Archived Comments: NIH Paylines & Resources (July 2013 – July 2014)

h123 said

June 4, 2013 @ 11:30 am · Edit

My F31 grant was just transferred to NINDS from a different Institute to be recommended for funding. Does this mean I am going to be funded, or is this just another step in the process?

writedit said

June 4, 2013 @ 11:39 am · Edit

Did you submit your application this past April for FY14 or last year (April, Aug, Dec 2012) for FY13? If the former, you are just being reassigned, but you should check in with your new PO.

If the latter, I think they would only undertake a transfer at this point if there were negotiations to facilitate an award for your application. You should check with your original PO and whomever you’ve been assigned to at NINDS to see what is going on.

h123 said

June 4, 2013 @ 3:13 pm · Edit

I submitted in Dec. ’12. It seems from the email that it will be funded!

jpl said

June 4, 2013 @ 4:11 pm · Edit

Dear Group–I am part of a team who submitted an R15 application to NIDDK (second submission) and in March 2013 got an impact score of 17 (which as far as we can tell falls between “Exceptional” and “Outstanding” but no percentile).

Despite this, the PO has been pessimistic about our R15 being funded. The PO said that R15s did not have a good “track record” of being funded in the portfolios that he/she managed (he/she could not or did not elaborate). The PO is encouraging us to re-package as an R01, but this seems to defeat the purpose of the R15 and we don’t have sufficient preliminary data to likely be competitive (as the R15s don’t require preliminary data).

Is anyone aware of pay lines for NIDDK R15s? Does anyone of any advice or thoughts for us? Is it worth waiting it out? Does it make sense to talk to the division director? If R15s are not being focused on, it seems like PIs should be made aware of this before making the massive investment of time in submitting.

Many thanks…

writedit said

June 5, 2013 @ 1:07 am · Edit

This is unusual advice indeed. Unfortunately, it is impossible to tell from the FY13 operating plan if NIDDK plans to cut R15 awards (or whether your PO is just unfamiliar with the mechanism). You are correct that a competitive R15 application is not necessarily competitive as an R01. You could check with the Division chief (for your Division of interest at NIDDK) or the Director of Extramural Activities to inquire as to whether the number of R15 awards are being cut to save $ for R01 and other RPG mechanisms at NIDDK and whether it is worth pursuing AREA funding in the future.

jpl said

June 5, 2013 @ 10:16 am · Edit

Dear writedit–Thank you for your advice.

Xin said

July 2, 2014 @ 9:59 am · Edit

Dear writedit:

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

writedit said

July 2, 2014 @ 11:10 am · Edit

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

Xin said

July 2, 2014 @ 2:45 pm · Edit

Thanks so much for the advice.

Greg said

June 4, 2013 @ 5:09 pm · Edit

Anyone heard about F32s from the winter 2012 submission or gotten NoAs?

My app placed in the 9th percentile, impact 20 at the NCI study section and they requested extensive follow-up info about our animal protocols (eventually approved after 2 rounds of back and forth).

My PO has been very vague and non-helpful about funding potential/paylines, other than saying we were being recommended for funding at council. Council meeting has also been pushed to late June, as opposed to the printed date of May on ERA commons (even though the projected start date of the F32 is July 1st). Thus, I’m relatively unsure where I stand with regards to this app and am starting to get a little paranoid about what should be a slam-dunk.

writedit said

June 5, 2013 @ 12:59 am · Edit

The NCAB always meets in late June (23-25 this year). eRA Commons refers to “May Council”, since that is when most Advisory Councils meet. NCAB meets 4 rather than 3 times per year, so the timing is a bit off from the rest of the ICs. If they are now happy with your IACUC status, you should be okay – they would not bother with all that if they were not going to make an award, and your PO would not say that you were being recommended for funding. NCI is even more backed up administratively than other ICs because they only gave 6-month rather than 12-month non-competing renewals for much of FY13, so they have a huge backlog of all types of awards to issue (i.e., thousands of awards to issue twice in the same FY). Your PO genuinely has no idea when an award might be issued. NCI issued 16 F32s in March-April – their FY13 operating plan indicates that they are not cutting any individual NRSA fellowships, so they have more than 250 more F awards to make. I would not want to be an NCI GMS …

Greg said

June 5, 2013 @ 1:18 am · Edit

That is one hell of a grants traffic jam. I was combing Reporter earlier to see if any F32s had been issued this year by NCI. I guess I will just forge ahead and try not to think about it.

Regardless, this experience (and others with R01s and R21s I’ve been helping out on) paint an unappealing picture for prospective TT faculty here in the US. I will be cultivating other options abroad when I go on my faculty search, particularly where I have connections in Switzerland.

writedit said

June 5, 2013 @ 9:41 am · Edit

The best way to check recent awards (to see what your IC is doing) is to go to http://report.nih.gov/budget_and_spending/index.aspx and look at the Excel file for Notice of awards issued in the last 90 days. If you can hang on with F32 and then K funding, you should be looking at your first R01 at a time when hopefully the applicant pool will have been “right-sized” for the amount of $ available.You’ll want to check with your connections on funding trends in Switzerland and the EU (depending on where else you might look) as well.

Greg said

June 5, 2013 @ 1:19 am · Edit

Thanks for this great blog, by the way.

Need funding said

June 6, 2013 @ 11:39 am · Edit

Dear Writedit,

I didn’t know about the recent Notice of Awards file and it is another great resource. However, I couldn’t figure out which award is from which IC. Is there a code for this in the award number? I’m specifically interested in NIGMS F32 awards. Thanks!

Early stager said

June 4, 2013 @ 5:17 pm · Edit

I got an email response from my grants management specialist today after inquiring when I would get my NOA for my NHLBI ESI 13% grant which had a start date of 4/1/13. In essence, he stated that the sequester has completely screwed up their regular funding timing and they hope that it will return to more normal in June. He also stated that they fully anticipate funding all awards within the payline by the end of the fiscal year, which is end of September.

Greg said

June 4, 2013 @ 5:48 pm · Edit

Jeez, that is ridiculous. So you submitted Fall 2012 for FY13/start 4/1/13 and still didn’t even get an NOA and it’s June now? You are well within their published payline for NHLBI ESI too…my mentor was suggesting that maybe we would see my salary money from this F grant by December and that we would probably have already finished and published the proposed studies. I initially laughed, but maybe that is closer to reality than it should be…

writedit said

June 5, 2013 @ 12:45 am · Edit

Well, all FY13 awards must be made by Sept 30th, so it will be before Dec, but not a lot.

jpl said

June 5, 2013 @ 10:14 am · Edit

Dear writedit–Thank you for your advise.

grad student said

June 5, 2013 @ 1:01 pm · Edit

First off, thank you for this blog. It is tremendously helpful, particularly to a newbie like myself.

My situation is this:

I submitted an F31 to NINDS in December (with a start date of 7/1/2013) and received an impact score of 20, 5th percentile and the application was recommended for funding. I was told to wait until the Advisory Council meeting that occured (according to commons) on 5/23. I still have received no word about anything, and my application status shows ‘pending.’ Furthermore, I have not received a request for a JIT, but I did receive an email asking for follow up information (to which I immediately responded).

My PO has not been very forthcoming with information. Obviously, I’d like to know the probability of funding, but I would be very happy with info about payline and even a tentative timeline. Is there a way to tactfully press for this kind of information?

Thanks

writedit said

June 5, 2013 @ 2:16 pm · Edit

With a 5th percentile score, you should be getting an award. NINDS did not cut any fellowship training slots in their FY13 operating plan, so the payline should be the same as last year, and I cannot imagine it is lower than the 5th percentile. You didn’t mention what information was requested, but they would not ask for anything if they were not considering your application for an award. If you have a GMS assigned, you could ask him/her. However, all the ICs have a backlog of awards for applications that should have started April 1 (and maybe earlier), so yours will wait until those are done. It would be nice if the PO would at least confirm that you are getting an award – perhaps if the request for information was to clear up a potential administrative concern, your PO can now give a better response.

grad student said

June 5, 2013 @ 2:45 pm · Edit

Thanks for the quick response. They requested my academic transcripts from my current institution as well as confirmation on the date I started my doctoral program. I sent an email to my GMS on 5/30, but haven’t received a response.

Given the current state of things, a backlog is understandable. But as you state, it would be nice to receive some sort of confirmation one way or another.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I’d like to keep pressing, but I’m not sure the best way to do it. Would it be best to go try my PO or GMS again? Or should I just wait it out?

writedit said

June 5, 2013 @ 2:58 pm · Edit

If you sent the academic information last week and have not communicated with your PO since the Council meeting, you could send a message simply inquiring whether the recent request for transcripts indicates that you will receive an award (not asking when – just whether). Your PO might not want to respond with a date but should be willing to confirm that yes, you will eventually receive an award (barring any unforeseen circumstances).

OnTheMarketPhD said

June 5, 2013 @ 1:27 pm · Edit

FYI Fiscal year NIAID K payline’s are out (26)

David said

June 5, 2013 @ 10:12 pm · Edit

I was requested to provide IACUC information, I guess it is a good sign.

writedit said

June 6, 2013 @ 12:46 am · Edit

Yep – I cannot imagine that any IC has the time to do administrative checks on applications not on the paylist.

John Worth said

June 6, 2013 @ 8:37 am · Edit

I submitted my K08 (A1) (NICHD) in November 2012, was reviewed in March (13-14) and received an impact score of 20. The grant will be reviewed this week in council. I received my summary statement only last week (is this unusual?), and I have not spoken to my PO. I just saw on your blog that the NICHD payline for K is 18! Please let me know if I still have a chance and if they will increase the payline before September 30. Also, my grant is dual assigned to NHLBI, and the payline is 25. Will my grant be automatically considered and funded by NHLBI or should I speak to someone there. Please advise.

John

writedit said

June 6, 2013 @ 12:14 pm · Edit

First, receiving your summary statement so late is somewhat unusual but not unheard of. If the summary statement has not appeared in your eRA Commons account by 8 weeks after the SRG meeting, you can send a polite note to the SRO inquiring about when it might be available. Sometimes the SRO is slammed with a huge application load, and the SRO might finish the A0 summary statements before the A1s (since they are less time sensitive in terms of resubmission).

The NICHD funding strategies page was just updated in May, so I suspect the 18 is about final in terms of the payline, but you can check with your PO. Certainly it will remain under consideration until Sept 30th, but you should be working on an R01 or other RPG application for October.

You can talk with your NICHD PO about the likelihood of NHLBI picking up your application and whether he/she will help with transferring the application if there is a possibility of funding through NHLBI. It doesn’t sound as though you have been working with a PO at NHLBI, but if so, you could ask him/her about the likelihood of their accepting the application as well. However, I suspect very very few applications will be picked up by secondary ICs in FY13.

Andrew said

June 7, 2013 @ 12:58 am · Edit

Will grants that were council reviewed in 2012 but were delayed award during sequester/budget be funded at FY2012 or FY2013 paylines?

writedit said

June 7, 2013 @ 9:47 am · Edit

FY13. The FY12 paylines only applied to those applications awarded up until September 30, 2012. Starting October 1, the FY13 paylines applied, including for those applications reviewed at the fall 2012 Council meetings. The FY in which the application will be funded, not the year in which it is submitted/reviewed, determines the paylines involved.

Impatient Party said

June 7, 2013 @ 11:44 am · Edit

The same old question: my A1 K99 was reviewed quite favorably with a priority score of 19 at NHGRI (submitted in March) and now I am of course wondering if my application is likely to be funded. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of data out there on fundable priority scores at NHGRI.

writedit said

June 7, 2013 @ 12:21 pm · Edit

If you just submitted in March, you probably won’t know until the end of this year or the beginning of next. NHGRI does not receive many applications but have a good success rate for those that are submitted (5 of 8 K99 applications received awards in FY12, 2 of 3 in FY11). Now, NHGRI dropped from 9 career development awards down to 6 for FY13, but they have funded a total of 7 K awards in FY12 and only 3 in FY11, so this won’t be an issue. All this means that your PO should have a reasonable idea, based on your score and summary statement, whether you are likely to get an award once the NIH appropriation is settled for FY14. My guess is that you can be optimistic, unless they received a flood of applications (something else your PO would know).

Impatient Party said

June 7, 2013 @ 12:56 pm · Edit

Thank you! I will contact the PO once the summary statement is available.

NIHNewbie said

June 7, 2013 @ 12:55 pm · Edit

My F31 was submitted to the NIA in December, and just underwent Council Review earlier this week. The reviews were quite favorable citing primarily minor weaknesses. I received an impact score, but no percentile. I couldn’t find much data on NIA paylines for F31s, so it’s hard for me to determine whether I’m in the fundable range. I contacted my PO earlier in the week, but have not heard back.

writedit said

June 7, 2013 @ 1:17 pm · Edit

You don’t say what your score is, so it is hard to gauge your chances, but your PO is likely quite busy catching up on a huge backlog of awards that were delayed by the sequester and FY13 budget approval process plus fielding questions from applicants to the June-July submission dates (and from those who submitted in Feb/March who are now being reviewed). The delay in response doesn’t mean anything other than he/she is busy. If your eRA Commons account has a GMS assigned, you could contact that person for a status update as well, though if your application is not being processed (yet), he/she would just refer you back to the PO. If you don’t hear back from the PO by next week, you could send another polite inquiry as to where your applicatoin stands.

Cautiously Optimistic said

June 7, 2013 @ 2:09 pm · Edit

My NIGMS R15 proposal just received a priority score of 20. It is now “pending council review”. The NIGMS has undergone a new way of reviewing R15 proposals, and I haven’t found any information about how the R15 mechanism will be affected by sequestration. Any thoughts about the fundability of this score? Typically, R15′s don’t get percentiles.

OnTheMarketPhD said

June 7, 2013 @ 3:03 pm · Edit

Does anyone know if FY paylines can change again before September for grants other than RO1s?

writedit said

June 7, 2013 @ 3:37 pm · Edit

I expect paylines will be about set within the next few weeks – it’s late this year due to the sequester and delayed FY13 appropriation and all the shuffling around to accommodate budget cuts according to each IC’s priorities. At this point, the ICs know how much money they have, how many applications for each mechanism were scored, and how those scores spread out. They develop paylists (that also take into account program input on applications to be considered out of order) and start going down the list to pay out awards (negotiating project budget cuts along the way) until the money is all gone. The payline might be seen to shift a bit from the interim projection once the final paylists are organized, but there will not be a sudden jump in paylines later in July, August, or Sept since there won’t be an infusion of new money to allow ICs to make awards further down their paylists.

OnTheMarketPhD said

June 7, 2013 @ 4:16 pm · Edit

The reason I’m asking is I’m 1 point off a K22 and the paylines are hard for NIAID. But there was mention that the payline could change before FY end. Just didn’t know if does happen with any frequency, at least with K’s

writedit said

June 7, 2013 @ 4:31 pm · Edit

If it were interim, you would have a chance still of falling in the payline. However, NIAID has indicated that the K payline of 26 is final for FY13 (if they thought it might move again, it would be interim still). I am not sure either whether they fund any Ks out of order, so that is something you would need to ask your PO about. If this was an A0, then you would also discuss A1 resubmission strategy for July or November.

OnTheMarketPhD said

June 7, 2013 @ 4:58 pm · Edit

Thanks for the advice. The PO mentioned that I should watch to see if the paylines changes and they don’t fund anything over the payline. I’m taking that as there is a chance the payline could still move before FY end. This is an A0 however my A1 is being reviewed/scored in 2 weeks. Sit tight and hold on.

writedit said

June 8, 2013 @ 12:47 am · Edit

Glad to hear the A1 is already in – good luck on the review.

Oriade said

June 9, 2013 @ 11:41 pm · Edit

Dear Writeedit: I am preparing a R21 focused on developing drug delivery systems with application in many diseases. I am thinking of either sending it to NIGMS or NIBIB. Any idea which of the two funds the most R21 or proposal in general?

writedit said

June 9, 2013 @ 11:45 pm · Edit

Well, this is easy. NIGMS does not accept R21 applications in response to the parent announcement, so you would need to submit to NIBIB. However, you should contact the PO appropriate to your science there and discuss your aims.

Oriade said

June 9, 2013 @ 11:48 pm · Edit

Bummer! Seems like the R21 is a dying mechanism. I guess I am stuck with NIBIB – I do not get the sense this institute funds many proposals. Thanks for your quick response.

GrantWritingIs… said

June 10, 2013 @ 12:35 pm · Edit

Dear Writedit, I have a pending R01 at NIMH (scored 30, no percentile). After getting the summary statement, the PO told me it is unlikely fundable due to funding cut for that particular RFA. But then a couple of weeks later (a few days before the Council meeting), I received a personalized JIT request. I submitted it immediately. But just wondering what this means. Does it mean something changed in their budget and I still have a chance? I haven’t contacted the PO after the council meeting yet. I’d really appreciate your insights and suggestions. Thank you!

writedit said

June 10, 2013 @ 1:39 pm · Edit

I’d suggest you just contact the PO again for a status update. No need to drive yourself crazy over this. It could be the PO assumed a 5% cut to the RFA allocation that was not implemented (NCI did not uniformly apply the sequester cut), or it could be one of the better scoring applications had an administrative issue. This is a perfectly legitimate question to ask the PO, so no need to worry about being pestering or affecting your chances by doing so.

New R1 Asst Prof said

June 10, 2013 @ 2:18 pm · Edit

Just got my resubmission scores back. On A0 had a 20 Impact/13 percentile at NIAID — missed the Fy12 payline by 1 percentile. Resubmission was scored 40 Impact/42 Percentile; no hope. Awesome.

writedit said

June 10, 2013 @ 2:25 pm · Edit

Oh wow. When you get your summary statement, you still might check with your PO about select pay for the A0. If he/she was excited about your science, and if the new concerns are not related to the underlying science or its significance, you might have a slim shot, since obviously there is no longer a second chance in the queue. If your PO does not think select pay will be an option, then you can move on to a discussion of repurposing the proposal.

MSKIM said

June 10, 2013 @ 4:40 pm · Edit

I am early stage investigator (ESI) and i submitted a R01 application in Feb’13. My era shows that the application was “not discussed”. I am planning to re-submit the application and was wondering if there is a provision for ESI to get thier “statement summary” early so that they can re-submit in next cycle (July’13) instead of waiting for November submission round (5th Nov).

Typically how long it may be till i see the statement summary ?

writedit said

June 10, 2013 @ 4:53 pm · Edit

You should have the summary statement no later than July 10 (probably before then though) for an Aug 10 resubmission (per policy at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-12-001.html). However, since you were not scored, you may not be able to make changes that will satisfy reviewers that quickly, especially if you need to present more preliminary data, publish your preliminary data, rework the approach significantly, etc.. If you do not have a strong A1 application ready by August, you should probably wait until Nov 5.

MSKIM said

June 10, 2013 @ 5:04 pm · Edit

Thank you Writedit for valuable input, this is very helpful.

Qi said

June 10, 2013 @ 6:36 pm · Edit

Dear Writedit,

I have a quick question. If the R01 A0 was unscored and I am planning to make substantial changes to the research plan (>50% changes in the proposal, especially approach), should I submit it as a new grant (new R01 A0) rather than a resubmission (A1)?

writedit said

June 11, 2013 @ 12:43 pm · Edit

If you are changing the aims and the approach substantially, then you should be able to develop the proposal into a new A0 application. If you are just changing animal models or other technical aspects but pursuing the same questions in roughly the same design, maybe not. You can and should talk with your PO about your revised application, both to ensure it is sufficiently new to be an A0 and to strategize about targeting a specific FOA and/or SRG based on your revisions.

Women-In-Science said

June 11, 2013 @ 1:48 pm · Edit

This is very helpful. Thank you so much! I will talk with my PO today.

John said

June 11, 2013 @ 11:59 am · Edit

Hi Writedit,

I’m wondering if you could answer a question about consortium F&A on mechanisms that limit F&A (in my case, a K23). Is consortium F&A on such a proposal also limited to 9% or are subawardees allowed to collect their full negotiated rate? I’ve been scanning the NIH notices but can’t find anything that pertains. This would have a huge impact on my small research budget.

Thanks in advance for any help.

writedit said

June 11, 2013 @ 12:40 pm · Edit

Hmm. I am wondering how/why you would need a consortium subcontract on a K23, since you only get $25-50K in research expenses, depending on the IC. The overall F&A rate for a K23 is 8%. The line item for a subcontract includes direct and indirect costs, which, as far as I know, is their F&A rate. The total consortium/subcontract cost becomes part of your direct cost then (basis for calculating your indirects). Your PO can confirm this – and you might also run your subcontract idea past him/her to be sure they think it is advisable, given the limited amount of research funds available to you.

John said

June 14, 2013 @ 2:44 pm · Edit

Thanks Writedit — there’s a small neuroimaging component, with the scans done at another institution. They won’t sign off on the consortium agreement unless they get full F&A. Is it the case then that consortium F&A costs on a K23 don’t count toward the research budget cap ($50k in my case) and aren’t limited to 8%? The PO referred me to my institution’s grant management people, who also didn’t know.

bgrantsdaya said

June 13, 2013 @ 2:11 pm · Edit

Hi, I applied for a Ro1 (regular, no RFA). Can I submit the same grant with some modifications for PQ?

Thank you very much for any advice

writedit said

June 13, 2013 @ 2:16 pm · Edit

If the regular R01 has already been reviewed (and not scored well enough for funding), then you could repurpose the application for the provocative questions RFA (though clearly you would need to make changes to be competitive). However, if you just submitted the R01, then no – you cannot have the same application under review at the same time (at the NIH or other federal agencies).

bgrantsdaya said

June 13, 2013 @ 2:13 pm · Edit

Hi, I applied for a Ro1 (regular, no RFA). Can I submit the same grant with some modifications for PQ?

Thank you very much for any advice

Also want to add to my previous post that I just submitted RO1 few days ago and want to submit PQ also for the same cycle.

Thanks again

writedit said

June 13, 2013 @ 2:21 pm · Edit

No, as I noted above, you cannot submit essentially the same application for simultaneous review. The modifications would need to be so substantial as to require different aims and approach (i.e., a new & different application).

bgrantsdaya said

June 13, 2013 @ 2:58 pm · Edit

Thank you for your quick response

LGB said

June 13, 2013 @ 3:19 pm · Edit

Hello, I just received scores for my R21/NIBIB and I am a couple of points above the published 2013 payline (9%). Do you know if NIBIB funds (selected) grants above paylines? Thanks for your feedback and hosting this forum!

writedit said

June 13, 2013 @ 3:28 pm · Edit

Congratulations on the excellent score. Award decisions for your application will fall under FY14 paylines, which may or may not be better than FY13 – we’re a long way off from an FY14 federal budget. If the FY14 appropriation for NHLBI does not go up, any select pay decisions would likely not be made until all three review cycles had passed (so not until about this time next year). At this point, your PO will have no idea about paylines or select pay, so if you decide to get in touch with him/her, it should be after you have your summary statement to discuss resubmission strategy (if this was your A0).

OnTheMarketPhD said

June 13, 2013 @ 4:42 pm · Edit

This question is along the same lines. Do you know if all ICs pay outside paylines at the end of the fiscal year? And, is it only for specific awards (RO1 compared to R21, K22 et.)? I guess kind of complicated question.

writedit said

June 13, 2013 @ 5:01 pm · Edit

While making awards beyond the payline for R01s is universal (and seems to be true for other RPGs), I do not know about other mechanisms as a general rule (I have asked), but I assume this varies by IC and mechanism. There is no NIH-wide policy on any of this, and how much $ is aside for select pay likewise varies by IC and by FY. I’ve seen reports of up to 10% of the budget set aside for select pay, and whether ICs dial this up or down in times of tight budgets, such as FY13, is hard to say. The PO decides whether to advocate for select pay, so once it is clear you are outside the payline (published or putative), you can ask if your application is still (or will be, toward the end of the FY) under consideration.

dbar said

June 17, 2013 @ 2:04 pm · Edit

I wanted to share my experience with an NHLBI SBIR from this year. I received a score of 26 back in July last year. Because of sequestration my PO didn’t have any idea whether it will get funded until last month. Now that there is a published payline I am waiting for a JIT and an NoA “soon”. My PO however told me that this soon may be as far as September. Meanwhile a check in the Reporter shows that NHLBI has awarded only 6 SBIR Phase 1 awards this year. So this is how Congress protects small businesses.

writedit said

June 17, 2013 @ 2:37 pm · Edit

Congratulations and thank you so much for sharing your experience … and ouch on waiting until Sept 2013 for funding of an application submitted in April 2012. Best wishes for success with the research and future development of your ideas.

Andrew said

June 20, 2013 @ 2:24 pm · Edit

I was in the same boat but with a 31 score. The NHLBI payline dropped from 35, to 29, which may(?) have lost it. I could have resubmitted it in Dec or April much improved. The uncertainty is the real business killer. 6 SBIRs is astonishing. A body blow to our industry.

stillwaiting said

June 18, 2013 @ 10:36 am · Edit

Does anyone have an idea about how long it usually takes from “pending administrative review” to “NOA”? This is about R01. Thank you.

Holla said

June 18, 2013 @ 10:44 pm · Edit

Recently saw an email from an NCI PO that handles the K99 applications. The email said that the payline for FY2013 K99 from NCI was impact score of 20, which is down from 27 for FY2012…I wonder if this is interim or final? Seems like a pretty huge drop to me. Writedit, I was wondering if I could get you to comment on this observation?

writedit said

June 19, 2013 @ 12:40 am · Edit

That is a big drop, but I expect it was due to shifting budget priorities under the sequester needed to protect the RPG funding. I don’t know for sure & am on vacation so can’t check the NCI operating plan for FY13. I do expect any payline given now to be final.

akas said

June 19, 2013 @ 2:56 pm · Edit

If it matters. I just received an email from the PO at NCI that affirmed that the pay line is 20; however, I was informed that with an impact score of 27 I still have a moderate-to-good chance of getting funded. This is actually really god news. Hopefully this means that the pay line is not completely set. More news in July/August based on his email. Hope this helps those that are waiting.

writedit said

June 19, 2013 @ 9:55 pm · Edit

Thanks so much for sharing this information – hopefully it will mean good news for a lot more people.

Dave said

June 20, 2013 @ 4:56 pm · Edit

Yep, the attack on the K’s continues across the NIH. It’s like digging behind your couch for pennies at this point at the NIH.

NewInvst said

June 19, 2013 @ 6:31 pm · Edit

Anyone knows how NEI is going to digest the budget cut? Will that impact the funding rate for R21?

Just got a impact score of 30 for my R21 (improved from 1st submission) to NEI. Is the chance of getting funded really low?

writedit said

June 19, 2013 @ 11:46 pm · Edit

You will be funded in FY14, so it will depend on whether something closer to the House budget, which continues the sequester and then some (cuts), prevails or not. Also, if your SRG was one that underwent a scoring recalibration, your score could be more fundable than might appear at first glance. When you get your summary statement, you can check in with the PO.

Z PI said

June 19, 2013 @ 7:00 pm · Edit

Writedit- We just received an impact score of 20 on ourPhase I STTR (submitted April 2013). Do you know what the NCI post-sequester fundable range looks like? Also, any idea if this will be funded at full amount or will it be cut? Thanks as always!

writedit said

June 19, 2013 @ 11:49 pm · Edit

As I keep noting, the FY14 budget is a real crap shoot right now, so it will be hard to say for a few months, but I would certainly hope a score of 20 would be within funding range for an STTR. Your PO should be able to give you an inkling of how you would have fared in FY13, and I hope FY14 would be no worse.

Ouch said

June 21, 2013 @ 4:56 pm · Edit

The NIAID just released some FY 2013 paylines and I was surprised to see the SBIR R43/44 did not go up from the interim cutoff of 22. This is well below historic values. Any idea why it’s so low and is there still a chance for the payline to go up?

writedit said

June 23, 2013 @ 8:23 am · Edit

If it says final, that’s usually it at NIAID. The SBIR funding goes down in proportion to the total extramural budget, so it will only go up when the NIAID appropriation does.

Ouch said

July 8, 2013 @ 1:59 pm · Edit

I see the NIAID raised the R03 and R21 paylines to 23, after a FY cutoff of 20 was posted. This gives me some hope the SBIR cutoff could go up as well.

akas said

June 21, 2013 @ 8:57 pm · Edit

I am trying to find out if it is possible to transition to the R00 portion of a K99/R00 award almost immediately after getting the award. I am not completely certain about my chances but I may be in line for getting the award this year from the NCI. My score was in the grey zone, but appears to be fundable based on the emails from the PO.

I had also applied for a few faculty positions and unexpectedly got an offer from a great institute. Due to the job market and uncertainty in the K99 at the time, I accepted the offer for the faculty job and will begin mid November. If the K99/R00 gets awarded I will only be on the K99 part for 2.5 months. Will this be an issue? I am reluctant to discuss this with the PO since council happens next week. I don’t want to have any negatives associated with my application when they review it. Any thoughts on this (other than starting the faculty job later, which I’d rater not do – already have animal protocols approved, and such)?

writedit said

June 23, 2013 @ 9:24 am · Edit

This is a common issue, and the ICs can be flexible in in how the implement this award, especially given the typical time passage between application & award. I have known PIs who not only go straight to the R00 but also get their K99 $ – but each IC is different. When your PO indicates you are slated to receive an award, you can let him/her know about your position and how to manage the award.

K99 applicant said

June 23, 2013 @ 11:22 pm · Edit

I just thought I’d relay my experiences with the K99. When I applied, the PO told me that K99′s can be awarded only if you have not yet accepted a job offer. Before they give the final notice of award, the PO goes through the applicants that are considered fundable, and eliminate those who have accepted an offer somewhere. I’m not sure what would happen if you chose not to disclose the fact that you are no longer eligible to accept the award.

In any case, one of the requirements for accepting the K99 is that you stay at your current institution for at least 1 full year.

You probably should investigate a little – whether you are allowed to accept the award at all, and if you can, whether your new institution will let you defer your start date for another year.

Whatever happens with the K99, congrats on getting a great job offer!

writedit said

June 25, 2013 @ 10:00 am · Edit

Thanks so much for sharing your experience and congratulations on your K99. Each IC is different, but this is excellent advice. Best wishes for success with your own research career.

NEIdea said

June 23, 2013 @ 11:09 pm · Edit

Just received a score for my F32. Impact of 29 and in the 11th percentile at NEI. I know they restarted the scoring, so the impact score might not be as bad as it looks, but I have no idea if it will get funded. Also since it is for FY2014 I know it is up in the air. Any idea on what to expect?

mlk said

June 25, 2013 @ 10:12 am · Edit

The percentile is the more important number, and while we will have no idea about FY14 paylines for several months, you should be in good shape. When you get your summary statement, you can talk with your PO about resubmission strategy, at which point your PO might give some indication about your funding chances (though will not discourage you from resubmitting in all likelihood).

NEIdea said

June 25, 2013 @ 10:26 am · Edit

Is there any chance of being able to reapply for the August 8th deadline given it will take a good month to get a summary statement?

writedit said

June 26, 2013 @ 2:11 pm · Edit

If the concerns are all that readily fixable, possibly, but it would be for the same FY whether you submit in Aug or Dec. If you might get a publication out or more preliminary data this fall, you might want to wait. You want to resubmit the strongest application, which may not be possible in Aug.

New R1 Asst Prof said

June 24, 2013 @ 8:39 pm · Edit

NIAID has final 2013 paylines for everything except T32s up on their website. While the F grant paylines actually rose from 2012, the drops for the R grants were significant.

R01 (NI/ESI, percentile) — 14 -> 12 (14% drop)

R01 (Established, percentile) — 10 -> 8 (20% drop)

R21 (Impact Score) — 28 -> 20 (29% drop)

R03 (Impact Score) — 28 -> 20 (29% drop)

F31 (Impact Score) — 24 -> 30 (25% increase)

F32 (Impact Score — 22 -> 25 (14% increase)

ssh81 said

June 26, 2013 @ 3:24 pm · Edit

My SBIR R44 application scored 33, which is outside the 2013 NHLBI payline 29. The NHLBI council review for my application was completed on June 19 but I have not heard anything from the PO or the GMS or seen any activity in my eRA account. How long does it generally take after the council review for the final decision to be posted in eRA Commons? I have tried to get in touch with my PO and GMS but they haven’t responded to my emails so far.

The reason I am very inclined to find out is because another PO at NICHD recently agreed to pick-up my application as a secondary IC if NHLBI is unable to fund it. The PO at NICHD has indicated that he may have a short window because ad-hoc council meeting will be necessary to fund my application in fy2013. [Ad-hoc because the final fy13 NICHD council review was completed before NHLBI council review and NICHD was not originally listed as a secondary IC on my application at that time.]

writedit said

June 27, 2013 @ 4:55 pm · Edit

In this situation, the NICHD PO should get in touch with NHLBI directly (they will respond to him, and they will need to coordinate transfer of the application in any case). NICHD should be able to get Council approval electronically, and I assume yours is not the only application to be added for consideration at the end of the FY. Congratulations on this possible pick-up, in an FY in which I suspect very very few applications will be considered by secondary ICs.

Joseph said

June 26, 2013 @ 3:30 pm · Edit

On a somewhat related topic: does anybody knows what was unofficial payline for Fast-track SBIR in NCI in 2011-2012-2013

SG said

June 26, 2013 @ 8:17 pm · Edit

This sounds like Spam to me…Or a PI who has no hope of getting an R01 😉

Jerry said

July 12, 2013 @ 7:10 pm · Edit

Is there a good strategy to renew two R01s at the same time?

Thanks in advance

writedit said

July 13, 2013 @ 1:38 pm · Edit

The general strategy is the same whether you have one or two Type 2 applications due: good publications and data from each and a transition to new compelling aims. Best case scenario would be that they go to different study sections, but if not, the applications are presumably scientifically distinct and meritorious for different reasons (otherwise, both would not have been awarded in the first place). Whether these are funded by the same IC or (ideally) different ICs, if the reviewers judge the science of each worth maintaining into another funding period, you should not be penalized for renewing both at the same time. Now, working on two renewal A0s simultaneously and doing a good job on each could be a challenge, especially if you are trying to publish for each at the same time. If one application might benefit from extra time to get a manuscript out, then you could stagger them. I would not recommend hustling two renewals in for the March deadline since saving one for July would probably keep the actual funding in the same timeframe (i.e., Cycle 1 is usually delayed almost to match Cycle 2). Splitting the renewals between FYs (Nov & March, for example) would allow you to hedge your bets as to whether one FY payline might be better than another.

bbcnews said

June 27, 2013 @ 7:18 pm · Edit

Joseph, could you please explain what is unofficial payline? is the published one official? I am confused. Thanks

Raju said

June 29, 2013 @ 2:42 am · Edit

I got 26 impact score on my K22 revised application in June 2013. Can any one through some light on possibility of getting fuding through NCI with 26 impact score?

writedit said

June 29, 2013 @ 9:17 am · Edit

Your PO should be able and willing to tell you how that score would have fared in FY13 … while we won’t know FY14 paylines for several months, I would not expect it to be lower than FY13.

AlexB said

June 29, 2013 @ 1:13 pm · Edit

I am in the first year of a K99. I am a researcher, but I also run a small consulting business. I’ve been contacted by a research group asking me to do some work for them. They’d be paying me using NIH funds. The payment would come through my consulting business, not through my university. Is this a problem? I know that K awards have restrictions on receiving other federal funding.

I apologize asking this question here because this seems like a good question for my PO to answer… but the PO hasn’t responded to my inquires and it’s been a few weeks now. I’m concerned about timing because the research group needs to allocate its funds ASAP or they will lose them. They need an answer for me.

Thank you for any knowledge you can share!

abcd said

June 29, 2013 @ 2:07 pm · Edit

Hello AlexB,

I do not know the answer to your question, however, I do know that you need to maintain a minimum percentage effort (75%) through the K99 grant.

Regarding the nature of the funds, federal or non-federal, does this mean that its ok to receive non-federal funds while being funded for 100% effort on a NIH project.

writedit said

June 29, 2013 @ 2:30 pm · Edit

Not from your awardee institution (that is using NIH $ to pay 100% of your salary).

writedit said

June 29, 2013 @ 2:29 pm · Edit

The GMS might be able to clarify this as well, but this notice on Career Award effort (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-056.html) recognizes that you might have commitments to organizations outside your university. I believe as long as the consulting does not interfere with your ability to meet your award effort, you should be okay, but it would be important to confirm with someone at the NIH. Another option would be to contact the NIH-wide training officer (ndesmond@mail.nih.gov, Dr. Nancy Desmond) or the NIH grants policy help desk (grantspolicy@mail.nih.gov).

doggeroo said

July 2, 2013 @ 11:32 am · Edit

Hi Writedit,

I have posted before on this site regarding my K22 application at NCI. I submitted my A0 in June last year and received a score of 21. Council review was completed in Feb of 2013. I have contacted my PO a few times since then and she has routinely said she is optimistic about my chances of getting funded. But she has not been able to tell me when I will receive any official news. Can you shed some light on how and when these funding decisions are made and why it takes so long?

Thank you for the great resource!

writedit said

July 2, 2013 @ 1:03 pm · Edit

NCI has issued only 1 new K22 award so far this year. In FY12, they issued 1 K22 award in July and 5 awards in September, so I expect the same pattern will hold true for FY13. The final group of awards was delayed until NCI was sure how much $ they still had in the K22 pot ($ gets shuffled around based on priorities up until the end of the FY). Plus, NCI needs to reissue all the noncompeting renewals that were only paid out for 6 months earlier this year, so the grants management folks are no doubt especially busy. Your PO probably does not know for sure how many more awards will be made at this point so cannot make a commitment with regard to your application, but her optimism is a good sign.

akas said

July 2, 2013 @ 1:40 pm · Edit

Status on my K99 (NCI) changed from pending to “council review completed”. Fingers crossed that the status progresses in the next few week. At least it is still being considered.

FadiK said

July 5, 2013 @ 2:34 pm · Edit

To Cautiously Optimistic,

Good question. I meant to include my score in the message, but completely forgot. My score was “14″, and NHLBI’s payline was “20″. By the way, I just saw the award letter (NOA) on my eRA commons… All the best to all who are still waiting….

Biotech Prof said

July 8, 2013 @ 9:45 am · Edit

I am resubmitting an SBIR grant. In the >1 year interim, I have formed a new company as investment vehicle for this work. Can I do the re-submission and change the company details? Indeed, the new company was even a trading name of the old-co.

writedit said

July 8, 2013 @ 9:51 am · Edit

If the proposal (science, aims, benchmarks) is the same, the change in applicant company should not matter, since the reviewers are assessing scientific merit. The same would be true for a PI changing universities between an A0 and A1, assuming the same (or stronger) experiments/trial could be conducted to achieve the proposed aims at the new university. You should check with your PO to be sure this is true for SBIR applications, but I cannot imagine why it would not be.

Biotech Prof said

July 8, 2013 @ 9:47 am · Edit

On a second note, I wonder if a Q/A blog like this exists for grants management questions.

writedit said

July 8, 2013 @ 9:53 am · Edit

If anyone knows of one, please post the link here!

Academic hack said

July 8, 2013 @ 12:29 pm · Edit

Question: Just got this email from my PO—can you tell me if this is good news? The impact score was one over the previous year payline. It has already been through council.

“We are starting to process your application (1K99XXXXXXX) for potential funding – please submit your Just-In-Time (JIT) Information.”

akas said

July 8, 2013 @ 12:32 pm · Edit

Yep – good news. Just got the same from NCI for my K99. This means that funding is very likely. My score was also one point over last years payline. They claimed that this year was going to be 20. I think that was a very conservative estimate. Good luck (and an early congratulations). Time to adjust animal protocols on my end for JIT request.

writedit said

July 8, 2013 @ 12:59 pm · Edit

Indeed, good news for you both. Assuming no administrative or regulatory issues arise, you should have award news soon (you want to get the JIT in promptly). Congratulations and best wishes for success with your projects and careers in academic research.

HOPE said

July 8, 2013 @ 4:38 pm · Edit

Thank you Writedit for keeping this great website! Really learn a lot from here.

My score was also one point over last years payline and got similar Email today. Cross my finger and hope it will get funded!

Newbie said

July 9, 2013 @ 6:22 pm · Edit

Could you both enlighten us with your impact score?

Academic hack said

July 9, 2013 @ 8:05 pm · Edit

Writedit, akas, and Newbie–

Mine was a 28 as well, and my JIT is already in. Early congrats to you to akas. I will post my timeline, etc about everything if/when I receive the NoGA.

Writedit–any ideas about when this would all happen, or at least when my status might change to “pending admin review”? I was told by my PO to have my JIT in by the end of the week, if that helps you predict. like I said, JIT is already in–just trying not to burn a hole in my era commons page with my eyeballs the next few weeks. I had totally given up!

writedit said

July 9, 2013 @ 9:53 pm · Edit

Depends on the IC, but probably within 2 weeks. It is certainly not instantaneous. I don’t think the Pending administrative review will pop up until the GMS is working on it. It depends on where you are in the queue and how busy the GMS folks are.

HOPE said

July 10, 2013 @ 1:55 pm · Edit

Congats to Academic hack and akas! Thank you for sharing your experience! I feel we are on the same ship.

Newbie, I got a 28 as well! One reviewer had more questions but still positive and the other two reviewers were more positive. But I think the score is voted from 10 SRG members and not only relay on the comments from reviewers.

writedit said

July 10, 2013 @ 4:21 pm · Edit

The comments you read in your summary statement reflect (most of) what was presented orally as part of the discussion but are not considered again in calculating the final score (nor are the individual criterion scores). The scoring range is set at the meeting by the assigned reviewers (in your case, this might have been simply 2, 2, and 3 or 2, 3, and 3), after which all members present (those who are in conflict have left the room) assign their score. Only the scores of study section members who stay the entire meeting are used to calculate the overall impact scores (incentive to keep reviewers from leaving early).

academic hack said

July 12, 2013 @ 3:55 pm · Edit

OK–so I got an email from the GMS saying the K99 is funded…but have not seen an update with a NoGA on era commons…is this really the official notification that says I am good???? THANKS SO MUCH WRITEDIT!!!!!

writedit said

July 12, 2013 @ 5:33 pm · Edit

Congratulations – the GMS would only say that if he/she were in the process of processing your award. Your status might say Pending or Award being prepared in the meantime, but don’t worry about it if not.

akas said

July 12, 2013 @ 5:43 pm · Edit

Congrats. Still waiting on mine but need to wait on IACUC approval for the final JIT. Did you have to get animal approval for your grant academic hack?

writedit said

July 12, 2013 @ 10:46 pm · Edit

If the proposed research requires IRB, IACUC, or other regulatory approval, the award will not be issued without it. Anyone who needs regulatory approval for their JIT should start the process as soon as they know they have a potentially fundable score. If your JIT is not submitted in a timely manner, there are scores more potential awardees in line behind you.

Academic hack said

July 12, 2013 @ 10:28 pm · Edit

akas–I already had IACUC approval from the first submission (the animal experiments did not change at all for the resubmisson). So, when the PO contacted me, the JIT actually was already submitted. You will be fine once you get that JIT in—hopefully IACUC won’t be dragging it’s feet like it seems to at my institution!

Writedit-I will post my timeline once I get the NoGA.

Hang in there and keep us posted!

HOPE said

July 14, 2013 @ 3:02 pm · Edit

Big congrats! The GMS was so efficient. I am also waiting for mine. I just updated the other support from my co-mentors and uploaded my final JIT last Friday. Hope will get it soon! Also wish akas got the IACUC approval soon!

I will share my timeline as well!!

Academic hack said

July 23, 2013 @ 8:39 am · Edit

Received my NoGA this morning! Now I can give you all the timeline:

First submission was Feb 2012.

Received score of 22 in June 2012.

Resubmitted Nov 2012.

Received score of 28 in Feb 2013 (Yes…the score got worse! Devastating!).

Received NoGA today.

Basically, keep hope alive! This has been a crazy roller coaster. Glad it is over for now!

Thanks for all the support Writedit!!! Good luck to everyone else waiting.

writedit said

July 23, 2013 @ 8:54 am · Edit

Congratulations again and thank you so much for posting your timeline details (especially great for all those who worry about what happens if they submit an A1 that scores higher). Best wishes for success with your project and your career in academic research!

THINK said

July 27, 2013 @ 1:21 pm · Edit

Just curiously want to know why you couldn’t get funded last year. Based on the payline 27, you were much lower than that. Have you get some reasons from program officer or suggestion to resubmit the A1?

THINK said

July 27, 2013 @ 1:27 pm · Edit

Do you think your award this year is based on the score last year or this year?

Also congratulations for your final award! Thank you for sharing the timeline!

doggeroo said

July 10, 2013 @ 9:51 am · Edit

Hi writedit,

I had a question about the timing of the K22 grant and applying for faculty positions.

I submitted a K22 last summer and scored a 21 and my PO said she is optimistic that it will be funded. I was planning to apply for positions next fall but if I were to get the grant funded this year, my one year of mentored support would expire next fall. Will this affect continued funding of the grant for the remaining 2 years since I would probably not take up a position till sometime in 2015?

Thank you for your help!

doggeroo said

July 10, 2013 @ 2:04 pm · Edit

Hi Writedit,

I posted earlier about my K22. Good news! I got the unofficial word from my PO that it was funded!

My timeline for anyone also in the same position:

Submitted A0 last June 2012 to NCI

Scientific review complete in October 2012. Impact score :21

Council review completed Feb 2013

Unofficial word from my PO: Today!

Letter of intent to commit funds is scheduled tentatively for Sept 30th.

Thanks for your help and good luck to everyone out there.

writedit said

July 10, 2013 @ 4:24 pm · Edit

Thanks so much for responding to your own earlier post with this great news and excellent, informative timeline. I assume you mean you will receive your notice of award on Septemeber 30th (last possible day – hopefully you will have the award in hand sooner than that). Congratulations and best wishes for success with your project and your career in academic research!

Murli said

October 24, 2013 @ 2:10 pm · Edit

Congratulations and Best wishes. Is it possible to share your K22 proposal with me? I appreciate your help. I am submitting one in two weeks to NCI.

Thanks

Murli

luckyNI said

July 12, 2013 @ 2:27 pm · Edit

I just learned that NCI has selected to fund two of the three aims proposed in my R01 application. The study section had concern with one of the aims, but really liked the other two. Does anyone know how this works? Will they give me the option of having it funded for three years fully or five years at a lower amount? Which is better? I have another R01 that was just funded in April, so if both are funded for five years I guess I would have to renew two grants at the same time. Thanks in advance for any advice that you can provide. I know this is not a question with regards to funding grants/grantsmanship, but hopefully someone can give me some advice (don’t really know who else to ask).

writedit said

July 12, 2013 @ 2:42 pm · Edit

They will probably offer you a shorter award (plus the standard budget cut), probably 2-3 years, depending on the aims and nature of the research. I am almost sure you will not be offered any sort of 5-year option, especially since R01s are often routinely limited to 4 y now except for ESI, clinical trials, & some other exceptions. Some ICs offer a one-year R56, which is not renewable, so you would apply for an R01 again. If this was an A0, your only other option (other than what they offer) is to hold out for the A1 being fully funded, but I advise PIs to take the reduced award if there is any question about the A1 (if scored and especially if not yet reviewed).

luckyNI said

July 15, 2013 @ 2:05 pm · Edit

Thanks writedit! It was already an A1, so I am sure that it will probably be a 2-3 year award as you suggest. I did have ESI status when I applied for the award, but I don’t think that will impact the length of the award, but I will let you know what they decide.

writedit said

July 15, 2013 @ 2:16 pm · Edit

Good luck and thanks for keeping us posted – it will be interesting to see how they handle this for an ESI PI.

luckyNI said

July 29, 2013 @ 2:28 pm · Edit

FYI, they are going to give me a five year award with a 1/3 cut for each year ($166K). So I guess my ESI PI status must have factored into their decision

writedit said

July 29, 2013 @ 9:58 pm · Edit

Cool beans – thanks for sharing this update. I think you must be correct that the ESI status trumped any cut to the project period, even with the reduction in aims (covered instead by the 1/3 cut). Congratulations on the two awards and best wishes for success with the research – and renewals.

Arnold said

July 13, 2013 @ 1:00 pm · Edit

Does anyone know how many applications were submitted to the recent (2013) 2nd round of Provocative Questions RFA (from the NCI)?

paco said

July 15, 2013 @ 1:02 pm · Edit

My K status on era commons switched to ‘pending administrative review’ which I understand from this site is very good news. This is an application for FY13. I’m changing universities (in a good way) in the near future, likely this September. My inclination is to have the grant awarded now and transfer it later. I can see the potential benefit of asking for NOA to be delayed until I’m at the new place, but I’m worried that I wouldn’t have everything lined up (like IACUC) at the new place by Sept 30th. Do you know if an NOA can be delayed beyond the current fiscal year? If not, I would not want to risk asking for a delayed NOA. Thanks in advance!

paco said

July 15, 2013 @ 1:14 pm · Edit

writedit said

July 15, 2013 @ 2:02 pm · Edit

Your award would need to be made by Sept 30, and in such a crazy FY as this, I don’t think your IC would want to delay making the award. I assume everyone knows about your impending move. You can instruct your current university not to activate the award by drawing funds on it, which should make the release to the new institution more straightforward – though you would need IACUC approval at the new institution before the award could be transferred. Your IC will need to approve moving the award to new institution as well (appropriate resources to conduct the proposed project, appropriate & funded mentor committed to your career development), but that does not sound like a problem. You will want to communicate with the PO as soon as you have an idea of the timing. If you change institutions after the award is issued, you will need to use this PA: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-12-270.html

paco said

July 16, 2013 @ 12:33 pm · Edit

thank you for the suggestions!

Michael Turner said

July 15, 2013 @ 2:25 pm · Edit

I am physician scientist. Submitted a K08 (A1) in November 2012 (NICHD). Got a 20 in March IRG, and was told I will not get funded (I received a letter from PO few weeks ago saying that my grant will not be funded. As we know the payline for Ks is 18. I am dual assigned to NHLBI, whose K payline is 25. The PO at NHLBI also said no, as they do not have funds for secondary assignments. I almost gave up, but today my NICHD PO emailed me and asked me to call him. When I called, he said he has some good news and that they might pick up my application, but no promises and that I should still apply for other grants etc. He also said if I get funded it will be after a few weeks. What do you think are my chances? I am optimistic because why would a PO call if I was not getting funded? I have not yet submitted my JIT documents. Should I do that now, or wait for an email from PO or G<S/ Please advise.

writedit said

July 15, 2013 @ 2:36 pm · Edit

This does sound like an instance in which you can be cautiously optimistic, though certainly against all odds. If your project requires any regulatory approval (IRB, IACUC, etc.), be sure you have that in hand now, as well as the rest of the JIT requirements. You will need to submit it ASAP when requested – no need to send it now though.

dim said

July 16, 2013 @ 10:13 am · Edit

Hello, I received a 6% percentile for a new RO1 (NEI) and got my JIT last week, Thursday. How soon should I expect the note of Award? Shouldn’t that be really fast? Thanks

writedit said

July 16, 2013 @ 10:16 am · Edit

When did you submit your application? If in 2012 (for FY13), you should get your award soon (within 2-3 weeks). If in 2013 for FY14, not until November or December at the earliest.

dim said

July 16, 2013 @ 10:27 am · Edit

2012 for 2013. yes

Jim said

July 16, 2013 @ 11:50 pm · Edit

I am not sure how to react to this but I just received the summary statement of my triaged SBIR application. The first reviewer gave 1s to all categories, and the other two gave 4s and 5s. I am not sure how an application which has one excellent review can be triaged and not left to discussion. I am wondering whether this is a common occurrence or I should complain to somebody.

writedit said

July 17, 2013 @ 12:02 am · Edit

Not too unusual, since 2 of the 3 reviewers would not have ranked it for discussion (SRO uses preliminary priority scores assigned to rank applications for discussion). The primary reviewer could have asked for your application to be discussed anyway, but either he/she did not do so, or they ran out of time. Many, many PIs receive glowing reviews and 1s and 2s and no score, though. Your PO should be able to help you interpret the summary statement and why your application wasn’t discussed – as well as strategy for resubmission.

BKD said

July 19, 2013 @ 9:22 am · Edit

I submitted an R15 in June 2012 to NIDDK and received a score that is “not typically funded”, but recently I was assigned a GMS (June 2013). I thought the role of the GMS was to administer the award, but I am hesitant to think that the application is in the cue to be funded. Does anyone have any experience with this type of situation or with R15s that get scored but outside of the typical fundable range?

writedit said

July 19, 2013 @ 9:39 am · Edit

If your eRA Commons status for this application changes, then something is happening. In the meantime, just ask your PO if your application is being considered for an award. It could be that yours might be picked up for programmatic interest. If not, and if you have not talked with your PO about this before, you can discuss resubmission (if that application was an A0) or other application strategies.

BKD said

July 19, 2013 @ 10:23 am · Edit

Based on my discussions with my PO I submitted an A1, but the original A0 application is still active with a status “council review completed”. My PO has not gotten back with me regarding the GMS assignment; i am sure that he/she is quite busy. My impression was that if an A1 was submitted it overtook the original application. Is that correct?

writedit said

July 19, 2013 @ 12:20 pm · Edit

Both the A0 and the A1 are active and eligible for funding. You will be asked for JIT before the award can be processed. Hopefully your PO will get back to you soon.

akas said

July 19, 2013 @ 10:26 am · Edit

Does anyone have experience with asking for a restricted NoA at the end of the fiscal year with NCI? I ask because I am waiting for IACUC approval (I would have had it earlier however I was not expecting to get funded based on the payline/score. Our IACUC is pretty particular about not asking for congruency until you are certain). Anyhow, I read that at the end of the fiscal year it is possible to ask for a NoA with restrictions to animal studies. The restriction is removed following IACUC approval. I have sent a mail to the GMS but have not heard back. Figured I’d check here if anyone has experience with this. This is for a K99 BTW.

writedit said

July 19, 2013 @ 1:30 pm · Edit

I think you’ll have to wait to hear back from your GMS. Even though the K99 is mostly salary, if all your work is in animals, the question would be what would you do. If you have some in vitro or other bench work you can do, they might be able to give you, say, a 3-month award, and then issue the rest of the year once your IACUC is in (while sequestration was pending, NCI was making 6-month non-competing renewals). You can talk with your PO about this, too. Hopefully you’ll have the IACUC approval before the end of Sept.

drericgarland said

July 21, 2013 @ 12:23 pm · Edit

I am a behavioral clinical researcher. I just got an impact score of 14 on a R34 proposal. Can I celebrate yet?!? It is a certain thing that I will land this grant, or not? (I know nothing is truly certain in this world.)

Also, I do not have IRB approval yet – if I submit all my other JIT but my IRB proposal is still under review, what happens at that point?

Thanks so much for your perspective and advice!

drericgarland said

July 21, 2013 @ 12:24 pm · Edit

I am a behavioral clinical researcher. I just got an impact score of 14 on a R34 proposal from NIDA. Can I celebrate yet?!? It is a certain thing that I will land this grant, or not? (I know nothing is truly certain in this world.)

Also, I do not have IRB approval yet – if I submit all my other JIT but my IRB proposal is still under review, what happens at that point?

Thanks so much for your perspective and advice!

writedit said

July 21, 2013 @ 2:05 pm · Edit

First, you won’t need to submit the JIT for a few months, but you will need the IRB approval when you do so (need to have everything in for the award to be processed). You can ask your PO how your score would have fared in FY13 (I do not expect FY14 to be worse). In FY12, NIDA funded 33 of 104 applications, so I assume a score of 14 would have received an award.

drericgarland said

July 21, 2013 @ 2:28 pm · Edit

Thank you for your perspective, and for clarifying the IRB/JIT issue. I too assume that a 14 is a fundable score, but the whole percentiling thing is a mystery. From what I’ve read, it sounds like the impact score is less important than the overall percentile, given that SRGs vary with regard to their propensity to give high or low scores. I don’t know – I’m just praying that I land this one – it would be a key step in my scientific career and enable me to do some truly meaningful work.

writedit said

July 21, 2013 @ 2:34 pm · Edit

You might not get a percentile for the R34 (you didn’t mention one – I am not sure there are enough applications). Your PO probably won’t know for several months whether you will be funded (depends on federal budget process), but, again, he or she should be willing to say how your score would have fared this year – and whether you should be working on the A1 for November.

hong said

July 23, 2013 @ 12:14 pm · Edit

Hope all is well with everyone. My NCI resubmitted R03 got a score of 26 (summary statement is not available yet) 7/23/2013. I know that the payline is 25 or less for year 2012. Given current funding climate, I would expect payline could be even less than 25 this year. What a pity. Anyone know 2013 NCI R03 payline? Any possibility to get my R03 funded? Thanks.

writedit said

July 23, 2013 @ 3:24 pm · Edit

If you were just scored, then you will be considered for funding in FY14, which may have a better payline than FY13 but probably not worse. We won’t know for months, though. Your PO won’t know about FY14 funding, but he or she might give you an idea of how you would have fared in FY13 with that score. Your PO might have suggestions for what to try next in terms of application strategy, too (after you get your summary statement).

Academic hack said

July 24, 2013 @ 9:10 pm · Edit

So I heard a rumor…

the rumor is that with all of the budget cuts, the NCI is pretty testy about people who are granted a K99 who want to apply to transition to the R00 phase earlier than a year after being awarded the grant. Of course, it took me about a year and a half after the intial submission to be awarded the grant. Now, my hard work in finding a place to be independent (all the while not ever knowing if the grant will be funded) has generated several leads.

Writedit or other people listening, do you know if there is any truth to this?

writedit said

July 25, 2013 @ 8:46 am · Edit

I do not know about how the NCI handles early K99 transitions, but most ICs have been flexible for just the reasons you note (anyone competitive for the award would also be competitive as job candidate – and would be looking during the year+ between submission and potential award). Hopefully someone in the know will respond, and I’ll see if I can find anything out.

akas said

August 6, 2013 @ 7:11 pm · Edit

Have you had any luck finding out about this? I am in the same position and currently dealing with the institute that I am supposed to start at in November. Of course they are willing to work with me but I’d still like to start in November if possible.

writedit said

August 6, 2013 @ 9:01 pm · Edit

I asked at the NIH level, and this decision is left up to each IC. Now, I assume your award has still not been issued, so you would be looking at ~2 months on the K99. I also assume your new position is not contingent on your bringing an award (since you secured it before you knew what would happen with the K99/R00). Since you would have to terminate the K99 portion so quickly after receiving the NoA, your PO will know you were aware of the position at the time of the award, so my advice would be to talk with the PO now. Depending on the nature of the position and your appointment, you might be able to complete the K99 year (or an acceptable portion of it) at the new institute. If not, the PO may be willing to work with you, given the extended time lag between when you first applied and when a funding decision was finally made (or impending), since K99 early termination is allowed in “unusual circumstances”. My point is, you will want to go back to NCI for funding again, and you do not want your first interaction with them to be one in which you fail to disclose facts that you know to be pertinent. You can ask your mentor – and any colleagues with whom you have a good relationship at the new institute – for advice in this regard, too, especially if any of them know the PO involved or have had experience with other postdocs securing K99s. It seems that you would have been in danger of falling through the cracks if you had waited but not received the K99 (if there were no other lab funding to support you) and had not proactively looked for jobs in the interim, which I think the PO should recognize as circumstances not under your control.

Academic hack said

August 6, 2013 @ 9:08 pm · Edit

I totally agree with Writedit…

I spoke with someone at the NCI (higher up than my PO), and I was told that there are plans to place a mandatory 1 year requirement on the K99 phase (you must complete one year of K99 before you transition) in the coming year. But I was also told that they would still be accepting applications to transition early until then.

writedit said

August 6, 2013 @ 9:20 pm · Edit

Yes, the mandatory 1 year on the K99 will coincide with the new requirement starting next Feb that applicants be within 4 (vs 5) years of their terminal degree. Hope folks are aware of this change to the program (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-13-050.html).

GotHope said

July 25, 2013 @ 12:05 am · Edit

Would the recalibration of scores at CSR SRGs lead to fewer grants with identical scores at the lower percentiles? If so, would this then lead to somewhat high paylines assuming the FY14 NIH budget remains flat or, better yet, slightly above FY13?

writedit said

July 25, 2013 @ 8:51 am · Edit

The recalibration won’t affect paylines at all. Hopefully the House and Senate will get together on a budget that is closer to the Senate version, in which case paylines would go up a bit (somewhere between FY12 & FY13 paylines). We won’t know this for months, though.

grantwriter said

July 27, 2013 @ 12:53 pm · Edit

Hi writedit,

My F30 application for NHLBI went to study section on 7/23 — the status date changed on 7/26 but no score is posted yet on era commons…is this something to be worried about?

writedit said

July 27, 2013 @ 12:57 pm · Edit

No – a little slow, but the SRO probably worked on getting the R01 and other RPG scores up first. If nothing shows up next week, you could check in with the SRO.

effthirtee said

July 27, 2013 @ 4:16 pm · Edit

I’m in the same boat. My application is a resubmission, and I got a decent priority score last time (20), but well away from the paylines for F30s (15). I only have a year left in grad school, so I thought maybe NHLBI triaged my application. Hopefully they update next week.

effthirtee said

July 29, 2013 @ 1:45 pm · Edit

I just got back my score on eRA commons even though the date wasn’t updated. I got the exact same score for my resubmission. At least they’re consistent.

writedit said

July 29, 2013 @ 9:53 pm · Edit

Hopefully the FY14 payline will get back up to 20.

Academic hack said

July 27, 2013 @ 9:16 pm · Edit

In response to the questions from THINK:

Basically, the question is why did I resubmit after I got a 22, and the previous years payline was 27. Great question. First of all, pretty much everyone who was a faculty member with mucho experience writing grants told me to resubmit. Other successfull K99ers also told me to resubmit as well. Most of this advice came in light of the fact that sequestration was looming, and the comments were all easily adressible. Also, I can tell you if you get a summary statment that says “we love everything about your proposal except these minor things” you, as a motivated person want to fix it. Also, I had three program officers during the course of my intial submission and resubmission. None of them could tell me if I should resubmit or not—because they had no budgetary information to work from. They had no idea what the payline was going to be. As a side note, the payline for these grants is supposed to be 20 this year (although mine with a 28 got funded, as apparently are others…). So if I did not resubmit with a 22, and the payline really was 20—that would have been terrible.

Bottom line–in normal years you would not resubmit, because your PO would have been able to tell you your chance of getting funded. But in FY2013, no one knew the budget situation, so I had to resubmit.

I don’t know how much the first score factored in to the decision to fund, but the 28 score is the one that got funded. My guess is the first score did not hurt, but my area may have also been a programatic priority. I have no clue! Hope this answers all your questions.

writedit said

July 28, 2013 @ 8:42 am · Edit

Thanks very much for your detailed history, Academic hack. Really helpful for folks here, especially your resubmission history (for those who are told a higher A1 score will sink them – I know of many cases such as yours, and others have posted here, too). I have not heard back about the issue of shortening the K99 award for an early transition to the R00, but especially since you applied twice and had to wait so long, I would hope the NCI will be flexible.

THINK said

July 27, 2013 @ 10:03 pm · Edit

Thank you so much for your detailed information! I really appreciate your time and input! Hope you will have a very successful academic career!

Academic hack said

July 28, 2013 @ 8:11 pm · Edit

I am happy to give back writedit–your website has been a great source of information over the past two years or so. In keeping with that spirit, I spoke with someone at the NCI (higher up than my PO), and I was told that there are plans to place a mandatory 1 year requirement on the K99 phase (you must complete one year of K99 before you transition) in the coming year. But I was also told that they would still be accepting applications to transition early until then. Got to get these negotiations wrappped up!

writedit said

July 28, 2013 @ 8:19 pm · Edit

Great – thanks for this update, too. (I had asked the NIH training officer.) I am glad to hear they will remain flexible for this last year or so of transition. The K99 eligibility criteria have been changed so that applicants must be within 4 years of their doctorate, and in this case, a mandatory 1-year mentored period would not be unreasonable. But for someone who was 5 years out when they applied and closer to 7 years out when the award finally looked certain … Anyway, congratulations again and best of luck with those negotiations.

jason said

July 29, 2013 @ 11:57 pm · Edit

Dear Writedit,

I has been over a year since my F32 NCI submission (April 2012). Would you please give me some feedback on how to interpret this email?

“We are in the process of reviewing the above referenced application (1F32 – 01) for possible funding by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). NCI wishes to proceed with reviewing the original application for possible funding as it received a better score than the amended application (1F32 – 01A1).

Please let me know by the close of business, Friday, July 26th, if Dr. Jason is still eligible and interested in receiving this award and if the University is interested in accepting the offer of this F32 NRSA fellowship award”

In your experience, does an email of this language suggest a very high likelihood of funding?

Sincerely,

Jason

writedit said

July 30, 2013 @ 12:12 am · Edit

Yes, NCI is considering funding your A0 application (not whatever changes you made for the A1) – they would not take the time to send this inquiry if they were not going to make an award (assuming no administrative bars exist). Due to the length of time since the application, they are just checking to be sure you are still there & will remain there for the time needed to complete your project & training (i.e., you have not accepted a faculty or other appointment in the meantime or left academics). You & your institution want to say “yes” ASAP, and if you need IACUC or other approval, you need to secure that ASAP as well. You should also check in with the PO to see if he/she needs anything else.

jason said

July 30, 2013 @ 12:20 am · Edit

Thank you very much for the quick response!! Huge weight off my shoulders. Keep up the wonderful work here!

– Jason

Z PI said

July 30, 2013 @ 10:26 am · Edit

Does anyone have any experience with TRND? I am looking for advice on submitting an application, and would appreciate any input.

Thanks!

writedit said

July 30, 2013 @ 1:10 pm · Edit

Hopefully someone who has applied (I have not been involved with any proposals to date) will post their experience, but in the meantime, you can use the main TDRN email to make initial contact with a scientist in the program (you will need to make contact as part of the pre-application screening process anyway). Your regular PO might know a good program contact as well and might have his/her own advice on application strategy. If you have previously communicated with anyone at ORDR, they might have some advice as well.

curious said

July 30, 2013 @ 2:52 pm · Edit

What does TDRN stand for? And ORDR?. I just went to NIH, Grants and Funding, typed it in search and NO RESULTS found. Thanks.

writedit said

July 30, 2013 @ 3:00 pm · Edit

Apologies – way dyslexic: TRND = therapeutics for rare & neglected disease (http://www.ncats.nih.gov/research/rare-diseases/trnd/trnd.html), while ORDR = office of rare diseases research (used to be in the Office of the Director, now part of NCATS – http://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/)

wondering said

July 30, 2013 @ 4:46 pm · Edit

My non-competitive renewal RO1 funding has ~6% cut this year. Is this normal?

writedit said

July 30, 2013 @ 4:49 pm · Edit

Yes. The cut would have been larger prior to the federal budget being passed, and it still could have been as high as 10% (http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-13-064.html). You should assume there will be cuts to your budget each year of the award.

Lisa said

July 30, 2013 @ 7:33 pm · Edit

I have been trying to find this information, but have not had any luck thus far. What is the FY2013 payline for K01 grant applications?

writedit said

July 30, 2013 @ 10:48 pm · Edit

Which IC? You can check with your PO by now about funding likelihood. Now, if you submitted in 2013, you will actually fall under FY14 paylines, which will not be known for months still.

Lisa said

August 1, 2013 @ 7:45 am · Edit

NCI

R01waiting said

July 31, 2013 @ 4:26 pm · Edit

Hi Writedit. At the beginning of this July, my PO told me that my NCI R01 has been approved by SPL for funding and the PO also mentioned that all grants have to be issued by the end of this July. However until now (the last day of the July) I did not receive any award information. I checked my NIH commons the status is still council review completed and no name of grant management specialist is there as well. I tried to contract my PO several days ago, unfortunately, my PO is on the vacation and could not reached at this moment. Do you have any suggestions for me?

writedit said

July 31, 2013 @ 4:54 pm · Edit

He probably meant to say the last day of September, which is when FY13 ends. NCI will be making awards up through September, so don’t worry about not having your notice yet (or GMS). The ERA status won’t change until a GMS starts working on processing the award. I suspect NCI is especially far behind with grants management due to the manner in which they handled noncompeting renewals prior to sequestration (6-month awards, which now need to be issued again to cover the rest of the year). But, you don’t need to worry about the lack of activity yet. Congratulations on the award and best wishes for success with the research.

Jane said

August 1, 2013 @ 12:16 am · Edit

Did you see the name of “grant management officer” under the contact list on your NIH commons. If you do, it would be a good sign for a grant in NCI. You may contact him/her instead. Good luck.

R01waiting said

August 1, 2013 @ 9:18 am · Edit

Thanks all for the reply. No such name is there so I have to wait.

newPI said

September 6, 2013 @ 2:08 pm · Edit

Have you received NoA?

keepinghopealive said

August 8, 2013 @ 9:25 am · Edit

Hi writedit,

I’ve been lurking on here on and off for awhile now, just trying to understand how this process works as I go through some of it myself and you are super helpful. Just had one question.

I submitted my F31 A0 to NINDS last year (Aug ’12) and received a score of 30. My PO said it was in the grey area for funding, but I was not funded. I submitted my A1 this year (May ’13) and received a score of 29 (late June). I have talked to my PO and sent him a response to the critiques (2 weeks ago), as he requested, and he told me he would do what he could. I just received a JIT email from my GMS requesting some information. Is this good news or is it just an automated email sent to everyone who gets under a certain score? I didn’t receive one for my A0 so I was just curious.

Thanks for the help and keep up the good work!

writedit said

August 8, 2013 @ 10:02 am · Edit

If you are getting a JIT request now (vs closer to the Oct Council meeting), it sounds like they might fund your A0. Has the status of either application changed on eRA Commons? You can ask the GMS if the request is for the A0 or the A1.

keepinghopealive said

August 8, 2013 @ 10:46 am · Edit

Thanks for the reply writedit.

The JIT request email specifically named the A1 application and my PO told me that they were not funding the A0 after the last meeting. Both statuses read “SRG review completed”.

keepinghopealive said

August 8, 2013 @ 11:01 am · Edit

And I forgot to add that the advisory council meeting date is set for Sept 12, if that makes a difference.

writedit said

August 8, 2013 @ 12:28 pm · Edit

Aha – the timing makes sense then. They will want to get Council approval for your application, but funding decisions will be a long way off still, since we have no idea what the FY14 budget will look like. The hope is that FY14 will be closer to FY12 than FY13 in terms of appropriation levels, so if a score of 30 was in the gray zone for FY13, a score of 29 would hopefully be fundable in FY14. But, again, we’ll have to see what happens between the House and Senate bills. So, this is good news, but nothing to get too excited about yet.

akas said

August 8, 2013 @ 3:16 pm · Edit

Update on time line for K99 from NCI

10/11/12 – Submitted Application

02/13/13 – Scientific Review Group (Score 28)

06/19/13 – Email correspondence with PO (indicated payline is 20 for FY 2013; however likelihood for funding is moderate to good)

07/01/13 – Council Review

07/08/13 – Email from PO requesting JIT info (due to IACUC major time constraints on my end)

07/16/13 – GMS contacted me question when IACUC approval will be in. A few rounds of emails with GMS

08/07/13 – Submitted JIT with IACUC approval

08/08/13 – Award processed and released to Yale for August funding per GMS (note – no update in era commons, yet)

writedit said

August 8, 2013 @ 3:31 pm · Edit

Woohoo and congratulations again. Thank you so much for all you have shared along the way, especially this summary timeline. We often receive awards before the eRA Commons status changes, so thanks for the concrete data point for everyone here that the Commons application status can lag behind reality … also your IACUC experience for JIT. In these times of last-minute funding decisions (especially Cycle III), institutions are going to have to accommodate PIs who have been told to be “cautiously optimistic” versus promised an award in terms of being willing to start regulatory approvals sooner.

Academic Hack said

August 9, 2013 @ 2:36 pm · Edit

Hey writedit I am getting weird update emails from your blog…any idea whats going on?

And congrats to Akas!

writedit said

August 9, 2013 @ 3:07 pm · Edit

Sometimes spam slips through the WordPress filter, and they are distributed to anyone who subscribes to this page. I delete these as fast as I discover them, though not always right away – but it also explains why you might look for but not find these odd comments on the NIH Paylines & Resources page.

akas said

August 9, 2013 @ 3:46 pm · Edit

Hello Writedit,

I am asking a question for a colleague. Do you know if you can submit an application for for a K99 and F32 at the same time? Obviously if both are awarded only one can be accepted. Just curious since the K99 would be nicer but any funding would be good. He is a 4th yr postdoc that just transitioned to our lab to get some more training. Thanks!

writedit said

August 9, 2013 @ 4:00 pm · Edit

I assume you mean roughly the same project for each application, in which case the answer is no. NIH Grants Policy prohibits any PI from submitting more than one similar application with the same research focus at the same time (which is why you cannot submit the same project as an R01 and an R21 simultaneously – sequentially, sure, assuming the first mechanism was not awarded). There are two exceptions (projects for K02 and P01/P50 applications can be simultaneously submitted as stand-alone independent RPGs … the IC then decides which to fund, never both) The policy is here: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2012/nihgps_ch2.htm#similar_identical_applications

Please note also that the eligibility criteria for the K99 have changed (starting Feb 2014) to shorten the application time frame from 5 to 4 years of postdoctoral training (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-13-050.html).

Gianluca said

August 12, 2013 @ 8:38 pm · Edit

Dear writeedit,

Thank you very much for all your help with this website. I was awarded my K25 fellowship with start date August 2, 2013. I need to ask a question about the time line for subsequent years. For the first year, we requested the salary of a research scientist and for years 2 to 5 the salary of an assistant professor. This is because I am currently hired as a research scientist but the department plans to promote me to research assistant professor during the first year of my K25 fellowship. We now need to find out what the best time line is to process the promotion from research scientist to faculty since in our department this involves review by a panel and takes 3-4 months. I see that I need to submit a progress report by mid May 2014. Would it be a good idea to hold the faculty position before the report is due (even if officially the position would start Aug 1st, 2014) or can I update my change in position any time before Aug 1st? When does NHI make the decision whether to fund year 2 or not (report due May, 2014, second year starts August 2014)? They will probably need to be sure that I will be holding the faculty position for the second year and beyond before approving the budget with the higher salary.

I would like to thank you in advance for your precious advice!

writedit said

August 12, 2013 @ 9:35 pm · Edit

First, years 2-5 of your award will be non-competing renewals. There would only be consideration of suspending your award if you did not comply with the terms of your award (or did something illegal with the funds), but I expect you are working on your research and training, so this won’t be an issue. You would want the promotion complete in time for your progress report, and I am not sure why they would not just start the process now. If your university promoted you early, you might be able to adjust some of the award to cover your higher salary sooner, depending on if you had any unspent funds (you can ask the Grants Management Specialist at the NIH). Even if the award allocation could not be adjusted to cover your salary and benefits, I would hope the university would be willing to make that much of an investment in you for a few months, although they could also schedule the appointment to start August 1, too. Does your mentor have any funding to cover the extra salary/benefits, if money is the university’s concern in not promoting you sooner?

Gianluca said

August 12, 2013 @ 10:45 pm · Edit

Thanks for your reply. It is my understanding that as long as I am funded by the K25 I am not allowed to draw salary from any other federal grant. I had to make an explicit statement that I would not draw salary from my mentor’s federal grants where I am listed as key personnel. So, the extra salary would have to come from state funding, I guess, and we don’t have any. This is why we are trying to stick to the schedule, but we might be able to rebudget some of the K25 award.

barely sane said

August 14, 2013 @ 1:17 pm · Edit

Dear Writedit,

Thank you for maintaining this wonderful website. It was essential to my coping mechanism for the past year, which was a hell of an emotional rollercoaster ride. Here is my timeline for K99 that was awarded by NHLBI:

06/11/2012 Application entered into system

06/15/2012 Scientific Review Group review pending.

10/19/2012 Scientific Review Group review completed: score 22

02/19/2013 Council review completed.

07/01/2013 Pending administrative review.

07/28/2013 Award prepared

It took almost a month after a change in my commons status and the award being prepared. It also took about a little over a week getting the NGA after submitting the final JIT.

Good luck to everyone and thanks again for the site!

writedit said

August 14, 2013 @ 3:17 pm · Edit

Woohoo! Congratulations and thank you so much for recapping your entire roller coaster ride here. As I keep saying, you all make the site as useful as it is. Best wishes for success with the project and your career in biomedical research!

waiting… said

August 14, 2013 @ 5:04 pm · Edit

hi writedit,

for grants that are not funded, are you supposed to receive some type of “not funded” notification?

i applied for a k01 july 2012, the src reviewed and scored it (31) in october 2012, the ac met feb 2013. i did receive jit email request back in october. the score is above payline so i think it is not likely to be funded, but i have not heard back either way. multiple attempts to contact the PO for confirmation has been unsuccessful. i would like to resubmit or possibly submit as new under another activity code. but my question is, do i need to have an official rejection letter of the original submission before i can do this?

writedit said

August 14, 2013 @ 5:10 pm · Edit

No, you will not receive official notification that your application will not receive an award, and your eRA Commons status will not change until the application is administratively withdrawn, which won’t happen for more than a year. You can absolutely submit an A1 of the K01, if you have not yet (could have done so as soon as Nov 2012 or March 2013). If that was your A1 application or if you prefer to move on to a research project vs career development, you could repackage the research as an R21 or R01 for submission in October 2013 (which is after the Sept 30th conclusion to FY13).

MFS said

August 15, 2013 @ 1:14 pm · Edit

My Phase-I SBIR application scored was scored at 36. I was wondering about the pay lines for NIMH and NINDS?

writedit said

August 15, 2013 @ 1:26 pm · Edit

The paylines for FY14 will not be known for a few to several months yet. When you see news that Congress has passed a budget for FY14 (and the President has signed it into law), then you can check with your PO. If this was your initial submission, when you get your summary statement, you should communicate with the PO at the primary IC (NIMH or NINDS) about strategies for resubmission. Your score is probably a little high, and you will want to submit an A1 if you can. You don’t want to wait until you know if the A0 will receive an award (both the A0 and A1 will be considered for funding, so don’t worry about the A0 being withdrawn if you submit an A1).

MFS said

August 15, 2013 @ 1:34 pm · Edit

Thank you Wriedit. This was a A1application.

writedit said

August 15, 2013 @ 1:42 pm · Edit

Aha. Then you should be thinking about other proposals while waiting for the federal budget to be passed. You could also talk with the PO (once you have your summary statement) about modifications to the project that might make it qualify as new, but I suspect this is more difficult with SBIR applications.

HOPE said

August 15, 2013 @ 3:21 pm · Edit

Just got email from GMS, update my time line for K99 from NCI to share with other folks:

02/09/12 – Submitted Application

06/12/12 – Scientific Review Group (Score 31)

11/07/12 – Resubmitted Application

02/13/13 – Scientific Review Group (Score 28)

06/27/13 – Email correspondence with PO (indicated payline is 20 for FY 2013; however likelihood for funding is moderate to good)

07/01/13 – Council Review

07/08/13 – Email from PO requesting JIT info

07/12/13 – Submitted JIT

08/15/13 – Got Email from GMS: planning on making an award on the date requested

Thanks again for this great site and writedit’s help!

writedit said

August 15, 2013 @ 3:27 pm · Edit

Woohoo! Congratulations and thank you for posting your detailed timeline and great outcome after 18+ months of perseverance. Best wishes for success with your project and your career in biomedical research!

john said

August 20, 2013 @ 2:35 pm · Edit

After the council review was completed for my K99, I got request for JIT, but my PO said grant not fundable. Then, a few weeks back the PO said that could be funded and requested JIT again, which I submitted. Does anyone here know what are the chances of the grant being funded in such a case?

Side question – I see reference to A0 and A1 on this blog – what are those referring to?

Thanks for keeping up this awesome resource.

john said

August 20, 2013 @ 2:14 pm · Edit

Side question – I see reference to A0 and A1 on this blog – what are those referring to?

Thanks for keeping up this awesome resource.

writedit said

August 20, 2013 @ 2:26 pm · Edit

An A0 application is the first/initial submission of an application. The A1 is the first amended version of the same application (i.e., the resubmission). When you see a grant ID number, you will see something like K99CA8675309-01A1 if the application funded was the amended application; otherwise, the ID number stops at -01. When the NIH accepted two amendments, you would see applications with an A2 suffix.

In your case, the Institute is figuring out how much money it has left as it makes awards. They get Council approval for all the applications that have a chance at receiving an award (hence the need for JIT then) … now that they have gotten to your application on the list and still have money left, they want to check the JIT again to be sure you don’t have other funding in the meantime and that you have all the necessary approvals ready. If your PO asked for the JIT again, you are likely to get funded … it could be enough other K99s on the list ahead of you (i.e., better scores) became ineligible in the intervening months since they had their application reviewed because the PI got a faculty job, received other funding, etc.

Secondaire said

August 17, 2013 @ 6:11 pm · Edit

Hi Writedit. Your blog is terrific! Perhaps you can offer a newbie like me some advice! I submitted my F32 for the April 8th deadline, and about a month ago received an impact score of 17 (via NIGMS). I spoke to my program officer and he says to be optimistic, but that budgets are late and that I won’t know anything until early November. Presumably my application will go for council review now (PO says historically a 17 would be funded without any questions), but my eRA commons status has been stuck at “SRG review completed” for >30 days. Will this status change at some point prior to council review (9/13?) Am I being paranoid? Also, has anyone heard anything about whether or not the FY14 budgets for GMS look anything like FY13?

writedit said

August 17, 2013 @ 6:24 pm · Edit

Your PO might be optimistic to think the federal budget for FY14 will be passed by early November, but maybe at that point, NIGMS will know what scores can be assured awards based on the continuing resolution (CR), which should just extend FY13 levels. Your eRA Commons status won’t change again until after Council meets, unless your application is approved to be considered for funding before that (Fs don’t go to Council). Unfortunately, this is a period of hurry up and wait, so do not be paranoid at all about the radio silence. No one at NIGMS knows what the funding levels will be like, and they won’t for months yet. If your PO did not advise getting an A1 application ready, then you just need to wait for Congress to act on the appropriations bills. While you’re waiting, you could send your Congressional delegation a reminder of how important federal funding of the NIH is to the economy, public health, and their constituents (everyone at your university, for example).

Secondaire said

August 18, 2013 @ 12:01 am · Edit

My PO was optimistic about my chances of getting funded, and he thought getting an A1 ready would be a waste of time with a 17. Fs don’t go to council? He said they did, unless I am getting confused somehow. Time to sit on my hands. As you can tell, I’m incredibly clueless about this whole process still! 🙂 Thanks for the quick reply!

writedit said

August 18, 2013 @ 1:25 am · Edit

Great news about your PO (& I agree it would be tough to lower the score further). Like everything else, where Fs undergo their second level of review varies by IC … and Council no doubt likely still concurs with the list of F applications to be considered for funding. If your PO thought you would know by November, it could be they only need to wait for the CR before acting. No matter what, though, don’t worry about your eRA Commons status (if you look back at others who have posted here, often they have their award before their eRA Commons status changes – status often lags behind actual activity). Information from your PO (and later your GMS) will be much more relevant and timely … but still a few months away. Hang in there, knowing that good news awaits in your case.

Secondaire said

August 18, 2013 @ 5:39 pm · Edit

Thanks for your optimism! I had no idea how eRA commons statuses work. Sounds like they are indeed just waiting for the CR. I’ll call my PO again in about a month and see if there are any new updates.

writedit said

August 18, 2013 @ 6:39 pm · Edit

FY14 does not start until Oct 1, which is when the first CR will start. The NIH will be busy closing out FY13 until mid-Oct, so there won’t be any FY14 activity until Nov at least. You should wait until later in Oct to check with your PO.

Arnold said

August 18, 2013 @ 12:37 pm · Edit

Does anyone know how many applications were submitted to the recent (2013) 2nd round of Provocative Questions RFA (from the NCI)? I heard it was many fewer than the first time.

writedit said

August 18, 2013 @ 12:52 pm · Edit

I do not know. I would be interested in the distribution of applications among the announcements, since they broke up the questions into different groups and mechanisms this cycle (vs one R01 and one R21 announcement last time).

Jane said

August 29, 2013 @ 12:33 am · Edit

around 400, based on my PO…

writedit said

August 29, 2013 @ 12:37 am · Edit

Great – thanks so much for sharing what you learned.

Arnold said

September 19, 2013 @ 5:40 pm · Edit

Thanks, Jane. Good luck!

Cautiously Optimistic said

August 22, 2013 @ 3:30 pm · Edit

I’m curious if there is a rationale behind the single award limitation for the R15 mechanism. The way I understand it is that an investigator can have a single current R15 and no other project funding from the NIH. Is this an accurate definition?

writedit said

August 22, 2013 @ 4:02 pm · Edit

You cannot be the PI on another NIH research grant (including another R15), but you can receive support (as senior/key personnel) from an award held by another PI. If your question is about overlap with support from a career development award, I assume timing and percent effort come into play, but that would be a question for your PO (specific to your situation). As to the rationale, I assume the RPG award restriction is to prevent the mechanism from being abused.

some other guy said

August 23, 2013 @ 9:39 am · Edit

Writedit and all— thanks for your responses. These are very helpful to me as a junior investigator.

I am also interested in the R15 question since it seems that there are multiple ways to interpret the guidance provided on the NIH website. The website states:

“The PD(s)/PI(s) may not be the PD(s)/PI(s) of any active NIH research grant, including another AREA grant, at the time of an AREA award (although he or she may be one of the project personnel for an active NIH grant held by another PD(s)/PI(s)).

The PD(s)/PI(s) may not be awarded more than one AREA grant at a time (although he or she may hold successive new or renewal AREA grants). ”

So, if I receive a R15 award, am I prohibited from applying for FUTURE NIH research grants (e.g. R01, R21) as a PI? That is, can you apply as a PI for these grants while you have an active R15? My confusion is in the interpretation of “at the time of an AREA award”. Does this mean when it initiates OR as long as it is funding your salary? The latter seems less likely since these are essentially bridge awards.

One other query-

If one receives a R15 and you are allowed to apply for a R21, does the active R21 disqualify you from renewing the R15?

I hope this makes sense. Thanks in advance!

writedit said

August 25, 2013 @ 9:53 am · Edit

You should talk with your PO, but my interpretation is that you can apply for other RPG funding while you have the R15, but if you (as PI) receive another award (e.g., R21), you would not be able to renew the R15. The R15 is a small project award, not bridge funding (see R56), and it is intended to help PIs who would not be competitive for other RPG mechanisms secure research funding. Once the PI can compete for other RPG funding (such as through the acquisition of preliminary data using R15 support), the R15 is no longer relevant, nor would it make sense to allow PIs to hold multiple awards including an R15. Some institutions do not have the facilities & resources to support larger research projects, so PIs there might only ever be competitive for R15s (hence the eligibility of renewal/successive R15 awards).

NewbiePI said

August 28, 2013 @ 2:09 pm · Edit

Hi Writedit and all,

I have an R00 and a great postdoc joining the lab soon. It was suggested to me by a ‘wise one’ that the new postdoc apply for an F32. My question is how closely related should the F32 be to my R00 – in an ideal world that is?

writedit said

August 28, 2013 @ 3:22 pm · Edit

If your postdoc is eligible for an F32 (citzen/non-citizen national/permanent resident), he or she certainly should apply early in the project period (great for both of you if awarded). You will want to check the F32 rules for the target IC and talk with the PO about the project (see the IC instructions/contacts list in the F32 announcement), but since you are the sponsor, the research will necessarily be related to your work. Ideally, the F32 project itself would evolve into something the postdoc can take with him/her or convert to their own K99/R00. Now, since you have an R00, I assume you do not have much of a training record (ie, grad students who defended, postdocs who secured their own appointments, etc.), so you may want to identify a co-sponsor who does have an established mentoring track record and who conducts research in the area being pursued by your postdoc. It would also be good if you could publish something with this postdoc before the application is reviewed.

Kian said

August 30, 2013 @ 12:08 pm · Edit

Thank you for posting the current year paylines. Do you happen to have an archive of previous years SBIR/STTR paylines that we can access?

Thanks again

writedit said

August 30, 2013 @ 12:16 pm · Edit

Unfortunately, I have not been saving past year payline information, though some of the ICs that post paylines do make available prior year listings. I archive and make available all comments and discussions on separate pages, so you can search those to see if anyone posted information about SBIR/STTR paylines for a specific IC in the past (often blog readers post their funded score or the payline quoted by their PO but not published officially by the IC).

F30 writer said

September 1, 2013 @ 9:14 pm · Edit

Hi writedit,

I submitted an F30 application last spring (April 8th deadline). I got my priority score a few weeks ago and it is below the 2013 payline. Should I be concerned that I haven’t heard re: funding status? Or should I just sit tight until after the advisory council meeting 10/2013? I was under the impression that I would get a JIT request.

Thanks,

writedit said

September 1, 2013 @ 9:33 pm · Edit

You have nothing to be concerned about – I would not expect them to ask about JIT for FY14 awards until after they close out FY13. They will not know the FY14 budget for a few months, but if you are below the FY13 payline, you should be fine.

drericgarland said

September 6, 2013 @ 2:13 pm · Edit

Hi writedit (and all),

In July I received an impact score of 14 on a R34 proposal to NIDA. Last week my PO asked me to respond to several criticisms prior to the final council meeting. She then told me that they are trying to get the proposal funded and it looks positive. I just saw my eRA commons status changed to: “Award prepared; refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.” Does that mean that my proposal has been funded and I will be receiving the NOA soon?

Thanks!

writedit said

September 6, 2013 @ 10:43 pm · Edit

Congratulations – yes, you will receive your award notice soon (definitely before the end of the month). Best wishes for success with preparing for & conducting the trial.

drericgarland said

September 9, 2013 @ 10:20 am · Edit

Dear Writedit,

Thanks so much for your guidance and this amazing site! I wanted to contribute to the ongoing database on timelines for the NIH process:

1. Submitted grant 4/24/13

2. Scientific review 7/17/13

3. Scored 7/19/13 (impact score 14)

4. Asked to respond to several criticisms by PO, 8/29/13

5. Final Council 9/2/13

6. Award prepared 9/3/13

7. Notice of award 9/9/13

Woooohooooo!!!!!

writedit said

September 9, 2013 @ 10:47 am · Edit

Congratulations and thank you so much for sharing your detailed timeline! Others here maybe interested in the funding mechanism and IC. Best wishes for success with the project and your careering biomedical research.

drericgarland said

September 9, 2013 @ 1:27 pm · Edit

Funding mechanism: R34.

IC: NIDA.

Thanks again and good luck everyone with your grantsmanship in these lean times!

jmanuel said

September 6, 2013 @ 3:37 pm · Edit

Hello writedit et al,

I’m new to this blog/resource and am glad I found it. I received a score of 13 on resubmission of a K01 proposal to NIDA. Council met on Wednesday, and before the meeting my PO said that he would be in touch soon. I noticed there was a status update on 9/5/13, but I don’t see any changes other than Council Review Completed. How long after Council does it usually take to find out whether a proposal is funded?

Also, just a quick question about era commons, what does it mean if you have an FSR accepted code as N. I received this on the first submission and resubmission, and now I’m worried I might not get funded. Thanks so for any advice you might. have.

jmanuel said

September 7, 2013 @ 7:53 am · Edit

Heard from PO late yesterday that my K01 will be reviewed for funding at the next Council meeting.

writedit said

September 12, 2013 @ 8:05 pm · Edit

Not to worry about the FSR status (financial reporting). Also not to worry (probably) about the delay in Council consideration. Congress will not have any news on the budget for months still, so only applications that definitely would have been funded in FY13 are probably being considered at Councils this cycle. Now, I would have thought a K01 with a score of 13 would fall in that category, but most of the NIH pushed the majority of funding decisions to the ~February Council last year, and I expect the general pattern will hold for FY14 (hopefully the federal budget – and funding decisions – will be available a little earlier). In the meantime, you could ask your PO whether you should be considering an RPG application in the meantime (if not for October then for Feb).

jmanuel said

April 5, 2014 @ 10:03 am · Edit

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

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

writedit said

April 5, 2014 @ 10:10 am · Edit

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

jmanuel said

April 5, 2014 @ 10:43 am · Edit

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

YMKP said

September 6, 2013 @ 4:32 pm · Edit

My SBIR was scored in the grey zone. Just received a request letter from NIH through the email, and stated “It has been brought to our attention that the above referenced proposal which is being considered for funding involves the use of animals. Accordingly, it will be necessary for you to complete and submit an Animal Welfare Assurance of Compliance (Assurance) with the revised Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Policy) as soon as possible”. What is the chance of getting funded?

writedit said

September 13, 2013 @ 12:43 am · Edit

This request has nothing to do with your funding likelihood. It means you must obtain an animal welfare assurance number from PHS before you can be considered for an award. Your proposal will not go to Council without this, and it will take some time to secure the assurance number, so you should start the process as soon as possible (check this link at OLAW if you have not already: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/obtain_assurance.htm).

Sixyrpd said

September 7, 2013 @ 9:25 am · Edit

Hi all,

I am a senior postdoc ..my K99 just missed the pay line (IS: 19) and I cannot revise because I am into >5 yrs of postdoc. With that score I and few papers, I got two interviews. In both cases they “liked me very much” and told me to wait if negotiations with their first choice breaks down. Unfortunately it didn’t .

So under these circumstances I was wondering what are the grant options? Are there any bridge grants which a senior postdoc at 6 years can apply? Any help would be highly appreciated. I am still sticking to academia for one more year…..just wanted to make sure that the system is not as broken as I have been led to believe.

applicant said

September 10, 2013 @ 7:39 pm · Edit

Sorry to hear about that. And with such a good score too….

I think K01 grants are also career transition grants, and they do not have eligibility time limits. You may have to check with specific IC’s though. Good luck!

Sixyrpd said

September 11, 2013 @ 9:26 am · Edit

Thanks applicant! I have started looking at Ko1s. Seems like that is the only viable option. The eligibility criteria varies greatly among institutes. Once I decide on an inst. I will come up with more specific questions….and as usual I will be searching this forum with keyword K01 now. Thanks writedit for maintaining this awesome blog.

BSIM said

September 11, 2013 @ 10:59 am · Edit

If your work is cancer related, NCI K22 can be an option (8 year eligibility limit) although they don’t fund as many as they use to anymore.

Sixyrpd said

September 11, 2013 @ 4:47 pm · Edit

Thanks BSIM! But I think I will go with K01. Looks like NIA could be an appropriate IC.

writedit said

September 13, 2013 @ 12:39 am · Edit

You don’t mention to which IC you sent your K99/R00, but that PO should be willing to help guide you with your next grant application. A few ICs use the K22 as a career transition award, though not NIA. You will want to communicate with the NIA career development PO for the K01 mechanism (ditto for any IC you might target – both because communicating with POs is almost always helpful and especially for K awards since most are still reviewed by IC-specific review groups vs CSR). I assume you meet the citizenship/residency requirements for non-K99 career development applicants. If the science is really good and you have some publications, you might consider an RPG application as well.

Sixyrpd said

September 18, 2013 @ 9:31 pm · Edit

Hi Writedit,

Thanks so much ! It was NIAID. I did not know that I could bug my PO for future grants . That is nice to know. I think I have passed the deadline for K22 eligibility and it seems like the only option I am left with that is K01 through NIA. NIAID’s K01s are very specific fields none of which I am remotely close to work on. I will be changing my field of research learn new things extending my previous experience and publications from my current research..all this fits with the K01 mechanism. I will contact someone at NIA for the K01 soon.

Thanks again for the help.

non believer said

September 10, 2013 @ 10:06 am · Edit

really?

R00 transition said

September 10, 2013 @ 6:11 pm · Edit

Hi, I am currently writing my R00 transition proposal from the K99, which requires me to detail the budget. Considering the university takes so much through indirects, it would be nice to put as much of the expensive equipment like physiology rigs or 2-photon microscopes on the R00 so you can recover indirects.

However, I have heard from people that the NIH frowns upon R00 budgets that are equipment-heavy because that is not how normal R01 budgets are typically distributed.

Does anyone have any experience with this? How much of the R00 budget can be dedicated to equipment (as opposed to salary, for example)?

NewbiePI said

September 11, 2013 @ 10:54 am · Edit

I am also interested in the answer to this question.

akas said

September 11, 2013 @ 11:00 am · Edit

My self and a colleague submitted ours with roughly $125,000 in equipment in year #1 (justified at the bottom that the equipment was necessary for the proposed studies) and an anticipated equipment budget of $100,000 in year two and year three stating that as the lab expanded additional equipment (scopes, freezers, etc) would be required. No problems with NCI or with NIA when the budget had this much equipment. Not sure about other institutes or if the equipment budget is higher.

madness007 said

September 11, 2013 @ 11:04 am · Edit

I’m in the same boat too – just to clarify as I work on my R00 budget – I guess I’m confused – I thought that your entire budget would be subject to your institution’s indirect cost F/A rate – so why would it matter what you budget for equipment vs. salary? I was operating under the assumption that I would be losing over half of my $250K per year no matter what I budgeted, am I wrong?

writedit said

September 13, 2013 @ 1:12 am · Edit

Now, different universities have different bases for the calculation of indirect costs. I do not think there are ever indirect costs generated through equipment requests in the budget, but not all applicant institutions include everything but equipment. If you do a lot of genomic work, the cost of all those chips no longer is regarded as a supply capable of generating indirect costs, either. Your institution (university) should have a Website indicating on how indirect costs are calculated – and what your institution’s F&A (indirect costs) rate is. For major research institutions, it is generally 50% or higher … and it can be much, much higher at some places (e.g., closer to 90% of the direct costs), but lower than 50% at others.

Jane said

September 15, 2013 @ 12:15 am · Edit

if your institute has rebudgetary authority, you should use your R01 to purchase equipment. Talking to senior colleagues in your department.

writedit said

September 15, 2013 @ 8:54 am · Edit

Yes, R01s should certainly be used for equipment purchases. The issue here was an R00, which is limited to $249K in total (direct + indirect) costs, in which case equipment purchases are nice for the R00 PI, because they (equipment purchases) do not generate indirects (& therefore do not eat into the $249K cap), but may not be as acceptable to some ICs (which might expect to see institutional investment) or, for that matter, universities, who want indirects & want their PIs to cover their salaries with grant funding. The PO can give advice from the IC perspective, mentor (& department grant administrator) from the university perspective.

akas said

September 11, 2013 @ 11:05 am · Edit

Also, because I just went through this….

The RFP states that you must have 75% effort. This should not be confused with having to cover 75% of your salary. The institute that you are going to should agree to cost share your salary since they most likely detailed that your salary would be covered in the offer letter. Don’t let the institute try to have you pay a substantial portion of your salary from the R00. That is not what the award is intended for. In fact as little as 0% salary can be in the budget, which was what I did for year #1. In year 2 and 3 I proposed to cover my summer salary. I added a technicians salary for years 1-3, the ~100K in equipment, and the rest in consumables/overhead

writedit said

September 13, 2013 @ 1:17 am · Edit

If you can get away with not listing much salary, then great … but most universities and other research institutions want to see investigators, especially bench researchers, cover their salaries with soft money. Anyone deciding how to budget their award funds should talk with their department or other appropriate fiscal administrators. Otherwise, you could be facing a salary cut if you do not have hard start-up funds for this (and always not the best use of start-up funds).

K99-R00 said

November 12, 2013 @ 6:38 pm · Edit

This is great advice. I am right at the R00 transition, and I have a few questions. First, does the NIH scrutinize what equipment you list in the budget? If you are asking $100K in basic equipment like freezers, do they think that your new university isn’t giving you enough startup? Second, do you need to have vendor quotes to back-up your equipment budget?

writedit said

November 13, 2013 @ 10:43 pm · Edit

As to your second question, no, you don’t need vendor quotes for the NIH, though your university may need them internally to confirm you are asking for the right amount.

As to the first question, you only have $249K to do the research, and this has to cover your university F&A costs, too. If $149K is enough to cover the required salaries, supplies, indirects, and any subawards, then $100K in equipment is fine, so long as it, too, is justified by the science. Using the R00 to buy equipment will both lower the amount of indirects (which might not make your university happy) and allow you to save your startup $$ for supplies, tech salary, etc., so it makes sense strategically. You can talk with your PO about your planned budget, but in general, so long as your requests are justified by the science, the rest is between you and your university (from the NIH perspective).

akas said

September 11, 2013 @ 11:07 am · Edit

No overhead on major equipment. This saves a huge chunk of change. Only overhead on salaries and consumables. This is true for all NIH type grants. Pay salaries and buy consumables from your start-up. Also anything you buy from the start-up is owned by the university and you cannot take it; however, if you buy equip from your grants it is owned by the NIH and you have a better chance of being able to take it if you change institutes (plus less indirects).

madness007 said

September 11, 2013 @ 11:29 am · Edit

Thanks! This is a huge cost savings! Yikes – still need to get most of my equipment on start-up just b/c I need to get up and running quickly, but I can definitely shuffle things around for year 1 budget. Wish it was easier to navigate all this budget stuff, but I guess that’s what blogs like these are for!

writedit said

September 13, 2013 @ 1:20 am · Edit

Actually, the award is to the university or institution (for the R00 portion and any RPG et al. mechanism). The equipment (and data) are owned by the university. The NIH will not intervene if your university does not allow you to take equipment with you. A generated research resource (shared resource) is another matter, but not your data or your equipment.

irwin said

November 14, 2013 @ 1:17 pm · Edit

Here is an equipment Q&A from the NIH:

What happens to equipment when the PD/PI moves to another organization?

The grantee organization is the legal entity to which a grant is awarded. When the PD/PI moves to another organization, the following options apply (1) The grantee organization may request continuation of the project under the direction of an alternate PD/PI. If the alternate PD/PI is approved by NIH, the grant will continue and thus title to the equipment purchased under the grant will remain with the original grantee organization.

(2) The organization may relinquish its interests and rights in the grant to the PD/PI’s new organization. If the new organization is approved by NIH to continue the grant activity, then the grant will be awarded and any equipment purchased with grant funds and still needed for the grant project would be expected to transfer to the new grantee organization, which would assume title. If the original grantee does not voluntarily agree to relinquish equipment with the grant, HHS may require transfer of the equipment as specified in 45 CFR Part 74.34(h).

(3) If an alternate PD/PI is not accepted by the NIH (or no alternate is nominated), and the original grantee refuses to relinquish its rights in the grant to the new organization (or if the new organization is not accepted by NIH to continue the research), then the grant will be terminated. Title to equipment will remain with the original grantee organization, subject to disposition or use as described in 45 CFR Part 74.34. The PD/PI’s new organization may submit a new application through the regular NIH peer review process to request support for the research.

The transfer of a grant to a foreign organization or between foreign organizations requires the additional approval of the National Advisory Council/Board of the awarding NIH IC.

writedit said

November 14, 2013 @ 3:33 pm · Edit

Thanks so much for posting the full NIH policy. Negotiations between the original grantee, the moving PI, and the new university generally are not a big deal, but things can get hairy depending on the grants and equipment involved and any animosity that might have arisen between the PI and original institution. In this case, too, the R00 is only 3 years (and not renewable), so I wasn’t thinking of equipment being purchased and moved all in that time frame by a new investigator. This situation arises more commonly in long-term R01s and other RPGs.

R00 transition said

September 11, 2013 @ 12:15 pm · Edit

$125K for equipment is pretty good for things like freezers and other things that are more than $5K. But I guess for big ticket items that are ~$200K have to be bought from startup then?

Also, the NIH allows 90-day pre-award spending, but how is the start of the 90day period determined? Is it only after you have submitted the transition proposal?

writedit said

September 13, 2013 @ 1:23 am · Edit

The 90-day pre-award spending is something you need to arrange with your university/institution, not the NIH, and they will have a policy as to when the clock starts – but probably when the transition proposal is submitted (though I am not sure how R00s are handled, so be sure to ask in your department).

KB said

September 12, 2013 @ 4:43 pm · Edit

Hi Writedit,

Originally I was planning to submit the grant as a normal R01 to the parental RA. However, I just found out that my application matches with a special FOA.

I have two questions:

1. Would the special FOA give an advantage for the funding opportunity?

2. Is there any major difference in terms of study section between a special FOA and a normal R01 application?

Thanks a lot.

writedit said

September 13, 2013 @ 1:06 am · Edit

If the FOA is an RFA (not just a program announcement), then you should apply to the RFA. If the RFA application is not funded, you still have 2 more chances with the same application (modified to address the RFA reviewer comments) via the parent announcement or a program announcement. This is one of the few cases in which you still have 3 shots with the same application. If your special FOA is just a program announcement, then you only get the usual A0 and A1 submissions. Submitting to a more targeted program announcement is generally better than the parent announcement if your research matches the focus well. However, unless it is a PAS, there are no special funds set aside – the targeted program announcement simply means your IC is looking for applications in this area of research, which could be beneficial when funding decisions are made (limited number of awards for many applications with similar scores). You can check with the PO for the FOA to be sure your proposal matches what they are looking for, but most POs listed on specific FOAs will suggest that you apply, as it is in their interest to demonstrate a lot of applicant interest in this area of funding (so they can get additional budget $ to expand their portfolio). Unless it is an RFA or a PAR, you will still request a CSR review group – but check the locus of review in the FOA itself. If it is an IC contact, then your application would be reviewed by an IC panel (in all likelihood), which would mean a better (more focused & interested) set of reviewers.

Mimble said

September 12, 2013 @ 10:43 pm · Edit

Just throwing this out there meaning no offense but is there any chance you could have one blog devoted to research grants R01 and such and another to training and transition type grants K99 and others. It feels like we are not really looking at this from the same perspective here and it makes sifting through this a real slog.

writedit said

September 13, 2013 @ 1:30 am · Edit

Sorry about that (& no offense taken). The comments are searchable, so you can click through by K99 and so on, but that is the best I can do … everyone comes to this one page to post questions/comments, and I do not think if I created new pages for R vs K applications that folks would go to them (versus this one). Early on, I tried to start a separate Discussion page, but most everyone comes here instead. Probably after the Oct deadlines, I’ll have time to pull of a large chunk of the comments here so this page is more manageable again (and the archived pages of comments are also searchable – though with some advice specific to that FY). I’ve been out of the country with limited electricity & Internet, so I’ve been slow answering questions, too. However, I probably will try to finally overhaul the overall structure in Oct-Nov, so maybe then I’ll try to break things out again. Thanks for your input.

boulder said

September 18, 2013 @ 6:18 pm · Edit

Hi, I was wondering if someone knows answer to my question. Several years ago my adviser submitted a proposal on one research topic, but was not funded. I was not co-PI in that proposal. Now I moved to another university as a faculty, and want to submit similar R01 proposal on the same topic. I wonder, if this will be considered as resubmission of the same proposal third time? I would expect NO, because I was not co-PI in that proposal and I am independent PI now. Am I correct? Thanks!

writedit said

September 18, 2013 @ 7:17 pm · Edit

I assume by now the field has moved on and you have collected and published data since the original submission by your mentor, so the application should be new by definition (new aims, new approach). You do not need to avoid the same research focus certainly.

boulder said

September 19, 2013 @ 7:09 am · Edit

Thank you very much!

ETNEO said

September 25, 2013 @ 5:57 am · Edit

Please would you let me know if there is still any chance for R01 Grants in the gray zone to be funded for the fiscal year 2013. Thank You!

SG said

September 25, 2013 @ 7:20 am · Edit

If you haven’t heard from you PO in a while then the answer is very, very, very small. Ask you PO. They should know if you even have this much of a chance.

WFE said

September 25, 2013 @ 6:53 am · Edit

Dear Writedit,

My RO1 renewal (A0) was reviewed in June, scored in the grey zone. I spoke to PO and he is positive. He told me that I have to wait until Dec/Jan to know about the funding. Regarding the A1, he said I can delay the A1 submission if I want. However, my current funding will be over by next summer. I can submit a much better revised version in March as we are generating more data. I would appreciate if you could comment whether I need to submit my A1 in November instead of waiting until March. MANY THANKS FOR YOUR GREAT WORK.

SG said

September 25, 2013 @ 7:16 am · Edit

The real questions are when will the grant be at its best? November or March? And, how soon do you need the money?

If the PO put you in the grey zone I would suggest resubmitting sooner rather than later. Especially if you think the new grant will be significantly better.

Remember, NIH doesn’t know what its budget will be for FY 2014. So, the grey zone could become the “out of luck” zone very quickly.

writedit said

September 25, 2013 @ 8:27 am · Edit

As SG said, the question is when will the application be strongest. If you will publish between now and March (or at least have manuscripts accepted prior to the review in May-June) and will generate data that will satisfy reviewers, then waiting until the application is as strong as possible is the best strategy.

However, waiting until March pushes you into FY15, and funding decisions for this first cycle will, as always (including your A0), be late. I assume you will have some carryover when the award period ends to keep your lab afloat. Unless you have an exceptional score, you likely will not receive an award until 2015 (i.e., not by the Dec 1, 2014 start date), though the potential for spending funds 90 days in advance of an award exists. If you have a fundable score, your institution might help with some bridge funding until the renewal award comes through, but that depends on policies and practices where you are.

WFE said

September 25, 2013 @ 9:34 am · Edit

Dear SG and Writedit,

Many thanks for the comments.

ETNEO said

September 25, 2013 @ 7:49 am · Edit

Thanks for your answer, my PO told me that the grant has been proposed for funding but the NCI leaders will make the final decision. My question is if there is hope until the end of FY2013 or those grants can be funded also in FY2014

writedit said

September 25, 2013 @ 8:15 am · Edit

FY13 ends on Monday (9/30), so as SG indicated, your PO now knows whether your application will receive an award (it will not be considered for funding indefinitely).

ETNEO said

September 25, 2013 @ 8:19 am · Edit

Thank you very much for your prompt response! I appreciate it

ETNEO said

September 25, 2013 @ 4:04 pm · Edit

I sent an email to my PO, she didin’t answer yet…I’m a NI/ESI my grant was scored 14 percentile. Do you think they will review grants until next monday or those grants in the gray zone have already been selected. Sorry to bother you but the all process has been very stressful! Thanks!

SG said

September 25, 2013 @ 4:48 pm · Edit

My guess is that they have to “close the books” on this fiscal year this week at the latest if they haven’t already. You could try sending an Email to the grants management person assigned to your grant. But, they are so busy right now you might not get an answer until next week anyway.

ETNEO said

September 25, 2013 @ 4:54 pm · Edit

Thank you SG, I appreciate your response

John Ward said

September 27, 2013 @ 12:09 am · Edit

I submitted my competitive renewal of a RO1 in July, and my grant will be reviewed by study section on October 2. I would like to know as to what will happen if the govt is shut down on October 1. Will they have to reschedule the meeting? Please advise.

John

writedit said

September 27, 2013 @ 12:23 am · Edit

In all likelihood, yes. Review of grant applications is not an essential government service, and even the Internet reviews will be on hold since the computer systems will not be supported. Now, whether SROs are allowed to show up and run the session (with no pay), since they are off-site from the NIH itself, I am not sure. This would be a good time to contact your Congressional delegation and urge them to pass the CR (Senate version) so the federal government does not shut down on Tuesday (Oct 1).

Non-excepted Fed said

September 27, 2013 @ 8:19 am · Edit

Nope. It would be illegal (believe it or not, not just against policy) for the SRO to show up. In fact it will be illegal for SROs (and POs for that matter) to use their blackberries or even check their gov’t webmail from home.

http://www.gao.gov/legal/lawresources/antideficiencybackground.html

writedit said

September 27, 2013 @ 8:34 am · Edit

Great – thanks so much for this intel.

4th year PI said

September 27, 2013 @ 6:06 pm · Edit

Hello writedit — I am in the first months of my 4th R01 year (out of 5) and preparing for a competitive renewal submission in July 2014. This was my first R01, so I am in obvious need of advice.

My lab is working on several papers that we need to push before the renewal submission. From the reviewer’s perspective which I assume should coincide with the NIH scoring criteria, do you think my application would be more competitive with additional first author, or rather with additional last author manuscripts? I want to prioritize work on these manuscripts to maximize my potential for continued funding.

Any insight would be greatly appreciated!

writedit said

September 28, 2013 @ 10:03 am · Edit

I am not sure position matters for reviewers – it depends on your role for the work and the scope of the project. As you know, whoever does the most hands-on work (grad student, postdoc) is generally first author, though for big collaborative studies (GWAS, multisite RCTs, etc.), this is usually reserved for the most senior, leading contributor. Of course, if it’s pretty much you running the show at the bench, then first and corresponding author might be most appropriate. The senior author position conveys that you are developing the hypotheses and running your own independent research group, which is important early in your career and secures your place in the discipline.

John Ward said

September 29, 2013 @ 1:43 am · Edit

As I said in my last message my competitive renewal is scheduled to be reviewed by study section on October 2. Sinice it is almost certain that the government will be shut down and study section will not meet, I am very worried. The reviewers must have posted their critiques in commons and preliminary scores must have been assigned. Now if the study section meets say after a month, my concern is reviews would have forgotten the grants, and they may also change the scores, and all this, I am afraid could negatively impact the grant. Please let me know your thoughts. Should I contact my SRO and seek her advice regarding my concern?

writedit said

September 29, 2013 @ 2:19 am · Edit

I expect SROs are getting bombarded with questions, but they will have no answers, not knowing how long the shutdown could last or when SRG meetings could be rescheduled, whether in person or via video or IAR (Internet assisted review). SROs first priority is to communicate with reviewers about what to expect. Just remember that every application scheduled for review will be impacted the same way, so yours will be no worse than the others in your SRG. Other than withdrawing your application, there is nothing you (or the SRO) can do about the situation, other than contacting your Congressional delegation and urging them to vote for the continuing resolution (sans amendments).

SG said

September 29, 2013 @ 3:45 pm · Edit

My guess is that the meetings will be rescheduled as teleconferences ASAP after the gov’t opens again. I doubt it will be closed more than a few days. But, you never know.

Canceled IRG meetings are not as rare as you might think. Several were rescheduled after massive snowstorms in DC shut down the area.

Plus, as Writedit points out, everyone in the study section will be in the same boat.

scientist said

September 30, 2013 @ 6:26 pm · Edit

I just heard that in my field they will combine two study section (a “special” R21 (clinical) and the standard study section if the government does not reopen Thursday – and then they will have to triage 75% of the grants as they cannot discuss more then that over the phone. My R21-A1 is in there so thanks to the tea party it will probably get killed. These idiots in Washington do not see the consequences (jobs and research lost).

ProfBSU said

September 30, 2013 @ 6:30 pm · Edit

These idiots in Washington do not see the consequences (jobs and research lost).

You are so right “scientist”….It is up to use to inform our Congressman of the impact that these decisions are having. We are running the risk of losing a whole generation of scientists and I have heard from many who say that sequestration etc. is killing basic research in USA

writedit said

September 30, 2013 @ 6:48 pm · Edit

You can find your Senators in the upper right corner of http://www.senate.gov and your Representative by entering your zip code at http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/. Your Congressional delegation needs to hear from you about the impact of the shutdown, sequestration, and the budget uncertainty that annually reigns for the first few to several months of each FY.

writedit said

September 30, 2013 @ 6:53 pm · Edit

As of earlier today, the NIH did not seem to have figured out how everything will be handled, but it won’t be pretty. I will update my post on this (https://writedit.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/federal-government-shutdown-showdown/) as it becomes clear. In the meantime, there is no use contacting your PO or SRO (they are prohibited from responding during a government shutdown) – but plenty of use in contacting your Congressional delegation (see my other response here).

John Ward said

October 4, 2013 @ 2:57 am · Edit

My senator is Ted Cruz, who is mainly responsible for shutting the Govt! Should I write to him??????

amy said

October 4, 2013 @ 2:22 pm · Edit

I know there is no pay line from GM. But information about the scores of grant that have been funded recently by GM would be helpful. This is for established PI to submit a new RO1. Thanks!

writedit said

October 4, 2013 @ 3:18 pm · Edit

I know they were selecting applications for awards at least up to the 15th percentile – I assume they reached even higher for select awards, but those would have involved strong PO support and advocacy (true at the 15th percentile as well). At this point, you want to confirm that your PO is behind your project (once the federal government comes back online – your PO is prohibited from checking email/communicating with PIs until then), though these discussions are a long way off.

Amy said

October 4, 2013 @ 10:14 pm · Edit

Thanks writedit for the information. I am actually at the point of having my new RO1 submitted. The grant could belong to GM or NIEHS. I would like to ask your option or any other people around here as for which institute would have a better funding rate or better chance to get funded if the grant falls to the grey area. Thanks.

writedit said

October 5, 2013 @ 10:26 am · Edit

They are almost comparable, since program has significant involvement in selecting applications for funding. NIGMS has a much much larger budget, but NIEHS gets fewer applications. You can do the research on who has better funding rates at RePORT (http://report.nih.gov/success_rates/index.aspx): 11.2% at EHS vs 16.5% at GMS in FY11, 16.9% vs 18.2% in FY12. Also check RePORTER for projects similar to yours (you can also do this to check SRGs). At either IC, though, you will want to be in communication with a PO – prior to submission, though this is a little late, if you are submitting for Oct 5 (and no one can reply to you now during the shutdown).

amy said

October 8, 2013 @ 7:21 pm · Edit

Thanks for your reply and the information. After some research, I would like to ask another question. Is it true that the most important factor for enhancing the chance of being funded is the pay line rather than funding rate and total grant dollars that each IC has? If this is likely the case, then GM is a better choice over NIEHS for my case, I guess. Thanks.

writedit said

October 8, 2013 @ 7:35 pm · Edit

The most important factor for enhancing your chances of being funded is to pick the right study section and prepare a compelling application. At NIGMS and NIEHS, the same percentile stands about the same chance of being funded, and its likelihood is higher if you have communicated with a PO who is engaged with and supports your project.

Amy said

October 9, 2013 @ 12:36 am · Edit

For communicating with a PO and finding out if he or she likes my grant will take some time but it is important. May be I will have this grant submitted next cycle in Feb.

This grant is a basic mechanistic study of DNA repair. I checked the grants being funded by NIGMS and NHEHS, they both fund basic research stuff similar to what I proposed in my proposal. Many of them do not have or do not disclose in the abstract if there is an Aim or sub-aim targeting a particular disease model. If they actually do not have it, probably because most basic studies do not have the link yet? My question is is it essential for a basic research grant to go to GM or NIEHS to have at least a small portion of work proposed to target disease related clinical samples or models? I know having it would probably help, but if do not have it, would it hurt? Thanks.

writedit said

October 9, 2013 @ 11:58 am · Edit

As our furloughed friend said, NIEHS would take the application if you were looking at UV damage or other environmental causes of the DNA damage and its repair. With regard to the clinical samples (e.g., cancer, neurodegeneration, aging), it depends on if they are a model of the type of DNA damage you are studying, or if you are focused on mechanisms underlying the pathogenesis of that disease specifically (and looking to identify preventive/therapeutic models). Neither NIGMS nor NIEHS will be interested in any study with therapeutic intent for a condition that is the focus of another IC (e.g., NCI, NINDS, NIA, respectively). However, if you are using the samples to study mechanisms of DNA damage versus the disease, then you should be fine. This is where a conversation with a PO would be important – to clarify whether you have crossed the boundary from one IC’s mission to another and how you might tailor your application, as needed, to fit a gap in the porfolio of your target IC. Of course, that conversation now needs to wait.

Bored Furloughed Fed. said

October 9, 2013 @ 6:38 am · Edit

Amy, try not to over think this. If you are studying basic mechanisms of DNA repair your grant will go to NIGMS. If you are studying how certain environmental toxins affect DNA repair mechanisms it might go to NIEHS. Now, if you are using a toxin to probe basic mechanisms of DNA repair it will probably to to NIGMS*. As Writedit pointed out, what is most important is to find the right study section to review your grant and speak with POs from both institutes once NIH is back in business.

*No Federal Funds have been obligated to provide this advice. 😉

Amy said

October 13, 2013 @ 8:53 pm · Edit

Thanks Bored and Writedit for your explanations and recommendation. Hope to be able to talk to the PO in both institutes. Best regards.

Bucos said

October 7, 2013 @ 11:06 am · Edit

Any thoughts on the likelihood of PO approving a second year of no-cost-extension? Would it need to be justified by major/unforeseen reasons (e.g. moving to another institution)? Thanks.

writedit said

October 7, 2013 @ 11:13 am · Edit

Yes, if you can justify the need for the second NCE, including changing institutions, that should not be a problem. No need to worry about discussing this with your PO – and you definitely should in case there needs to be special advance planning to move the NCE award to the your institution (I am not sure of the grant administration logistics in this situation). However, none of this can happen until the lights go back on in DC (your PO cannot read or respond to work emails even).

Go Bucs!

Bucos said

October 7, 2013 @ 11:25 am · Edit

Thanks and yes go Bucs!

k01_r01 said

October 14, 2013 @ 6:16 am · Edit

Hi all,

I am in the process of writing a K01. My future mentor wants to write an R01 some of which will overlap with my K01. This is to maximize the chances of getting the projects funded. I am pretty sure a K01 and an R01 (with different PIs) with similar themes can be reviewed in the same cycle, unless I missed something completely. Can anyone clarify this a bit? Thanks!

writedit said

October 14, 2013 @ 5:58 pm · Edit

The applications wouldn’t go to the same study sections, but I assume the same IC would be considering them for funding, and they won’t fund both if they overlap significantly. Further, they might kick them back due to scientific overlap, per NIH policy (below). I would suggest you and/or your mentor talk with the PO about how to minimize overlap to the point that both applications will be acceptable. The K01 should not be proposing R01-level work, so you should be able to work something out and plan accordingly.

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2012/nihgps_ch2.htm#similar_identical_applications

Submissions of identical applications to one or more components of the PHS are not allowed, and the NIH will not accept similar grant applications with essentially the same research focus from the same applicant organization. This includes derivative or multiple applications that propose to develop a single product, process or service that, with non-substantive modifications, can be applied to a variety of purposes. Likewise, identical or essentially identical grant applications submitted by different applicant organizations will not be accepted. Applicant organizations should ascertain and assure that the materials they are submitting on behalf of the principal investigator are the original work of the principal investigator and have not been used elsewhere in the preparation and submission of a similar grant application. Applications to the NIH are grouped by scientific discipline for review by individual Scientific Review Groups and not by disease or disease state. The reviewers can thus easily identify multiple grant applications for essentially the same project. In these cases, application processing may be delayed or the application(s) may not be reviewed. Essentially identical applications will not be reviewed except for: 1) individuals submitting an application for an Independent Scientist Award (K02) proposing essentially identical research in an application for an individual research project; and 2) individuals submitting an individual research project identical to a subproject that is part of a program project or center grant application.

k01_r01 said

October 14, 2013 @ 9:34 pm · Edit

Thanks so much for your reply and the relevant information. This is most helpful…. will definitely help me a lot in planning for the K01.

k01_r01 said

October 15, 2013 @ 11:47 am · Edit

Mailed PO, got automated reply: “Thank you for your email. Due to the absence of either an FY 2014 appropriation or Continuing Resolution for the Department of Health and Human Services, I am out of the office on furlough and I am not able to read or respond to your message.”

Sigh!

strange said

October 17, 2013 @ 8:57 am · Edit

It seems as though the furloughed NIHiers have not been rescued yet from the shutdown. The main website still has the Shutdown Notice in their main page. Strange, very strange!.

writedit said

October 17, 2013 @ 9:18 am · Edit

Given the ridiculous amount of backlogged work and other much more significant priorities to address first, the Website notice is not a big deal. Please be patient and give them a chance to sort out this mess. I would suggest that everyone to resist the urge to email their PO/SRO until next week at the earliest – please wait for a notice in the Guide (your PO/SRO will not have any details about how the delays will be managed until about the same time the Notice is issued).

Back to Work Fed. said

October 17, 2013 @ 9:21 am · Edit

Most NIH Computer Folks are contractors. Many just received a notice to be in today by 10AM. It is hoped that most systems will be online by the end of the day. Assuming no major computer problems resulted for the shut down.

Of course policy issues (e.g., new deadline for R01s, review of previously submitted grants etc.) will take longer to resolve.

POs, SROs and such should be back in the office. But, they will not have any answers to the most questions. Keep an eye open for NIH Guide Notices.

k01_r01 said

October 17, 2013 @ 10:24 am · Edit

completely understand how much things could be backlogged ..

Best to wait a couple of weeks before mailing them. Once again, thanks writedit.

writedit said

October 17, 2013 @ 10:29 am · Edit

Well, no – do not wait a couple of weeks to submit your application. Please watch the NIH Guide for a notice as to when applications should be submitted (which I expect will be next week). Your institution will submit the application, so be sure to check with your Office of Sponsored Programs or Office of Research to see when they need all your final materials.

R21 said

October 16, 2013 @ 4:53 pm · Edit

For this Oct cycle, is it better to not to submit my application and wait until appropriations are enacted?

writedit said

October 16, 2013 @ 6:40 pm · Edit

The October cycle is the last cycle of applications that will be considered for funding in FY14. Waiting until February means you are waiting until FY15. October-November is always the best cycle to submit, since you have the shortest wait to find out about funding (most potentially fundable applications submitted in February-March won’t be decided on until next year). If you submit in February 2014, you probably won’t know about funding until ~Feb in 2015, and if you are in the gray zone, you may need to wait until the end of the FY (July-Aug-Sept 2015) before a select pay decision might be made. If you have a competitive application ready now, don’t wait to submit it.

R21 said

October 16, 2013 @ 7:54 pm · Edit

NIH recommend to wait until appropriations are enacted even electronic submission, right?

writedit said

October 16, 2013 @ 8:39 pm · Edit

Okay – the appropriation won’t be enacted until next year. Tonight/tomorrow, the House will pass and the President will sign a Continuing Resolution to re-open the government tomorrow. But that won’t be the final appropriation for the NIH or any other federal agency.

So the answer to the question about not submitting while the government is shut down, yes, you should wait until the NIH issues a notice explaining how they will handle grant submissions for deadlines during the government shutdown (including today’s for R21s).

writedit said

October 17, 2013 @ 5:38 pm · Edit

In case you don’t know to click on the main blog page (writedit.wordpress.com), I have a post about the resumption of NIH extramural activities there (Keep Calm and …), and the NIH has issued an interim Notice.

writedit said

October 18, 2013 @ 5:11 pm · Edit

And now the NIH has issued additional Guidance, which I also summarized on the main blog here.

Cautiously Optimistic said

October 23, 2013 @ 4:03 pm · Edit

I just read on the NIH website that awards will start to be made after November 1st. Does this refer to the pre-shutdown council meeting for FY2014? I was curious if the NIH would fund anything from FY2014 with the CR until January.

writedit said

October 23, 2013 @ 4:48 pm · Edit

Yes, this would be for Cycle I applications (Feb-March) sent to the fall Council meetings. The shutdown has less of an impact on the timing of awards than the lack of a final NIH appropriation, which won’t be known until next January (at the earliest). The GMS folks still need to close out the books on FY13, and then they can start considering FY14 awards. However, as usual, ICs will be extremely conservative in making awards until the federal budget situation is resolved. Only very low score/percentile applications (my guess would be ~5-7% or lower) will receive awards before then, depending on the IC’s interim payline.

NEIdea said

October 23, 2013 @ 5:21 pm · Edit

Is this true of fellowships as well? I have an F32 that is going to a rescheduled NEI council meeting 8/28, and was wondering when I would get a decision. It scored in the 10th percentile, which I was told was always good enough for this funding agency for F32s, but is not better the the 7th percentile you mentioned. If I don’t get it I will put in another application for the December 8th deadline and was really hoping to know before then so I don’t go through all the unnecessary work. Basically any chance I will know either way before November 15th?

writedit said

October 23, 2013 @ 6:52 pm · Edit

The percentile range was mainly for R01s, and ICs are more likely to fund Fs on time, but you should still check with your PO – probably not right now, since it’s so crazy there, but maybe in early November. He or she won’t know when you will get funded but should be able to give advice on whether to resubmit. My main point before was that even for applications with a score that would have been funded in FY13, such as your 10th percentile, ICs might wait to make similar FY14 awards until the federal budget is passed or closer to being settled at least (sometime next year).

Secondaire said

October 24, 2013 @ 4:00 pm · Edit

I am in a similar situation to you (NEIdea) – my F32 went to council on 9/19 via GMS, I got an impact score of 17 (idk what percentile that is, PO says to be optimistic) and I am worried now that if I don’t hear anything until January that I will no longer be eligible (as I will have been in my current lab for one year in December) – Will a delayed funding decision forfeit my eligibility, or is that determined at the council meeting (for me, on 9/19?) This is making me so stressed out!

NEIdea said

October 24, 2013 @ 4:17 pm · Edit

Secondaire, I can’t speak as to when you will find out, but you will still be eligible for an F32 past 1 year. That being said we are likely in the same boat and will have to resubmit for December because we won’t know about funding in time.

Secondaire said

October 24, 2013 @ 6:45 pm · Edit

I was told by the PO that re-submitting would be a waste of time, but I still have no idea what to do here. I may contact him again. I was told that eligibility expired after one year.

CVT said

October 25, 2013 @ 4:40 pm · Edit

Secondaire, the information about the one year expiration is incorrect. I had an F32 funded this year, but thanks to sequestration, etc. it took 13 months from the date I applied to receive that the application would be funded. By the time the award was activated, I had already been in my current postdoc position for two years.

Secondaire said

October 25, 2013 @ 6:40 pm · Edit

Thank you very much, CVT, for the clarification! I have NO idea where I heard that from – I thought it was my PO, but the last time I spoke to him was July and I may have remembered incorrectly.

writedit said

October 25, 2013 @ 6:50 pm · Edit

The language used to be in the announcement – that’s where. However, different ICs may have different policies, so be sure to check with your PO again, though you should be fine.

Cathy said

October 25, 2013 @ 1:10 pm · Edit

Hi, Forgive me for what is probably an elementary question, but is it permissible to have Co-PIs on an R03? Thanks!

writedit said

October 25, 2013 @ 2:13 pm · Edit

You are permitted to have multiple PIs for an R03 (no such thing as “co-PIs” in NIH-speak), in which case you would need a multiple PI plan. The science should drive whether there is more than one PI involved, and each should clearly be in charge of the portions of the project that falls under their expertise. There is not a lot of money with an R03, certainly, but that does not mean the project would not be better managed/conducted with more than one PI.

Cathy said

October 25, 2013 @ 2:19 pm · Edit

Thank you, Writeit! Also, fyi, I recently received my first R01 and I owe most of it to reading your blog. You’re awesome!

writedit said

October 25, 2013 @ 2:24 pm · Edit

Great – and congratulations on the R01! Best wishes for success with the project and your career in academic research.

NewPI said

October 29, 2013 @ 9:54 am · Edit

I also received my RO1 award right before the government shut down (Feb. submission, Sept. council). Thank you for all the helpful information posted here!

writedit said

October 29, 2013 @ 9:57 am · Edit

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

K99 recipient said

October 29, 2013 @ 1:11 pm · Edit

Does anyone here have experience purchasing equipment with K99 money and taking the equipment to their new independent lab? First, does the K99 allow you to purchase “capital equipment” greater than $5000, and second, how do you get your university to allow you to take such equipment with you when you leave (I know this is somewhat university-dependent)?

My program officer said that unlike R01 grants where the grant is given to the university, the R00 grant is the only R mechanism where the grant is administered to the applicant (although the money goes to you through the university), much like a fellowship. In that case, shouldn’t the equipment you buy automatically belong to you, no matter how much it costs?

Thanks for any tips!

writedit said

October 30, 2013 @ 10:39 am · Edit

The K99 portion is awarded directly to the applicant and includes $20-25K in research costs (exact amount depends on IC). If you use these funds to buy equipment, which is allowable, whether you can take it with you probably depends on whether the university had to pay for installation (or any necessary renovation to accommodate the equipment), maintenance fees, etc. You should talk with the grant/fiscal administrator in your department for clarification on what you can take. I would assume if it is just benchtop and shippable, it can go with you (and there shouldn’t be a problem). The R00 portion is not activated until you have a faculty appointment, so presumably any equipment you buy under the R00 would be staying put for a while – at least the 3 years of the award and likely longer.

Nammi said

October 30, 2013 @ 9:15 am · Edit

I received an 11 percentile score on an R01 to NHLBI. It was reviewed last week at October Council. The GMS said they do not have a budget or payline- so no final funding decisions have been made. The PO said there is no update on the status of my grant. What does this mean and what can I expect?

writedit said

October 30, 2013 @ 10:24 am · Edit

NHLBI (and the entire NIH) will not know their appropriation until Congress passes a budget for the federal government. Right now, they are operating under a continuing resolution, which continues FY13 funding levels, and NHLBI does not know if it will end up with more or less money when the final appropriation is passed. The House and Senate budget bills are $90M apart, so this will not be resolved any time soon – and probably not by next January, when the CR ends (hopefully they will pass another CR rather than shut down the government again). With the debt ceiling issue to come up again in February, budget negotiations will be even more strident as the division between those favoring greater spending cuts (like the NIH) versus increasing revenue (taxes etc.) becomes sharper. I am a little surprised your PO did not offer any optimism about your application, given its 11th percentile (especially if you are ESI). However, the interim NHLBI payline will be much lower, so you won’t know until next year what your chances of funding will be. If this was an A0, you can ask your PO if you should be preparing an A1 for March (which might also give you some insight as to his perspective of your funding likelihood).

alex said

November 6, 2013 @ 2:38 pm · Edit

Nammi, I am not surprised at the lack of optimism coming from your PO they are really in bad position here, esp without a resolution and still dealing with the shutdown mess. My new investigator application scored 6% in June, the council concurred with the recommendations and priority score before the shutdown, back in Sep, and, yet, the application is still on hold for funding pending resolution of the budget and formulation of the funding plan for this round. So for now no news is good news and I am not giving up hope, talk to your PO and see if this warrants a new application, which can always be turned into another successful grant applications if the first is funded. What else can we do?

Nammi said

November 6, 2013 @ 3:02 pm · Edit

Thanks Alex. Helps me to hear from other people so I can get some perspective. Honestly feel like I need people to talk me off the ledge at times. You get a great score and then…..this happens: Nothing. I think I will try to schedule a phone call with the PO. Back in the summer when the score first came out she told me “Don’t lose sleep over this.” Easy for her to say, but maybe a sign of optimism? You are all right- have to stay positive. Have a great day!

writedit said

November 6, 2013 @ 3:21 pm · Edit

Alex gave a perfect reply, and I will add that usually GMSs spend a good chunk of October closing out the books on the prior FY. Because the government shutdown delayed this process and added considerable additional work, they are behind on closing out FY13, and I see only a handful of noncompeting renewals have been issued thus far for FY14. Even exceptionally scored competing applications tapped for awards under the conservative CR interim paylines (i.e., before the final NIH appropriation for FY14 is passed) will be delayed for some time due to the recent kerfuffle in DC. So, yes, patience and optimism remain the watchwords of the day.

NK said

November 27, 2013 @ 3:28 pm · Edit

The NHLBI GMS contacted me about this R01 on November 13 asking for some specific just in time information, such as the FWA # for my consultant’s institution, since he is at a foreign institution. I also got an email from them asking about IRB status. However, since then…..nothing. Each email ends with “This is not a notice of grant award.” This process is so drawn out and I just don’t get it. How does one stop worrying in this business, and can I interpret these emails as a positive sign?

writedit said

November 29, 2013 @ 10:39 pm · Edit

Your foreign consultant could still be part of the delay, since the State Department gets involved in clearing these awards. The federal shutdown probably has them backed up, too, and if there are human subjects involved, there is a higher bar. Shouldn’t be anything to worry about, but depending on the country involved, it could delay things a bit (with no news for you in the interim).

Nammi said

December 11, 2013 @ 8:11 pm · Edit

On December 5th my R01 status went from council review completed to Pending. All JIT information was submitted, this is the 11 percentile. What does that mean “Pending”

writedit said

December 12, 2013 @ 12:54 am · Edit

Congratulations – it means they are preparing an award (or at least doing the administrative review in preparation for an award). Your PO can confirm and give you an idea on timing.

Nammi said

January 5, 2014 @ 6:26 pm · Edit

Hi Everyone- Just want to report back that I received my NOA on December 21st. Was very happy and thanks for your support! Happy New Year to all.

writedit said

January 6, 2014 @ 9:25 am · Edit

Congratulations again and best wishes for success with the research.

Red said

October 30, 2013 @ 10:18 am · Edit

Writedit-

Are the F32′s limited in terms of years of postdoctoral experience after completion of the PhD? I couldn’t find the language that says they’re for new PDs only.

writedit said

October 30, 2013 @ 10:29 am · Edit

No, there was language in prior announcements discouraging applicants from applying at institutions where they had trained for more than a year already, but that is gone. However, each IC has its own spin on how the F32 is awarded, so you should check with the PO. If your IC generally prefers to make these awards to applicants with fewer than a certain number of years of postdoctoral training, that would be good to know. The second level of review is at the IC itself versus at Council, so the PO’s insight about your target IC is key.

RASpubhealth said

October 31, 2013 @ 9:38 am · Edit

I have a question. I’m a new investigator and received an impact score of 20 on my first R01 submission. The reviews were extremely positive and supportive. Because it’s an RFA, there is not percentile rank. It was reviewed at NHLBI council in Sept 2013 but I was told the RFA itself was deferred to FY2014 and they won’t know about funding until appropriations are made. What are the chances of this being funded still? Is 20 even a fundable score, given the climate of all going on? The suggested start date had been 9/1/2013 – I’m assuming that NOAs are issued, the start date will be pushed back considerably… I know sometimes they truncate the first year of work (but award the same $), but it would be impossible to get the year 1 work done with such a condensed timeline as it takes so much time just to get staff hired and get things off the ground. Thoughts or insights are most welcome!

writedit said

October 31, 2013 @ 4:04 pm · Edit

Congratulations on the excellent score. The PO should be able to provide a gauge of where your application ranks in the pile in terms of likelihood of funding. Since this is an RFA, I am not sure whether final funding decisions will need to wait until a final appropriation is passed (not until next year sometime). There should be funds marked for these awards, but I am not sure they can be issued under a CR. Your PO could speak to that as well. You should ask, too, if the PO recommends that you submit the application as a new R01 to, well, either the October deadline (now set for Nov 12) or Feb 5; since your proposal was in response to an RFA, you can now submit it as a new A0 application to a program announcement (either the parent announcement or an appropriate PA). His or her advice in that regard might give some insight into your finding chances under the RFA. And, if the PO is “cautiously optimistic” that your RFA application will receive an award, you can ask for an inkling of the timing, so you can do the legwork in advance that you mention and consider the pre-award spending option (up to 90 d in advance).

RASpubhealth said

October 31, 2013 @ 4:15 pm · Edit

Thank you so much. Unfortunately, I have asked all of these questions – where I rank, should I resubmit as a new R01, timing, etc, and she has not be able/willing to answer any of those questions. The only thing she will say is that they have not received appropriations for fiscal year 2014, they cannot say what the status of the funding will be, and that I’ll be informed once they know. That’s it; not even an indication of whether I should resubmit as a new R01 or whether the funds for this RFA can be issued under a CR. I’m not sure if she doesn’t have answers or just isn’t allowed to share them at this point, but I am trying to remain hopeful nonetheless… many thanks for the thoughts and guidance!

writedit said

October 31, 2013 @ 6:38 pm · Edit

Well, if she referred to the FY14 appropriation, then none of the RFA applications will be funded under the CR, which means you won’t know until next year. You could submit a standard R01 in the meantime and withdraw it if the RFA application were funded. It would be nice if the PO would give you a little insight as to how you could improve the application, if she attended the study section meeting. You would need to pick a standing CSR review group (the RFA would have had a special study section), so different reviewers could and probably will react differently, but she might have some insight from the discussion as to where to put your efforts (and might know the SRG you would target). And if this RFA PO is not your “usual” PO, you could seek advice from your usual PO (or one appropriate for your science, in whose portfolio a regular R01 would go, if you don’t currently work with a PO) about all this.

StillOptimistic said

October 31, 2013 @ 4:32 pm · Edit

RASpublichealth: Did you talk to the PO in person or got these responses in email? Most POs are not likely to answer these questions with email: they are more lenient in describing the current situation on the phone. If you have not already done so, email to schedule an appointment to speak with her. You might already have, but just in case.

RASpubhealth said

October 31, 2013 @ 4:39 pm · Edit

That is a great idea about scheduling a time to talk; all correspondence has been by email. I figured it may be difficult to be as clear/direct via email as would be possible by phone. I will do that. Thanks for the nudge!

diabetesresearcher said

October 31, 2013 @ 9:55 am · Edit

I have a question about administrative supplement for diversity (at post doc level). What is the likelihood of receiving such supplement under the current funding environment?

Also, any word of advice about writing a winning proposal is appreciated.

writedit said

October 31, 2013 @ 3:57 pm · Edit

Administrative supplements are reviewed internally at the IC, so you should just ask the PO of the application for which you plan to submit the administrative supplement. Some ICs have cut back on supplements to cover more RPGs, some have maintained their support. The PO will tell you whether or not to apply (based on your proposed application and the funding situation) and give advice on how to target the application. These are quite straightforward and mainly explain the role of the applicant and why he or she will be a strength to the parent project.

new investigator said

November 6, 2013 @ 4:15 pm · Edit

I can attest to writedit comments. I received an impact score of 11 back in June for an A1 K22 and nothing has changed except status updates such as Council Review being completed. This whole process was hit real hard.

cancerresearcher said

November 7, 2013 @ 6:40 pm · Edit

I am having difficulting wading through all of the information on NIH and NCI’s websites. My F31 was supposed to go to council 10/13. I’m not sure if the meeting was rescheduled, and if so, when is it now?

writedit said

November 7, 2013 @ 6:48 pm · Edit

Actually, fellowships usually do not go to Council but receive their second level of review within the IC. You could ask your PO if this is how NCI handles fellowship applications and, if so, when you might expect to hear whether your application is on the paylist and, if so, when an award might be processed (possibly not until next year if they need to wait for the FY14 appropriation rather than make an award under the CR).

John Worth said

November 9, 2013 @ 11:39 am · Edit

I am an established PI, and I submitted a competitive renewal of one of my R01s. I had made excellent progress with 21 papers, out of which 10 were related to the funded project. I also felt it was a very good grant and some of colleagues who read the grant also shared my views. I was shocked to learn that the grant was unscored! Should I re-submit as a renewal, or should I look at the comments and send it as a new one. Please advise.

writedit said

November 9, 2013 @ 12:23 pm · Edit

Oh wow – very sorry to hear this. I would suggest you wait for the summary statement and then talk with your PO. Was this reviewed in person or as a rescheduled Internet-assisted meeting? If the former, your PO will likely have attended, and while your application won’t have been discussed obviously, your PO might have some insight based on what was scored. Either way, knowing what the assigned reviewers took away from your application will be critical to deciding what to do next. Your best chances would be with a Type 2 A1, though, so the key will be to figure out what about your productivity and research plan they didn’t like.

John Worth said

November 9, 2013 @ 1:24 pm · Edit

Dear Writedit: Thank you very much for your quick response and for your advice. This was a re-scheduled telephone review. Yes, I will look at the comments, and will try and re-submit as a A1. My concern is that it might be very difficult to go back as a A1, considering that the NHLBI paylines at 11 percentile for 2013, any drop to 9 or so in 2014!. Also, is it possible to get a score of 20 or lower in a re-submission from unscored? Have you seen this happen? I am still shocked at what happened!

John

writedit said

November 9, 2013 @ 1:33 pm · Edit

If it was a teleconference, your PO may still have listened in and may have an idea of the triage rate (i.e., whether more than half the applications were streamlined to accommodate the rescheduling). Yes, I have seen applications go from unscored to funded in one submission (rare but possible), but your PO, who knows all the details and players, would be best to gauge whether this is possible in your particular situation.

John Worth said

November 9, 2013 @ 2:57 pm · Edit

Dear Writedit: Thank you again for your advice. I know from my own experience as former study section member, current experience as an ad hoc that they triage 60% of the applications in a ftf meeting. So will there be more than 60% applications triaged in a teleconference call? If so, it will be sad. Please let me know.

John

writedit said

November 9, 2013 @ 3:09 pm · Edit

I don’t know if they triaged more than 60%, but if the SRO had to shorten the meeting from 1.5 or 2 days down to 1 day, then fewer applications would get reviewed. It depends on how the rescheduling was handled, which your PO might know. My thought is that if you were just unfortunate due to time compression as a result of rescheduling, the application is more likely to do well as an A1 next time in. Mainly, though, you need to wait for the summary statement.

NIH PO said

November 9, 2013 @ 4:11 pm · Edit

I have listened in to 2 meetings so far and the amount of triage was about the same. 50-60%.

Jane said

November 13, 2013 @ 2:03 am · Edit

John, sorry for the bad news. However, it’s very common now. There are not too many sympathetic reviewers in the current situation. I have gone through the similar situation several times already these years. If I was you, I will submit the A1 and a new grant to two different study sections on two different topics.

ssh81 said

November 9, 2013 @ 4:09 pm · Edit

I submitted a R44 SBIR application last fall and it was unscored. Unfortunately the reviewer comments were extremely vague and unhelpful. I have noticed that every time my application goes to this particular SRG, it is always comes back unscored (happened three times).

I am wondering if can I resubmit my old application as a new as STTR, instead of SBIR, without making substantial changes? That way I justify asking for a different SRG.

writedit said

November 10, 2013 @ 11:22 am · Edit

Since this is a Phase II application that has been reviewed by anywhere from 5-9 different reviewers (and I assume this included submission to an RFA and a program announcement, for you to have submitted 3 times), I suspect trying to repackage without significant changes will not affect the outcome. In any case, your STTR application would be reviewed by the same study section (determined by science/IC, not mechanism). Your PO’s input will be critical in deciding what to do next.

PB said

November 11, 2013 @ 4:23 pm · Edit

I received an impact score of 49 for Phase 2 SBIR application submitted to NIBIB. Haven’t received reviewer’s comments as yet. Any chance of getting funded? Or should I prepare to resubmit?

writedit said

November 11, 2013 @ 4:25 pm · Edit

You should start working on the resubmission … your PO might be able to offer insight and advice after you receive your summary statement.

BrianM said

November 11, 2013 @ 4:44 pm · Edit

Does anyone know how SBIR funding was affected post-shutdown? I had good feedback from the PO prior to Council so was hopeful. While the funding institute has been very informative (NCHGR) about the other mechanisms, there’s nothing about SBIR/STTR.

writedit said

November 11, 2013 @ 4:52 pm · Edit

I assume you mean NHGRI. The small business program funding is a set percentage of each IC’s extramural budget, so the shutdown won’t affect the timing of funding decisions so much as the lack of a final FY14 appropriation, which will determine the amount of $ available for SBIR/STTR. I expect a few of the best-scoring applications will be funded during the CR, but this probably varies by IC. The shutdown did delay the issuing of any awards under the CR due to the need for each GMS office to first close out FY13 first (something usually done during October). If your PO thinks you will be issued an award under the CR, that will probably happen in late November or more likely December at the earliest.

BrianM said

November 11, 2013 @ 4:57 pm · Edit

Oh boy, I actually meant NIGMS. Senior moment, I actually did my postdoc at NIH in what was then called NCHGR. Thanks for the info.

Secondaire said

November 11, 2013 @ 10:33 pm · Edit

So I contacted my PO at NIGMS and he said that they were working on funding decisions for F32s, and to bother him again if I’ve heard nothing by November 30th. It was two weeks ago that I last heard from him (or from anyone) – has anyone (Writedit or others) – heard any news from GMS yet regarding their applications?

ab4166 said

November 19, 2013 @ 9:30 pm · Edit

I wrote a R43 for NHLBI that received a score of 27. I contacted the PO to see what my chances were. The PO couldn’t give me much info (other than payline in 2013 was 30, though started at 25 at the beginning of last year) and told me to wait for the FY 2014 pay lines.

Any thoughts on whether this submission has a chance? Could it be deferred to later in the year when the payline moves up?

Thanks

writedit said

November 20, 2013 @ 12:33 am · Edit

Yes, if the interim payline is less than 27 but goes up later in the FY, your application will be considered for an award then. The FY14 paylines won’t be out until next year – not until after the federal budget is set, which probably won’t be until next Jan or Feb at the earliest. Watch what’s going on in DC (and be sure to let your Congressional delegation know that you support an increase – at least revocation of the sequester – in the NIH appropriation).

NewPI said

November 20, 2013 @ 1:14 pm · Edit

NHLBL has set FY14 interim payline at the 10th percentile (inclusive) for R01/R21.

Nammi said

November 20, 2013 @ 1:48 pm · Edit

so, if my R01 got an 11 percentile, i won’t get funded? I have ESI status

NewPI said

November 20, 2013 @ 2:36 pm · Edit

Similar to FY13, the payline for ESI applications will be 5 percentile points above the regular R01 payline. In addition, new, competing (Type 1) investigator-initiated ESI R01 applications that have percentile scores greater than 5 and less than or equal to 10 percentile points above the regular R01 payline may undergo an expedited program review to resolve comments in the summary statement. So, your RO1 should get funded based on he interim payline.

writedit said

November 20, 2013 @ 6:53 pm · Edit

NewPI is correct – your ESI status will allow your application to be funded under the interim payline. Your PO will probably have an idea on the timing of the award next January (assuming you were just reviewed).

Nammi said

December 5, 2013 @ 10:28 am · Edit

This morning, I called the GMS about my R01 with the 11th percentile at NHLBI. I have been asked for official JIT information, IRB status a few weeks ago. She asked, “Are you ESI?” I said yes, and she said to hold on. She came back and said, “At this time, we are still waiting for paylines and we have no authorization at this time to pay yours.” What does this mean? .

writedit said

December 5, 2013 @ 10:36 am · Edit

It just means NHLBI is not making any awards above the 10th percentile yet. Their interim payline of 10th percentile is inclusive, which means no exceptions yet, but they will expand the payline for ESI later in the FY. That was nice of your GMS to check to be sure nothing has changed yet. The extra level of caution is no doubt due to the next budget debate in Congress coinciding again with a debt ceiling showdown. All the ICs are waiting to see what happens with the FY14 sequester (which would lower their appropriation further if enacted).

AbrahamL said

November 20, 2013 @ 3:22 pm · Edit

Dear Writedit,

I submitted an R21 (A1) proposal to NIDDK and received an impact score of 19 this morning. No percentile is available at this time. Is it a fundable score at NIDDK? What a percentile could be approximately translated from a score of 19 for R21 in NIDDK? Can somebody who has won a recent R21 from NIDDK give some comments? Thank you so much!

Nammi said

November 20, 2013 @ 3:27 pm · Edit

Congratulations. I just found out I got a 26.

AbrahamL said

November 20, 2013 @ 5:47 pm · Edit

Thank you! Are you applying for an R21 in NIDDK? What ‘s your percentile? My percentile is still not available in ERA commons.

Nammi said

November 20, 2013 @ 6:17 pm · Edit

Yes it was an NIDDK R21. I also have no percentile. Mine was an A1,too. Not sure that they percentile these. I think you should be optimistic with a 19. My score of 26 probably borderline at best. Good luck!

writedit said

November 20, 2013 @ 6:48 pm · Edit

You may or may not get a percentile. Your score is good and should be in the funding range, but no one – not even your program officer – will know yet whether it will receive an award because the FY14 appropriation won’t be known until next year some time. When you get your summary statement, you can check in with the PO to see how your score would have faired in FY13. If your PO thinks the score is on the border, he/she will want to see what the concerns were (which is why it’s best to wait for the summary statement). No matter what, though, you won’t receive funding until next year, and you should be thinking about a new (different) submission for February or June, even if your PO thinks this R21 might be funded.

Nammi said

November 27, 2013 @ 3:23 pm · Edit

I got my summary statement and contacted the PO with a brief 1 page response to reviewer comments which were quite manageable/not major. The PO said it was way to early to know anything about funding, thanked me for the response page, and said i can contact her again in January. Overall, the summary statement was positive with some addressable concerns. Onward!

writedit said

November 29, 2013 @ 10:10 pm · Edit

Perfectly reasonable timeline, given the uncertainties of the federal budget. Please do post an update in Jan – fingers crossed until then.

Student said

November 20, 2013 @ 8:06 pm · Edit

I received a score of 30 for my A1, F31 today. When I was going through the process for my A0, my PO said that this center generally fund priority scores up to 20-25. I know that FY14 policies are not out yet, but is there no chance of my F31 being funded? What is one supposed to do at this point (besides read the summary statement) as no more revisions can be made? Times are tough here as my PI has no funding for my project and I still need another couple years of work to graduate. Thanks for your insight!

writedit said

November 20, 2013 @ 8:32 pm · Edit

Well, when you get your summary statement, you can check with your PO, in case he feels he/she feels they can make a case for your application on the basis of the critiques. Be sure to let your PO know about your advisor’s loss of funding. Your program is committed to your completing your research (is there a T32 – training grant – you could be put on, assuming you are eligible in terms of citizenship/residency?). However, you may have to look outside your PhD project to find paid work to eat etc. I have a grad student friend here at BICO in that situation.

MacAttack said

November 21, 2013 @ 3:32 pm · Edit

My A0 F30 submission received an impact score of 17 yesterday. This is the first time this institute has participated in the F30 mechanism. What do you think the chances are it will be funded? Do you think there is a chance I can receive reviewer comments in time for the Dec 8 deadline?

writedit said

November 21, 2013 @ 4:46 pm · Edit

Given how crazy this review cycle has been, you shouldn’t count on receiving your summary statement in time to revise for a Dec 8 submission, especially if this was a CSR study section handling a large number of applications for different grant mechanisms. In any case, depending on the critiques, you might not want to try to resubmit so quickly, especially if there was a concern about the number of publications or other issues that require time/data to resolve. With a 17, you should be in good shape, though you’ll know better if you also receive a percentile (which you should if reviewed in CSR vs your IC).

jmanuel said

November 21, 2013 @ 9:26 pm · Edit

I received an impact score of 13 on my NIDA A1 K01 over the summer. I submitted a letter in response to additional comments for the Sept Council meeting. However, my PO said that my application was reviewed to determine if there were additional issues outside of review, not funding per se, and that my application will be considered for funding at the Feb Council meeting.

Is this typical? I’m wondering about the likelihood of my application being funded, and if I should start preparing a new application in case it’s not. Many thanks!

writedit said

November 21, 2013 @ 9:35 pm · Edit

Your application probably had some administrative bars, which must be addressed before your application can be approved for funding. Your score of 13 should be fundable, and it could be as much as anything that they need to wait until the FY14 appropriation is clear before making final decisions. You cannot prepare another K01 application, but you could ask your PO if you should be preparing a research project grant (RPG) application for February. If he/she says no, then your K01 is likely to be funded eventually. Since you can’t hold both a K01 and an RPG award (at the outset anyway), there is nothing gained by preparing a R mechanism application except to have ready in case the K01 is not awarded.

Charlie said

November 21, 2013 @ 11:58 pm · Edit

I applied for K99 from NIGMS and i got the impact score 35. What is the chance for me? Should i prepare the resubmission?

writedit said

November 22, 2013 @ 12:05 am · Edit

Yes, when you receive your summary statement, you will want to get in touch with your PO about how best to address the concerns and revise your application.

ben said

November 22, 2013 @ 8:28 am · Edit

I just wondering what will be the chances for a R01(A1) with 13th percentile to be funded (NIDA)

writedit said

November 22, 2013 @ 12:14 pm · Edit

Unfortunately, no one will know for sure until the FY14 appropriation is determined (not until next year). Your PO can probably tell you how that percentile would have fared in FY13, and hopefully the FY14 paylines will not be any lower. Perhaps someone visiting here who had a NIDA F01 funded in FY13 will chime in with their experience.

Melissa said

November 22, 2013 @ 7:31 pm · Edit

Hi,

I am preparing a F31 application for NINDS, but I have a question about what the F31 covers. I understand it covers stipend, tuition and fees, and health insurance, but does it cover research supplies? If so, for how much? The only thing I could find is an institutional allowance for $4,200/year to cover research supplies, books, and travel to scientific meetings.

Thanks, in advance, for any information you can provide.

RiddleMeThis said

November 23, 2013 @ 7:22 am · Edit

For an F31: $4200/year really means a laptop + health insurance. The F mechanism is not a research grant and it is expected that your PI will fund the research work. In fact, if your PI cannot support you throughout the duration of the project, the reviewers will not look favorably at your application.

writedit said

November 23, 2013 @ 10:53 am · Edit

Exactly what RiddleMeThis said (you’re hired, BTW). Your Sponsor needs to do just that – sponsor your doctoral training and research (and therefore have his/her own R01 or other grant funding to cover your supplies, animal costs, etc.).

HQ22 said

November 25, 2013 @ 3:00 pm · Edit

Hello, I just received an impact score of 37 on the 2nd submission of my NIHM K01 application. Is there any chance that this may get funded or should I assume otherwise and move on?

writedit said

November 25, 2013 @ 3:10 pm · Edit

You should start working on a new application for February, either an R03 or R21 to secure data for an R01 application, since I suspect you do not have enough publications or data to support an R01 yet. Be sure to pay close attention to the concerns raised about your K01 research, in particular whether the reviewers felt the work was significant and whether your approach was appropriate. You will need to work with your advisor to rework the project to be more compelling and appealing to reviewers to avoid another score that is fine but not fundable.

HQ22 said

November 25, 2013 @ 3:48 pm · Edit

thanks for your feedback, I appreciate it. So basically my score is clearly not enough to have any hope of getting this application funded?

writedit said

November 25, 2013 @ 4:27 pm · Edit

Not likely unless your PO is especially enthusiastic about you as a candidate and your project. If so, you could ask him/her for a gauge of funding likelihood and advice on next steps.

Folding222 said

November 25, 2013 @ 3:43 pm · Edit

Hi,

I just received my scores for the A1 of my F32 application (NIGMS). Last time I only received an impact score, but this time it shows my impact score (20) and also gives me my percentile (8th). Any idea why it also gives me a percentile ranking; is this a good sign or do different study groups just choose whether or not to also report percentiles? Thanks!

writedit said

November 26, 2013 @ 11:21 am · Edit

First, your score and percentile are a good sign, certainly, in terms of scoring likelihood. If your A1 went to a different study section, that could explain the change. Also, the A0 may have been reviewed when the CSR recalibrated percentiles, and there may not have been enough applications that round to calculate percentiles. Nothing to worry about, certainly.

Need R00 help said

November 25, 2013 @ 3:54 pm · Edit

I have a question about the R00 transtion proposal. When I first submitted the K99 application, I had 2 “mentored phase” aims and 2 “independent phase” aims. For the R00 transition proposal, they want the aims to be updated based on new data, etc. I got preliminary data for 3 of the aims, but I didn’t complete any of them to its entirety. Should I submit the R00 proposal as essentially the same 4 aims as the K99 original application, just now with the modifications based on my new data, or do I only focus now on the two “independent phase” aims?

Secondly, for any subaims that were completed, should I just not mention those anymore in the R00 transition proposal (just in the K99 progress report), or can I propose the important/interesting next step experiment of the same subaim?

I am confused about the proposal update, because the grant is still essentially the same scope, but now there are only 3 yrs of funding left…on the other hand, I will have more people working on it. How do I handle the “mentored phase” aims? Thanks to anyone with advice!

writedit said

November 26, 2013 @ 11:17 am · Edit

I would suggest you summarize progress made on all aims in the Progress Report and update all 4 aims for the R00, with the first two modified/extended based on preliminary data obtained during the K99 phase, and the latter two updated based on preliminary data to date. This is a natural progression of your science, and the aims should reflect this. If one of the aims should just be dropped (i.e., you won’t be pursuing any work in that area during the R00 phase), that’s fine (and then just continue 3 aims in the R00 phase) – I couldn’t tell from your comment if you could pursue follow-on experiments for one or both of the K99 aims. You can ask your PO for input on your extended/expanded K99 aims and updated R00 aims as well.

meshugena313 said

November 26, 2013 @ 11:55 am · Edit

I’m an ESI and just received a NIGMS R01 A1 26th percentile score. I’m in my 5th year and am explicitly in the criteria set out by Jon Lorsch in the principles for funding post here: https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2013/11/06/principles-for-initial-funding-decisions-in-fiscal-year-2014/.

Any chance I’ll be funded…? I will speak with the PO after I read my pink sheets. Although I’m not holding my breath and don’t expect much. I have another R01 pending for Feb review and an R21 for December, but I certainly would like this project to be funded.

writedit said

November 26, 2013 @ 12:09 pm · Edit

Not impossible, but not likely obviously. Based on your pink sheets, you and your PO can discuss your options. If your PO is also enthusiastic about your project, he/she might be able to advocate for bridge funding if not a scaled down award – as well as next steps if neither of these are options.

meshugena313 said

November 26, 2013 @ 12:14 pm · Edit

Thanks for the suggestions. It will be tricky to come up with an A0 on this project that doesn’t have a lot of overlap with the current submission or the other R01 I submitted (that’s unfortunately been sent to NCI…).

meshugena313 said

June 17, 2014 @ 11:08 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

June 18, 2014 @ 12:28 am · Edit

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

NEIdea said

November 26, 2013 @ 4:42 pm · Edit

I submitted an F32 in April, it was reviewed well enough that I was told it was likely to be funded, but due to shutdown and funding no decisions have been made. Last week I received an email that was very positive, but in the end basically just asked for JIT info, even though it wasn’t formally called that. Now today I see on my status page its says Last Status Update Date: 11/26/2013, but I can’t see any changes on the status page and no award has been issued. Does this mean anything? Does the status update change usually proceed actual new information?

Red said

November 26, 2013 @ 5:50 pm · Edit

Relax, kick back and enjoy the holidays, because your award is on the way! (unless Writedit disagrees)

writedit said

November 26, 2013 @ 8:02 pm · Edit

Red is right – you can celebrate this Thanksgiving with an extra helping of thanks. I assume the email was from your PO or the GMS. They can’t prepare the award without JIT info, and they don’t ask for JIT unless they plan to do something with it (the generic eRA Commons request is another matter). You can watch your Commons account for the next change, which would be Pending or Administrative Review or some such line; the status change with no actual text change means someone twiddled with something in there. You can always just check in with your PO for confirmation, too – he/she will be happy to give you an update.

NEIdea said

November 27, 2013 @ 10:58 am · Edit

Thanks writedit. The status changed just this morning to pending, so seems as though everything is going in the right direction.

writedit said

November 27, 2013 @ 11:01 am · Edit

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

Secondaire said

November 29, 2013 @ 3:44 pm · Edit

I am in nearly the exact same situation you are right now; I had a positive PO and the generic JIT(?) request (a series of questions – was yours the same?) came on the 27th via GMS. No eRA commons change yet but it’s a holiday weekend. Tons of congrats on your award and happy holidays!

laghs said

November 26, 2013 @ 10:24 pm · Edit

Is there an interim payline for NCI? I only found 9th percentile final payline for last year, but no information is available for this year. I just got a 7th percentile for my R21 – wondering whether it is good enough for the interim payline, if any. Otherwise, funding decision might have to be delayed by one cycle. Thanks.

writedit said

November 27, 2013 @ 12:30 am · Edit

As I recall, last year the interim was the 6th percentile at NCI, but you can certainly check with your PO. If you have a good case for why you should be considered for an award before the federal budget is resolved (e.g., tenure decision timing, impending personnel layoffs, critical animal colony to maintain, etc.), that would be good to pass along as well. If you have other funding and are established, you’ll probably need to be patient.

laghs said

November 27, 2013 @ 12:40 am · Edit

Thanks, writedit. Looks like I have to wait for some time.

writedit said

November 27, 2013 @ 12:55 am · Edit

You can still check with the PO to confirm whether the interim is again at the 6th percentile or higher for FY14.

laghs said

January 15, 2014 @ 3:38 pm · Edit

As an update, I just received an email from NCI this week saying that my proposal has been tentatively selected for funding. So, it seems that the interim payline is at least no lower than the 7th percentile.

writedit said

January 15, 2014 @ 4:09 pm · Edit

Congratulations and thank you for sharing this information with us all. Best wishes for success with the research.

holiday_NRSA said

November 27, 2013 @ 2:28 pm · Edit

Hi — I just got the scores back on an F32 resubmission to NIMH. My impact score is 26, with a percentile of 16. I can’t find any cutoffs (percentile or impact) for F32s at NIMH, but I think I saw that the R01 cutoff was 10% (or 15% for new investigators) in FY2014. Does anyone what the cutoff is for F32 at NIMH right now? Thanks!

writedit said

November 27, 2013 @ 2:57 pm · Edit

That’s probably close – no one will know the FY14 threshold until the federal budget is resolved (so not for a while), but your PO should be happy to tell you how you would have fared in FY13 (FY14 should be similar). If this was an A0, you should discuss your strategy for the A1 with the PO, too.

holiday_NRSA said

November 27, 2013 @ 3:12 pm · Edit

Thanks, writedit! This was an A1 submission, so hopefully it’s close enough. I’ll check with my PO about FY13.

Wangming888 said

November 28, 2013 @ 8:30 am · Edit

I have a five-year K award (it was awarded in 2012), which requires a minimum of 75% effort. This year I submitted one R21 and received a good score (it may be funded in July 2014). I plan to submit a NIH Director’s New Innovator (DP2) in September 2014. But I find DP2 requires a minimum of 25% search effort. If my R21 is funded, can I still apply my DP2 because the total effort of K award and DP2 will be 100% and the effort of my R21 will turn to zero?

Thanks

writedit said

November 29, 2013 @ 10:01 pm · Edit

I think you should be fine if all these stars align (more than fine). Your R21 would run from July 2014 to June 2016; the DP2 would start ~July 2015. Depending on when your K started in 2012, you would be in your 4th year, which is when you could have some DP2 effort replace some K effort (since it would all be research effort). Check this notice – and don’t hesitate to talk with your PO: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-065.html

Science_is_still_good said

December 2, 2013 @ 4:12 pm · Edit

NCI just sent me an approval for the second year of my R01 award. They’ve cut it to 186K from the original budget of 250K. How are we supposed to do the experiments with a 25% budget cut? Not to mention that the University continually madates higher salaries and benefit rates for techs, post-docs etc. Frustrated.

writedit said

December 2, 2013 @ 6:48 pm · Edit

You will have some (hopefully most) of the cut restored when the federal budget is resolved. You can talk with your PO about negotiating some back, especially if there is a grad student involved or someone’s job on the line. Their hands are tied from higher up so can’t do much, but you can let them know as an FYI if someone currently in the lab is at risk.

AIRmonkey84 said

December 5, 2013 @ 3:49 pm · Edit

I recently received my score for an F32 which got directed towards NIAMS – priority score 24, percentile 23. I haven’t found any information on paylines for NIAMS yet. Based on the payline score last year (24), I’m going to assume this won’t be funded this year. Any idea on how I could get my PO to stand behind me and support the project?

AIRmonkey84 said

December 5, 2013 @ 3:55 pm · Edit

I should add that the biggest knock on the project was the lack of a more concrete training plan. Is there anything I can do to hit home the fact that the training plan is appropriate, without having to go through a resubmission?

writedit said

December 5, 2013 @ 4:45 pm · Edit

If you’re at the FY13 cut off, then you should be fine, though you won’t know for sure until the federal budget is settled. Even if the FY14 sequestration is not modified, my guess is that fellowship paylines won’t change much (not big money items). If you resubmit next spring (I assume you won’t have anything ready for next Monday), you can tweak your training plan based on what the exact concerns were … whether you weren’t getting the right training for the work proposed (or did not really propose any additional training, whether in your current lab or somewhere else on a short-term basis). Your mentor and PO can give specific advice based on your plan and the summary statement – a bit hard to do with no specifics, but you will want to make some adjustments rather than just tell the reviewers it was appropriate as proposed.

AIRmonkey84 said

December 5, 2013 @ 4:50 pm · Edit

Thanks for the info. Couple of other questions:

If I resubmit in April, I’m assuming that funding for 2014-2015 is shot. Correct?

Secondly, there is some talk about me changing the mentor completely, but keeping the same project (multiple PIs working on the same project in a consortium type of approach). Is this a viable strategy, or does it cut into credibility of the training plan if I suddenly swap out mentors?

writedit said

December 5, 2013 @ 5:01 pm · Edit

No idea what will happen in FY15, but the sequestration cap on discretionary spending is higher (more $) rather than lower (FY14 is lower than FY13, and FY15 would be higher than both – woohoo). My guess is all that will change between now and fall/winter 2014, but you shouldn’t assume the worst. On the other hand, with each passing dismal FY, I would also guess that the applicant pool will slowly shrink as smart grad students go elsewhere with their degree (& life).

With regard to the training plan, you can have a mentor team that includes the multiple PIs (this is often best even if you aren’t involved in a multi-PI project). Changing your primary mentor shouldn’t be a problem so long as he/she is appropriate in terms of their science and has funding, track record of successful trainees, etc. Again, the PO familiar with your particulars should be willing to offer targeted advice (he/she should also know the review committee history & preferences for F32 applications).

grgmrm said

December 10, 2013 @ 11:24 am · Edit

I submitted my K01 in March for NIH FIC; Received score in June; PO asked me to submit JIT which I did. Two weeks ago, I received a call from PO to inform that my study is going to be funded. Because of the Federal funding cut, grant funding will be for 4 years instead of 5. They will send the NOA soon. I haven’t received any mails yet. Do I need to follow-up? Also, is it okay to apply for a R21/R34 in 2016 February for another study if I have a K01? Thank you.

writedit said

December 10, 2013 @ 11:49 am · Edit

Congratulations on the award and best wishes for success with the project and your career in academic research! You do not need to do anything else. Your institution will receive email notification that the award has been issued (so they know to set up the account for you), and the NoA will appear in your eRA Commons. You can apply for an R21 or R34 earlier than Feb 2016 if your 4-year K01 starts this December. If you apply in Feb 2016, the earliest you would be funded would be Dec 2016 (and more likely 2017). You can reduce your K effort during the final 2 years of the award to accommodate an RPG award, which for you would be 2016 and 2017, so you could apply in Feb 2015 (for a Dec 2015 or early 2016 start) and then have some breathing room for a resubmission as needed before your K01 ends. Here is the relevant notice: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-065.html

grgmrm said

December 11, 2013 @ 12:44 pm · Edit

Thank you for sharing. Very useful.

alessaycy said

December 10, 2013 @ 1:49 pm · Edit

I am an assistant professor just starting my second year and currently have a K99/R00 award. My colleagues invited me to be a co-investigator on their X01 award. Will that hurt my early investigator status?

writedit said

December 10, 2013 @ 2:24 pm · Edit

The X01 does not come with any funding, so no. New/ESI status is only changed upon receipt of “a substantial NIH independent research award” (essentially, an R01 or project on a P mechanism award). You can see the list of awards that you can receive and still preserve your new/ESI status here: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/index.htm#definition

alessaycy said

December 12, 2013 @ 8:46 am · Edit

Thank you writedit! My colleague corrected me, saying that their screen grant is actually an R01, not an X01. Could I still be a co-investigator? What is the difference between co-PI and co-investigator?

writedit said

December 12, 2013 @ 9:27 am · Edit

Yes, you can be a co-investigator. There is really no such thing as a “co-PI”, though the term is used informally & means different things to different people. The NIH refers to applications with more than one PI as Multiple PD/PI awards. You can be key personnel (co-investigator) on as many grant awards as your % effort allows without endangering your new/ESI status. If you were a PI on a multiple PI application and the application were funded, you would lose your new/ESI status – and the application would not benefit from the review and payline breaks unless each of the PIs on the application also had new/ESI status (i.e., you would lose this designation without ever having benefited from it). It sounds like your colleagues want you just to be a co-investigator (so you’ll give them your biosketch & be listed to receive salary), which is fine. Just be careful when considering requests to be a PI on a multiple PI application.

wantfund said

December 11, 2013 @ 1:04 am · Edit

I have a question I am a little embarrassed to ask re: IRB approval and JIT. Received a score March 2013 for an A1 R21 (NIMH) that while quite a bit outside the payline (20%-ile) my PO thinks has a chance given institute priorities. I have not been formally asked to submit JIT (outside of the link that becomes active for any grant score under 40) although I did submit a response to summary statements at the request of my PO. I do not currently have IRB approval. Is this something I should seek now just in case the grant comes through? Or is this something I wait on until I receive a request for JIT?

writedit said

December 11, 2013 @ 1:23 am · Edit

Unless your institution turns around IRB approval quickly, you should submit your protocol sooner than the JIT request. Your PO might have a better idea of the odds of funding in a week or two (if budget deal goes through), but your award will be held up until IRB approval is secured. Because this is so early in the FY, a delay due to the lack of IRB approval shouldn’t be a problem (late in the FY, some ICs move on to the next worthy applicant to be sure the money gets spent before the books are closed), but you would still lose time. Maybe check with your PO in a week or so about whether IRB approval should be sought and start working on the protocol in the meantime, just in case.

wantfund said

December 11, 2013 @ 11:05 am · Edit

very helpful! Thanks

jingdh836 said

December 11, 2013 @ 10:25 pm · Edit

I had a R01 scored 8 percentile in Nov. Do you think it could be funded by NCI? Thanks.

writedit said

December 12, 2013 @ 1:07 am · Edit

I would say yes. Last year the “hard” payline was the 9th percentile (with many applications above that discussed and funded), and assuming the bipartisan budget accord holds as the appropriation language is drawn up, the NIH will get a little $ back this year (above FY13 but probably not back to FY12 levels). Unless you are particularly well funded or the topic area is overrepresented in their portfolio, you should have good news about an award. If your PO says you can be cautiously optimistic, be happy.

Jingdh836 said

December 12, 2013 @ 5:09 am · Edit

Thanks a lot! This really helps!

jcdh836 said

February 12, 2014 @ 3:39 pm · Edit

I got this one funded as well. Thanks again for all the help!

writedit said

February 12, 2014 @ 4:34 pm · Edit

Great – not surprised (would have been if you had not received an award), but thanks so much for the update. Congratulations and best wishes for success with your research!

JTNII said

December 12, 2013 @ 2:57 am · Edit

Anyone know what NIDCR K99 cutoff was last year?

Skyline said

December 12, 2013 @ 11:52 am · Edit

What is your score? NIDCR may have a different payline system

writedit said

December 12, 2013 @ 12:48 pm · Edit

If no one here has an NIDCR score to share, you can just ask your PO there what score they funded up to in FY13 – he/she should be willing to tell you this.

alessaycy said

December 12, 2013 @ 8:49 am · Edit

This is an odd question for a friend, but can you apply for K99 if you already have a K01 award, assuming you will drop the K01 if awarded with K99?

writedit said

December 12, 2013 @ 9:21 am · Edit

It is odd, with the first question in response being, why would someone want to do this? The K01 should mean that your friend has some sort of faculty appointment (vs postdoc), so no, he/she would not be eligible to apply for a K99. The R00 portion is not a good deal, so if that is what attracts your friend, he/she should be applying for other RPG mechanisms during the K01 period.

JT said

December 12, 2013 @ 1:58 pm · Edit

Dear Writedit, can you clarify why you think the R00 is not a good deal?

writedit said

December 12, 2013 @ 3:29 pm · Edit

Well, it’s a great deal if you have a K99, of course, but it shouldn’t be the main reason to pursue a K99/R00 award. The $249K per year needs to cover direct and indirect costs, so unless your institution waives the indirects or has a low F&A rate, R00 PIs lose ~50% of the award to indirects right off the bat, so it’s generally more like a 3-y R21 than an R01 (which is how a lot of investigators think of it). Like an R21, it is not renewable. However, the benefit it has over other Ks is the greater $ for research (vs salary support), though you can’t afford to buy as much time on the R00 as would be covered with a traditional K. This is more important for clinical PIs who need protected time for research. Everyone’s situation is different, so you need to look carefully at the pros and cons of each mechanism in the context of your career path (basic vs clinical) & status and the target IC (to gauge how competitive the K99/R00).

AirMonkey84 said

December 12, 2013 @ 1:17 pm · Edit

I recently submitted an R21 which was triaged at this past SAT meeting. What is the next course of action I should take (if any is even possible) to get this thing back in the game?

writedit said

December 12, 2013 @ 3:37 pm · Edit

If this was an A0, you would want to look carefully at the weaknesses cited. If 2 or 3 reviewers cited the same issues and they are readily addressed, you might consider a resubmission. You would want to confirm with your PO that your work is compelling to your target IC and get any advice specific to the study section in making your revisions. If the concerns related to the significance of the work or your overall approach, then you would probably have a more difficult time overcoming the bar. It’s hard to give specific advice without knowing the work and the rest of your situation – other funding, grant submission track record (e.g., was this previously submitted as an unsuccessful R01 & then chopped up for an R21?), what you need for this project (i.e., proof-of-concept or preliminary data for an R01, exploratory clinical trial, etc.), how you might modify the proposal to be new, etc. You could consider submitting a smaller chunk of the R21 work that did appeal to reviewers as an R03, if you need $ to get some data for publications & a stronger R21 or R01 application. Your PO, mentor, colleagues, et al. who are familiar with where you are at would have the best insight along these lines, but these are the sorts of options to consider.

anyhope said

December 13, 2013 @ 9:16 pm · Edit

I submitted a K01 to NIMH in Jan. 2013 (AIDS panel). Got a score of 40. Resubmitted in September, it was reviewed yesterday (12/12) and I received my score today of 30. Surprisingly fast! My PO looked at my Intro to resubmission and thought all my responses were excellent and actually made recommendations on what we should do for certain responses, which is why I’m surprised at the score. My mentors think there might be a tiny amount of hope given some review panels have been rather harsh since the gov’t shutdown and my score would be relative to others in this review cycle. Realistically, do you think I have any chance of being funded?

writedit said

December 13, 2013 @ 11:40 pm · Edit

Well, your PO would be the best judge of that, based on how high they went in FY13. My guess is they went to the upper 20s for some K awards, not sure how competitive the K01 is there. The budget will be better in FY14, and this wasn’t a typical review cycle, certainly (not compared with the summer reviews). If your PO thinks you award is worth pushing for, then you do have a chance. You’ll want to think of responses to the A1 summary statement, since your PO will likely want this information to help advocate for your application at the Division level, if he/she can and is willing to do so. Sounds likely, though, given the help you’ve already received.

anyhope said

December 14, 2013 @ 12:46 am · Edit

Thanks for your quick response! I will indeed look at the summary statement and formulate the best responses possible with my mentors. I’m hoping to talk with my PO next week; besides the questions of how high they went in FY13 and my POs willingness to advocate, what else should I discuss with the PO?

writedit said

December 14, 2013 @ 9:07 pm · Edit

You might also ask about whether to pursue your project as an RPG (research project grant), since you can’t resubmit as a K01 again. Hopefully not necessary, but you want to know your best alternative to secure funding to support your research.

MKIM said

December 13, 2013 @ 10:49 pm · Edit

Hi writedit- I was wanted to check on my R01 is 14tth percentile would fall in funded pay lines for NINDS. input for paylines for established and new investigators would be appreciated. Thank you.

writedit said

December 13, 2013 @ 11:45 pm · Edit

Given that their interim payline is the 12th percentile, and the payline for FY13 was the 14th percentile, and the FY14 budget will be better than in FY13, I think you are likely to receive an award, assuming no administrative problems or significant other funding sources. If you are new/ESI, you are very likely to receive an award. Your PO won’t know until the appropriations become more clear (only have broad budget plan right now), so probably nothing definitive until next January or February – but it should be good news then.

MKIM said

December 14, 2013 @ 1:31 am · Edit

Thank you writedit- great hope. I am new/ESI. I am assuming the cutt-off percentile would be higher.

newPI said

December 14, 2013 @ 3:14 am · Edit

I have a question about budgeting. I am currently on my second year of my K01. I have three and half year left with 90% effort (and salary) covered by my K01. I am interested in submitting a mid-size grant like R15, R21 or private fund, putting 10% effort in time but am looking into a possibility of putting 0% effort for the purpose of budget (salary). There are two reasons. First, I am in a state-funded position so my department has hard money to provide 10% difference. But second, what I am wandering is if it is possible to maintain 90% effort for the purpose of budget on my K01 while lowering time devoted to 80%. The reason why I ask this is because the way K01 is structured I will essentially need to relinquish the 10% difference in salary because it cannot be used for any other purposes. I am inquiring my K01 PO/GMS but wanted to see if you may have any advise here.

writedit said

December 14, 2013 @ 9:17 pm · Edit

You can request no salary for your effort, but you can also, in the last 2 years, lower your % effort (& salary support) from the K in the last 2 years: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-065.html (which would be the earliest you might be funded). Your PO will be able to advise you on the specifics, since he/she will know your particulars.

Dave said

December 17, 2013 @ 12:23 pm · Edit

@writedit: A good day for the NIH today with the budget vote. You agree? God knows what has happened to the GOP, but I like this new budget for the NIH. All the chatter indicates (to me at least) that the NIH will get a lot of the sequester cut back this year, especially with Mikulski heading up the appropriations process. Seems to have barely been noticed by the science community, however, which I think is odd given that the FY14 sequester would have been absolutely horrible for the NIH.

sugar science said

December 17, 2013 @ 12:50 pm · Edit

Hi – I am writing to see if anyone has insight into what R01 percentiles were fundable at NIGMS in FY13. I just had my A1 submission of my R01 renewal scored at 14%. Looks like this would have been funded in FY12, but I’m not so sure about last year. I hope that Dave is right and FY14 is better. I am up for tenure next year and not having active federal funding will be a deal-breaker.

Not your PO but… said

December 17, 2013 @ 2:14 pm · Edit

Your PO would probably tell you to be cautiously optimistic. Good score plus you are the type of lab Jon Lorsch says that he wants to focus on funding. Let’s see what kind of budget Congress provides NIH for FY14….

sugar science said

December 17, 2013 @ 3:36 pm · Edit

Thanks – I haven’t been able to talk with my PO yet, but that is what I am hoping to hear. In the meantime, it is encouraging that others think this looks promising.

writedit said

December 17, 2013 @ 3:35 pm · Edit

I agree completely with Not Your PO – and you want to be sure you let your PO know about your tenure situation – it does make a difference (at NIGMS anyway, but it’s always worth letting your PO know when you have a borderline score). I know of two PIs with scores at or above yours, also at tenure decision time, who were funded in FY13, and the budget for FY14 will be better.

RQ said

December 17, 2013 @ 8:34 pm · Edit

Has anyone ever NOT gotten the R00 portion of the K99/R00 grant even after securing a tenure-track position on time? If so, what are the reasons? Is this transition application more of a formality to make sure your new position is supportive of your future success, or does the NIH really evaluate your R00 scientific proposal?

writedit said

December 17, 2013 @ 11:25 pm · Edit

The science was reviewed by the study section and won’t be re-reviewed; the request for the updated research plan is, I believe, more to gauge subsequent progress reports, since presumably work done during the K99 portion will require modifications to the R00 aims/approach. However, the PI must have an academic appointment at an institution where the research can be performed and where there is sufficient institutional commitment. I don’t know whether any K99 PI has not had his or her R00 activated, but if not, I would guess it is due to their dropping out of an academic career or not getting appropriate institutional support.

chimps said

December 18, 2013 @ 12:57 pm · Edit

Any thoughts on the likelihood of a F32 application scored in 22 percentile with an impact score of 37? Application was assigned to NCI (primary) and NIAID. Thanks

writedit said

December 18, 2013 @ 1:43 pm · Edit

Even with the improved budget outlook for FY14, that is probably a little high, but your PO can give some insight. If this was an A0, you certainly want to submit an A1 next spring.

PVM said

December 19, 2013 @ 11:37 pm · Edit

Hi writedit: We finally received the scores on our R01- 9% (impact score of 23). Does it stand a chance of making it within the 2014 payline at the NIBIB? Thanks!

writedit said

December 20, 2013 @ 1:09 am · Edit

Stands a great chance – you can absolutely be cautiously optimistic about that score. The FY14 paylines will be better than FY13, assuming the debt ceiling debate does not take another bite out of discretionary spending (but even Republicans are in favor of NIH/biomedical research $, so the NIH should be okay).

PVM said

December 22, 2013 @ 11:56 pm · Edit

Guess what? I heard back from the PD– current paylines for NIBIB are at 7% — she wants us to prepare a resubmission… Do you think they may relax the paylines once the funding scenarios look better in the Spring??

Thanks!!

writedit said

December 23, 2013 @ 10:20 am · Edit

This is always good advice, since they might not know what the paylines will do until after the next application cycle. We are waiting on the appropriations language to be drafted, which should be kind to the NIH and hence NIBIB final paylines but still must get past the debt ceiling hurdle.

newpi said

December 20, 2013 @ 6:54 am · Edit

I have a question about budgeting. I just started a tenure-track faculty position at a state university. What I am finding out is not all dollars are equal, and for some things I need to properly justify use at the point of grant application. For example, I have been told that I cannot use my grant money (K23) to fund potential students/postdocs to fly in for an interview. Is this correct? I can use the discretionary funds that are generated with indirects, but at this point I do not have enough. Traditionally, PIs have used their startup money to sponsor these costs but their is a new state policy that would not allow me to use state money to pay for student interviews (not sure about postdocs, still checking on this). We just have been informed of this policy change so my department chair is scrambling to get some F&A allocated so PIs without F&A can still interview candidates. My question is this. When you provide budget justification for grants K23, R grants or other, are we able to allocate money specifically for interviewing candidates? Even for a grant such as R15 which has a heavy emphasis for student training?

NIH Budget Nerd. said

December 20, 2013 @ 8:25 am · Edit

For R grants you can.

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2012/nihgps_ch7.htm#recruitment_costs.

For R15s it would seem to be waste of money since you are supposed to already have the students recruited at your school. And Post-docs shouldn’t count as student oriented research.

For Ks it depends on the IC funding you but generally they are not. Plus, for Ks the school gets a 8% for F&A so you are not generating much indirect for the schools. Since the research dollars you get from a K is pretty limited ($25k-50K) it seems a waste of dollars to fly out Post-doc candidates for interviews anyway. How about Skype?

newpi said

December 20, 2013 @ 9:25 am · Edit

Thank you NIHBN.

To reiterate what you said and reading from the link above, it does sound like you can fly in students for interviews (I am interviewing students in a couple of months and R15 will go out shortly after) with my K23 direct cost?? Is this true even though I did not mention this specifically in my K23 budget justification (I have $23000 for “supplies” and $2000 for “travel for conference”)? I strongly prefer to see candidates in person and feel that it is a worthwhile investment. Thank you for your input.

newpi said

December 20, 2013 @ 9:28 am · Edit

Sorry, I misread. It sounds like I cannot use direct costs for K23, but possibly for R grant. Do I need to specify student/postdoc recruitment costs in all future R grant budget justifications?

writedit said

December 20, 2013 @ 10:02 am · Edit

Thanks to NIH Budget Nerd – I am not one, so this is helpful for me to learn as well. It sounds as though you could but maybe shouldn’t use the R15 $ for this. My advice would be to talk with your department or school grant administrator (depending on the level of fiscal administrators at your institution), who should know this and if not could communicate with the appropriate GMS to clarify what funds could be applied to these costs.

NIH Budget Nerd. said

December 20, 2013 @ 10:47 am · Edit

If you use a R01 modular budget you do not need to specify how you will spend the money. If you want more than $250k then you porbably should specify recruitment costs.

Psyance said

December 20, 2013 @ 9:34 am · Edit

I recently had an R21 (A1) reviewed for NIDA. They don’t percentile R21s, but the impact score was a 20. Prior to seeing my summary statement, my PO couldn’t give me any indication of funding likelihood. I just received my summary statement. Does it do any good to contact my PO to discuss the likelihood of funding again? If so, are there specific things I should address with them (fyi, the only two weaknesses noted were that the senior investigators don’t seem to have a large enough role in the project and my attrition rate is conservative which may affect power – though this latter issue is less of a concern as the primary goal is proof of concept). Finally, any guess as to what the odds of funding at this score are (NIDA doesn’t publish paylines, so I’m in the dark here).

writedit said

December 20, 2013 @ 10:09 am · Edit

You should assume that R21s are as or more competitive than R01s, but you might be okay with that score, especially if the PO was interested in your summary statement. I assume the score got better with the A1, which is a good thing, and the major concerns you mention are just what the PO would want to hear – addressable weaknesses unrelated to the underlying science, its significance, or your overall approach. For the attrition concern, you should talk with your biostatistician for the proper response. I would suggest you write a 1 page response to the concerns raised in the discussion and send that to your PO, arranging a time to talk after he/she has reviewed your summary statement and response. This information is important for internal discussions about which applications to include on the paylist, which is not necessarily governed solely by score.

Psyance said

January 18, 2014 @ 11:03 am · Edit

Hi writedit – I just wanted to say thanks for your very helpful advice. I would have never thought to write a letter given that it was an A1 and not going back to the SRG. I wrote the letter, as suggested, and had a phone call with my PO this week. Though nothing is set in stone, things seem promising, and I think the letter had a hand in that.

writedit said

January 18, 2014 @ 1:43 pm · Edit

Great news – thanks so much for sharing this update, which I hope turns into even better news. With the appropriation set, your PO may have better insight in the next week or so.

Psyance said

February 2, 2014 @ 10:33 am · Edit

Hi writedit – Last week, I got emails from my GMS asking for JIT and from my PO asking for a DSMP (she also suggested I could email the DSMP directly to her, for review, before I submit it with my JIT). I emailed the DSMP, which she approved of, and I am waiting on the IRB, which likely will not be done by council (occurring later this week). So, a few questions: I assume this is all good news, however, how likely is it that an application gets to this stage, but does not get funded? Is it going to be a major issue if my JIT is not submitted prior council? From what I have read above, it seems many JIT requests follow council. Any idea how long after council it takes to hear whether or not the application is going to be processed? Does this depend on when the JIT is submitted?

writedit said

February 2, 2014 @ 12:10 pm · Edit

Congratulations … although it is not impossible that your award won’t be processed, highly unlikely. ICs do not go through the motions of collecting JIT and helping with DSMPs unless an award is planned. POs are always happy to look at JIT items like DSMPs just to be sure there is no hang-up in processing the award. You didn’t mention your eRA Commons status for this application, your status might be “Council review completed” in advance of Council meeting if it underwent early electronic concurrence. If there was a human subjects protection concern raised on your summary statement, though, the application would need to be discussed at Council, which is why you would have needed to submit JIT, including the DSMP, in advance (Council must see documentation that administrative concerns raised at review have been addressed before they can concur that the application can/should be considered for funding).

Psyance said

February 2, 2014 @ 12:53 pm · Edit

Thanks for your reply! The status is still ‘pending council review’. To my knowledge, there were no human subjects issues raised during the review (or at least none that made it onto my summary statement). I’ll update with a full timeline (as others have done above), once I know for sure. I really appreciate your insights!

writedit said

February 2, 2014 @ 1:07 pm · Edit

Great – thanks for the future update. I listed all the possibilities, because each IC handles things differently, but I still think this is good news for your application.

Psyance said

May 7, 2014 @ 6:43 am · Edit

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

05/07/2014 Application awarded

05/01/2014Award prepared

02/05/2014Pending administrative review

01/24/2014 Request for JIT from GMS

12/10/2013Scientific Review Group review completed

07/18/2013Scientific Review Group review pending

07/15/2013Application entered into system (submitted)

writedit said

May 7, 2014 @ 6:54 am · Edit

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

Brenda said

December 21, 2013 @ 6:18 pm · Edit

I submitted an administrative supplement to NICHD in June 2013 for our third through fifth year of funding on a R01 which begins on February 1, 2014. My PO indicated full support on their part for the proposed supplement and emailed me in August 2013 that the supplement was in the queue for approval pending discussion on the amount of funds available and what to fund. Despite several attempts to contact the PO about the status of the supplement, I have not heard back and eRA Commons still has the status of the supplement as “accepted for consideration”. No movement at all is indicated on the website. Does anyone have some insight into the probability that the supplement will be funded given this scenario or who I might better contact to at least request more information? After all this time and the fact that our renewal is pending, I would have thought that the supplement would have either been funded or rejected at this point. Thanks for any help.

writedit said

December 22, 2013 @ 1:29 am · Edit

My guess is that your PO is not replying because everything has been up in the air until the budget agreement – though nothing will really be settled until the appropriations get hammered out. I think the NIH will do okay even with the debt ceiling looming, so hopefully after the New Year, your PO will get back to you with an optimistic update. Your PO is really the person to contact, and while it’s not great that you have not heard anything since August, you shouldn’t assume the worst yet. Certainly check in again in the second week of January if you have not heard back yet.

JE said

December 24, 2013 @ 3:25 pm · Edit

I submitted a K22-A0 and got a score of 21 in Feb. 2013. I received a summary statement and talked to my PD in June. She suggested me not to send a revision to run a risk of getting a poorer score. The Council review was completed in September and I was told that I will be contacted by a NCI specialist in December if my application is funded. I have not received any notification from NCI till now, does anyone receive the notice? PS. I received a JIT but did compete it since it stated that ” await instructions from the NIH on whether to complete this information.” on eRA Commons webpage. Should I contact my PD for likelihood of the funding again? Thanks for any suggestions and happy holidays!

writedit said

December 26, 2013 @ 9:05 am · Edit

You will get a JIT request from your GMS or PO if your application is going to be processed for an award. It could be that they need to wait to see how the appropriations negotiations go, but you could certainly check in with your PO for a status update, especially so you know how to plan your next steps.

AnewPI said

December 26, 2013 @ 10:37 am · Edit

First, congrats on your A0 21 score! Fantastic. Second, I am also in the same holding pattern as you for the K22 but with NIAID. I received an 11 impact score back in June and have since corresponded with the PO. The PO said that there will be award notifications once the fiscal year budget is established (interim paylines). I’m not up on what the senate has done with the budget but I think it’s close and then interims will be set and notifications will be sent. Chain reaction. I believe last year interims were set in Jan., at least for NIAID. If you haven’t already heard, then I would think the first 2 weeks in Jan. is when it will all happen.

Dave said

December 27, 2013 @ 3:55 pm · Edit

I think it is likely now that they are waiting for appropriations to be set in January before making ANY decisions since it is looking highly likely that the NIH will receive at least some of the sequester funds back. Also many K study sections were bounced to January so POs do not know what their pool of scores look like. There should be no need for interim paylines if the appropriations process goes smoothy, but since the NIH is lumped in with HHS (i.e. Obamacare etc), this is not a guarantee. First week or two in January is key.

Wenshe Liu said

December 26, 2013 @ 8:15 pm · Edit

I just checked with my application status in commons. The application was supposed to be reviewed last week. Its status says “not discussed” that was input on Dec 20 but funnily a “JIT” link is turned on. I have sent an email to PO. It is a joke at either way.

writedit said

December 26, 2013 @ 8:33 pm · Edit

Sorry to hear about the outcome of your application. The JIT link in the Commons is always activated (& an automated eRA Commons JIT request is sent if the score is 40 or lower), but only a request from the PO or GMS is “real”. The PO won’t be able to offer much insight until you receive the summary statement, but then you can ask about advice as to your next step, whether to resubmit or repurpose the application for a new submission (different activity code etc.).

zebrafizz said

January 2, 2014 @ 1:38 pm · Edit

recently received the summary for my F32 proposal to NIGMS: impact 23, 12th percentile. what do you think? how do my chances look for 2014?

writedit said

January 2, 2014 @ 3:30 pm · Edit

Probably reasonably good, since R01 awards were made at the 12th percentile in FY13. We’ll know more about what the NIH appropriation might look like in the next few weeks. Your PO should be able to give some insight as to how this score would have done last year at NIGMS (FY14 should be better).

concerned student said

January 4, 2014 @ 10:28 pm · Edit

I am part of a research team that had a NHLBI R01 scored at 11% in June 2013. Council met in October 2013 after the shutdown, but did not make a decision when they were operating under an interim payline of 10%

Our PO is being very vague with us. If after appropriations the real FY 2014 payline becomes higher, would NHLBI retroactively fund all grants scored within the real payline, that were not initially within the interim?

writedit said

January 5, 2014 @ 11:14 am · Edit

You should be fine. Your PO is being vague because he/she does not know any more than you do: the NIH appropriation is still in the process of being bundled into the omnibus budget bill being written now, but we will know how the NIH fared by Jan 15. They final paylines will be higher than in FY13, perhaps almost back to FY12 – and yes, the final payline is retroactive to applications considered at earlier Council meetings.

Impact said

January 5, 2014 @ 12:33 pm · Edit

Sorry for asking, but did the nhlbi have a 2012 payline of 10 percentile??

Thank you.

writedit said

January 5, 2014 @ 12:47 pm · Edit

My bad, you are correct – it was 10 in FY12 and 11 in FY13. I don’t envision NHLBI having a lower final payline in FY14 than in FY13, though (appropriation will be higher unless something goes very wrong in the omnibus negotiations), and the final payline will be retroactive to the entire FY.

No hope said

January 9, 2014 @ 7:26 pm · Edit

What was the payline at NIGMS in 2013?

writedit said

January 9, 2014 @ 8:02 pm · Edit

NIGMS does not set a formal payline (Jeremy Berg described the process of making funding decisions: https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2011/01/28/the-funding-decision-process/), and they have not posted their funding trend data for FY13 as yet (FY12: https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2013/05/07/fiscal-year-2012-r01-funding-outcomes/).

AnewPI said

January 10, 2014 @ 8:51 am · Edit

I just wanted to give a timing update with a K22 scored in June of 2013. Yesterday I received the Notice of Approval (NOA) for the award. This was for NIAID.

writedit said

January 10, 2014 @ 10:02 am · Edit

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

JE said

January 10, 2014 @ 5:21 pm · Edit

Congratulations and thank you for sharing this info with us.

Sharanjot Saini said

January 14, 2014 @ 1:14 pm · Edit

I am a new and early stage investigator. I recently received a 13 percentile on my R01 A1 submission. What are my chances of getting funded from NCI? I have heard that they add 5 percentile for ESI which means i should be fundable? I received the summary statement that has minor concerns. Should i address those concerns and mail to my PO? or should i wait to hear? I sent an e-mail to my PO asking if she needs any information from my side but did not hear yet. The council is scheduled to meet in January. Please advise. I did not receive any communication on JIT yet.

writedit said

January 15, 2014 @ 1:15 am · Edit

Most ICs add about 5% for new/ESI – I believe NCI decides how much higher to go on a case-by-case basis. You’ll need to hear from your PO about whether she wants a short (1-2 pages) response to the concerns raised in the resume & summary of discussion. She may be waiting until the appropriation is more clear – the House just announced its omnibus appropriations bill, and the NIH will get $29.9B, putting us back to 2008-2009 appropriation levels (but still $1B more than in FY13). My guess is that you will be okay, since the payline won’t be lower than the 9th percentile from FY13, and you are close to that. Don’t worry about not getting a request from your PO for information or a JIT – the JIT would not come until around (or even after) the NCAB meeting.

Jane said

January 17, 2014 @ 12:46 am · Edit

If you have a grant with NCI, your PO will be a critical factor for the final decision based on my personal experience. If possible, you may want to talk with her on the phone. Good luck!

writedit said

January 14, 2014 @ 2:09 pm · Edit

From summary of the FY14 federal spending bill: National Institutes of Health (NIH) – The bill includes $29.9 billion for the NIH, $1 billion above the fiscal year 2013 level. This funding will continue support for basic biomedical research and translational research through the programs like the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) and Institutional Development Award (IDeA) to support scientists as they conduct research to discover cures. Further, it provides full support for the NIH Office of Science Education and programs like the Science Education and Partnership Awards (SEPA) to support biomedical research for the future.

Sharanjot Saini said

January 17, 2014 @ 3:04 am · Edit

Thanks! I finally heard from my PO with JIT request! Also i need to submit a statement addressing SRG concerns. Fingers crossed!

nrsa_hopeful said

January 17, 2014 @ 11:21 am · Edit

Have an F32 (A0) that received impact score of 30 and 20th percentile to NICHD. Summary statement had minor concerns that looked very addressable. It looks like it wouldn’t have made the cut-off in FY13 (payline at 16th percentile), but any thoughts on its prospects for FY14? Have contacted PO by e-mail, but haven’t heard back …

writedit said

January 17, 2014 @ 11:43 am · Edit

Hard to say. The budget isn’t that much better for FY14, but I would imagine it going up at least a few percentile points, especially since the cut-off was the 26th percentile in FY12 & FY11 and 24th in FY10 . Your PO is probably waiting until he/she can provide more definitive infomation, now that they know their appropriation and the number of applications in contention (though final scores won’t be in for another month or so).

nrsa_hopeful said

January 17, 2014 @ 12:28 pm · Edit

Thanks – I will continue to keep my fingers crossed then, and hope to hear from my PO in the meantime.

nrsa_hopeful said

March 27, 2014 @ 6:24 pm · Edit

Hi writedit – wanted to update here. I submitted a JIT request from the GMS this past Friday, which got my hopes up. But, I’ve now received this message from the PO: “Based on our current budget projections and the number of high-quality applications, the priority score your proposal received is in the uncertain range for funding. You may be aware that the NIH budget has not yet been approved, and many government agencies are operating under a Continuing Resolution. The Institute is therefore limited in its ability to issue any awards at the present time. Your application is now on hold pending resolution of the budget and formulation of the NICHD funding plan for this round.”

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

writedit said

March 28, 2014 @ 9:27 am · Edit

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

nrsa_hopeful said

April 9, 2014 @ 8:42 am · Edit

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

writedit said

April 9, 2014 @ 8:45 am · Edit

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

nrsa_hopeful said

May 1, 2014 @ 9:17 am · Edit

I received the NOA today! Here is my timeline:

08/08/2013: Application submitted.

08/14/2013: Scientific Review Group review pending.

11/12/2013: Scientific Review Group review completed.

03/18/2014: JIT information requested from GMS.

03/27/2014: PO letter indicating grant is in “uncertain range.”

04/02/2014: Pending administrative review.

04/03/2014: Award prepared.

05/01/2014: NOA

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

writedit said

May 1, 2014 @ 9:23 am · Edit

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

New PI said

January 17, 2014 @ 3:07 pm · Edit

Hi, I just started on a K01. I know I should probably know this, but can’t get a straight answer! For the research funding support per year ($25K), if we don’t use all of it the first year, for example, does it rollover into the second year? Or is it year dependent? Thank you!

writedit said

January 17, 2014 @ 3:28 pm · Edit

You can have carry over (up to a certain percentage). If you had serious delays starting your project and will need to carry over most of those funds, you’ll want to let your PO know about the delay, and you’ll need to write a justification. If this is just some simple carryover (less than 25% of award), it’s not an issue. Your grant/fiscal administrator should be able to help you with the fiscal reporting component of your progress report. NIH Policy on carryover in K awards can be found here: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2013/nihgps_ch12.htm#_Toc271265223 (general carryover policy, which applies to Ks, here: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2013/nihgps_ch8.htm#_Toc271264925, though awardees should always check their NoA as well)

New PI said

January 17, 2014 @ 4:06 pm · Edit

Thanks so much for the quick reply, writedit! It’s incredibly helpful.

mstudent said

January 17, 2014 @ 5:40 pm · Edit

Hello,

I was just wondering if there’s any word on paylines for the NCI FY2014 (F31) now that there’s some budgetary info from congress. I submitted in april 2013, got an impact score of 27 and percentile of 23. With the shutdown, the decision seems to be held in stasis. Any thoughts on my chances?

writedit said

January 18, 2014 @ 3:01 am · Edit

With the passage of the omnibus budget bill and the NCI appropriation final, your PO will now have a good idea as to whether your score is fundable. Check with him/her later next week.

mstudent said

January 19, 2014 @ 11:52 am · Edit

Thanks!!

mstudent said

April 9, 2014 @ 11:04 am · Edit

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

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

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

writedit said

April 9, 2014 @ 11:14 am · Edit

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

Z PI said

January 17, 2014 @ 6:08 pm · Edit

I would like to submit my first R01 to NCI. Is there a good resource to learn about this funding mechanism?

writedit said

January 18, 2014 @ 10:48 am · Edit

The NIAID has the best tutorials for developing grant applications (all advice, unless specified for a certain activity code, applies to the R01): http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/strategy/pages/default.aspx

They have a section specific to the R01 as well: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/Pages/r01.aspx

You can also review example applications and their summary statements: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/pages/appsamples.aspx

NCI-specific grant preparation advice can be found here: http://www.cancer.gov/researchandfunding/grantprocess

You should talk with your PO at NCI, too.

If you don’t know about finding and communicating with POs or how the NIH works, I might suggest a book (I am an author, but I wrote it based on the sort of advice people seek from me in person & on this blog): http://www.amazon.com/How-NIH-Can-Help-Funded/dp/0199989648/

Z PI said

January 18, 2014 @ 11:53 am · Edit

Thanks writ edit. I work for a small business, and we have received SBIR awards, but have never submitted an R01. We aim to use the R01 mechanism to perform IND-enabling experiments for a small molecule oncology drug. The aims will not be very innovative, but are geared to de-risk the project and advance development into the clinic. Do you see these aims as being an issue (as they are not “innovative” academic type aims).

writedit said

January 18, 2014 @ 1:47 pm · Edit

I’d suggest you talk with your SBIR award PO about which is the best route to take. The issue may not be so much innovation as a focus on development rather than research. It’s hard to say without more detail about the project, but your SBIR PO could suggest an appropriate R01 PO, if that is the mechanism he/she suggests pursuing, who in turn could offer advice on how your aims would be received at NCI.

Z PI said

January 19, 2014 @ 1:30 pm · Edit

Does anyone know of any funding mechanisms that are specifically for clinical trials? We have small molecule oncology (triple negative breast cancer) and hematology (sickle cell) molecules that are about ready for IND submission. However, we would like to use non-dilutive funding to advance the molecules through first-in-human trials (P0, PI or PI/2a)

writedit said

January 19, 2014 @ 2:39 pm · Edit

NCI has an omnibus R21 PA, and NHLBI issues R21 announcements on focused areas of research, including pilot clinical trials (many ICs issue R21 PAs specifically to support exploratory/pilot clinical research). Check the IC websites, search the NIH Guide, and talk with the appropriate POs to determine the most appropriate FOAs.

SHJ said

January 21, 2014 @ 3:10 pm · Edit

Hi, I submitted my first R01 in Octo… oops, I meant November.

I’ve developed a good relationship over several years with one particular PO, who is enthusiastic about my stuff. He directed me to, and I did, ask for assignment to him in my cover letter. However, the era-notification email I got in December indicated that my grant had been assigned to a different PO, within the same IC. The study section is as I requested. The new PO is appropriate (they overlap), so I am hesitant to make a fuss, but I’d also like to benefit from the relationship that I’ve worked to develop with the first PO – what should I do here?

writedit said

January 21, 2014 @ 3:23 pm · Edit

Best of both worlds – keep in touch with both of them. The assigned PO will be the one administering your application and (if/when made) award. You can let your first PO know about the assignment to the second, and you can let your assigned PO know you have already been working with the first. They may work it out to move the applicaiton back to the first PO, but if not, it’s great to have two good POs with whom you can communicate and who will advocate for you at the IC.

TCResearcher said

January 22, 2014 @ 1:14 pm · Edit

Let PD who you’ve been communicating with know. This has happened to me on a number of occasions– CSR gets it to the right branch, and then let the branch take over.. sometimes a name gets put in there as a placeholder.

SG said

January 21, 2014 @ 3:21 pm · Edit

Ask the PO you know if he/she would be willing to take it. Usually it is not a problem to transfer within an IC. Of course it can only be a good thing if they fight over you.

boo said

January 22, 2014 @ 1:07 am · Edit

Hi writedit – I received the score of my R01 A1 in December. It’s probably at the borderline of the payline for NI/ESI. I contacted the POs and he asked me to write a response to reviewers’ comments in the summary statement. The council meeting is at the end of this month but I was told the funding decision meetings will be in March or April. May I ask if there are general suggestions how to write the response? Start from the Resume from Panel? Do I need to address every one of the concerns raised by individual reviewers? Thanks!

writedit said

January 22, 2014 @ 10:28 am · Edit

You should address concerns raised in the Resume and Summary of Discussion. Concerns cited in an individual critique that are not mentioned in the discussion may have been raised but addressed as part of the discussion (in which case someone else on the committee responded) or may not have been so important (in the SRO’s mind) to warrant mention in the summary. If more than one individual reviewer raised the same concern (not listed in the discussion paragraph), you should address this as well. You can send your PO the response and then ask if there are individual critiques that you should also address, especially since I assume this was a rescheduled online review (versus in person meeting). I would recommend that you quote each critique verbatim (i.e., don’t paraphrase) followed by a short paragraph with your response (including literature citations as appropriate). Organize your responses by Resume/Summary, Critique 1/Overall, Critique 2/Approach, etc. If possible, keep your response to a page, but that is not required here as it is for a formal resubmission – just don’t go on too long in your response. You can include some white space to help readability. You do not need to highlight any of the strengths raised or thank reviewers for their time – you are not responding to them directly.

Emily said

January 22, 2014 @ 11:38 am · Edit

Hi Writedit,

I have found this website instrumental in a lot of ways, so THANKS.

I was wondering what is the chance for a KO8 with a score of 25 (received ~2 mon ago) getting funded this year….

writedit said

January 22, 2014 @ 11:58 am · Edit

Glad to help however I can, so thanks for your support. On the score, it depends on the IC and on the current crop of applicants. Your PO should be able to give a little insight as to how that score stacks up with the rest of the pile. If this was an A0, you could also ask about how to tailor your revision for the A1, if the PO thinks that is needed.

Emily said

January 22, 2014 @ 1:23 pm · Edit

Thanks for the reply. Forgot to mention this K was submitted to NHLBI, the IC meeting is next month.

S said

January 22, 2014 @ 10:40 pm · Edit

Hi Writedit,

I received a score of a 25 on a phase I SBIR grant application last June 2013. I have contacted the PO for the grant several times but she does not know if and when it will be funded. Who can I turn to at this point to find out if the grant will be funded.

writedit said

January 22, 2014 @ 11:47 pm · Edit

You will need to be patient a little longer. You didn’t indicate which IC, but the NIH just received its appropriation, so the ICs will know what they are doing in the next couple of weeks. Your PO really hasn’t known whether you would be funded (especially since the last cycle of reviews have not been completed). She should have some information by early to mid February. No one above her will have any more details about your funding chances, so there is no need to ask higher up the ranks.

S said

January 23, 2014 @ 10:22 am · Edit

Thanks for the info.

Peter said

January 23, 2014 @ 4:13 pm · Edit

Could you let us know the IC?

BrianM said

January 23, 2014 @ 10:54 am · Edit

Just wanted to say thanks to writedit for helping explain the process and keeping us informed. Last year was very stressful, 2014 looks to be a bit more hopeful, and many of us are on pins and needles, checking commons, and hoping for good news.

writedit said

January 23, 2014 @ 12:00 pm · Edit

Thanks so much for taking a moment to say so. I hope you all hear good news as the appropriation is sorted out in the coming weeks – and I am very happy to have provided any help that might have gotten you closer to some good news.

K99-R00 said

January 23, 2014 @ 5:57 pm · Edit

Does anyone know if you can terminate your K99 early to start at your new faculty position while the R00 is still in review and not yet approved? The NIH says that “funding should be continuous,” and I wonder if this means I cannot start at my new institute until R00 approval.

writedit said

January 23, 2014 @ 6:09 pm · Edit

If you have completed your 1 year on the K99, you can start your faculty position – you just won’t get R00 funding until it is approved. However, if you have not completed the first year on the K99 yet, you should talk with your PO. These awards now require PIs to complete at least one full year of K99 mentored training, though I am not sure if/how this is applied to current awardees. Your PO can help sort out the timing, especially since ICs will be busy soon catching up on all their back-logged awards, once their appropriation will be available.

K99-R00 said

January 23, 2014 @ 6:24 pm · Edit

I have completed more than a year of the K99. It’s just the “continuous funding” terminology that stumped me. If I start the new appointment, my K99 will be terminated even though the R00 is still in review, and that automatically puts a break in the funding. I don’t want to jeopardize the R00 by starting my new position before the approval.

writedit said

January 23, 2014 @ 6:33 pm · Edit

Starting your new faculty position before R00 funding is approved should not be an issue, but you won’t put anything in jeopardy by communicating with the PO about this. They want to help make the transition smooth and are not looking for a reason not to award the R00. Your grants office (at faculty appointment institution) is likely familiar with these transitions as well and can probably offer advice, but you shouldn’t worry about endangering the award by talking with the PO. I would frankly be surprised if any K99 – R00 transition that involved a change in institution (which ideally, it does) did not involve some gap in funding, though the start date of the R00 might be back dated to match the end of the K99 portion.

K99-R00 said

January 24, 2014 @ 1:18 pm · Edit

Dear Writedit,

Thank you for your advice. I contacted my PO, and everything is fine. It seems that having the faculty appointment before the K99 funding period ends is the more important issue. The start of the R00 is flexible.

writedit said

January 24, 2014 @ 2:50 pm · Edit

Great – I am glad this will work out for you. Thank you so much for posting this update, and best wishes for success with your new position and your research program.

PVM said

January 23, 2014 @ 10:58 pm · Edit

Hello: The NIBIB informed us that the interim paylines for the R01 were at 7%! Do you think these will budge with the recent appropriations/omnibus bill? We are at 9% and were asked to prepare a resubmission to be safe. Any insights would be appreciated!

writedit said

January 24, 2014 @ 12:32 am · Edit

Your PO gave you the right advice about preparing the A1. The interim payline may not go up until after the last cycle of reviews in Feb/March. I’m sure your PO hopes it will go up to the 9th percentile then (me too), but if it didn’t, you would be stuck until July,so he/she is just being responsible in giving you the resubmission advice. If your A1 will be stronger if you wait (e.g., publication submitted/accepted by then) and you aren’t under time pressure for funding, you could wait for the July receipt date & see what happens in March/April – recognizing you risk losing time if the payline doesn’t go up.

WJM said

January 24, 2014 @ 5:55 pm · Edit

Hi Writedit,

Our SBIR phase II submission from last spring was scored at a 22. With interim paylines set at 21 should we expect to be funded? I’m relatively new to this process and can’t find any historical data showing how interim paylines change after everything is finalized. Our PO didn’t have much info to share as the interim values have just been issued.

writedit said

January 24, 2014 @ 6:12 pm · Edit

I assume you are referring to NIAID, in which case you can find their archive of past paylines here: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/paybud/pages/paylinesfinal.aspx

Interim paylines generally remain in effect until after the last cycle of grant reviews coming up (Jan-March, for applications submitted last fall), at which point ICs can gauge how many applications have been scored at what percentile and what the budget can accommodate. Your 22 would have been funded last year, and I expect it will be funded again this year – but the PO probably won’t be able to say anything definitive for another month or so.

WJM said

January 24, 2014 @ 10:46 pm · Edit

Thanks Writedit. Correct this is for NIAID. Your info on timing is very helpful.

Sorry I may have been unclear in my original text. I was trying to find historical interim paylines and compare them to the final paylines listed in your link. Basically how much the payline changes from interim to actual. I’m assuming it varies from year to year but if there is a precedent of all interim values increasing (even a little bit) when the final values are posted it would make us feel a bit more confident in our funding chances since we were a point off.

writedit said

January 25, 2014 @ 3:29 am · Edit

NIAID almost always goes up a point at least. I think last year the R01 payline went from 6th to 8th percentile. SBIR is a set percentage of the budget, and there is a little more money in FY14 than in FY13, so unless there are also a lot more exceptional applications yet to be reviewed, I would imagine the payline will reach 22 and possibly higher.

WJM said

April 8, 2014 @ 10:30 am · Edit

Hi Writedit,

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

writedit said

April 8, 2014 @ 3:20 pm · Edit

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

SD said

April 8, 2014 @ 3:14 pm · Edit

Hi WJM,

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

WJM said

April 8, 2014 @ 8:52 pm · Edit

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

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

writedit said

April 8, 2014 @ 10:24 pm · Edit

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

SB said

January 26, 2014 @ 5:12 pm · Edit

Hi , I submitted a K99/R00 on June 13 and got an impact score 20. I don’t know whether it is still fundable or not? The council meeting is on 12 Feb. I am still eligible for resubmission on March. Don’t know what to do? Whether I should prepare to resubmit or not? Any suggestion please.

writedit said

January 26, 2014 @ 7:06 pm · Edit

You didn’t mention which IC, but your PO can give you advice on whether to resubmit. If March is your last chance to resubmit (don’t forget the time restrictions are stricter now), then you should plan to do so unless your PO indicates you will be funded. If you submit an A1, the A0 remains active and eligible for funding, so you could receive an award before the A1 is reviewed (in which case it will be withdrawn) – and you could still receive an award for the A0 later even if your A1 score goes up. But, if you have not communicated with your PO, you should do so now and ask about both funding likelihood and resubmission strategy.

SB said

January 27, 2014 @ 12:35 am · Edit

Dear Writedit, thanks for your reply. I submitted to NHLBI. In 2013 NHLBI funded to applicants getting priority score of 25 and better. I already contacted to PO about the possibility of funding and whether I should prepare to resubmit on March? In his reply the PO told me that ” we are now funding K applications from the October Council Round with scores of 20 so there is high probability that your application will be included in the next pay plan issued after the February meeting.” I am not sure whether I should count it as positive or not.

writedit said

January 27, 2014 @ 9:57 am · Edit

Your PO is telling you he thinks you will receive an award next month. No need for an A1. Congratulations and best wishes for success with your project and your career in academic research.

SB said

January 28, 2014 @ 2:19 am · Edit

Thanks for the reply. This blog is really helpful.

HSV said

January 27, 2014 @ 9:43 pm · Edit

Dear writedit, I am a foreign applicant through a special NIAID mechanism. My study section gathered by December 16. I was expecting the advisory council meeting by January 27, but in my era-commons account such meeting appeared to be executed by December 19. Then, there was a change in the status of my proposal to “pending administrative review” by January 23rd; but still is before January 27th. Is it possible that there was some glitch in the system? or is it possible that the grant is under administrative review?

writedit said

January 27, 2014 @ 10:02 pm · Edit

This is a bit unusual. You don’t mention your score, but I assume it must be low and in the funding range. Normally, I would say that your application had undergone electronic concurrence in advance of the Council meeting, but I believe they are required to approve all applications from foreign applicants at the actual meeting. It could be your application is undergoing pre-Council administrative review. Have you been asked for or submitted your JIT? You can certainly check with your Program Officer to get an update on your status, but I assume your eRA status is good news, as it usually is.

HSV said

January 27, 2014 @ 10:19 pm · Edit

Thanks for your prompt reply. Proposal’s impact factor score was 34. But it is very difficult to know at the present moment if it is an acceptable score to get funded. When the score was published I asked to PO, but she said it still too early to tell. That was on December 17. I have received era Commons usual notification about JIT, but I have not received a personal communication. I am on the verge of submitting the JIT. What is your opinion?

writedit said

January 27, 2014 @ 10:27 pm · Edit

Hmm. This is curious. The score is pretty high, but I am guessing it must be a special mechanism. You should ask your PO if you should submit JIT – that will tell you whether this is a genuine administrative review (if she says no, don’t bother to submit to the eRA Commons link). If you haven’t checked in with her since Dec 17, don’t worry about doing so now – you aren’t being a pest at all, and with the appropriation signed into law, she probably has a better idea where you stand (& whether you are on the pay list).

HSV said

January 27, 2014 @ 10:36 pm · Edit

You are right. This is a special mechanism. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-11-145.html. [Limited Competition: International Research in Infectious Diseases, including AIDS (R01)]. So all depends on how many good scores are lower than mine. On 2012, eleven grants were funded. On the dark ages of 2013, only 6 grants. I don’t know if the 1 billion increase will improve odds. I will follow your advice, and write to PO. Thanks for your wonderful blog.

FunkyMonkey said

January 28, 2014 @ 10:21 am · Edit

I submitted an F30 to the NIAID and recieved a 16. The interim pay line was published today as 13. What are my chances? 😦

Peter said

January 29, 2014 @ 11:37 am · Edit

.Dear Writedit,

I wonder if you would be willing to make a comment on my chance for funding of a SBIR phase I from NCI with an impact score of 24? Application was submitted in August 2013. Thanks.

writedit said

January 29, 2014 @ 2:36 pm · Edit

That seems on the edge but certainly possible. With the appropriation passed, your PO should know soon how much $ SBIR will have for FY14 and should then be able to comment on funding likelihood. If your score is in the gray zone, you would need to wait for the next cycle of reviews to be complete before a final decision could be made – but your PO should have a reasonable idea in a week or so.

Prof X said

January 29, 2014 @ 7:34 pm · Edit

Dear Writedit,

I submitted an RO1 response to an RFA from NIDDK. It was triaged. I was pondering sending it in as a regular RO1 with dual assignment to NIDDK and NIGMS. Can I do this and get 2 more attempts? If it fails 2x as an RO1, can I resubmit as an R15?

Many thanks for your help!

Prof. X

writedit said

January 29, 2014 @ 8:15 pm · Edit

Yes, you can submit the R01 to the parent or other appropriate program announcement as an A0. You would want to use the RFA summary statement to revise the application, but you would not include an Introduction or refer to the prior review anywhere. However, the basic project can stay the same (with improvements based on the prior review). This is one of the limited situations in which you get 3 shots with the same proposal.

Prof X said

January 29, 2014 @ 8:43 pm · Edit

Many thanks for your quick response, and for this very informative blog.

jcdh836 said

January 31, 2014 @ 11:07 pm · Edit

Dear Writedit,

I have a R01 (A1) scored 15 percentile and my PO at NCI worked with me to rescue it for funding. I was told in last December that this grant was presented by her and discussed in a meeting with other POs, and it was among the last group of grants forwarded to leadership for approval. However, the leadership meeting was postponed from mid-December 2013 to mid-January 2014 and now further to early-February 2014… My PO never told me to prepare for a resubmission but apparently this grant is still not for sure to be funded. What do you think about my chance here? Many thanks.

Jcdh836

writedit said

February 1, 2014 @ 3:12 pm · Edit

Sounds like you have a good PO and that your application has a good chance of funding due to her efforts (and your excellent score). You may know after the February NCAB meeting, or you may be told that you will have to wait for a final decision after the last cycle of reviews (~April), at which point NCI will know how many good-scoring applications they need to consider for funding in FY14. With an A1, there would be no resubmission, so you could be working on a new R01 or converting the A1 to an R21 in the meantime.

jcdh836 said

February 7, 2014 @ 12:33 am · Edit

My PO just told me tonight that my grant was selected for funding. Good luck to all of you and thank you writedit for your kind help.

writedit said

February 7, 2014 @ 1:08 am · Edit

Congratulations and best wishes for success with the research! Thanks so much for sharing this update with us.

Jcdh836 said

February 1, 2014 @ 3:51 pm · Edit

Thanks a lot!

NK said

February 3, 2014 @ 3:50 pm · Edit

is it a bad sign if you do not get a JIT request before Council meets? I am probably on the borderline for an R21, which my PO said has been out forwarded for possible funding. NIDDK Council meets February 5 and I have not been asked for any additional information. In the past, the GMS at NHLBI asked for JIT information if my application was in a fundable range.

writedit said

February 3, 2014 @ 4:01 pm · Edit

No need to worry too much. If the PO is confident about funding, he/she will ask for JIT in advance of Council (also if any administrative concerns were raised in the summary statement, since these must be addressed before funding can be considered). Applications in the gray zone aren’t decided until after Council – and you may not ultimately know until after the next cycle of reviews, if NIDDK wants to wait to see how many applications are scored in what they anticipate to be the funding range for FY14.

Dave said

February 5, 2014 @ 3:14 pm · Edit

From my information, JITs are not being requested prior to some early council meetings for some ICs and mechs as they are running behind following the shutdown. Funding decision for some ICs and mechs are being delayed until a few weeks after council, apparently, and JITs will be requested nearer decision time.

leiyuleo@gmail.com said

February 7, 2014 @ 8:53 am · Edit

what do you mean you did not get request for JIT. You didn’t have a JIT link in your eRA account or you had a JIT link activated yet did not receive a direct notice from the PO?

NK said

February 7, 2014 @ 11:03 am · Edit

In the past, I have been asked for JIT material from the Grants Management Specialist prior to Council meeting if there was a good likelihood of funding. This time I did not get this type of request- however, the PO said my grant had been out-forwarded for possible fundinging (score of 26). NIDDK Council met on Feb 5, 2014. How long should I wait to reach out to my PO?

YMKP said

February 4, 2014 @ 6:30 pm · Edit

Dear Writedit,

How far back can we charge supplies, etc to our SBIR grant prior to the grant’s start date?

writedit said

February 5, 2014 @ 12:43 am · Edit

I am not quite sure of the question. You have received a grant (vs a contract), and you will not need to submit itemized receipts to document how you spent the money earmarked for supplies. The NIH wants to see you achieve your aims – exactly how you spend the $ to do so is your decision. Here is the NIH policy on grant budgeting (by the recipient, post-award): http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2013/nihgps_ch5.htm#budget and here are the sort of budgetary changes that the NIH would need to be notified of: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2013/nihgps_ch8.htm#changes_project_budget

SD said

February 12, 2014 @ 6:57 pm · Edit

I have been informed by my colleagues that SBIR pre-award spending is allowed up to 3 months before the start date. Our company has also successfully petitioned for a 6 month pre-award spending window.

writedit said

February 12, 2014 @ 10:08 pm · Edit

Yes, pre-award spending can occur up to 90 days before the award (NIH policy here). Interesting that you were able to get approval to spend 180 days before the award – thanks for sharing your experience.

AGST said

February 6, 2014 @ 11:09 am · Edit

Dear Writeedit,

I re-submitted an F31 to NCI back in August ’13 and received a score of 20/9th%. The council meeting was in January and I am getting pretty anxious. Do you know how long it can take to hear anything from the council review or do you have any comments on my chances of funding? I tried to review NCI pay guidelines but there is nothing stated for F31 fellowships.

Thank you,

writedit said

February 6, 2014 @ 12:01 pm · Edit

You need to be patient and not anxious. First, the Council meeting date in your eRA Commons account is the general cycle, not the specific date. NCAB does not meet until Feb 26-27. Even then, Council won’t decide if your application wil be funded, just whether it can be considered for funding. Now that NCI has its appropriation, your PO can probably give you a reasonable idea of the likelihood of funding. Applicants with scores in the gray zone will need to wait until after the current review cycle is complete, at which point ICs will know how many applications have what scores and they can see how far their money can go. I think that score should be clearly in the funding range rather than in the gray zone, but I don’t know how the current crop of F31s at NCI are scoring. If you haven’t checked with your PO, you can certainly do so now.

Sridhar Prasad (@prasad_sridhar) said

February 6, 2014 @ 7:54 pm · Edit

I have a Phase I SBIR A1 submission with an impact score of 29, the primary institute is NINDS. Could anyone comment on its likelihood of getting funded. Thanks

writedit said

February 7, 2014 @ 1:12 am · Edit

That seems a little high, but I do not know the range of scores of applications assigned to NINDS. Your PO should be able to give you an idea now of your likelihood of funding – or at least whether you should hold out some optimism (if this is in the gray zone, you might need to wait until after the current round of reviews – so late March/April).

BAK said

February 10, 2014 @ 8:04 pm · Edit

Does anyone have any ideas what the NCI-K22 award payline will be for FY2014?

OG said

April 20, 2014 @ 8:21 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

April 20, 2014 @ 9:33 pm · Edit

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

LNS said

February 11, 2014 @ 1:25 pm · Edit

My first R01 should have been reviewed by an NCI study section yesterday (nothing posted yet in commons). My application also has NICHD listed as a secondary institute. Does that mean that a study section from NICHD will also review the grant? Thanks for any clarification you can provide.

writedit said

February 11, 2014 @ 3:18 pm · Edit

Your R01 was reviewed by a study section in the CSR (Center for Scientific Review), not NCI. NCI is the primary institute assigned to consider your application for funding (based on the peer review conducted in CSR). NICHD, as the secondary assignment, could consider your application for funding if NCI declines to fund it – but almost certainly won’t (very very few secondary ICs pick up applications any more). You can see the study section (Scientific review group) that actually reviewed your application by looking under the second column (Study Section) in the Application Information box – look for a set of 3-4 initials; you can then look up the SRG at the CSR Website. Your score will be posted in a a day or two (it is not instant), and your summary statement will follow in a few weeks. When you have your score and summary statement, you can check with your PO about funding likelihood (assuming your application was discussed), resubmission strategies, and other next steps. I don’t like to promote this too much, but you sound like a candidate for our book, which will explain how both the NIH itself and the application, review, and funding process works.

LNS said

February 11, 2014 @ 3:29 pm · Edit

Thanks so much for this quick and very helpful reply. Definitely looks like I need your book since I didn’t know the study section isn’t specific to the IC! Many thanks,

writedit said

February 11, 2014 @ 3:31 pm · Edit

Well, it would be reviewed by the IC for an RFA and for certain funding mechanisms, but most R01 applications (and most RPGs in general) go to CSR for review.

LNS said

February 12, 2014 @ 2:02 pm · Edit

I just found out that I received 10th percentile (impact score 30). Although the payline for NCI was 9th percentile, does it seem likely that I will get funded since I am an ESI? Or is my ESI status already factored into the percentile that I received? Thank you!

writedit said

February 12, 2014 @ 2:34 pm · Edit

If you are referring to an R01 application, you will get additional consideration (only applies to R01 though). NCI does not automatically give a formulaic percentile break for ESI (e.g., 3 or 5 percentile points), but they do go above the stated funding threshold (9th percentile in FY13) to pick up both ESI and additional established PI applications.

Pluto said

February 11, 2014 @ 3:28 pm · Edit

Hi writedit:

Thanks for such a great blog/listserve and book. One thing that does not come up much in either is the topic of what one does after having an R01 to keep things going. Specifically, what general (or specific) advice do you give to someone like me who is just starting year 2 of a first R01 in terms of: (a) planning well in advance to have the best shot at a competing renewal award, both in terms of budgeting and scientific accomplishments, and (b) tips about maintaining stability of funding and personnel through budgeting and new grants and so forth.

(I realize this is sort of a general topic–maybe even book #2–but any advice you have would be terrific!)

writedit said

February 11, 2014 @ 4:16 pm · Edit

Thanks so much for the kind words. Exact advice is best on a case-by-case basis, but in general, you want to be submitting other applications, both related to your R01 work (to other federal agencies, foundations, professoinal societies, internal competitions [eg, pilot studies funded by a CTSA, SPORE, or other P50], etc. and different NIH activity codes, if you can avoid overlap) and to launch a second (or third) line of funded work in a different area. At the NIH, developing projects that are of interest to more than one IC and more than one SRG is crucial to maintaining a steady cash flow for your lab. They need not all be R01s (an R03 or R21 might be more appropriate to secure preliminary data, develop an experimental model, etc.), but they need to be distinct in focus and hypothesis/impact. It could be results from your current R01 inspire an offshoot line of research, but you will also want to keep interesting new leads from the current R01 to develop into aims for the renewal. The renewal itself should have innovative aims that take the work in a new (logical) direction rather than an incremental continuation of what you did during the first project period. Your publications should lay out the story of what you accomplished, with your most recent preliminary data supporting the new direction. In terms of planning now, you will want to ensure that you have carry over funds at the end for use during a no-cost extension (i.e., don’t blow your whole wad now), and you want to be publishing something each year, if possible, though your productivity should include a few nice journals (versus a shotgun blast of low-impact titles). Easy to say, harder to do. You want to get your data in front of your likely reviewers, too, at meetings (and in journals), so they’ll be excited to keep the flow of new information flowing. Your mentors (past & present colleagues), collaborators, and PO can give good input specific to your situation (PO can advise about upcoming initiatives that match your interest/expertise), and you will see more advice here and elsewhere in the blogosphere.

Ken said

February 11, 2014 @ 7:30 pm · Edit

Hi, does any one know if NCI has a FY14 interim payline for R21? Thanks.

writedit said

February 11, 2014 @ 11:58 pm · Edit

R21s tend to follow the R01 pattern. You can see how your score would have fared in FY13 in their funding patterns graph for R21s: https://gsspubssl.nci.nih.gov/blog/articles?funding_patterns/2013

Ken said

February 12, 2014 @ 12:24 am · Edit

Thanks writedit. I received a 9th %tile. It looks promising when comparing it to the data shown in the figures. My other question is that this R21 was submitted under a special PA and not parent R21. Is there a separate payline for the unsolicited and for special R21? Thanks!

writedit said

February 12, 2014 @ 11:04 am · Edit

One payline for all R21s (including regular PAs), but applications submitted to PARs/RFAs get special consideration for funding out of order (competing against other applications to the same program vs all R21s).

QYtang said

February 13, 2014 @ 9:00 am · Edit

Hi, Writedit, do you know any payline information about NIH SC1? QY

writedit said

February 13, 2014 @ 10:15 am · Edit

I have never seen a posted payline for the SCORE program, but your PO should be willing to give some estimation as to your funding likelihood based on your score.

QYtang said

February 13, 2014 @ 10:20 am · Edit

Thanks a lot for your reply. I recently received a score of 22 for my R15 grant (NIAID). how do you think the possibility of getting funded? Thanks a lot. QY

writedit said

February 13, 2014 @ 10:31 am · Edit

Last year, the payline was 20, so you could ask your PO if it looks like it will move up a couple of percentile points for FY14.

Sky said

February 14, 2014 @ 10:59 am · Edit

Is it a bad sign that I did not receive JIT request from GMO or PO before the council meeting? The status is council meeting complete, still no news….. should I be very concerned?

writedit said

February 14, 2014 @ 1:45 pm · Edit

Are you expecting an award? If so, not to worry – often JIT is requested after Council meets, and right now, all ICs are backed up in terms of award processing since they just received their appropriation a few weeks ago. If you are unsure about an award, then you should check with your PO about the status of your application.

Sky said

February 14, 2014 @ 6:12 pm · Edit

Thank you for your explanation!

TLe said

February 15, 2014 @ 12:38 am · Edit

Thanks for maintaining this feed. It is very useful. I wrote an R21 May13 received 12th percentile NIBIB resubmitted Nov13 and received 55th percentile… Is there any chance the first proposal is picked up for funding? What would be the best strategy at this stage? I would appreciate your feedback. Thanks!

writedit said

February 15, 2014 @ 2:12 am · Edit

Talk with your PO. The A0 is still eligible for funding, if your PO is excited about the work and wants it in his/her portfolio. You’ll probably have to wait until spring no matter what, but if your PO is behind you, and the payline gets to the 12th percentile, you could still get an award.

MMJay said

February 15, 2014 @ 1:44 am · Edit

I have a 26 impact score in A1 of my K22 application in Feb 2013 submission, reviewed in June 2013 and council review completed in Oct 2013. Sofar, I do not have any views about the funding situation and Program officer also could not suggest anything at this time point. Is there any opinions on my application.

writedit said

February 15, 2014 @ 2:15 am · Edit

You don’t mention the IC (though only a few accept K22 applications), but your PO has the best insight at this point, since he/she knows how the scores are spread and prior trends. That score is pretty high, though, so you will probably have to wait until after the current round of reviews are done and your IC has all the K22 scores in hand to make final decisions.

MMJay said

February 15, 2014 @ 3:16 am · Edit

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

writedit said

February 15, 2014 @ 9:04 am · Edit

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

Peter said

February 16, 2014 @ 7:45 pm · Edit

Does anyone know the NCI SBIR payline for last year?

whatsupdoc said

February 17, 2014 @ 8:31 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

February 17, 2014 @ 9:19 pm · Edit

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

SaG said

February 18, 2014 @ 8:18 am · Edit

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

whatsupdoc said

February 18, 2014 @ 7:29 pm · Edit

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

Thank you again for your advice!

writedit said

February 18, 2014 @ 8:15 pm · Edit

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

Scott said

February 19, 2014 @ 4:47 pm · Edit

NIDDK has posted its 2014 Award Funding Policy here:

http://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-funding/process/award-funding-policy/Pages/award-funding-policy.aspx

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

writedit said

February 19, 2014 @ 4:55 pm · Edit

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

Light said

February 23, 2014 @ 2:50 am · Edit

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

writedit said

February 23, 2014 @ 12:34 pm · Edit

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

Dave said

February 19, 2014 @ 7:42 pm · Edit

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

submarine said

February 21, 2014 @ 4:20 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

February 21, 2014 @ 5:12 pm · Edit

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

YoungBuck said

February 21, 2014 @ 10:31 am · Edit

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

DTJQ said

February 21, 2014 @ 11:50 am · Edit

Can I know your score?

writedit said

February 21, 2014 @ 12:26 pm · Edit

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

YoungBuck said

February 21, 2014 @ 12:35 pm · Edit

Thanks Writedit-

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

writedit said

February 21, 2014 @ 12:48 pm · Edit

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

DTJQ said

February 21, 2014 @ 1:03 pm · Edit

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

YoungBuck said

February 21, 2014 @ 1:54 pm · Edit

Thanks Writedit.

DTJQ: My percentile was erased….

DTJQ said

February 21, 2014 @ 2:41 pm · Edit

YoungBuck, thank you for the information. The PO told me once that the payline might be between 20 and 24.

Writedit, this is a really nice platform for us to discuss and get more updated information,Thanks.

writedit said

February 21, 2014 @ 2:42 pm · Edit

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

YoungBuck said

February 21, 2014 @ 3:59 pm · Edit

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

lacquerhed said

February 21, 2014 @ 10:49 am · Edit

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

writedit said

February 21, 2014 @ 12:16 pm · Edit

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

newPI_2 said

February 21, 2014 @ 11:14 am · Edit

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

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

writedit said

February 21, 2014 @ 12:13 pm · Edit

Here is the policy on lowering your K01 effort to 50% to accommodate support on other RPG activity codes: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-065.html You must be the PI on the award, which means you will need more than 10% effort. You would submit each R01 application with an appropriate effort level (depending on complexity of project & other personnel involved) – independent of each other (assume none of the others are funded), but not the K01. Presumably these would not all be under review at the same time (i.e., do not plan to submit 3 R01s in the same cycle), which means you would just not submit the subsequent A0 or an A1 once you learned that one or two of your three applications were going to be funded – or you would withdraw one prior to review, which would give you the opportunity to submit it as new later in your K01 period, when it could then replace your K01 effort.

BrianM said

February 21, 2014 @ 11:40 am · Edit

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

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

MCP said

February 21, 2014 @ 3:34 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

February 21, 2014 @ 3:46 pm · Edit

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

MCP said

February 21, 2014 @ 4:07 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

February 21, 2014 @ 4:13 pm · Edit

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

MCP said

February 21, 2014 @ 6:14 pm · Edit

Thanks Writedit!

Airmonkey84 said

February 21, 2014 @ 6:04 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

February 21, 2014 @ 11:53 pm · Edit

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

tcgal said

February 21, 2014 @ 6:43 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

February 21, 2014 @ 11:47 pm · Edit

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

stellar said

February 22, 2014 @ 4:14 pm · Edit

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

stellar said

February 22, 2014 @ 9:23 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

February 23, 2014 @ 12:26 pm · Edit

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

Light said

February 23, 2014 @ 3:16 am · Edit

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

MCP said

February 23, 2014 @ 2:05 pm · Edit

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

Morrissey said

March 4, 2014 @ 9:34 pm · Edit

MCP, what fiscal year were these 22% grants funded in? 1999? or more recently? thanks, and congrats.

writedit said

March 5, 2014 @ 12:52 am · Edit

If you look at the NCI funding trends data, you will see FY13 applications were paid out to the 24th percentile as well as the 29th and 32nd for a couple of hand-picked awards (https://gsspubssl.nci.nih.gov/blog/articles?funding_patterns/2013).

Stellar said

February 23, 2014 @ 4:15 pm · Edit

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

Pre-award question said

February 25, 2014 @ 12:50 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

February 25, 2014 @ 3:07 pm · Edit

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

Michael Kearse said

February 25, 2014 @ 5:11 pm · Edit

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

With much gratitude,

Mike K.

writedit said

February 25, 2014 @ 5:24 pm · Edit

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

Michael Kearse said

March 3, 2014 @ 11:29 am · Edit

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

Best of luck to all!

writedit said

March 3, 2014 @ 11:38 am · Edit

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

Light said

February 26, 2014 @ 10:40 am · Edit

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

writedit said

February 26, 2014 @ 10:43 am · Edit

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

MKG said

February 26, 2014 @ 6:50 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

February 26, 2014 @ 7:25 pm · Edit

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

MKG said

February 27, 2014 @ 2:58 pm · Edit

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

SoftMoneyProf said

February 27, 2014 @ 6:00 pm · Edit

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

Thanks for maintaining this great resource!

writedit said

February 27, 2014 @ 6:32 pm · Edit

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

SoftMoneyProf said

February 27, 2014 @ 8:44 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

February 27, 2014 @ 8:53 pm · Edit

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

m809 said

March 1, 2014 @ 1:15 am · Edit

Anyone one what the FY14 R15 payline is for NCI?

Young Buck said

March 1, 2014 @ 9:56 am · Edit

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

Here is the timeline for others.

12/19/2013 Council review completed. (though Council was listed as 01/27/2014 )

11/06/2013 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.

07/03/2013 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.

06/25/2013 Application entered into system

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

Wondering said

March 1, 2014 @ 5:04 pm · Edit

Congratulations!

writedit said

March 2, 2014 @ 1:18 pm · Edit

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

Wondering said

March 1, 2014 @ 4:23 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 2, 2014 @ 1:36 pm · Edit

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

Wondering said

March 2, 2014 @ 3:22 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 2, 2014 @ 3:30 pm · Edit

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

Wondering said

March 2, 2014 @ 3:33 pm · Edit

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

Wondering said

June 27, 2014 @ 3:50 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

June 27, 2014 @ 4:02 pm · Edit

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

Wondering said

June 27, 2014 @ 9:40 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

June 27, 2014 @ 10:59 pm · Edit

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

Wondering said

July 19, 2014 @ 9:31 am · Edit

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

writedit said

July 19, 2014 @ 11:08 am · Edit

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

Wondering said

July 19, 2014 @ 1:26 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

July 19, 2014 @ 1:51 pm · Edit

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

Psyance said

March 2, 2014 @ 1:58 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 2, 2014 @ 2:12 pm · Edit

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

nPI said

March 2, 2014 @ 3:33 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 2, 2014 @ 3:49 pm · Edit

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

Wondering said

March 3, 2014 @ 2:23 pm · Edit

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

Wondering said

June 27, 2014 @ 3:50 pm · Edit

They gave us a 39 on the A1. Hmm.

Wondering said

June 27, 2014 @ 4:06 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

June 27, 2014 @ 4:13 pm · Edit

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

Wondering said

July 21, 2014 @ 8:24 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

July 21, 2014 @ 9:55 pm · Edit

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

Wondering said

July 22, 2014 @ 6:43 am · Edit

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

transfer said

March 1, 2014 @ 8:11 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 2, 2014 @ 1:42 pm · Edit

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

transfer said

March 4, 2014 @ 12:23 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 4, 2014 @ 3:17 pm · Edit

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

Sami said

March 2, 2014 @ 3:01 am · Edit

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

writedit said

March 2, 2014 @ 1:45 pm · Edit

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

Sami said

March 17, 2014 @ 2:37 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 17, 2014 @ 3:06 pm · Edit

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

k99er said

March 3, 2014 @ 3:08 am · Edit

Thanks for this amazing resource!

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

Cheers!

BrianM said

March 3, 2014 @ 9:42 am · Edit

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

writedit said

March 3, 2014 @ 9:52 am · Edit

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

SB said

March 3, 2014 @ 11:58 am · Edit

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

writedit said

March 3, 2014 @ 12:32 pm · Edit

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

Bucos said

March 3, 2014 @ 12:33 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 3, 2014 @ 12:55 pm · Edit

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

Bucos said

March 3, 2014 @ 1:45 pm · Edit

Thanks

Morrissey said

March 4, 2014 @ 12:28 am · Edit

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

like NIDDK experienced?

http://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-funding/process/award-funding-policy/Pages/award-funding-policy.aspx

http://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-funding/process/award-funding-policy/2013-award-funding-policy/Pages/2013-award-funding-policy.aspx

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

writedit said

March 4, 2014 @ 12:48 am · Edit

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

Alex said

March 5, 2014 @ 4:13 pm · Edit

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

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

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

Here’s the FY2013 data that the NCI gives:

New + ESI: 1192 applications, 146 funded = 12.2% success rate

ESI only: 506 applications, 92 funded = 18.2% success rate

what the NCI doesn’t tell you:

New (not ESI): 686 applications, 54 funded = 7.9% success rate

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

writedit said

March 5, 2014 @ 4:42 pm · Edit

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

tcgal said

March 5, 2014 @ 5:07 pm · Edit

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

bunchofqs said

March 6, 2014 @ 2:29 pm · Edit

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

Morrissey said

March 6, 2014 @ 3:16 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 6, 2014 @ 3:43 pm · Edit

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

bunchofqs said

March 6, 2014 @ 5:01 pm · Edit

Sorry. I meant regular Feb cycle in 2014.

DTJQ said

March 6, 2014 @ 4:34 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 6, 2014 @ 5:43 pm · Edit

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

DTJQ said

March 6, 2014 @ 5:58 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 6, 2014 @ 6:10 pm · Edit

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

ziza81 said

March 7, 2014 @ 2:14 am · Edit

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

writedit said

March 7, 2014 @ 2:27 am · Edit

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

ziza81 said

March 7, 2014 @ 2:31 am · Edit

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

Teddy said

March 7, 2014 @ 6:07 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 7, 2014 @ 6:29 pm · Edit

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

Teddy said

March 7, 2014 @ 6:36 pm · Edit

Thanks a lot!

What have been the paylines in the past years for NIDDK SBIR?

writedit said

March 7, 2014 @ 6:46 pm · Edit

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

Feri said

March 10, 2014 @ 5:08 am · Edit

Hi!

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

LIZR said

March 10, 2014 @ 10:42 am · Edit

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

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

writedit said

March 10, 2014 @ 10:57 am · Edit

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

tcgal said

March 10, 2014 @ 10:46 am · Edit

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

writedit said

March 10, 2014 @ 11:13 am · Edit

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

Feri said

March 10, 2014 @ 12:40 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 10, 2014 @ 1:01 pm · Edit

Sounds good – and good luck.

Feri said

March 25, 2014 @ 6:39 pm · Edit

Dear Writedit,

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

writedit said

March 26, 2014 @ 12:16 am · Edit

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

Feri said

March 26, 2014 @ 6:49 am · Edit

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

BKD said

March 10, 2014 @ 10:45 am · Edit

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

Kudos for your excellent forum!

writedit said

March 10, 2014 @ 10:54 am · Edit

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

BKD said

March 10, 2014 @ 11:41 am · Edit

Thanks for the additional suggestions. Fingers crossed.

DTJQ said

March 10, 2014 @ 1:19 pm · Edit

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

DTJQ said

March 10, 2014 @ 1:22 pm · Edit

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

BKD said

March 10, 2014 @ 2:02 pm · Edit

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

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

Good luck

DTJQ said

March 10, 2014 @ 2:25 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 10, 2014 @ 2:38 pm · Edit

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

DTJQ said

March 10, 2014 @ 2:56 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 10, 2014 @ 3:05 pm · Edit

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

NL said

March 10, 2014 @ 3:40 pm · Edit

writedit,

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

writedit said

March 10, 2014 @ 3:46 pm · Edit

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

grad_student said

March 10, 2014 @ 3:48 pm · Edit

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

overeasy said

March 10, 2014 @ 4:59 pm · Edit

Hello, I have a couple timeline questions

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

Thank you!

writedit said

March 10, 2014 @ 5:11 pm · Edit

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

overeasy said

March 14, 2014 @ 2:57 pm · Edit

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

Thank you!

writedit said

March 15, 2014 @ 10:42 am · Edit

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

Morrissey said

March 10, 2014 @ 8:46 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 10, 2014 @ 10:11 pm · Edit

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

SD said

March 11, 2014 @ 1:01 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 11, 2014 @ 1:22 pm · Edit

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

SG said

March 11, 2014 @ 2:36 pm · Edit

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

MCP said

March 11, 2014 @ 3:05 pm · Edit

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

SG said

March 11, 2014 @ 3:14 pm · Edit

Cautiously…

writedit said

March 11, 2014 @ 5:06 pm · Edit

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

MCP said

March 11, 2014 @ 5:40 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 11, 2014 @ 5:45 pm · Edit

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

MCP said

May 6, 2014 @ 12:58 pm · Edit

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

Thanks writedit for this wonderful blog!

writedit said

May 6, 2014 @ 2:34 pm · Edit

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

MCP said

March 11, 2014 @ 5:54 pm · Edit

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

Kelly Carpenter said

March 12, 2014 @ 11:58 am · Edit

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

writedit said

March 12, 2014 @ 12:08 pm · Edit

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

Michael said

March 12, 2014 @ 1:13 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 12, 2014 @ 5:23 pm · Edit

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

LNS said

March 12, 2014 @ 4:07 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 12, 2014 @ 5:28 pm · Edit

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

Al said

March 17, 2014 @ 2:53 pm · Edit

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

LNS said

March 24, 2014 @ 5:32 pm · Edit

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

Al said

March 27, 2014 @ 1:10 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 27, 2014 @ 2:46 pm · Edit

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

DTJQ said

March 13, 2014 @ 2:24 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 13, 2014 @ 3:15 pm · Edit

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

DTJQ said

March 19, 2014 @ 11:11 am · Edit

The official Notice of Award comes today. Thanks.

writedit said

March 19, 2014 @ 11:28 am · Edit

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

DTJQ said

March 19, 2014 @ 1:21 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 19, 2014 @ 1:49 pm · Edit

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

Alex said

March 13, 2014 @ 11:07 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 13, 2014 @ 11:34 pm · Edit

If you look at the funding patterns data, realizing there was a 9th percentile payline, you can see how often this happens (https://gsspubssl.nci.nih.gov/blog/articles?funding_patterns/2013). They do not review all the applications in the gray zone but only those put forward by POs (which happens after discussion at the Division level as well). If your PO has asked for a rebuttal to the summary statement and has indicated he/she will advocate for you, at least you are in contention at the SPL level. Now, I don’t know how many gray zone applications they consider or what percentage of these are tapped for funding. The SPLs do ask questions and discuss – no rubber stamp – so having an enthusiastic PO who will persuasively make your case is key.

CancerDx said

March 16, 2014 @ 11:09 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 16, 2014 @ 11:35 pm · Edit

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

CancerDx said

March 16, 2014 @ 11:55 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 16, 2014 @ 11:59 pm · Edit

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

Sami said

March 17, 2014 @ 3:11 pm · Edit

Thank you so much for the prompt reply!

talacikong said

March 17, 2014 @ 9:44 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 17, 2014 @ 9:54 pm · Edit

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

Skyline said

March 19, 2014 @ 10:27 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 20, 2014 @ 10:10 am · Edit

While there are no data on scoring changes from A0 to A1, you can look at the success rate of A0 vs A1 applications. Here are the data for new (Type 1) submissions: http://report.nih.gov/DisplayRePORT.aspx?rid=573 In FY13 (first with no A2s), 3,144 A0 R01s were funded (9.3% success rate) and 3,345 A1s were funded (31.5% success rate). Whether you should resubmit or repackage depends on what the concerns were. If the reviewers thought the problem was important and you were on the right track with the science but had some design issues, these are fixable and could drop the score into funding range. If there were any concerns about the significance, you probably want to repackage. If there weren’t any major methods issues raised, then ask the PO if anything during the discussion pointed to whether the reviewers just weren’t excited or a better application might win them over. Also, if you’ve published since the A1 went in, that bodes well for an A1. There is really no one generic answer for this, and only persons familiar with your research, grant application, and summary statement can offer useful insight specific to your situation. Now, while the A0 score remains active even after the A1 is submitted and scored, if the A0 score was borderline in FY13, it probably won’t be awarded in FY14 (though this is feasible administratively). But, if the A1 is also borderline and the PO likes the project, he/she could advocate for select pay, which is easier with the A1 (they can point to the A0 also being close but passed over). Without knowning more, my advice would probably be to resubmit and at the same time be developing a new R01 on a different question (you should always have more than one distinct project in the hopper – not just wait to sequentially revise/repackage the same story).

DA said

March 20, 2014 @ 4:03 pm · Edit

In the new Direct Phase II SBIR announcement, there are special rules for NINDS. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-14-088.html

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

writedit said

March 20, 2014 @ 6:01 pm · Edit

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

DA said

March 20, 2014 @ 4:16 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 20, 2014 @ 5:59 pm · Edit

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

Lizzie said

March 21, 2014 @ 5:45 pm · Edit

Hi,

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

writedit said

March 22, 2014 @ 12:34 am · Edit

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

Jerry said

March 22, 2014 @ 6:39 am · Edit

dear

Dear Writedit:

Where could we get a an F32 sample application?

writedit said

March 22, 2014 @ 9:34 am · Edit

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

BT1507 said

March 24, 2014 @ 10:58 am · Edit

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

wtg said

March 22, 2014 @ 8:51 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 23, 2014 @ 9:24 am · Edit

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

wtg said

March 24, 2014 @ 7:20 pm · Edit

Thanks very much for your feedbacks. Fingers crossed!

fisher said

March 23, 2014 @ 10:34 am · Edit

Hi writedit,

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

writedit said

March 23, 2014 @ 10:43 am · Edit

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

fisher said

March 23, 2014 @ 10:46 am · Edit

Thanks, writedit. I will contact my PO again.

workinghard said

March 23, 2014 @ 11:11 am · Edit

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

writedit said

March 23, 2014 @ 11:39 am · Edit

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

workinghard said

March 23, 2014 @ 11:59 am · Edit

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

SB said

March 23, 2014 @ 2:34 pm · Edit

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

WaitingAndWaiting said

March 24, 2014 @ 7:14 pm · Edit

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

workinghard said

March 24, 2014 @ 7:30 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 24, 2014 @ 8:39 pm · Edit

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

SB said

March 25, 2014 @ 10:24 am · Edit

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

workinghard said

March 28, 2014 @ 9:18 pm · Edit

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

SB said

April 1, 2014 @ 4:06 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

April 1, 2014 @ 4:12 pm · Edit

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

workinghard said

April 3, 2014 @ 10:47 pm · Edit

Congrats SB, really great news!!

PR said

March 23, 2014 @ 1:13 pm · Edit

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

Any response will be highly appreciated.

Thanks

writedit said

March 23, 2014 @ 1:18 pm · Edit

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

sugar science said

March 24, 2014 @ 10:29 am · Edit

Hi Writedit & others –

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

writedit said

March 24, 2014 @ 10:39 am · Edit

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

sugar science said

March 24, 2014 @ 11:01 am · Edit

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

amiswill said

March 24, 2014 @ 11:37 am · Edit

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

writedit said

March 24, 2014 @ 12:26 pm · Edit

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

amiswill said

March 25, 2014 @ 11:19 am · Edit

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

writedit said

March 25, 2014 @ 11:31 am · Edit

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

SD said

March 24, 2014 @ 1:41 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 24, 2014 @ 2:28 pm · Edit

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

workinghard said

March 24, 2014 @ 2:20 pm · Edit

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

workinghard said

March 24, 2014 @ 2:21 pm · Edit

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

SB said

March 24, 2014 @ 3:19 pm · Edit

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

NL said

March 24, 2014 @ 6:10 pm · Edit

Writedit,

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

writedit said

March 24, 2014 @ 8:36 pm · Edit

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

peace said

March 25, 2014 @ 1:06 pm · Edit

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

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

writedit said

March 25, 2014 @ 2:02 pm · Edit

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

peace said

March 25, 2014 @ 2:57 pm · Edit

Thanks for your kind reply!

nervousnelly said

March 25, 2014 @ 2:13 pm · Edit

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

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

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

Any advice would be much appreciated.

writedit said

March 25, 2014 @ 3:41 pm · Edit

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

tcgal said

March 25, 2014 @ 4:37 pm · Edit

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

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

workinghard said

March 25, 2014 @ 6:32 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 26, 2014 @ 12:22 am · Edit

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

Quynh said

March 25, 2014 @ 4:03 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 26, 2014 @ 12:08 am · Edit

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

laghs said

March 26, 2014 @ 2:13 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 26, 2014 @ 2:27 pm · Edit

You should not have an issue carrying over for one year, but saving it to carry over for a second year (or longer) could be a problem. You might want to discuss with your PO what is feasible for the long-term, so you can plan accordingly – you don’t need to worry that talking with your PO about this might result in the award being cut etc. (NIH policy on NCE: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2013/nihgps_ch8.htm#_Toc271264927)

Curios said

March 27, 2014 @ 1:13 pm · Edit

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

kalr said

March 28, 2014 @ 12:20 pm · Edit

Hi — appreciate the help/insights you provide on this page.

I’m an ESI and have an R01 assigned to NHLBI scored at the 16th percentile. An “administrative” response to the summary statement was requested and I submitted this soon after because my score is 6-10 above the regular 10th percentile payline.

Although no formal response has come the program officer has told me “so far so good” as for how things look for getting it funded.

Do I have any cause for ongoing concern or should I feel pretty good about how things look? I’ve learned to not count any chickens in this business, so continue to have some skepticism about how things will turn out and the nature of the programmatic review for ESIs 6-10 above the payline at NHLBI seems a bit enigmatic.

Thanks!

writedit said

March 28, 2014 @ 12:36 pm · Edit

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

2Laroc said

March 28, 2014 @ 7:13 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

March 28, 2014 @ 9:06 pm · Edit

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

SG said

March 29, 2014 @ 9:58 am · Edit

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

2Laroc said

March 29, 2014 @ 12:29 am · Edit

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

LIZR said

March 29, 2014 @ 10:41 am · Edit

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

Physician Scientist said

April 14, 2014 @ 11:29 am · Edit

This happened to one of my grants and was detailed on drug monkey’s blog:

http://drugmonkey.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/letter-from-a-reader-foia-requests-for-funded-r01s/

Pine_smile said

April 1, 2014 @ 3:26 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

April 1, 2014 @ 4:23 pm · Edit

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

Pine_smile said

April 1, 2014 @ 6:35 pm · Edit

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

Pine_smile said

April 8, 2014 @ 7:10 pm · Edit

Status changed to “Council review completed” today…

writedit said

April 8, 2014 @ 10:21 pm · Edit

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

Pine_smile said

April 9, 2014 @ 5:49 pm · Edit

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

Pine_smile said

April 10, 2014 @ 1:47 pm · Edit

Received the response from my PO:

Hi XXX;

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

Best regards, Clayton

writedit said

April 10, 2014 @ 2:04 pm · Edit

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

Pine_smile said

April 11, 2014 @ 2:36 pm · Edit

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

Pine_smile said

April 29, 2014 @ 11:54 am · Edit

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

writedit said

April 29, 2014 @ 11:57 am · Edit

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

Pine_smile said

April 29, 2014 @ 1:03 pm · Edit

Thanks, writedit!

Pine_smile said

April 30, 2014 @ 2:53 pm · Edit

Received JIT request today.

writedit said

April 30, 2014 @ 3:22 pm · Edit

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

Pine_smile said

May 27, 2014 @ 11:15 am · Edit

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

writedit said

May 27, 2014 @ 11:21 am · Edit

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

Pine_smile said

May 30, 2014 @ 11:56 am · Edit

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

writedit said

May 30, 2014 @ 12:04 pm · Edit

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

Steve Liang said

April 2, 2014 @ 2:53 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

April 2, 2014 @ 3:13 pm · Edit

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

Steve Liang said

April 2, 2014 @ 5:00 pm · Edit

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

PB said

April 5, 2014 @ 9:26 am · Edit

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

writedit said

April 5, 2014 @ 9:44 am · Edit

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

talacikong said

April 7, 2014 @ 1:59 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

April 7, 2014 @ 3:01 pm · Edit

They will be listed here when they are final: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/paybud/pages/paylines.aspx … your PO probably won’t know until just before they are released, so just keep watching the Website or sign up for an email alert when the paylines are updated.

zhgong said

April 7, 2014 @ 2:31 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

April 7, 2014 @ 2:59 pm · Edit

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

zhgong said

April 7, 2014 @ 4:44 pm · Edit

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

greenPI said

April 7, 2014 @ 5:16 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

April 7, 2014 @ 5:19 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

April 7, 2014 @ 5:21 pm · Edit

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

zhgong said

April 8, 2014 @ 10:02 am · Edit

I just worried. Thanks greenPI and Writedit.

SC said

April 7, 2014 @ 9:31 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

April 7, 2014 @ 11:26 pm · Edit

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

Dave said

April 9, 2014 @ 2:28 pm · Edit

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

NIDDK K01, A0 submitted 6/12/12; reviewed 12/13/12: impact score 30

Revised A1 submitted 7/12/13; reviewed 12/4/13: impact score 20

Council meeting: 2/5/14

JIT requested: 2/26/14

Status changed to “pending admin review”:3/13/14

Status changed to “award prepared”: 4/3/14

NOA: 4/9/14

Award start: 4/15/14

writedit said

April 9, 2014 @ 2:38 pm · Edit

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

Pine_smile said

April 9, 2014 @ 5:43 pm · Edit

Haha, got NOA today! Congratulations!

junegt said

April 12, 2014 @ 7:56 am · Edit

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

writedit said

April 12, 2014 @ 11:45 am · Edit

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

junegt said

April 12, 2014 @ 2:29 pm · Edit

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

k-applicant said

April 14, 2014 @ 7:22 pm · Edit

You mentioned for NIA the FY13 payline is a “priority score of 20 for Ks” — where can I find this information? I clicked on the link (http://www.nia.nih.gov/research/dea/nia-funding-policy-fy-2013) but couldn’t find the reference to this score range.

Thank you.

junegt said

April 14, 2014 @ 7:43 pm · Edit

Hi k-applicant， I actually found it in one of NIA blogs…(http://www.nia.nih.gov/research/blog/2013/12/nia-interim-payline-update)

k-applicant said

April 16, 2014 @ 12:09 am · Edit

thank you!

workinghard said

April 15, 2014 @ 8:39 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

April 15, 2014 @ 9:01 pm · Edit

Thanks for the heads up!

QT said

April 20, 2014 @ 2:34 pm · Edit

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

Quynh said

April 16, 2014 @ 11:44 am · Edit

yes, I’m happy with the update.

F32 Question said

April 17, 2014 @ 11:01 am · Edit

Hi writedit,

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

writedit said

April 17, 2014 @ 11:05 am · Edit

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

2Laroc said

April 17, 2014 @ 2:40 pm · Edit

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

2Laroc said

April 17, 2014 @ 2:51 pm · Edit

Dear Writedit,

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

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-14-074.html

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

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

writedit said

April 17, 2014 @ 3:18 pm · Edit

I added a post about this on the main blog this morning that would be the better place to discuss the new policy: https://writedit.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/nih-fairy-grants-your-wish-for-unlimited-a0s/

guisheng song said

April 21, 2014 @ 10:53 am · Edit

Dear Writedit

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

Today I received an email from my PO:

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

Best regards,

Would you please explain the meaning for this email?

Thank you very much for your help

Guisheng

Morrissey said

April 21, 2014 @ 12:02 pm · Edit

The ESI paylines often have a caveat like “for applications responsive to Summary Statements” or something to that effect. The PO basically wants remove any encumbrance to getting your funding through committee. this is a good sign.

Say you have read the comments and that you plan to re-budget X to Y and to use funds from start up to pay for Z instead of the RO1… show him/her that you’re cooperating. Congrats!

guisheng song said

April 21, 2014 @ 12:07 pm · Edit

Hi, Morrissey

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

Have a good day

Guisheng

writedit said

April 21, 2014 @ 5:43 pm · Edit

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

SGS said

April 22, 2014 @ 7:21 pm · Edit

Hi, there

Thank you so much for your kind and timely reply.

SGS

2Laroc said

April 21, 2014 @ 1:19 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

April 21, 2014 @ 6:00 pm · Edit

The NIH-wide fiscal policy for FY14 imposes up to a 3% cut (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-14-055.html), with ICs having the flexibility to decide how much (including more than 3%). This has been the case in prior years (e.g., FY11) when the NIH appropriation was flat (or reduced), which does not permit adjustment for inflation (needed to accommodate competing awards each year – if the money doesn’t come from Congress, it needs to come from current awardees). In FY12 (& some other prior years), any requested increase for inflation was eliminated (so essentially a cut).

2Laroc said

April 21, 2014 @ 7:08 pm · Edit

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

LNS said

April 23, 2014 @ 4:12 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

April 23, 2014 @ 10:19 pm · Edit

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

LNS said

April 24, 2014 @ 10:44 am · Edit

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

writedit said

April 24, 2014 @ 11:48 am · Edit

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

worry wart said

April 25, 2014 @ 2:49 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

April 25, 2014 @ 3:19 pm · Edit

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

Airmonkey84 said

April 25, 2014 @ 4:02 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

April 25, 2014 @ 5:20 pm · Edit

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

Stressful Life said

April 25, 2014 @ 9:14 pm · Edit

Dear writedit:

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

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

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

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

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

writedit said

April 26, 2014 @ 6:27 pm · Edit

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

Stressful Life said

April 26, 2014 @ 9:03 pm · Edit

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

Thank you again for maintaining this outstanding resource.

Stressful Life said

May 29, 2014 @ 12:04 pm · Edit

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

05/27/2014 Application awarded.

05/20/2014 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management

04/23/2014 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to

Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.

02/05/2014 Council review completed.

11/20/2013 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review

pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.

06/13/2013 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any

questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.

06/04/2013 Application entered into system

writedit said

May 29, 2014 @ 1:16 pm · Edit

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

Stellar said

April 25, 2014 @ 9:20 pm · Edit

Stressful life,

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

Thanks

Stressful Life said

April 25, 2014 @ 9:24 pm · Edit

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

workinghard said

April 26, 2014 @ 6:25 pm · Edit

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

Stressful Life said

April 26, 2014 @ 9:06 pm · Edit

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

comprenew said

April 27, 2014 @ 7:01 am · Edit

Dear writedit, thanks so much for putting together this amazing site, it is the most valuable resource I have found on the web.

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

writedit said

April 27, 2014 @ 7:32 am · Edit

You should check your Notice of Award. NCI caps renewals at 20% of the last year of the prior project period (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-CA-08-026.html), and other ICs may include restrictions in their award notices.

comprenew said

April 28, 2014 @ 6:03 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

April 28, 2014 @ 6:31 pm · Edit

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

2Laroc said

April 27, 2014 @ 12:04 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

April 27, 2014 @ 12:43 pm · Edit

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

Freedomtrail said

April 29, 2014 @ 7:06 am · Edit

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

writedit said

April 29, 2014 @ 7:20 am · Edit

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

Freedomtrail said

April 29, 2014 @ 7:27 am · Edit

Thanks for your insight.

SGS said

April 29, 2014 @ 1:38 pm · Edit

Hii, writedit

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

Best regards,

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

Thanks

SGS

writedit said

April 29, 2014 @ 4:12 pm · Edit

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

Jerry said

April 30, 2014 @ 7:48 am · Edit

Policy

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

writedit said

April 30, 2014 @ 7:50 am · Edit

Yes, I covered this on the main blog, https://writedit.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/nih-fairy-grants-your-wish-for-unlimited-a0s/

SGS said

May 1, 2014 @ 12:53 pm · Edit

Hi, writedit

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

Have a good day

sgs

Jerry said

April 30, 2014 @ 7:50 am · Edit

the payline will further go down

writedit said

April 30, 2014 @ 8:06 am · Edit

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

arghFunding said

April 30, 2014 @ 1:14 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

April 30, 2014 @ 1:39 pm · Edit

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

arghFunding said

April 30, 2014 @ 1:49 pm · Edit

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

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

writedit said

April 30, 2014 @ 1:56 pm · Edit

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

talaci said

May 2, 2014 @ 12:16 pm · Edit

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

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

writedit said

May 2, 2014 @ 12:22 pm · Edit

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

DA said

May 4, 2014 @ 12:56 pm · Edit

This may be a little off topic but just in case someone knows-

We have a small business that asked for a 27% F&A costs for a Phase I STTR application. In the final FFR, do we answer the section on indirect expenses? The NIH guideline says, only fill this section if you are required to. How does one find out if we are required to answer?

writedit said

May 4, 2014 @ 1:11 pm · Edit

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

DA said

May 4, 2014 @ 1:23 pm · Edit

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

K99anxiety said

May 5, 2014 @ 12:51 pm · Edit

Dear Writedit,

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

June 2013: Submitted A0

November 2013: Received impact score 20. PO said he was optimistic it would get funded, but that I should plan to resubmit just in case.

January 2014: Submitted A1 (special deadline because of new 4-year rule that went into place in Feb)

March 2014: Received impact score of 10 on A1 submission.

April 2014: Found out A0 will not be funded.

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

writedit said

May 5, 2014 @ 12:58 pm · Edit

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

K99anxiety said

May 5, 2014 @ 7:19 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

May 5, 2014 @ 7:25 pm · Edit

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

K99anxiety said

June 4, 2014 @ 2:04 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

June 4, 2014 @ 10:18 pm · Edit

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

K99anxiety said

June 26, 2014 @ 2:20 pm · Edit

Here is an update to my timeline (maybe more detail than people would want..)

June 5, 2014: Council meeting

June 24, 2014: JIT requested

June 25, 2014: Status changed in era commons to “pending”

June 26, 2014: Submitted JIT

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

Thanks!

writedit said

June 26, 2014 @ 2:37 pm · Edit

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

K99anxiety said

July 7, 2014 @ 7:15 pm · Edit

Final update..thanks again writedit for this blog and for the advice!

July 1, 2014: era commons status changed to Award Prepared

July 7, 2014: received NoA!

writedit said

July 7, 2014 @ 7:23 pm · Edit

Woohoo!

LNS said

May 6, 2014 @ 2:32 pm · Edit

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

Thank you so much!

writedit said

May 6, 2014 @ 2:51 pm · Edit

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

LNS said

May 6, 2014 @ 3:57 pm · Edit

Thanks so much for the quick and very helpful reply!

Richard said

May 6, 2014 @ 4:07 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

May 6, 2014 @ 4:28 pm · Edit

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

Richard said

May 6, 2014 @ 4:39 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

May 6, 2014 @ 4:45 pm · Edit

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

newbie said

May 7, 2014 @ 4:55 pm · Edit

Dear Writedit,

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

writedit said

May 7, 2014 @ 5:02 pm · Edit

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

jrresearcher said

May 8, 2014 @ 11:31 am · Edit

HI,

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

Many thanks!

writedit said

May 8, 2014 @ 1:41 pm · Edit

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

Julie said

May 9, 2014 @ 12:17 pm · Edit

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

Thank you!

writedit said

May 9, 2014 @ 2:50 pm · Edit

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

Julie said

May 9, 2014 @ 2:58 pm · Edit

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

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

writedit said

May 9, 2014 @ 3:15 pm · Edit

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

talaci said

May 9, 2014 @ 12:39 pm · Edit

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

Thank you very much for all your helpful comments!

writedit said

May 9, 2014 @ 2:49 pm · Edit

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

newbie said

May 14, 2014 @ 12:40 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

May 14, 2014 @ 12:50 pm · Edit

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

HopefulePI said

May 14, 2014 @ 1:24 pm · Edit

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

SGS said

May 14, 2014 @ 1:49 pm · Edit

Hi, HopefulPI

Did you receive JIT or not?

Thanks

SGS

HopefulePI said

May 14, 2014 @ 2:33 pm · Edit

Yes

writedit said

May 14, 2014 @ 2:41 pm · Edit

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

SGS said

May 14, 2014 @ 2:46 pm · Edit

Hi, Writeedit

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

Thanks

SGS

writedit said

May 14, 2014 @ 6:50 pm · Edit

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

Julie said

May 15, 2014 @ 9:55 am · Edit

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

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

12/09/13: Application Submitted (resubmission)

3/11/14: Scientific Review Group Meeting

4/21/14: Pending Admin Review

5/6/14: Council Mtg (although I don’t think they review F’s at the council, unsure)

5/9/14: eRA status changed to “Award Prepared: refer questions to GMS”

5/15/14: Notice of Award

Thank you again for this wonderful blog, and good luck to all.

Happy researching,

Julie 🙂

writedit said

May 15, 2014 @ 10:07 am · Edit

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

Richard said

May 15, 2014 @ 7:06 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

May 15, 2014 @ 11:42 pm · Edit

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

comprenew said

May 15, 2014 @ 9:30 pm · Edit

Hi writedit — another couple of questions re: a competitive renewal application.

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

(2) Does the title of a renewal R01 application have to stay the same as in the original one?

writedit said

May 15, 2014 @ 11:51 pm · Edit

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

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

comprenew said

May 16, 2014 @ 9:33 am · Edit

This is extremely helpful, writedit —- many thanks!

tcgal said

May 19, 2014 @ 9:54 am · Edit

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

writedit said

May 19, 2014 @ 12:13 pm · Edit

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

judy2014 said

May 20, 2014 @ 10:54 am · Edit

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

writedit said

May 20, 2014 @ 11:14 am · Edit

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

judy2014 said

May 20, 2014 @ 11:19 am · Edit

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

Emily said

May 21, 2014 @ 5:15 pm · Edit

Dear Writedit,

I enjoy reading your blod very much and want to thank you for these very helpful insights!

I recently received a KO8 from NIHLBI, and I was wondering if it is allowed to rebudget especially the salary portion, e.g. can I use that part of the fund to pay a technician, postdoc, or supply?

Thanks again and best regards..

writedit said

May 21, 2014 @ 10:42 pm · Edit

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

goggu said

May 21, 2014 @ 5:46 pm · Edit

Dear Writedit,

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

writedit said

May 21, 2014 @ 10:53 pm · Edit

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

goggu said

May 22, 2014 @ 12:54 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

May 22, 2014 @ 1:07 pm · Edit

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

jojik said

May 22, 2014 @ 2:58 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

May 22, 2014 @ 3:25 pm · Edit

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

jojik said

May 22, 2014 @ 5:12 pm · Edit

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

1. Are our impact scores normally distributed…?

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

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

(note : all they mentioned about my plans are about “more detailed explanations are needed”)..

writedit said

May 23, 2014 @ 12:32 pm · Edit

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

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

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

LNS said

May 23, 2014 @ 4:39 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

May 23, 2014 @ 10:36 pm · Edit

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

LNS said

May 27, 2014 @ 11:56 am · Edit

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

LNS said

June 20, 2014 @ 11:52 am · Edit

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

writedit said

June 20, 2014 @ 3:17 pm · Edit

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

LNS said

July 9, 2014 @ 4:51 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

July 9, 2014 @ 7:16 pm · Edit

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

Grantseeker said

May 27, 2014 @ 2:51 pm · Edit

Dear Writedit,

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

writedit said

May 27, 2014 @ 7:38 pm · Edit

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

New R1 Asst Prof said

May 30, 2014 @ 2:52 pm · Edit

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

1. R01 A0 submitted 11/13/13

2. Reviewed on 3/07/14

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

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

5. JIT request from GMS 5/19/14

6. NOA 5/29/14

7. Start Date 6/01/14

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

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

writedit said

May 30, 2014 @ 3:12 pm · Edit

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

JuniorPI said

May 31, 2014 @ 2:47 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

May 31, 2014 @ 3:08 pm · Edit

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

JuniorPI said

May 31, 2014 @ 3:17 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

May 31, 2014 @ 3:35 pm · Edit

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

Yiki said

June 1, 2014 @ 4:55 pm · Edit

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

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

What I want to know is:

1.- Is there an NCI “payline” for K01? (obviously not percentile). If so what is it or where can I find it?

2.- What question should I ask my PO or the other gentleman about my award? Are they allowed to tell me more or less what it means or are they assuming I am supposed to know something? If so…what? I couldn’t find anything that specific on the NIH K kiosk and pretty much says to contact them. I read a from many of the posters here and they seem to have talked at length with their PO so I am worried I did something wrong.

3.-My supposed start date is July 1st. How does that fit into these delays? If awarded will the date change? is it because of the shutdown back in November?

Any help will be welcome!

writedit said

June 1, 2014 @ 10:17 pm · Edit

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

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

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

Yiki said

July 12, 2014 @ 10:08 pm · Edit

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

10/23/2013Application entered into system

04/02/2014Scientific Review Group review completed

06/26/2014 Council review completed

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

writedit said

July 12, 2014 @ 11:31 pm · Edit

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

Yiki said

July 13, 2014 @ 9:30 am · Edit

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

Yiki said

July 20, 2014 @ 4:31 pm · Edit

Latest update:

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

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

writedit said

July 20, 2014 @ 6:03 pm · Edit

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

Emaderton3 said

June 4, 2014 @ 1:51 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

June 4, 2014 @ 10:24 pm · Edit

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

Emaderton3 said

June 5, 2014 @ 1:48 pm · Edit

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

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

writedit said

June 5, 2014 @ 2:13 pm · Edit

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

Emaderton3 said

June 5, 2014 @ 3:17 pm · Edit

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

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

writedit said

June 6, 2014 @ 11:15 pm · Edit

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

Emaderton3 said

June 7, 2014 @ 1:15 pm · Edit

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

Red said

June 6, 2014 @ 11:29 am · Edit

Dear Writedit:

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

Thanks!

writedit said

June 6, 2014 @ 6:11 pm · Edit

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

Psyance said

June 8, 2014 @ 9:49 am · Edit

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

writedit said

June 8, 2014 @ 4:00 pm · Edit

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

WCsoccer said

June 12, 2014 @ 1:29 pm · Edit

Hi,

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

writedit said

June 12, 2014 @ 1:39 pm · Edit

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

WCsoccer said

June 12, 2014 @ 2:03 pm · Edit

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

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

Thanks much.

writedit said

June 12, 2014 @ 2:30 pm · Edit

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

clueless noob said

June 9, 2014 @ 10:17 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

June 9, 2014 @ 10:24 pm · Edit

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

Heliotron said

June 9, 2014 @ 12:05 am · Edit

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

writedit said

June 9, 2014 @ 9:10 am · Edit

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

Morrissey said

June 9, 2014 @ 11:07 am · Edit

heliotrope,

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

thanks

Heliotron said

June 10, 2014 @ 10:17 am · Edit

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

SD said

June 9, 2014 @ 3:46 pm · Edit

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

06/09/2014Application awarded.

06/03/2014Award prepared.

03/28/2014Pending administrative review.

01/30/2014Council review completed.

11/06/2013Scientific Review Group review completed.

08/05/2013Application entered into system.

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

writedit said

June 9, 2014 @ 4:51 pm · Edit

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

SD said

June 9, 2014 @ 6:05 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

June 9, 2014 @ 6:10 pm · Edit

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

SD said

June 10, 2014 @ 12:57 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

June 10, 2014 @ 2:35 pm · Edit

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

SD said

June 11, 2014 @ 11:53 am · Edit

You are correct. He requested it after I asked.

Emaderton3 said

June 10, 2014 @ 10:39 am · Edit

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

writedit said

June 10, 2014 @ 11:05 am · Edit

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

LIZR said

June 10, 2014 @ 8:19 pm · Edit

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

Emaderton3 said

June 16, 2014 @ 3:38 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

June 16, 2014 @ 3:45 pm · Edit

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

Emaderton3 said

June 16, 2014 @ 5:38 pm · Edit

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

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

writedit said

June 16, 2014 @ 9:52 pm · Edit

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

Emaderton3 said

June 17, 2014 @ 11:11 am · Edit

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

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

I may check out that book!

writedit said

June 17, 2014 @ 11:36 am · Edit

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

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

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

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

Emaderton3 said

June 19, 2014 @ 12:44 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

June 19, 2014 @ 1:44 pm · Edit

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

Emaderton3 said

June 19, 2014 @ 1:50 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

June 19, 2014 @ 2:00 pm · Edit

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

whiteorblack said

June 15, 2014 @ 2:18 pm · Edit

I applied the NCI K99 last October.

I just got the notice from PO asking me to submit JIT. the PO said that there is very high likelihood that my application will be in the funding range, and they should know more in early July.

My questions are:

1. Does it mean that my application will surely be granted?

2. If I am granted K99, in order to receive the 100 K/per year, do I need to ask my PI to change my title to sth like “instructor” to remove the salary cap?

Thanks!

writedit said

June 15, 2014 @ 9:59 pm · Edit

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

whiteorblack said

June 16, 2014 @ 9:01 am · Edit

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

writedit said

June 16, 2014 @ 10:27 am · Edit

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

CancerDx said

July 8, 2014 @ 8:57 am · Edit

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

writedit said

July 8, 2014 @ 9:36 am · Edit

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

CancerDx said

July 9, 2014 @ 2:03 pm · Edit

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

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

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

Thanks for maintaining this great forum!

writedit said

July 9, 2014 @ 2:17 pm · Edit

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

CancerDx said

July 9, 2014 @ 2:51 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

July 9, 2014 @ 3:04 pm · Edit

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

sgs said

June 16, 2014 @ 10:51 am · Edit

Dear Writeedit

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

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

Best regards,

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

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

Thanks

sgs

writedit said

June 16, 2014 @ 11:12 am · Edit

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

sgs said

June 16, 2014 @ 11:51 am · Edit

Hi, Writedit

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

Have a good day

sgs

NINDSapplicant said

June 19, 2014 @ 1:04 pm · Edit

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

Timeline for NINDS K23 – A0

10/23/2013Application entered into system

10/31/2013Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.

02/26/2014Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.

Priority Score 26

I discussed with advisors who all thought it was a good score, but not great. Percentiles are not published by NINDS for Ks as far as I know

03/17/2014: Summary Statement Released — most of the issues seemed addressable so I contacted the PO about submitting a revision. The PO responded and was positive about the score and asked that I prepare a Response to Reviewers and send directly to the PO, which I did in about 2 weeks.

The JIT link opened at some point in this timeframe and an automated JIT request was sent out.

05/29/2014Council review completed.

05/30/2014Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist. — Although this the statement in the Status History, the Status that I see in my list of grant applications is simply “Pending”

06/09/2014 NINDS Training Office sent an email invitation to the K Award Training Seminar. When I asked, they explained that they could not legally tell me if the grant was awarded but for those who would be awarded they wanted to advise them early enough that they could make travel arrangements for October 2014.

06/10/2014 My institution received a K23 specific JIT request with form that was forwarded to me.

06/17/2014 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist (status on Status Result – List of Applications/Grants page is still “Pending”)

writedit said

June 19, 2014 @ 1:48 pm · Edit

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

Quynh T said

June 19, 2014 @ 3:49 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

June 19, 2014 @ 6:35 pm · Edit

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

JNJ said

June 20, 2014 @ 2:27 pm · Edit

Hi Writedit,

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

writedit said

June 20, 2014 @ 2:54 pm · Edit

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

JNJ said

June 20, 2014 @ 4:37 pm · Edit

Thank you Writedit. Very helpful.

Summer breeze said

June 20, 2014 @ 10:38 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

June 21, 2014 @ 12:05 pm · Edit

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

Skyline said

June 23, 2014 @ 11:16 am · Edit

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

writedit said

June 23, 2014 @ 11:22 am · Edit

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

Skyline said

June 23, 2014 @ 11:31 am · Edit

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

writedit said

June 23, 2014 @ 11:36 am · Edit

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

BigMac said

June 21, 2014 @ 5:40 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

June 22, 2014 @ 12:32 am · Edit

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

Matthew Macauley said

July 15, 2014 @ 1:39 am · Edit

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

-Advisory Council meeting 10/2014, which is the beginning of fiscal year 2015.

-My application is in FY2014, we have to wait to receive the budget for that fiscal year.

-decision for funding of K99 is late within the fiscal year after all K99 application are reviewed.

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

writedit said

July 15, 2014 @ 2:12 pm · Edit

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

Jackie said

June 27, 2014 @ 9:00 pm · Edit

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

New Player said

June 23, 2014 @ 12:14 pm · Edit

Hi,

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

Thanks again.

writedit said

June 23, 2014 @ 1:01 pm · Edit

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

New Player said

June 24, 2014 @ 10:31 am · Edit

Many thanks for great suggestions.

NEMO said

June 27, 2014 @ 10:12 am · Edit

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

Thank you!

writedit said

June 27, 2014 @ 11:04 am · Edit

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

jojik said

June 27, 2014 @ 4:42 pm · Edit

What if PO continues to ignore(?) my emails since I received the review statement in late April..?.

Can you please help me figure out what this signifies? On my 3rd email, I have listed some specific questions, yet no answer. (Before I submit, I had a chance for a phone conference with the PO which was helpful).

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

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

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

writedit said

June 27, 2014 @ 6:54 pm · Edit

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

Hoping said

June 27, 2014 @ 8:14 pm · Edit

Hi all,

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

Thanks much for any info.

And thanks for this wonderful site!

writedit said

June 27, 2014 @ 10:56 pm · Edit

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

Hoping said

June 28, 2014 @ 6:36 am · Edit

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

thanks for response

Stressful Life said

June 28, 2014 @ 8:15 pm · Edit

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

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

writedit said

June 28, 2014 @ 10:24 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

June 29, 2014 @ 10:17 am · Edit

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

cheers Michelle (writedit)

Charlene said

June 28, 2014 @ 9:11 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

June 29, 2014 @ 10:09 am · Edit

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

judy2014 said

July 1, 2014 @ 11:17 am · Edit

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

2013/2/12: 1st submission

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

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

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

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

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

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

2014/4/28: JIT request from PO

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

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

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

writedit said

July 1, 2014 @ 11:32 am · Edit

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

judy2014 said

July 1, 2014 @ 11:55 am · Edit

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

goggu said

July 3, 2014 @ 4:50 pm · Edit

Hello Writedit,

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

Thank you in advance.

writedit said

July 3, 2014 @ 5:19 pm · Edit

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

Waiting said

July 7, 2014 @ 5:24 pm · Edit

Hello Writedit,

Thank you for keeping this informative blog going!

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

Thanks,

Waiting

writedit said

July 7, 2014 @ 6:59 pm · Edit

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

Freedomtrail said

July 8, 2014 @ 8:16 am · Edit

Thanks!

curious said

July 9, 2014 @ 2:13 pm · Edit

Hi Writedit,

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

thanks!

writedit said

July 9, 2014 @ 2:20 pm · Edit

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

Feri said

July 9, 2014 @ 6:28 pm · Edit

Dear Writedit,

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

Thanks a million again for this wonderful blog and your extremely helpful advice!

writedit said

July 9, 2014 @ 7:26 pm · Edit

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

Feri said

July 11, 2014 @ 6:04 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

July 11, 2014 @ 6:07 pm · Edit

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

Feri said

July 11, 2014 @ 6:12 pm · Edit

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

New Player said

July 10, 2014 @ 4:54 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

July 10, 2014 @ 10:50 pm · Edit

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

New Player said

July 11, 2014 @ 1:30 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

July 11, 2014 @ 6:19 pm · Edit

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

Korey said

July 11, 2014 @ 3:47 pm · Edit

Hi Writedit,

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

writedit said

July 11, 2014 @ 6:04 pm · Edit

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

laghs said

July 11, 2014 @ 11:56 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

July 12, 2014 @ 12:08 am · Edit

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

Jane said

July 14, 2014 @ 12:49 am · Edit

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

laghs said

July 14, 2014 @ 11:11 am · Edit

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

writedit said

July 14, 2014 @ 6:05 pm · Edit

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

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

laghs said

July 15, 2014 @ 12:40 am · Edit

Thanks, writedit. Look forward to your new post.

Jane said

July 14, 2014 @ 11:37 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

July 15, 2014 @ 2:16 pm · Edit

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

SI said

July 16, 2014 @ 4:33 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

July 16, 2014 @ 4:52 pm · Edit

It depends on what type/cause of pain you are targeting (I assume you are not applying to the NIDA pain solicitation). If you search RePORTER (http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm) with terms appropriate to your agent and application, you should be able to find similar proposals, which will lead you to the ICs and POs who might be interested in your work. You might also see who is listed at the NIH Pain Consortium who might be appropriate (http://painconsortium.nih.gov/index.html). There’s also an Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (http://www.iprcc.nih.gov/index.htm). If nothing else, you can ask at the main NIH SBIR website (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/sbir.htm, there is a generic email at the bottom) for help in tracking down the right IC and PO.

Waiting22 said

July 17, 2014 @ 10:26 am · Edit

Hello writedit,

I applied for an F32 (start date July 1) and have received word from my PO that it falls within the Institute’s payline (NICHD). But so far no NOA. My PO sent a formal letter detailing my funding status, saying that they expect to be able to fund my award but “that the NIH budget has not yet been approved, and many government agencies are operating under a Continuing Resolution. The Institute is therefore limited in its ability to issue awards at this time. We expect to start processing your award when funds become available.”

I am quite anxious about it at this time because I will have to prepare to move and as it stands I do not have any idea when I should expect the NOA. Do you know of any other information that could help me gain a better sense of when this could be? Or when at the latest I would receive notice?

Thanks!

writedit said

July 17, 2014 @ 10:44 am · Edit

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

alsoWaiting22 said

July 17, 2014 @ 11:05 am · Edit

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

writedit said

July 17, 2014 @ 11:21 am · Edit

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

Waiting22 said

July 17, 2014 @ 11:23 am · Edit

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

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

writedit said

July 17, 2014 @ 11:32 am · Edit

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

Waiting22 said

July 17, 2014 @ 11:54 am · Edit

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

alsoWaiting22 said

July 17, 2014 @ 2:11 pm · Edit

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

July Sunday said

July 20, 2014 @ 2:01 pm · Edit

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

writedit said

July 20, 2014 @ 6:08 pm · Edit

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

OG said

July 20, 2014 @ 4:18 pm · Edit

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

Timeline:

Oct 12, 2013 – original deadline for submission – delayed due to government shutdown

Nov 12, 2013 – extended deadline for submission after government shutdown

Nov 12, 2013 – Application entered into system

Nov 15, 2013 – Scientific Review Group review pending.

Apr 3, 2014 – Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending.

Apr 7, 2014 – Impact Score appears in ERA commons

Jun 26, 2014 – Council review completed. (Last status change)

Jul 2, 2014 – PO emails to notify me that application was recommended for funding in FY2014

Jul 15, 2014 – Received letter of intent to commit funds

writedit said

July 20, 2014 @ 5:52 pm · Edit

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

Feri said

July 22, 2014 @ 7:06 am · Edit

Hi Writedit,

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

Thanks so much again for this extremely helpful blog, I have learned so much about this process and I am following your blog to learn more!

Very best,

Feri

writedit said

July 22, 2014 @ 10:02 am · Edit

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

Wondering said

July 19, 2014 @ 9:31 am · Edit

Wondering said

July 19, 2014 @ 1:26 pm · Edit

Hope said

July 24, 2014 @ 10:52 am · Edit

Writedit:

You mentioned that a score of 40ish is possible to bring down in the resubmission, while a score of 25-30 is more difficult. (One of my R15 applications proved the second part). I just got the score of a new R15 A0 that is 59 (!!!)…. do you think there’s hope to bring that down? I am in fact quite surprised because I have been scored much better for (significantly) worse proposals. Also, as R15 is not reviewed by the same people each time, do you think addressing the critiques will really help? Thank you!

writedit said

July 19, 2014 @ 11:08 am · Edit

writedit said

July 19, 2014 @ 1:51 pm · Edit

Wondering said

July 21, 2014 @ 8:24 pm · Edit

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

Wondering said

July 22, 2014 @ 6:43 am · Edit

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

writedit said

July 21, 2014 @ 9:55 pm · Edit

writedit said

July 24, 2014 @ 1:44 pm · Edit

Being scored at all puts you in the top half of applications, of course, so you should certainly try again with this project. The question is whether to resubmit as an A1 with an introduction or as a new A0. When you get your summary statement, you can ask your PO for insight as to how the discussion went and the major comments in the resume. It seems likely with a score of 59 that there were agreed upon concerns that you should be able to address in a straightforward manner and in doing so significantly improve the score. In that case, the A1 would be the better option. The problem comes when reviewers have different concerns or disagree whether a concern raised by one reviewer is valid, in which case you don’t know which way to go with the revision.

MJ said

July 26, 2014 @ 12:02 am · Edit

Congratulations on your K22. I am also in a similar situation but I did not get any Letter of intent to commit funds. Did you get LOI from Meininger Jennifer or Kramer Arina

Medical Writing, Editing & Grantsmanship