grant from same PI even if I may get decent score with the 2nd application?
Thank you!

Linda

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 2, 2019 @ 3:16 pm · EditYou definitely won’t be considered for funding in FY19. Your application reviewed in June (submitted in February 2019, I assume) will be considered for funding later this year (2019 but FY20) – depending on where the budget process is by November. Your application submitted in June will be considered for funding in early 2020. There is a chance both applications will be considered for funding at the same time if the FY20 appropriation is late (a very good chance, actually), but that should not affect your chances of having both R01s receive awards, assuming the science is strong, of high priority, and in different areas. That is, when everything aligns, the same IC can and does make 2 awards to the same PI in the same FY or even cycle sometimes … but this is not good grant strategy, since it would be better to stagger award starts in different years so you are always covered and not having to renew to projects at the same time.
  
  Reply
Heather Limbert said

July 1, 2019 @ 5:09 pm · EditThank you very much, very helpful.
And I am trying to understand the role of council. Would they look at my summary statement and the critiques, or they will just consider the impact score?
If the payline remains 32, considering the impact score of my application is 32, do the content of critiques affect the decision for funding?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 2, 2019 @ 3:05 pm · EditIf the payline stays at 32, you should get an award. For scores within payline, decisions to fund are only affected by an inability to satisfy regulatory requirements, overlapping funding, too much funding to a single PI, and other similarly specific exceptions (for a skipped application). The reviewer concerns and your response to them come into play if you are just above the payline, and program staff are trying to decide whether to award you a select pay (above payline) funding.
  
  Reply
Sarah said

July 2, 2019 @ 7:02 pm · EditI applied for an F31 in December 2018. I received my scores on March 4 (8th percentile, impact score 20). Overall summary statement was positive. I emailed my PO about the likelihood of funding and he said he’d hear from me in June after council review. I believe NEI council met two weeks ago but my eRA commons status hasn’t changed from “SRG review completed”. What’s the typical timeline for an F31 from council to pending to notice of award? I’ll start my 5th year of my PhD this fall and am anxiously waiting. Should I contact my PO again?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 3, 2019 @ 6:14 pm · EditFellowships do not go to Council, so you will not have the status Council review completed. Your score seems quite fundable, but it could be that the internal meetings at which fellowship award decisions are made have not taken place yet. Next week, after the holiday, you can probably check in with your PO again if you haven’t heard in the meantime. Also, you don’t need to worry about the start date, if it is July 1 – it’s not an expiration date and is not relevant to the award at all.
  
  Reply
GU said

July 2, 2019 @ 7:46 pm · EditMy NIA R01 (non AD) received a score of 31 (16%) in June. PO says it will be considered in FY2020 pending new ESI payline (FY19 was 20%).

Two questions I have

1) I am little worried that payline will drop below 16, considering ESI payline for last 4 years was around 20%, any reason to expect it will drop 4 points?

2) Assuming payline did not move, If FY2020 appropriation was to be delayed, should I expect a JIT after council in September or when FY2020 appropriation is finalized (January?)

Thank you for such a nice blog!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 3, 2019 @ 6:18 pm · EditUnless there are massive budget cuts across the board, the NIH should be at least flat and may possibly get another increase, so I would not expect a drop in ESI payline (though this can also be sensitive to the number of applications in the queue). I don’t think your R01 will be considered in FY19, so you’ll need to watch the news coming out of Washington to gauge when the HHS-Labor-Education appropriation bill will be signed into law (individually if in the fall, probably part of an omnibus spending bill if not until 2020).
  
  Reply
mdt2113 said

July 3, 2019 @ 12:50 pm · EditHi, NIA K99 applicant here. My A0 received an impact score of 40 (career award payline is 28 for FY19). I contacted my PO for a phone call to discuss revision/resubmission, and she asked for a response to the reviewers before setting up the call.

My questions are:
1. Is select pay typically an option even the score is well outside the payline and the applicant isn’t time-limited for resubmission?

2. What time frame should I get the response in? Council meeting is September. I’ve got a paper in review, and more data coming in, so I’d like as much time as possible to give the strongest response.

Thanks! This blog is a great resource!

Reply
- Neurite said
  
  July 3, 2019 @ 1:40 pm · EditI did a rebuttal for my K08 resubmission per the request of my PO. My IC (NINDS) does not have a solid payline for K. My PO asked me to turn it in one month before the council. It may be IC-dependent, but NINDS has a career development office that evaluates K award applications before they go to council (I think), so the POs may want this information way ahead of time.
  
  Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 4, 2019 @ 11:15 am · EditIf your work is of special interest (especially in AD/ADRD), they might stretch that far for select pay – but the PO might also simply be interested in how you plan to respond in terms of planning the resubmission. You should plan to resubmit even if there is a chance for this application, since the FY20 payline won’t be known for many months – and November would be a good choice, leaving you next July as well, depending on when your K99 eligibility runs out (Feb/March would be the least attractive timing for submission due to federal budget delays). Right now, you want to write up a 1-2 page response to the critiques raised in the Summary of Discussion paragraph, but you can also let your PO know about the upcoming data and manuscript under review. You can send updates on these at any time after you send in your response to the critiques, which you should do relatively soon (but take the time to write a thoughtful response) so you and your PO can have a conversation on next steps.
  
  Reply
MIRA said

July 6, 2019 @ 4:25 pm · EditCan you explain the NIGMS paylist a bit more? I applied for ESI MIRA. Many people with scores above and below me have gotten the award from my PO. For me, he said no update. What info is he waiting on to decide on my grant and when would he know? Or is it just a polite decline?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 8, 2019 @ 2:21 pm · EditNo, he would say no award if you weren’t even on the list. Decisions are made on more than scores, which would explain why some people with higher scores have heard back. They will keep processing awards until they run out of $ for the ESI MIRA program, at which point (which won’t be until near the end of the FY), your PO will be able to give you an answer. This takes a bit longer because some MIRA PIs will need to relinquish awards, which slows the process of determining available funds. No update is better than no …
  
  Reply
  - Zetetic Elench said
    
    July 8, 2019 @ 5:56 pm · EditThanks for the response (I’m also in the same boat)
  - MIRA said
    
    July 8, 2019 @ 8:22 pm · Editappreciate the info, it’s all new to me!
Tim said

July 9, 2019 @ 9:55 am · EditMy NIGMS R01 is score at 13%. The anticipated start date of the R01 is April 1 2019. Since the award was not issued. I contacted the PO on April 10. The PO responded the status of the grant is to be paid. I contacted the PO again regarding the status of the NOA in early June. He recommended me to ask the GMS. No response from the GMS. Now I saw people in cycle III has been paid. Is it normal that it takes this long for the notice of the award to be issued? Does this mean I am on the bottom of their pay list? Is it possible that I may not get the award in fiscal 2019? Any suggestion for moving forward? Thank you in advance for your response.

Reply
- SaG said
  
  July 9, 2019 @ 12:40 pm · EditIf you are to be paid then an award is coming. You should have a GS and a GMO (GS’ boss) listed on the award. Contact both of them again. Maybe cc: the PO. At this stage the PO isn’t involved much. It could be that the GS needs some paperwork from your grants office too. Or that the GS is overloaded with work.
  
  Reply
Tim said

July 9, 2019 @ 4:30 pm · EditThank you for the response. It is very helpful. Where can I find the GMO contact info? So far I can only see the grant management specialist contact listed on my era commons page. By the way, my status of era commons is still listed as pending administrative review, even the PO emailed me regarding the status is to be paid. Does that mean the same thing?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 9, 2019 @ 5:09 pm · EditThe administrative review typically indicates your application is under consideration for an award. Your PO is telling you that you will receive an award. Your institution’s grant office staff can both confirm that they have not been asked for any additional information (the absence of which could hold up your award processing) and might know whom to contact – they are in regular contact with GM staff throughout the NIH and probably have connections at NIGMS. You can call the GMS if email isn’t working, too. (and thanks, SaG!)
  
  Reply
R15 in holding pattern said

July 9, 2019 @ 5:24 pm · EditHi writedit, any thoughts on how likely funding is when a grant is forwarded by one’s PO for consideration for end of year funding? Sometime I think its just to appease the applicant and that there is not necessary an increased likelihood of funding a grant that is out of the posted payline. Thoughts? Thanks.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 9, 2019 @ 5:29 pm · EditIf you mean your PO was advocating for your application to be paid above payline, then you can keep hoping through September – good news really can come at the last minute. And POs only engage in this effort when they want to see an application funded (not to appease or quiet a PI) – it’s not a simple “forwarding” of an email with no other action involved. If they do not think the application is worth pushing for an award, they would simply advise the PI to submit again. In the meantime, hopefully your PO gave you some guidance on resubmission (whether as an A1 or new A0) based on your summary statement and discussion as insurance while you wait.
  
  Reply
LLC to C-Corp said

July 9, 2019 @ 7:23 pm · EditHi Writedit. Thanks for your commitment to answering questions and updating this. We have an active SBIR fast-track (R44) with NIGMS. We are considering changing our entity from an LLC to C-Corp in preparation for external investors. Can you advise on how to approach this with NIH and how complicated the process is (or things to consider to streamline it)? If we can retain our current EIN number, does NIH view this only as a name change? Is there any period of time where we would not be able to draw down money from PMS?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 10, 2019 @ 9:59 am · EditThis is definitely a discussion with your PO, since it relates to industry grants management, something I have no experience with. The PO might refer you to a GMS or GMO – but you don’t need to worry about your query affecting the award. I assume if your EIN stays the same, nothing else will change in terms of the award, but even if the EIN changes, the NIH will have a SOP for updating the award (same as if a PI changes institutions). Talking with the grants management folks at the NIH before making a change is the best approach – they can tell you what you can do to make the transition smooth, if there are any proactive options that you should consider. Congrats with your progress as a company and good luck with your R&D work!
  
  Reply
  - LLC to C-Corp said
    
    July 11, 2019 @ 6:42 pm · EditThanks so much! You rock!
Andrea said

July 12, 2019 @ 6:31 pm · EditI’m an ESI that just received an impact score of 41 (no percentile given) from a joint NIMH/NIA (NIMH primary) that is focused on MCI and early AD. This was the second submission of an RFA with only two application periods (my first submission was not discussed). I’m currently waiting for my summery statement (impatiently), but wondering if I’m completely out of the running at this point. My prior applications and understanding has not been from an RFA standpoint so seeing an impact score of 41 was a huge disappointment for the resubmission. Is there any chance that this could be a function of nature of the RFA review pannel only having two sessions (with a completely non-overlapping set of reviewers)? Thanks so much in advance for any insight!

Reply
- edta said
  
  July 12, 2019 @ 6:55 pm · EditDon’t give up too early. Have seen impact score in low 40’s (R01 RFA) funded for an ESI.
  
  Reply
  - Andrea said
    
    July 12, 2019 @ 6:59 pm · EditOh that is so great to hear! I was so disheartened when I saw the initial score.
  - Andrea said
    
    July 12, 2019 @ 6:59 pm · EditThank you!
- Andrea said
  
  July 12, 2019 @ 6:58 pm · EditOoops… guess I should have specified that this was an R01.
  
  Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 12, 2019 @ 10:26 pm · EditEDTA is exactly right – with an RFA, funding decisions are made on more than impact scores (& without a percentile, you have no way of knowing how you did relative to other applications). Especially with an AD/ADRD application, they will make decisions based on the science and reach as high as they need to. When you get your summary statement, check in with your PO about next steps. You might be asked to prepare a brief rebuttal to the concerns raised. Your PO might also recommend that you resubmit (to another FOA) and can give advice on revision strategy, too.
  
  >
  
  Reply
  - Andrea said
    
    July 17, 2019 @ 3:51 pm · EditThank you so much, this is very helpful. My fingers will be crossed in the meantime as I impatiently wait to hear about my summary statement.
  - Andrea said
    
    September 3, 2019 @ 11:30 am · EditThank you again for all your advice here, so helpful! I received a the following notice from my PO this morning:
    
    “I have been informed that we will try and award your application before the end of the fiscal year (9/30). Please go ahead and try and get the JIT information into the eraCommons system so that once our Council meeting is done, we will be able to move forward. Please feel free to give me a call if you have any questions. Congratulations!!”
    
    Does this mean that it’s a done deal!? Is there still a place where it could go wrong?
    
    Thank you again!
  - writedit said
    
    September 4, 2019 @ 8:29 am · EditNot a done deal until you get your JIT in, and your application gets through its administrative review without a problem in time … but your PO is indicating that if everything can be wrapped up by September 30, you should have an award. Get the JIT in ASAP!
  - Bhaskar said
    
    September 4, 2019 @ 12:49 pm · EditVery Informative discussion group. Thank you all.
    
    Today I checked my eRA common for my R21, it reads like this:
    
    Status: Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
    
    Last Status Update Date: 09/03/2019.
    
    Is there any hope I will get this funding and if yes, when I should expect my NoA. I am waiting since last 3 months.
    Thank you all again.
  - writedit said
    
    September 7, 2019 @ 12:51 am · EditIf you don’t have your Notice of Award (ie, funding) yet, you will sometime next week. Congratulations and best wishes for success with your research!
  - oh said
    
    September 7, 2019 @ 1:01 am · EditYou have a solid chance to get it as EOY, assuming your JIT and other checklist items are OK so that AC will give you a green light.
  - Andrea said
    
    September 7, 2019 @ 2:17 pm · EditThank you again! Your explanations have been incredibly helpful and so very appreciated!
    
    I received the official JIT notice on Thursday and submitted on Friday (with a IRB in review). I was curious if this might be an example of one of the expedited reviews I had read about. The earliest start date listed on the RFA was supposed to be 12/1, but the GMS said if selected it would push my start date up to 9/23 or earlier. I hadn’t heard of them advancing the grant start date before. Are they likely to try to push for it early like this if they think there will be issues? Feeling like this will be a long two weeks waiting.. would be such a career game changer if it comes through!
  - writedit said
    
    September 9, 2019 @ 11:20 am · EditThe start date is always a placeholder – awards regularly start after the application start date, and the NIH can issue awards in advance of the start date. In this case, it could be the ICs involved want to make these awards in FY19 due to potential delays in the FY20 appropriation and/or to spend down the FY19 AD/ADRD Bypass Budget funds.
  - Andrea said
    
    September 20, 2019 @ 3:15 pm · EditJust received my NOA last night! here is my timeline in case it’s helpful for others. Thank you again for maintaining this site writedit, so helpful to have these questions answered!
    
    09/19/2019 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
    07/10/2019 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
    03/22/2019 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
    03/19/2019 Application entered into system
  - writedit said
    
    September 21, 2019 @ 6:45 pm · EditCongratulations – glad they managed to squeeze in your R01 in FY19. Best wishes for success with your research.
    
    >
End of Fiscal year said

July 30, 2019 @ 11:34 am · EditI have a borderline R01 from NIGMS and the PO said it will be under consideration until the end of the fiscal year.

I’m new and don’t know how possible funding at the end of the fiscal year works. Is it common or very rare to get selected near the end? and what is the timeline usually? Right at the end of September all notifications go out or trickle out from now til then? Any insight appreciated! Thanks

Reply
- edta said
  
  July 30, 2019 @ 12:03 pm · EditIt is common for proposals in grey area. Basically, they are scraping the bottom of the jar and fund as many as they can.
  Since the fiscal year ends on Sep 30, they will try to issue award by then. Mid-September NoA is common (should it happen, you are likely to get some notice beforehead-likely sometime in August).
  
  Reply
  - writedit said
    
    July 30, 2019 @ 5:45 pm · EditThanks, edta – you are exactly right. In addition to rummaging under the sofa cushions for money, NIGMS will know how all administrative reviews (which can eliminate some applications) and award negotiations (which can free up additional funds, especially with MIRAs) turn out. If you haven’t submitted JIT, you’ll need to be able to turn it around in a day, or you might be skipped as they rush to meet the September 30th deadline.
    
    >
Impatient said

July 31, 2019 @ 11:46 am · EditHi Writedit, thank you for everything that you do. I am in the same situation as “End of Fiscal Year” above. I am waiting (impatiently so) to hear about select pay for my K grant. I am wondering how frequently or infrequently should I be checking in with my PO. I don’t want to be annoying and at the same time seem disengaged. The last time I spoke to my PO in May he asked me to wait and that he couldn’t assure me of anything but that he would try his best to advocate for my application. I am afraid that while waiting to hear about the grant, my contract and visa status will be in potential jeopardy if I don’t get it. So I also wanted to know if I could/should ‘shop around’ for another IC. My research could also potentially fall in the realm of NICHD and my score is well within their pay-line. I did not however list them as a secondary IC when I submitted my K grant. Does that close all doors in having NICHD consider my application for this funding cycle?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  July 31, 2019 @ 6:31 pm · EditYou should get in touch with your PO and alert him to your contract and visa issues, if you haven’t already. This could make a difference in the decisions being made (ie, you may not have a chance to apply again). Unfortunately, Ks are specific to the IC to which you apply – they are reviewed internally and cannot be transferred to another IC. Often ICs have different K policies and application guidelines, too. You would need to apply again to a specific alternative IC (eg, NICHD).
  
  Reply
  - Impatient said
    
    August 1, 2019 @ 10:50 am · EditThank you Writedit. I was not aware about the K policy, its good to know! I have let my PO know about my inability to apply again. I guess I just have to sit tight and wait.
k_limbo said

August 6, 2019 @ 5:43 pm · EditWhat’s your recommendation on when to share grant news?

Of course no public announcements until NOA and mentors get real-time updates. Asking for the gray zone. Ex: a different grant program specifically asking you to apply, but knowing you will be ineligible once NOA released.

Ok to share reason why not applying (K-award PO has said project will get funded and grant currently pending administrative review) or remain tight lipped until NOA?

BTW, thanks for this great forum. Great for working off anxious “waiting for grant” energy, lol.

Reply
Rob said

August 7, 2019 @ 2:55 pm · EditHi, Appreciate any insight anyone might have on a score that I just received on an NHLBI R35 OIA. Raw Impact Score was 29. No percentile given. Tx and best wishes, Rob

Reply
- writedit said
  
  August 7, 2019 @ 6:16 pm · EditMy guess is that they’ll make decisions on more than just scores, but I suspect yours should be within the realm of consideration. Hopefully someone with NHLBI R35 experience will chime in, too.
  
  >
  
  Reply
  - Rob said
    
    August 9, 2019 @ 2:49 pm · EditTx for the thoughts. Chatting with my PO next week. Maybe I can get a clue or two then, though to be honest, I expect to be in limbo for a while – maybe through to council in late Oct.
  - writedit said
    
    August 9, 2019 @ 3:10 pm · EditYes, if you just got scored, the waiting has just begun, but your PO should have some insights, especially if you have your summary statement; if not, the PO may not be able to say much until the discussion comments are available, unless he/she attended and heard the discussion (though PO still needs to see written comments, too). Although a December start date is suggested, that will probably depend on the status of the federal budget (and specifically the NIH appropriation).
NextSteps said

August 7, 2019 @ 5:00 pm · EditWritedit, thank you for the very informative blog that helps ease all the impatient minds out there, mine included. For a different perspective I wanted to post my timeline for an industry NIH grant, since it seems the information available is even less than academia. This is for an NIH NINDS U44 Cooperative Agreement and while it took a while the process has been smooth and the staff has been great.

08/05/2019 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
07/17/2019 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
02/15/2019 Council review completed.
10/26/2018 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
06/22/2018 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
06/19/2018 Application entered into system

Fingers crossed for the NoA in the next few days!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  August 8, 2019 @ 11:41 am · EditThank you so much for sharing your timeline! This is an important example of how Us potentially differ from Rs, depending on the level of NIH involvement. Best wishes for success with your project!
  
  Reply
rhino1207 said

August 15, 2019 @ 2:18 pm · EditI post my timeline here in case someone need it:

10/17/2018: Application entered into system;
10/20/2018: Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions
to the Scientific Review Administrator.
03/27/2019: Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review
pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
05/17/2019: Council review completed;
06/23/2019: Official JIT requested;
06/27/2019: JIT submitted;
08/06/2019: Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to
Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
08/14/2019: Award prepared.

I want to thank writedit and other applicants for the helpful discussions, and wish everyone best of luck!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  August 15, 2019 @ 5:33 pm · EditThank you for sharing your timeline – best wishes for success with your research!
  
  Reply
pending said

August 16, 2019 @ 5:34 pm · EditESI R35 turned to pending today. No word from the PO yet. Does this mean definitely funded or how likely is it to fall through?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  August 16, 2019 @ 6:04 pm · EditYou can put the champagne in the fridge but wait for the NoA to pop the cork. Unless they find a problem during the administrative review, you should be in line for an award.
  
  >
  
  Reply
k_limbo said

August 21, 2019 @ 4:56 pm · EditThanks for maintaining this page. I stumbled upon it after receiving IS and it’s been quite helpful.

Sharing NCI K08 timeline as a resource to other applicants.

10/12/2018: Application entered into system
10/22/2018: Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
03/04/2019: Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official. Impact Score: 24
06/11/2019: Council review completed.
07/26/2019: Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
08/19/2019: Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
08/20/2019: Notice of Award

Reply
- writedit said
  
  August 22, 2019 @ 1:36 pm · EditCongratulations and thank you so much for sharing your timeline! Best wishes for success with your project and career in biomedical research.
  
  Reply
Tim said

August 23, 2019 @ 2:59 pm · EditI am not sure whether it is the right place to ask the following questions. I hope I can get some advice from the experienced users here. If it is not the right place, please kindly let me know where to look for the answers or simply discard/skip my questions. Thank you.

I have received an offer from a new institution and considering moving my research program to the new university. I have more than 4 years left of the R01. I have the following questions:

(1) Is possible that the current institution will not release the grant at all? What will be the reasons for the current institution not to relinquishing the R01? Are there any regulations/policies to suggest that an active grant should/could follow the PI to the new institution?

(2) Should I avoid spending prior to the grant being relinquished?

(3) How long will it take for the NIH to process the grant transfer once the current institution relinquished the grant?

(4) Are there any reasons that a PO or a GMS will not approve the grant transfer?

(5) Will the remaining direct cost be reduced if the new institution has higher indirect cost structure than the current one?

I look forward to hearing from you. Many thanks.

Reply
- SaG said
  
  August 23, 2019 @ 3:20 pm · EditThe answers to some of your questions will depend on which institute funds your grant and where you are leaving from and going to. In general,
  
  0) Talk to your program officer! Just do it. Send the email today. Why wait! They don’t care if you move as long as the project gets done. They will get miffed if you call them after you move and ask to get the grant transferred that week.
  1)Yes it is possible but rare. Most places are fine with a transfer. But, it is your school’s choice. They don’t need a reason to not transfer it; it is their grant not yours. But they would have to find a replacement PI agreeable to NIH.
  2) This is up to you.
  3) 3-6 months. Could be longer if there are animal or human subjects problems. Or if folks are slow responding to NIH’s document requests.
  4) Yes, if you try to transfer a grant to an ineligible institution (R15 to a non R15 eligible for instance) or if the new school doesn’t have a resource that is essential for the work to be completed. For example, absence of BSL-3 facilities.
  5)Depends on the NIH Institute that funds your grant and how big the difference is.
  6) Did you email your PO yet?
  
  Reply
- writedit said
  
  August 23, 2019 @ 3:44 pm · EditSaG has excellent and accurate advice. Your first point of contact should be the PO – if he/she has any concerns about your ability to conduct the work at the new institution, better to know that right now while you are still considering the offer … and better to keep your PO happy with as much notice as possible (they in turn will remember you when advocating for future applications n’at). The likelihood of the award not being transferred is very low but not zero (especially if the new institution is not appropriate for the work being done, as noted above and by SaG). Your current institution is not likely to try to keep the award because your current institution also needs to recruit faculty (such as when you leave), preferably those with grant funding, and they want the faculty they recruit to bring their awards … but if your current institution has the reputation of not allowing faculty to take grant awards with them, no one will come (ie, karma). Now, if your award involves co-investigators at your current institution who are the best researchers to do the work, and you want to keep these co-investigators as friendly collaborators and colleagues even after you move, you will probably be sending a chunk of the award back to your current institution as a subaward, which will also make you current (possibly former if you relocate) institution happy. In terms of not spending on the award, if you decide to accept the offer and need to wind down the work in preparation for moving, then you will naturally reduce/stop spending. You should think about this carefully in terms of when there is a natural break in the work (ie, if animal or clinical subjects are involved). It will take longer than you think to get going again at the new institution, too, so you don’t want anything time-sensitive lingering in limbo. Your mentor should be able to give you advice on all this, too, when you feel comfortable discussing it.
  
  Reply
  - SaG said
    
    August 23, 2019 @ 3:55 pm · EditNIH needs to fund or hire Writedit…Knows more than some POs……
Tim said

August 25, 2019 @ 5:27 pm · EditThanks.

Reply
Curious said

August 27, 2019 @ 11:17 pm · EditI received the following reply from the PO. What this exactly mean?

“Thank you for the rebuttal. Please submit an amended proposal.”

Thank you!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  August 27, 2019 @ 11:35 pm · EditUnfortunately, this means you will not receive an award in FY19 and need to submit an A1 application in November (if an R01 or other activity code for which resubmissions are due in November vs October).
  
  >
  
  Reply
Lawson said

August 31, 2019 @ 5:56 pm · EditI have had a similar experience to @edta… I submitted a SBIR proposal for the first time last year, and received a pretty good score. Last Friday my status changed from “Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.” to “Council review completed.” From everything I’ve read on this site, this is NOT good news. I emailed the PO late Friday afternoon, but haven’t heard anything yet…

08/30/2019 Council review completed.
07/24/2019 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
02/25/2019 Council review completed.
11/15/2018 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to the Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
09/17/2018 Scientific Review Group review pending.
09/04/2018 Application entered into system

Reply
- writedit said
  
  September 3, 2019 @ 12:38 am · EditThe GMS might have a better idea of what is going on, unless the review is complete but the GMS is awaiting a green light from program to prepare an award. Just because it went back to Council review completed is not necessarily the end of the story (it can be changed again to reflect that an award is being prepared). You would have been contacted if they needed additional information from you to complete the administrative review, and it could just be that the administrative review is done, and the application is back in the queue for program review and approval of the award. Hopefully you’ll have good news after the holiday weekend.
  
  Reply
  - Lawson said
    
    September 3, 2019 @ 10:15 am · EditI contacted the GMS a week ago, and he responded with, “Sorry had some things I had to prioritize…hoping to get something to you shortly.” Sounds like there’s still a reasonable chance to get funded. Reading the era tea leaves is a little tricky. This site is a great resource. I appreciate your help!
  - writedit said
    
    September 4, 2019 @ 8:27 am · EditSounds like you should be getting an award (assuming the administrative review doesn’t turn up any issues). They don’t start processing awards without the intent to fund at this stage of the FY, and your GMS clearly intends to get back to it.
  - Lawson said
    
    September 7, 2019 @ 11:27 am · EditI think you’re right, but unfortunately, I received the following message from my PO last week. ” It appears we had a bit less money left over in our SBIR budget than we anticipated. I tried grabbing money from other institutes, but no luck. You are still on our funding plans but it won’t happen until next fiscal year. Sorry about this but I am very confident we will be able to move on your grant in the Fall. Stay optimistic.”
    
    Is this common, funding proposals from a different FY?
    
    I get the impression that my PO is genuinely advocating for me. Or is this just boiler plate PO verbiage???
  - writedit said
    
    September 7, 2019 @ 12:53 pm · EditYou have a fantastic PO. They can fund applications as long as they are administratively active (which is usually 2-3 years after submission). It’s not typical for ICs to reach back and fund applications from prior FYs, but in your case, your work is clearly a priority, and your score was competitive. The SBIR budget is set at 3.2% of the IC’s appropriation, which is why your PO said they ran out of funds for FY19 (hard funding threshold). Your PO went above and beyond checking with other ICs and keeping it on the paylist for FY20 – definitely not a boilerplate response.
  - Lawson said
    
    September 7, 2019 @ 1:13 pm · EditThat’s what I was thinking too. It feels like the PO is genuinely pulling for us.
    
    Oh, btw, I’m a software engineer. Right now I’m super busy because we are releasing the app we’ll be researching on Sept 28. If you ever need any help developing or designing your site, just let me know. I rarely offer my services for free, but this is a fantastic resource. It has been really helpful. Thanks for your help! I’ll let you know how things turn out next FY.
- Lawson said
  
  March 27, 2020 @ 10:07 am · EditA few more twists and turns than expected, thanks for all your help!
  
  03/27/2020 Application awarded.
  
  03/18/2020 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
  
  02/15/2020 Worldwide pandemic
  
  01/08/2020 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
  
  10/01/2019 Continuing Resolution
  
  08/29/2019 Council review completed.
  
  07/24/2019 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
  
  02/25/2019 Council review completed.
  
  11/15/2018 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
  
  09/17/2018 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
  
  09/04/2018 Application entered into system
  
  Reply
  - writedit said
    
    March 27, 2020 @ 1:24 pm · EditWoohoo! Finally! Congratulations and best wishes for success with your project! For those who wonder how long the “Pending” status can last and whether COVID-19 is affecting NIH operations (or what can happen when the Federal Budget is delayed), please note the time frames here.
VP said

September 7, 2019 @ 12:42 am · EditHi, I am curious to know the process after the fellowship impact scores are posted on era commons. I have applied F31 and wondering how I can expect the timeline.
A colleague applied F31 last year, received an impact score that was on the edge of being funded. When she contacted the PO, the PO said it will not be funded, but finally, she received the notification in two months for the award.
Do fellowship applications that are in consideration or in the process of being funded go through council review? Are these applicants asked to submit JIT? How long does the process take once the impact scores are posted?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  September 7, 2019 @ 12:50 am · EditFellowship applications do not go to Council, but they are discussed internally at the IC. POs are always conservative, and your colleague’s PO probably was pretty sure the score was too high (and so wanted to convey a realistic expectation to the applicant), but either the IC had extra money available or the discussion turned up special interest in the work. Fellowships can be funded shortly after the Council meeting (not due to the actual meeting but due to the timing of internal discussions for all applications under consideration for paylists) … or they can wait many months, especially if they are due for awards early in an FY. If you have your summary statement, your PO might have an initial inkling about funding likelihood (and whether you should resubmit, even just for insurance).
  
  Reply
  - VP said
    
    September 7, 2019 @ 1:09 am · EditThat’s good to know, thank you!
    Are all applications that received scores (except ND) discussed at the internal meeting or only the selected ones (like, top-scored, <30)? Who reviews applications at the IC or internal meetings? Are these the same reviewers that reviewed the applications?
    I read the summary statement and application of the colleague before I submitted my application to get a good idea about reviews.
    She had minor concerns in the summary discussion but overall a positive summary in the discussion paragraph and scored less (3-4) in sponsor and training sections, but scored very well in the applicant (1-2) and institutional sections. Are individual scores and comments considered during the internal meetings?
    I just noticed a few minor errors in my app, can I send some corrections to my PO ASAP?
  - writedit said
    
    September 7, 2019 @ 1:05 pm · EditStarting with your last query, no, you cannot make any corrections to your application. Your application will be assigned to a standing study section managed by the Center for Scientific Review. Ideally, you would have identified and requested the best study section to review your application, and shame on your Advisor for not helping you with this. However, CSR will likely get it to the most appropriate study section. You can look at your assignment and check the study section description and membership on the CSR website. These reviewers look at the science and come from universities and other research institutions across the US. The second review takes place among scientific leaders at the Institute or Center considering your application (check assignment if you did not request a specific Institute). Generally, the score/percentile and summary of discussion (and whatever POs attending the review meeting heard in person) are more important than any individual reviewer comments (and definitely not the individual criterion scores). The Institute is not going to re-review the science but consider whether your research and training plan are appropriate for their scientific mission, and yes, they will select those within a certain threshold, with some ICs using a hard payline for their fellowship applications (e.g., NIAID, NHLBI).
  - VP said
    
    September 7, 2019 @ 1:12 am · EditAlso, do fellowship applications (F31) in consideration to be funded get JIT request email like R01 and other grants? Just curious to know if this could be another sign of at least being in the pool for the next step.
  - writedit said
    
    September 7, 2019 @ 1:08 pm · EditYes, you will receive a JIT request if your IC is considering your application for an award.
  - VP said
    
    September 9, 2019 @ 2:49 pm · EditThank you so much! This has been very helpful!
    Just one more question: when do we receive JIT requests? Is that after the scientific review meeting or after the final council/IC meeting?
VP said

September 9, 2019 @ 12:55 pm · EditThank you so much! This has been very helpful!
Just one more question: when do we receive JIT requests? Is that after the scientific review meeting or after the final council/IC meeting?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  September 10, 2019 @ 10:34 am · EditJIT comes around the Council meeting – sometimes before, sometimes after – and sometimes well after, depending on the IC and FY situation.
  
  Reply
BHASKAR DAS said

September 9, 2019 @ 1:19 pm · EditTHANK YOU ALL. I RECEIVED NoA today of my R21.

Status: Application awarded.
Last Status Update Date: 09/09/2019

Here is time line.Effect Date Status Message
09/03/2019 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
06/14/2019 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
03/15/2019 Council review completed.
03/15/2019 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
03/06/2019 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
11/26/2018 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
11/16/2018 Application entered into system

Reply
- writedit said
  
  September 10, 2019 @ 10:36 am · EditCongratulations and thank you for posting your timeline, which should help reassure others who wait months in the Pending status! Best wishes for success with your research.
  
  Reply
  - Bhaskar Das said
    
    September 10, 2019 @ 10:38 am · EditThanks Editing.
    
    On Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 10:36 AM Medical Writing, Editing & Grantsmanship wrote:
    
    > writedit commented: “Congratulations and thank you for posting your > timeline, which should help reassure others who wait months in the Pending > status! Best wishes for success with your research.” >
BRG said

September 26, 2019 @ 10:06 am · EditHi writedit,
I have a question about the relationship between budget and the chance of funding. My proposal includes subcontract, so it is a bit tight to use a modular budget. I was told that keeping around $300k would be safe with a non-modular budget. My current plan is a little bit over $300k up to 3rd year, but a bit higher on 4th and 5th year (~$375k). Would it negatively affect my proposal? Is it safe to keep around $ 300k?
Thanks!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  September 26, 2019 @ 10:53 am · EditThe main benefit of a modular budget is its simplified nature (less work for applicants in both the budget and justification). However, the budget should be appropriate for the science, and so long as the science is of significant interest to the IC, whether you request $250K or $300K or $400K shouldn’t matter in terms of funding decisions. I suspect the advice is intended to keep you well below the $500K threshold at which IC permission is needed to submit the application, both for this initial application and for its renewal (to keep its budget below $500K after a 10-20% increase) – but again, if the IC is excited about the science and the budget is appropriate, the amount shouldn’t be a deciding factor.
  
  Reply
  - BRG said
    
    September 26, 2019 @ 11:31 am · EditThis is a great answer! I really appreciate your quick and helpful response!
NIGMS applicant said

September 26, 2019 @ 12:14 pm · EditHi Writeit,
My NIGMS MIRA R35 application was reviewed last June. The NIGMS council meeting was last week, but my eracommon status still reads “Pending council review”. Is this normal or is there something wrong happened? Thanks!

Reply
- SaG said
  
  September 26, 2019 @ 12:56 pm · EditMaybe they forgot to bring your app to Council! Just kidding, it takes 3-5 days to get the ERA info updated. I bet by Friday it will say, Pending Award. Which doesn’t mean it will be awarded.
  
  Reply
  - NIGMS applicant said
    
    September 26, 2019 @ 12:58 pm · EditThanks! 🙂
Anna said

October 8, 2019 @ 7:15 pm · EditHi writedit,
I submitted my K08 application in February. My score is borderline and within the payline (32) if the payline (32) does not change.
– Would you please tell me when I will hear the final result? Is it late October, November or December?
– I talked with my PO over the phone and discussed my answers to the reviewers’ comments. He liked the fact that I do have answer for the concerns and asked me to write them to him in a letter. I suppose it may be used if I go above the payline and they want to discuss my application again? And is there a date (deadline) by which i should send such letter?
Many thanks
Anna

Reply
- writedit said
  
  October 9, 2019 @ 3:00 pm · EditUnfortunately, your PO will not be able to give you an answer until the NIH appropriation is signed into law, either as part of a bill funding HHS-Labor-Education or as part of a federal budget omnibus bill. Right now, the Continuing Resolution (CR) funding the federal government is scheduled to last until November, but if the FY20 budget bills have not passed, then the CR will be extended until a bill is signed into law. In past years, CRs have been repeated well into the next calendar year due to politics, delaying all NIH (and other federal) awards in the process. The ICs cannot set their paylines until they know what their budget is (although we still anticipate it going up or at least staying the same), and they will make few new awards under a CR. In the meantime, you would want to send your PO a 1-2 page write-up of your responses to the review concerns, as you discussed on the phone. I would suggest doing this as soon as you can, so your PO can comment on any of your responses. If you did not discuss submitting an A1 application in November, I would urge you to ask your PO if you should plan to do this so as not to miss a funding cycle if your application with a score of 32 is not funded. If your PO says to wait, then you can feel pretty confident (but not guaranteed) about funding, as POs are very conservative and usually recommend resubmitting (it’s easy to withdraw the application if the first K08 is awarded). What you send to him as a response for internal consideration can also form the basis for your one-page Introduction to the amended application.
  
  Reply
telegrant said

October 8, 2019 @ 10:38 pm · EditDear Writedit,

Shall we still eligible to acquire new investigator and ESI status against R01 RFA? Or these status only applicable to PA?

Reply
- SaG said
  
  October 9, 2019 @ 11:24 am · EditThat depends on the RFA. Some RFAs require that you be an ESI (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/rfa-hl-19-015.html). For others you cant be an ESI (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-19-349.html). And many RFAs dont care about your status.
  
  Reply
- writedit said
  
  October 9, 2019 @ 2:48 pm · EditThe ESI status applies in an RFA, but it probably doesn’t help much. There is no payline (at all) for RFA applications, so there is no explicit payline break specific to ESI applicants (and the same is true for the review of applications at the SEPs for RFAs). However, in making award decisions, some POs may give some consideration to funding an ESI applicant, if two applications are roughly of equal interest. The real benefit is for standard R01 applications, where the ESI applications are funded at 5-10+ percentile points higher than those of established PIs (eg, 20th percentile instead of 10th). On the other hand, if your project is perfect for the RFA, that might be your best route to funding nonetheless. I would suggest discussing your aims with the PO and seek advice on whether to go for the RFA or to a PA or PAR under your ESI designation.
  
  Reply
William Leonard said

October 16, 2019 @ 8:30 pm · EditHi,

Can anyone comment on the score cutoff for K08 from NCI last year? Got score today 30. PO said in the gray zone (25-30). Not sure if/when to resubmit. Funding rate last year was 36%. Not sure how it correlate with the score.

Reply
- BHASKARCHANDRA DAS said
  
  October 16, 2019 @ 8:33 pm · EditYou have good chance
  
  Reply
  - William Leonard said
    
    October 17, 2019 @ 1:52 pm · EditDoes anyone have any idea what was the score cut-off last year?
- BHASKARCHANDRA DAS said
  
  October 16, 2019 @ 8:33 pm · EditYou have good chance
  
  Reply
- writedit said
  
  October 17, 2019 @ 2:09 pm · EditSuccess rate does not correlate with score. Your chances depend on the number of K08 applications that score better than 30 and the amount available for career development awards (which won’t be known until the NIH and the rest of the federal government have a budget signed into law). Your PO won’t be able to comment on your chances until you have your summary statement – and until the federal budget is finalized. You should ask your PO about resubmitting, but my guess is the advice will be to do so for insurance (so you don’t risk losing a cycle).
  
  Reply
  - William Leonard said
    
    October 17, 2019 @ 4:24 pm · EditThanks writedit. Mentor said to wait since knew someone who got funded with that score last year and also if resubmit, it will erase the first score and might go down (hopefully not).
  - Renu said
    
    October 17, 2019 @ 5:45 pm · EditHI. I personally know someone who got funded last year with a score of 30 for K08 from NCI. All the best!
  - writedit said
    
    October 17, 2019 @ 10:12 pm · EditYes, and your PO mentioned that as the upper end, too. However, if you resubmit and your score goes up, the grant with the score of 30 is not erased – and often enough, an IC will go back and fund a lower-scoring application (A0) if the score goes up on a subsequent submission (A1). It is not true that a resubmission erases the prior application, so please keep that in mind for all future submissions. You should check back with the PO when the NIH has its appropriation (well, 4-6 weeks after the bill is signed into law), because that is when the ICs will know how much $ they have and will be able to better gauge their paylines.
  - William Leonard said
    
    October 17, 2019 @ 8:36 pm · EditThank you Renu. Keep the hope alive.
William Leonard said

October 29, 2019 @ 6:01 pm · EditIs receiving JIT a good sign? Email from NIH made it sound like it was standard independent of the payline?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  October 31, 2019 @ 8:06 am · EditThe automated JIT request sent via eRA Commons does not reflect any consideration of funding. You will receive a personal email from your PO or GMS if they are genuinely considering an award.
  
  >
  
  Reply
  - William Leonard said
    
    November 21, 2019 @ 7:54 pm · EditSpoke to PO today and PO said that new score on resubmission (A1) will erase the old new (A0).
  - writedit said
    
    November 21, 2019 @ 8:47 pm · EditAll I can say is that this is not universal. Folks have posted here about earlier applications with lower scores being funded, and I personally know PIs at BICO for whom this has happened. Hopefully your PO understands this is not NIH policy, at least.
Massa said

October 31, 2019 @ 2:52 pm · EditI have got a 33 impact score on my R15 in NEI. What are the chances for funding? I found a comment about score< 25 to have a chance of funding, has anybody got funded with a 33 score? The PO did not answer my email so I am in dark about what to do next?!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  November 3, 2019 @ 10:18 pm · EditYour PO has a ton on his/her plate, so don’t worry about the delay in response, and they can’t give you any feedback – both on funding chances and strategy for resubmission – until you have your summary statement. A 33 is probably too high for an award, and no one at the NIH knows when they will have a final appropriation, so I am pretty sure your PO will recommend resubmitting and hopefully will have good suggestions based on your summary statement and the discussion of your application.
  
  >
  
  Reply
Raj said

October 31, 2019 @ 3:09 pm · EditHi All,
My NICHD RO3 received impact score :39 and 26th percentile. Can anyone please advice on whether this has any chance of getting funded ? Also, why is there a large gap between my score and percentile ?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  November 3, 2019 @ 10:01 pm · EditThose scores are almost certainly too high for funding, but when you get your summary statement, you can talk to your PO about whether there is any chance of funding and, more importantly, strategy for preparing the next submission. The 26th percentile refers to the fact that, compared with all R03s reviewed in that study section for the last 3 rounds, about a quarter of all applications score better than your application. You are likely trying to get to the 15th percentile or lower, but you can ask your PO for an estimate on the amount of improvement in score needed to secure an award.
  
  >
  
  Reply
DDRquery said

November 3, 2019 @ 11:32 pm · EditDear writedit, How does DRR view requests for study section reassignment ? I requested study section X, excluded study section Y and DDR has assigned my application to study section Z. I still believe X is the best venue. I hear conflicting views from seasoned colleagues, some say don’t try to contest it, other told me to do precisely that. Any thoughts?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  November 6, 2019 @ 9:16 pm · EditI assume you mean CSR (and perhaps DRR as one of the SRGs involved). They do consider your requests but sometimes are aware of reviewer shifts within study sections (so SROs confer together to ident the best SRG) and also need to distribute applications to prevent overload in one or another SRG. If the SRGs are all within the same IRG, you could make your case to the IDM (if that’s where you are – or other IRG) chief, though you should first contact the SRO for your preferred study section, especially if you were in touch with him/her before submitting and were told theirs was an appropriate SRG. If you didn’t contact the SRO before submitting, definitely check with him/her first – if they aren’t on board with your request, there’s not much you can do.
  
  >
  
  Reply
Nina said

November 6, 2019 @ 2:03 am · EditDear writedit/all,
I have received a JIT via email from someone in my NIH institute. My PO and also the grant administrator of my school are copied in the email.
– What does it mean? Is it a good sign? It does say that the funding decision has not been made but “Since this application is among those favorably received, we request that you submit the information requested below”
– One of the requested document is “Other Support of key personnel” which should all current & pending support showing titles. For this project, I had applied for a K and also for career development grant from a AHA in the same time. I have already received the AHA grant. Do you think it may negatively affect my application?
– Can I say that I will only keep the K and cancel the foundation funding?
Thank you very much.
(I have to add that my score is borderline, exactly at the cut-off of last year. I had a phone conversation with my PO a few months ago and then send letter to him addressing the concerns/critiques of the reviewers)

Reply
- writedit said
  
  November 7, 2019 @ 9:06 am · EditAlthough the AHA allows you to hold a concurrent K award, you cannot have overlapping budgets, and you must have 75% effort for NHLBI. You can probably adjust the AHA award to cover items not supported by the K award, but you also need to confirm with NHLBI whether this is acceptable (during JIT negotiations). You should talk with your mentor about how the two awards could be structured to avoid overlap (and keep the K within NIH policy guidelines) – if needed, you could communicate with someone at AHA for clarification (I am sure this is a common occurrence). The JIT is positive but not a guarantee, since they want to be able to place your application on the paylist for consideration. With the continuing resolution, a decision on your application may be delayed, too. You can certainly communicate with the PO about funding likelihood and timing as well and, if the PO is positive about your award likelihood, confirm that your plan to reconfigure the AHA award as appropriate would be acceptable with NHLBI. Both organizations want the best for promising young scientists and should be happy to accommodate you within what is allowed by NIH policy.
  
  Reply
  - Nina said
    
    November 7, 2019 @ 5:33 pm · EditDear Writedit,
    Thank you so much. Very helpful. Sorry to trouble you again:
    – I would like to make sure that my K application is not affected. So if I clarify in the JIT that “if my K is funded, I will relinquish my AHA funding”, would it be fine and acceptable by the NIH? Or there will be a problem that I am already on the AHA funding for a past few month?
    – Shall I add a cover letter to my JIT docs explaining the over lap and my plan to address this issue by relinquishing the AHA award? or I should just explain this in the “Other Support” form?
    – And do you suggest that I talk to my PO about this too? or just the JIT would suffice?
    Sorry for taking your time. It is my first NIH grant application and I want to make sure I do not mess it up 🙂 Your help is very much appreciated.
    Many thanks
  - writedit said
    
    November 7, 2019 @ 8:39 pm · EditNo worries – I am happy to help as I am able. I would hope that your mentor can help with this, especially if he/she has had trainees with both AHA and NHBLI funding before. NHLBI will not care that you have been funded by the AHA award. You didn’t know about the K and still are not guaranteed an award with the JIT request, so no one at NHBLI would have expected you to pass up the AHA award. I hope you can restructure the AHA award so you can keep both awards (or most of both, depending on what is allowable). The grants administrators at your institution may be able to share their experience in this situation, too. I would suggest that you ask your mentor and local grant administrators for advice first. The POs at both organizations want to help you succeed, and your PO at NHLBI is clearly working on your behalf. I would suggest you communicate with the NHBLI PO about the AHA award and that you are willing to adjust the AHA grant however you need to since the NIH K award is your higher priority. I would advise communicating with the PO or GMS about this in advance of submitting the JIT so you know whether to include any special documentation or clarification about how the AHA award will be handled if the K is funded. The best advice is always to communicate with the PO directly if you have questions. This is their job, they are your advocates, and the earlier they know about a situation, the better they can help.
Anna said

November 8, 2019 @ 6:47 pm · EditHi,
I received a score of 29 on an R44 – SBIR application submitted to NIAID in April 2019. The status shows the council review is completed. The paylines for the prior 6 years suggest this is definitely within the fundable range. I’ve contacted our PO with a variety of questions, but basically the response to every question is “let’s wait for the FY20 payline to be established.” Based on current congressional activity, I’m expecting that the agency will be under a continuing resolution for quite some time prompting conservative paylines. I’ve been able to find a couple of dates when paylines were issued, but no retrospective interim payline. Do you have any thoughts on when a payline may be set under the current budgetary situation and how conservative that interim payline could be?

I appreciate any insight that you can offer.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  November 8, 2019 @ 8:37 pm · EditI suspect the SBIR paylines will say TBA until the FY20 budget is passed (or close to it) since the SBIR budget is a set percentage of the total appropriation for each IC. NIAID probably won’t be able to guesstimate that until they have a more firm idea of what the NIH appropriation will be (and then they need to see what their actual appropriation is – HHS and NIH take $ out that affects all downstream appropriations). However, if you look at the NIAID paylines for the last few years, it has held pretty steady at 32 (up to 34 last year), so you are probably in good shape, since no one expects a drop in the appropriation. You should ask your PO if you should resubmit in the meantime for insurance. If the answer is no (which would surprise me), then you can feel pretty good about getting an award – eventually.
  
  Reply
  - Anna said
    
    November 11, 2019 @ 1:00 pm · EditI appreciate your insight. I asked the PO about resubmission a few weeks ago, but received the same “wait for payline.” I will follow-up. We’ve prepared for submission in the next round, but were hopeful that the budget would be resolved before that.
  - writedit said
    
    November 11, 2019 @ 2:24 pm · EditAha. Well, you can take that as good news, as usually POs err on the side of being too conservative (and recommending resubmission). You probably won’t know in time for January but hopefully April.
Chronotherapy22 said

November 12, 2019 @ 12:39 pm · EditMy recent grant was scored in the 2nd percentile. The council meeting was in September, but up till now I haven’t received a JIT request, and of course, no NOA. I am kinda concerned because I have run out of funds for research and hoped we will get the award by the end of the year.

Reply
- writedit said
  
  November 14, 2019 @ 1:00 pm · EditThat probably won’t happen (ie, award by end of the year) due to the continuing resolution, and you can’t start paying in advance of award, since you won’t know when you are within 90 days of award until the federal budget is signed into law. You should definitely check in with your PO about your situation – I am not sure if they can do anything, but maybe they can ensure your award is at the top of the list when the processing of new awards begins.
  
  Reply
Nutrients-1 said

November 12, 2019 @ 12:45 pm · EditRecent R01 grant assigned to the NICHD: Payline: 17.
I spoke to the PO before the September council meeting (he did not have an answer for me). PO did not respond to multiple emails afterward. Since NICHD does not have a fixed payline, I don’t know what to do. Do you think that the application stands a chance?

Reply
- Nutrients-1 said
  
  November 12, 2019 @ 3:53 pm · EditI meant Percentile: 17
  
  Reply
- soldier said
  
  November 13, 2019 @ 9:17 am · EditI received an impact score of 37 on an R21 to NIDDK. No percentile. It seems the impact score is usually higher than the percentile for NIDDK, and they are figuring out what the percentile is?
  
  Reply
  - writedit said
    
    November 14, 2019 @ 1:11 pm · EditYou may or may not get a percentile, but this is added later, after the necessary calculations. The priority is to get scores up as quickly as possible. The percentile probably will be a little lower (or a lot lower, if your study section scoring was recently recalibrated). Once you have your summary statement, you can check with the PO about next steps (rebuttal, resubmission).
- writedit said
  
  November 14, 2019 @ 1:02 pm · EditYour application is probably on the bubble (especially if you are not NI/ESI) – but your PO won’t know until the federal budget is signed into law (which is why he isn’t answering – he has no news). You might ask instead if you should submit another application in the meantime for insurance and if so if he has any advice for resubmission. You can start thinking about the rebuttal to the prior review, too, in case that would help your PO make your case for select pay.
  
  Reply
Chronotherapy22 said

November 18, 2019 @ 11:36 am · EditCongress is expected to pass a stopgap spending bill this week to keep the government open through Dec. 20. Do you think NIH will start issuing NOAs based on this CR or they will wait until the full budget is passed?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  November 18, 2019 @ 7:49 pm · EditWith very few exceptions, they will wait on NoAs until the final budget is signed into law. ICs are not allowed to begin new initiatives under a CR (which provides 90% of the prior FY funding level), and they need to have enough funds for operations and noncompeting renewals (for the whole year).
  
  >>
  
  Reply
  - SaG said
    
    November 19, 2019 @ 10:40 am · EditSome ICs are funding new and renewal grants. Just a very conservative payline right now. Of Course conservative for NCI might be 0%…. 😉
  - Chronotherapy22 said
    
    November 20, 2019 @ 10:54 am · EditGiven that there are absolutely NO indications that Congress and the WH will agree on a final budget when another CR expires in December, research here is largely being effed! Maybe, the time has come to explore career opportunities in the industry or the NIH.
- AlexSyl said
  
  November 20, 2019 @ 5:03 pm · EditI feel you might be mistaken. The latest CR notice issued Oct4, 2019 (NOT-OD-20-003) states that “….NIH will issue non-competing research grant awards at a level below that indicated on the most recent Notice of Award (generally up to 90% of the previously committed level).”……Given that last year (2019 fiscal budget) the final budget was only signed in April 2019 I think, it is virtually impossible for the NIH to just sit on these decisions till the final budget comes in. The catch might be if your grant is on the borderline. So if your institute’s payline is say 15 and your grant scored 14 and you are not an ESI then this is is a situation that might delay your NOA.
  
  Reply
  - AlexSyl said
    
    November 20, 2019 @ 7:46 pm · EditIn continuation with my above reply, this is what the NIAID website says about a CR,
    
    While under a CR, NIAID:
    
    Can make only a limited number of new grant awards
    May fund existing awards at a reduced level until the budget passes
    Must fund our existing programs
    Is prohibited by law from launching new initiatives or activities outside the scope of the existing authorization
    
    Assuming these still hold true, I think you will still see NoAs, although at a ‘limited’ level.
  - Thomas Nathaniel said
    
    December 14, 2019 @ 1:06 pm · EditI received an impact score of 21 (no percentile posted) for my NIA MSTEM R25 submission. Does anyone have any idea where this score falls in terms of findability?
  - writedit said
    
    November 21, 2019 @ 8:43 pm · EditRight now, the only Type 1 award I see is an R13 for a whooping $4K, but it’s not December yet (earliest start date for Cycle 1 applications). They absolutely will sit on a boatload of applications awaiting processing. At least this time, everyone is waiting hopefully, anticipating an increase in the NIH budget. Not that long ago, sequestration meant the delays would be followed by budget pain and ridiculously tight paylines.
Zayn said

November 20, 2019 @ 2:58 pm · EditWhat is the unofficial payline for NCI K99?
My A0 scored 46 and A1 scored 40
I will have another chance to submit a new application

Reply
- writedit said
  
  November 21, 2019 @ 9:53 am · EditGetting better, but you will need to prepare a new A0. Take a hard look at the significance comments and talk with your PO for insight from the discussion. It seems the panel thinks your proposal is fine but not exceptional, and tweaking the approach probably won’t move the score significantly.
  
  Reply
Santosh Kumar said

December 3, 2019 @ 5:21 pm · Editmy grant scored 23 percentile with impact score 39 in NHLBI review. I have ESI status but it was not visible when the application was submitted. I asked PO about the funding chances and she said to wait for council meeting. I asked again whether I should wait or resubmit and recommended re-submission. What to do now?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  December 4, 2019 @ 1:11 pm · EditThat seems odd, since you are within the ESI payline. If your eRA Commons account currently reflects your ESI status, you should confirm whether your application will fall under that payline. A phone call might be best, if your PO is open to talking. If not, be sure to clearly point out that you are eligible for the FY20 ESI payline and that you want to confirm whether you should prepare a resubmission given your eligibility.
  
  >
  
  Reply
  - Santosh kumar said
    
    December 4, 2019 @ 3:05 pm · EditThank you. This gives me lots of confidence to ask my PO again. I have emailed PO, I hope he/she doesn’t get upset with my repeated email as she asked me to wait for council meeting.
    Thanks again for the help.
  - writedit said
    
    December 4, 2019 @ 4:50 pm · EditIf the PO hadn’t told you to resubmit, I would have recommended sitting tight until Council. The PO is busy and so may not have realized you were ESI if it wasn’t on your summary statement (probably didn’t have time to check).
    
    >
  - santosh kumar said
    
    December 4, 2019 @ 6:08 pm · EditPO responded, “Your application will be reviewed in the January Advisory Council, which will occur in February, 2020. Funding decisions will be made until after the Council meeting. So, it is not possible to know for sure whether your current R01 grant will be funded or not until late February. Please take this into consideration when you decide whether you want to resubmit or not.” This scares me. Is it that the PO expects me to re-submit even though my proposal falls well within the funding range? If I do not re-submit, is it possible that PO may not like that and can cite this as a negative attitude in the council meeting.
    Thank you.
  - writedit said
    
    December 4, 2019 @ 7:20 pm · EditYour PO doesn’t say anything at the Council meeting (if she even attends), so you don’t need to worry about that. I can’t explain why she thinks your application below the ESI payline won’t be funded. Since you didn’t explain why your ESI status was not flagged at the time of application, you might want to check with someone in the NHLBI Division of Extramural Research Activities to ask whether your 23rd percentile application qualifies for the ESI payline (since ESI status at the time of submission is what counts). That might be what your PO is concerned about. If there is any question about your status for this application, then you would want to submit again for insurance. Now, just to confirm: this is an R01 application, correct? ESI status does not apply to any other mechanism.
    
    >>
  - SANTOSH KUMAR said
    
    December 4, 2019 @ 11:49 pm · EditThank you for quick reply. It is R01. Actually, my phd degree was not marked as terminal degree that’s why my application didn’t showed ESI status. Since I got it rectified before grant review, the summary statement shows ESI status. I am thinking of asking my PO for a phone appointment.
  - writedit said
    
    December 5, 2019 @ 12:13 am · EditWell, technically, she is correct that no funding is guaranteed until after your administrative review (of JIT) and Council meeting, and all POs are conservative and know better than to promise any PI an award. Plus she knows you have a limited window for ESI applications. Still, I would think she might acknowledge that your application was within the payline, though no funding could be guaranteed. If you have another application (different science) that you are working on, you might want to get that in next and see what happens with this R01.
    
    >
NHLBI said

December 5, 2019 @ 12:06 am · EditHi writedit,

I have an R01 scored as 38% and I will resubmit it next Feb. My questions are: 1) Will this resubmission be reviewed in the same study section? 2) In the resubmission, can I request a change of a primary IC (e.g. in my first submission, I listed GM as the primary IC, in my re-submission, can I request a change to the NHLBI as the primary IC? (my proposal fits the mission of both NIGMS and NHLBI).

Thank you!

Reply
- writedit said
  
  December 8, 2019 @ 7:54 pm · EditYour application will be reviewed in the same study section unless you ask for a different study section. If you want a different study section, then you might consider submitting a new A0 instead and request (and justify) the SRG you want. The same is probably true if you want to change ICs – it’s not impossible, but you should prepare an application that targets the mission of your primary IC (though you could do this with an A1, too). I would suggest you talk with your PO at NHLBI to confirm they would be interested in your application and how you should modify it to target their priorities. Unless responding to the prior critiques helps you make your case better, then ask about A0 vs A1, too, and which SRG(s) would be most appropriate. With an R01, though, you should do well at NIGMS, so be sure to communicate with that PO, too (about A1 vs A0 and changing SRG and/or IC).
  
  Reply
Thomas Nathaniel said

December 14, 2019 @ 9:44 pm · EditI just received my impact for for my R25 application submitted to NIA R25 . My score is 21 but no percentile. Is this a fundable score?

Reply
Thomas Nathaniel said

December 15, 2019 @ 9:04 pm · EditI just received my impact for my R25 application submitted to NIA . My impact score is 21 but no percentile is given. Is this a fundable score?

Reply
Thomas Nathaniel said

December 15, 2019 @ 9:09 pm · EditI received an impact score of 21 (no percentile posted) for my NIA MSTEM R25 submission. Does anyone have any idea where this score falls in terms of findability?

Reply
- writedit said
  
  December 16, 2019 @ 12:54 am · EditWhen you get your summary statement, you can check with the PO about next steps (whether to resubmit, whether the PO would like any responses to the review concerns), but I suspect that should be in the running at least.
  
  Reply