Archived Comments: NIH Paylines & Resources (2009)

Here are comments originally left at NIH Paylines & Resources in calendar year 2009.

Brad said
February 3, 2009 @ 11:13 pm ·
I just received a priority score of 137 for a NIMH K01 application (will begin July 2009 if awarded). Any idea what the payline might be or has been recently. Any help is appreciated.

Anita said
February 4, 2009 @ 6:24 pm
Hi
Anita again. My ERA page says “council review completed”. What does this mean? My score was 133 (NIA K01), but I did not recieve a JIT request. Was told in Dec that I would recieve it soon! Was also told by the program officer in Jan that the score was fundable. Can someone shed some light ?
Thanks

Valentina said
May 17, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
I have also received a JIT, council review completed, and award status is “Pending. Non-fellowship”. I am also having problems with the interpretation. Does somebody know the meaning of this? Thank you.

Diadia Vanya said
February 7, 2009 @ 12:18 am
Seems like some of us should’ve heard already what are the paylines for other Institutes – i.e. the ones that keep this info ‘private’. I suspect these paylines are way (way!) below 10% as well as the last year’s level in general…

Well, the mum ICs tend to avoid strict numeric thresholds so they have less ‘splaining to do when they don’t always pick the best-scoring applications for funding. Program likes to have the flexibility to fund their priorities rather than be payline slaves. I suggest folks use the published paylines as guidelines and then assume they have a fighting chance if they are above – but not too far above – in an IC that opts not to set strict percentile/score cut-offs. On a positive note, the stimulus package could well result in a lot of on-the-bubble applications being funded. – writedit

Diadia Vanya said
February 8, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
I dare say that ‘funding their priorities’ may mean many things. Not all of them nice.

When things get tough, it’s not a ticket that gets you on a train. It’s more like being a good friend with the engineer and the conductor that matters the most.

Anita said
February 9, 2009 @ 12:51 am
I am also amazed at the lack of transparency in some of the institutes of NIH. Some will not even give a time line for decision making, leave alone talk of payline, or funding possibility.

writedit said
February 9, 2009 @ 1:09 pm
Wow. I just heard the payline for Ks seems to be at 130 throughout the NIH. This is without taking stimulus funding into consideration. Funding scored K applications up to 140 would be a quick way to distrbute a lot of money to worthy recipients who will need to submit separate R01s to maintain their funding (i.e., NIH not on the hook to renew $10 billion in awards in 3-5 years with money they don’t have). But of course, that probably makes too much sense.

Diadia Vanya said
February 11, 2009 @ 12:35 am
The lower the paylines, the more chances are that the actual funding (money-dolling) decisions will be made in the ‘smoke-filled rooms’ rather than in the open.
Which will make the already low paylines even lower (for the rest of us).

Diadia Vanya said
February 12, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
What about NIH Director’s Bridge Award ? Does anyone know whether these will be available FY09 – or have they been ‘phased out’?

writedit said
February 12, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
The R56 mechanism isn’t specific or limited to the Director’s office, and I would speculate that a good chunk of stimulus funding will be paid out via this means, at least among the ICs that use this mechanism. NIAID provides a little tutorial on the ways that ICs use the R56 mechanism (bridge funding & high-priority short-term projects/selective pay – ie, just missed the payline).

ques said
February 15, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
Will K01 grants submitted to NCI follow the NCI cutoff or will they follow the cutoff for the assigned institute that evaluated the grant (i.e NHLBI)? The K award cutoffs seem highly variable between institutes so i dont think assuming a cutoff for one institute will be the same as another. I can’t find any information anywhere on K01 cutoffs for NCI. The program director will not give any information until the budget is passed and the council meets in may-june. Is it worth finding out what previous year funding cutoffs was as an estimate?

Whose payline takes precedence depends on the letters in your assigned grant number: if it includes “CA”, then the NCI payline applies; if it includes “HL”, then NHLBI applies. I assume the latter if an NHLBI study section reviewed the application; the IC study sections review applications specific to that IC. NCI might also be involved if your summary statement shows dual assignment (look on the right side of the first page just above the horizontal line in the middle – if you see an item called “Dual ICs:” with another set of letters, such as CA, one or more additional institutes are willing to chip in $). – writedit

ques said
February 16, 2009 @ 11:58 am
thank you for your response, it looks like i have CA in my grant number so the score (150) will follow NCI cutoffs, of which i still can’t find any information on. I did find however, on last year’s summary statement, the Dual IC was listed as “HL” and the Dual PCC was “BB N”. It looks like the NCI-I subcommittee I on career development actually reviewed the application. Because my topic was on hematologic malignancies, is this why NHLBI was included and does this mean this institue will partially fund the grant? The program director indicated that cut offs for these proposals (CMBB) were below 160 or so in previous years, but with budget constraints, i think i will have to wait until the budget allocations are made.

sahsaj said
February 19, 2009 @ 1:09 pm
Any updates on NIA paylines for their RO1s reviewed in Feb 2009?

Nothing explicit, but a look at the FY08 data may help. Or not. According to the NIA Director’s report in Feb 2009, “NIA awarded 1,528 research project grants, including 391 competing awards.” [20.3% success rate] NIA anticipates making 432 competing awards in FY09. “Competing awards” includes new and renewal applications as well as supplements. Now, in FY08, 208 “percentiled” (ie, does not include applications in response to an RFA or supplements) applications scored within the 0-10.0 percentile range, with another 209 scoring within the 10.1-20.0 percentile range. So, probably still in the 14-15th percentile for established investigators and 19-20th percentile for new investigators. Educated guess – nothing more. – writedit

sahsaj said
February 20, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
Thanks much for your prompt response.

Bill said
March 6, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
Just saw the current paylines from NIHLBL rose up to 15/20 (R01/new). It was 12/17 percentile weeks ago. I wonder if other ICs would do the same thing to pull up paylines for regular R01s.

S Hyder said
March 8, 2009 @ 12:49 am
Has anyone received a JIT from NCI in response to stimulus funds for grants reviewed in 2008?

Brardius said
March 11, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
Now that congress has passed H.R.1105, what are the chances that the NCI will increase its paylines. If it does, will it apply to February 2009 submissions?

I’ll go back to check paylines next week, though for this particular spring-summer cycle, the paylines for short R01s and R21s could “unofficially” go up to the 25th percentile (and higher priority scores) for a lot of ICs due to stimulus funding. I don’t expect a lot of definitive statements on their plans, though, and it could be no one will take the time to update their financial strategy pages since so much is in flux and they have their hands full with ARRA work. We’ll see.

Regardless, applications submitted since January 2009 will be paid out of the 2010 budget, which has yet to materialize but starts, in theory, on October 1, 2009. The exception, of course, are applications submitted in response to stimulus FOAs or any rapid-turnaround RFA that lists a start date of September 30, 2009 or earlier. – writedit

brardius said
March 12, 2009 @ 7:37 am
Thank you for your answer. I’m also curious about October/November 2008 submissions reviewed in February (under the CR). Might these also benefit from the passing of HR 1105 in the form of increased paylines at the NCI?

Yes, and even more so, from ARRA. It seems likely that the regular appropriation will pick up applications scoring within the current payline (which will probably go up a smidge), while ARRA funding could pick up reviewed/scored applications in the 15-25th percentile for established investigators, up to the 25-30th percentile for new investigators, and up to the 25-35th percentile for early stage investigators (ESI). R01s to be considered in this range would need to be feasibly reworked into 2-year projects. – writedit

whimple said
March 12, 2009 @ 8:34 am
Does getting 2-year ARRA R01 funding kill new investigator / ESI status?

Yes. The NIH is suggesting new/early stage investigators not apply for Challenge Grants for just this reason. These awards are just 2 years and not renewable, so this is good advice (similar to that urging these folks not to put their time into R21s). Except, given the level of competition, I suspect any new/ESI applicant who could secure $1M from the Challenge Grant program is already quite competitive and will probably do okay without the payline break/ESI award quota break. Applying doesn’t revoke the special status – just securing an award. – writedit

whimple said
March 12, 2009 @ 10:26 am
I wasn’t talking about the challenge grants. I mean the 2-year R56esque pickups of previously scored, but unfunded R01s. Do you want to take the guaranteed 2-year R01 pickup, or take your close but no cigar grant back for resubmission to try to get 5 years on it? (not that I’m in this position, but others might be interested and I haven’t formally heard an answer to this yet)

Doh! You even said that above. Too few firing neurons here. No, per the official NIH definition, receiving an R56, which is bestowed like manna from heaven, does not revoke new investigator status. However, I am gleaning that the NIH would prefer to fund new/ESI applicants for the full 4-5 requested years rather than just 2 years in these stimulus pick-ups. For example, NIAID will be “Awarding new and early-stage investigators a four- or five-year grant according to our FY 2009 funding policy.” I’ve seen similar comments elsewhere. I assume the ICs hope to use stimuls funding to make more FY09 appropriation funding available for these new-ESI applications … but that’s my best guess. In any case, no, the R56 does not kill new-ESI status, but it seems the NIH does not plan to use R56 or other stimulus-truncated 2-y R01 funding for new-ESI folks either. – writedit

whimple said
March 12, 2009 @ 11:17 am
Actually, if everyone else takes the 2-year cash for their R01 instead of resubmitting a 5-year proposal, this might be the perfect time to get those 5-year proposals put in there. That way your grant, complete with ESI status payline bonus, sails into easy funding in FY2010 and you and your remaining 4 years of support are laughing at all the chumps trying to keep the boat upright in the (predicted to be) very choppy waters of FY2011.

I just can’t imagine anyone being nervy enough to tell their PO “no thanks, I’m trying for bigger fish” on a 2-year R01 bailout.

Yes, this was the “golden year of opportunity” concept I was getting at in my comment about new investigator-ESI strategy under the Challenge Grant posting. – writedit

sahsaj said
March 13, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
Once we get percentiles on RO1s and requests for JIT, do we get any communications until the council meets? And after council meets, do the POs get in touch with us or we just get an award notice? Thanks.

Assuming your JIT was complete and satisfactory, nothing official until the Notice of Award (NoA) is sent to your sponsored programs office, but your PO will be able to let you know sooner if/when Council acts on your application. – writedit

Fred said
March 14, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
My PO emailed me today that the NCI new investigator payline is now 22%

Wow – that’s great news. Thanks for sharing this tidbit, Fred! – writedit

Bill said
March 15, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
Fred,
Thanks for sharing this great news. The NCI payline posted above is for new investigator, or ESI? As a new investigator, I had 17.5 percentile for my R01 grant.

lbrardius said
March 15, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
Bill, I was told by my PO that the paylines for R01s are 16 and 22 for new investigators. Congrats on your score (I’m just behind you with an 18).

It would be nice for NCI to update their Website with these higher paylines. They did remove reference to the interim/CR nature of the information but did not raise the percentile/priority score thresholds. The higher numbers do make sense though. – writedit

Bill said
March 15, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
Fred, you made my day! Congrats to you too. I will contact my PO next week.

Diadiavanya said
March 22, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
I think NHLBI paylines have been updated? No?

see:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/funding/policies/operguid.htm

Hope this helps.

Yes, I see they bumped them up again. Thanks much for the heads up! Everyone should remember that this is for grants submitted in 2008 (anything submitted to the routine NIH cycles in 2009 will be funded in FY10). – writedit

Lee said
March 24, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
Thanks Bill & Fred. I am a new investigator with a 20.8% on my R21 form NCI. I just wonder if this is a fundable sore. My PO suggested me to resubmit it in early of March when she didn’t have any update about the new payline then (one month ago). Any info would be appreciated.

There is no payline break for new investigators on the R21 mechanism (which is part of the reason why new/ESI applicants are encouraged to apply for R01s instead). Your program officer would tell you to resubmit no matter what, so that is not surprising. You may still get the happy JIT request depending on whether stimulus funding of some R01s allows NCI to relax paylines further for the other mechanisms, but my guess looking at the other ICs and the bump in NCI paylines mentioned by Fred is that R21s may be paid up through the 17-18th percentile. – writedit

Brad said
March 31, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
If you receive a JIT request, does this mean you’re going to get the grant or does this just mean your one of the select few they’re considering funding?

Not a guarantee, but it means you will very likely be funded, assuming you have your IRB/IACUC/IBC etc. approvals in place and no other administrative or regulatory barriers to your ability to accept an award. In these stimulated times, please be sure to supply the required information immediately, within 3 business days (or at least contact the grants management officer in this time frame if you can’t get everything ready in time). – writedit

Tarek said
April 1, 2009 @ 8:46 am
does any one know the paylines for the NCI K99/R00 award this cycle?

Thanks

lost in the big black box said
April 10, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
I submitted for a NIAID K99/R00 award last year – I just found out a bit ago, that NIAID collects submissions from all 3 cycles and then pulls out the top 6 (for FY08 it was 7 out of 91 applications). I’ve been told that no decisions have been made yet and it might take until late spring.

Needless to say, there is A LOT of waiting involved and it is basically impossible as a post-doc to resubmit if you fail to get it with a competitive score (I’m in the low 130s and have no idea if I have a chance or not) due to the 3 cycle wait (which is not posted ANYWHERE, you find out after submitting, waiting and finally contacting your PO).

I guess there isn’t much one can do other than waiting and hoping? There is no deadline for the NIAID to inform us about funding, is there?

– and tarek: just in case you didn’t know, FY08 NCI funded 54 out of 139 K99 applications, it should be similar this year

I confirmed that this is indeed the practice at NIAID and, what’s more, the success rate for K99/R00s is a whopping 7.6%. I’d normally say to breathe easy with a low-130 score, but maybe not. – writedit

D said
April 10, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
NIAID funds so few that it is difficult to fund them after each round. I think they tried it in the beginning but it didn’t work. The fact they they fund so few (and only for 3 years total) is a hint that NIAID isn’t keen on this mechanism and would prefer you submit a K22 or other similar award. Of course,if you are not a US citizen you don’t have much of a choice.

The only hard deadline for notice of funding is after the September council round and before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. You have to hope that there are not 6 or more K99/R00s submitted that are better than yours. Did you ask about sending in a revision?

S Hyder said
April 10, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
Has anyone heard about NCI plans to fund 2008 RO-1s that were just beyond the payline with the stimulus funds?

A comment in the NCI Administrative Notices section of their ARRA funding strategies Website suggests not, but it’s hard to say for sure:

Important: NCI will only be considering FY 2009 applications. Applications submitted in response to NCI RFAs and Program Announcements with specific set-asides (PAS) that have already been considered and not selected for funding, will not be reconsidered for ARRA funding.

This is in reference to the recent NIH notice about ARRA-funded grant pick-ups being extended to those undergoing review this spring and summer. – writedit

lost in the big black box said
April 10, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
Hi writedit/D – thanks for your comments and input!

S Hyder said
April 10, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
Thanks……

How about exiting R56s from NCI……any news to your knowledge that these may be extended for another year. I think NIA (?) has indicated that they may grant one more year for R56s.

sahsaj said
April 11, 2009 @ 8:57 am
Looks like NIA just posted its 2009 official payline: 11.6/16.6 for New Investigators and 23.1 for ESIs. http://www.nia.nih.gov/GrantsAndTraining/Policies/Funding_Policy_2009.htm

The funding line for 2008 was 14.2/19.2, I was hoping that it would be comparable/better this year…Does this mean that they have made some funding decisions for the May council?

RA said
May 10, 2009 @ 9:55 pm
In setting the FY09 R01 payline for established/new investigators the NCI has moved from 16th/22nd to 25th/25th (ARRA supported payline extension). Thus, established PI’s saw a ~56% gain, whereas new investigators were given ~13% bump.

As the numbers show, during the process of extending its payline the NCI’s self described “strong commitment to first-time R01 awardees” has gone astray. The only distinction remaining is the indication that New Investigators will be supported for 5 years whereas established PI’s will get a 4-year award, a measure unlikely to offset the advantage of being an established PI – more preliminary data, track record, name recognition, etc., which plays a role at the study section, and thus will not be corrected by the length of the award but rather by distinct paylines.

Moreover, most, if not all, of the other Institutes maintained the differential approach to new and previously funded investigators, even under the ARRA guidelines, e.g., the NHLBI set 25th percentile for established PIs, 30th percentile for new investigators, and 35th percentile for early-stage investigators.

What was the rationale at the NCI to “equalize” these paylines?

Thanks for this thoughtful observation, for which I, of course, have no response. Part of the enhanced peer review process will be to percentile new investigator applications separately from established investigator applications (ditto for clinical research applications), though how this will play out or be implemented by ICs remains to be seen. – writedit

Stellar said
May 22, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
in further support of RA’s observation is the apparent refusal of the NCI to made any inroads into K23 or K08 funding mechanisms. It is not really worth debating which is more important for a young investigator, a K award or first R01, but it seems like if there were a commitment to physician scientists the NCI would have changed the K award payline like virtually every other institute (e.g. NHLBI).

whimple said
May 25, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
Maybe the NCI has data that training physician scientists to do cancer research isn’t worth it.

writedit said
May 25, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
Interestingly, no NCI K08, K23, or K24 awards here at BICO (#10 in NCI funding in 2007) in FY08. In fact, just 5 Ks (2 K01, 2 K07, 1 K22) and an F31 plus 3 T32s. – writedit

diadiavanya said
May 28, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
Who owns the NIH ‘direct costs’ money?

For example, can the PI’s Institution expropriate (steal) the direct funds? Or make a PI to hire a certain person (a recent ‘laid-off) instead of an external candidate? Is there anything in the agreement that the Institution has to sign that directly prohibits it to ‘mess’ with the PI’s discretion?

writedit said
May 29, 2009 @ 1:57 am
Awards are made to the institution, not the PI. That said, the institution needs to notify the NIH about changes in senior/key personnel named in the Notice of Award, and the grant is made to the institution with the understanding the named PI will be given the resources/academic freedom to achieve the stated aims … but the NIH won’t get involved with petty disputes at the institution level. My advice to a PI who feels wronged by his/her department/school would be to talk with the sponsored programs office first, since their butt is on the line in case anything illegal/improper is going on, and/or the NIH Grants Management Officer/Specialist named in the Notice of Award.

The NIH Award Conditions Page includes a link to the federal regulations for conditions and expenditures of awards made to institutions of higher education (45 CFR Part 74) and other related notices.

diadiavanya said
May 29, 2009 @ 4:49 am
Thanks.
I guess we all (the NIH funded investigators working for private universities) face a problem of those who serve two masters – our loyalty has to be divided between the Institution (who pays us) and the NIH (who also does).

And the King is mighty and just – but far away in Washington, while the local bureaucrat is a petty tyrant, but oh-so-close…. Hence, the choices we make are sometimes not the high road.

D said
May 29, 2009 @ 7:23 am
Writedit gives a great summary. Also keep in mind that the grant award is to fund specific research. That is, research described in the grant. Although an institution can take away the money it still can only be used to further the Aims of the grant.

Can they force you to hire someone? That sounds like it impinges on your academic freedom and should be taken up with your faculty senate. Of course, if they are willing to pay say half of the salary…..

DS said
June 2, 2009 @ 12:03 am
Any insight on NIDCR paylines??
When they will make decision on funding last 2 cycles grants under ARRA

writedit said
June 2, 2009 @ 12:09 am
NIDCR has been reviewing meritorious but unfunded applications for possible ARRA pick-ups. I would assume they’ve completed reviewing the backlog but cannot say for sure. It could be they are waiting to make final final ARRA funding decisions until after the upcoming study section meetings, when additional close but unfunded meritorious applications will be added to the potential ARRA funding pile. Their payline has traditionally been more relaxed than the big ICs, but I have no data to suggest potentially fundable scores for specific mechanisms, unfortunately. – writedit

SM said
June 2, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
I contacted NIDCR on June 1st asking whether I should resubmit my application. The PO said their funding plans are not yet complete, and he will not be able to get a definitive answer for a few weeks.

Chloe said
June 10, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
What was MBRS SC2 fundable priority score last year and what is it expected to be this time? Thanks in advance.

cs said
June 13, 2009 @ 11:40 am
does nci not reveal paylines for k08 priority scores? A few of the above threads imply it is no different than past years…which were?

writedit said
June 13, 2009 @ 11:57 am
Not that I’ve seen. Depending on whether you are talking about a straight K08 or the NCI diversity K08, I’d suggest asking the appropriate program contact for ballpark paylines from years past. Possibly these data might be gleaned from presentations at one of the Advisory Board meetings. -writedit

dd said
June 19, 2009 @ 10:04 am
Do you know if a 24 under the new scoring system is a fundabable K grant? No percentiles are assigned. Thanks.

writedit said
June 20, 2009 @ 10:24 am
No guarantees, but, depending on the mechanism, a 24 could be a fundable score, especially at one of the “smaller” ICs that receive fewer applications. – writedit

Bronwyn said
June 23, 2009 @ 10:27 am
I can’t for the life of me find NCI payline for SBIR. Is it 190, as with the NHLBI? We’re about to be scored and I know my boss is going to be breathing down my neck about whether or not we beat the payline.

Jerry Zhao said
June 24, 2009 @ 9:07 am
How about a score of 38 for NIA K01? Is it fundable?
Thanks

scilover said
June 25, 2009 @ 3:31 pm · Edit
A score of 31 for NIBIB R43 (SBIR) is fundable.?..Any idea what will be this score according to previous scale (100-300).?

AP said
June 29, 2009 @ 11:21 am · Edit
Has anyone heard anything about the NCI F32 payline for proposals reviewed in Feb 2009?

mali said
July 1, 2009 @ 3:41 pm · Edit
Hi, Like AP, I was wondering if anyone has any ideas on what kind of scores for NCI F32s will be funded?
My first application was unscored and my reapplication was scored 47. I know its low but I wondered if the stimulus package may help me out here.
Any info is appreciated. Im down in the dumps right now.

AP said
July 1, 2009 @ 4:56 pm · Edit
Hey Mali,

What was your priority score for the F32, if you don’t mind me asking? It should be a 3 digit number. Mine was 150, for example.

mali said
July 1, 2009 @ 5:04 pm · Edit
I didnt get a 3 digit number. This was with the new scoring system of 1 through 9. So my mean score was 4.7.

AP said
July 1, 2009 @ 5:58 pm · Edit
Gotcha, I’m still on the old scoring system. I’ll let you know if I hear something. Best of luck!

eco said
July 2, 2009 @ 2:55 pm · Edit
Hi ya, all
Clearly, all of us are struggling to find out the meaning of the newly issued NIH score. Me too!
Here is what I heard from my friend who attended the NIH review session recently. In that session, no one got score between 10~20! This indicates that score is practically starting from 20 even it can start from 100 technically!
So, Is 30 is good ? 40 is bad? I do not know.
I guess we have to wait for the correctly evaluated %.
Good luck to all.

scilover said
July 7, 2009 @ 11:43 am · Edit
You mean nobody get score in between 10-20 with any of the applications with NIH or you are talking about applications submitted to any particualr institute.? This is a good news I think.

eco said
July 2, 2009 @ 2:56 pm · Edit
Sorry! there was a typo in my previous comment.
New scoring system starts from 10 and NOT 100!

AP said
July 20, 2009 @ 11:57 am · Edit
Hi All,

Just a follow-up. I haven’t heard anything yet about the funding of the F32s. From what I understand nobody has heard back yet so I guess no news is good news, so far. From what I’ve heard from our grants office we should be hearing back by the end of this month…..hopefully.

b said
July 20, 2009 @ 1:27 pm · Edit
FYI, I just received my F32 score in NIGMS and received a 12 so it is possible to get below 20. I believe anything from 10-32 will be funded, we will see.

sahsaj said
July 22, 2009 @ 11:06 am · Edit
Has anyone heard back from their challenge grant applications (RC1s)? How long do you think it may take to post scores after a meeting? Thanks in advance.

D said
July 22, 2009 @ 11:23 am · Edit
They are supposed to be posted with 5 workings after the end of the meeting. But with the huge numbers of RC1s who knows. If they discussed only 10% of the apps then they will be posted fast. If they discussed 30-50% then it will be a lot longer.

Given that the meetings were 2 days long they couldn’t have discussed (at least at the regular level of study section discussions) more than 50 apps.

Anyone out there from one of the RC1 editorial boards want to tell us how it was run?

april said
July 23, 2009 @ 11:01 pm · Edit
I received my RC1 score today from NIDDK….I heard there were 721 submitted to my study section, I received a 15 and a 1% ….so if I don’t get funded I will freak, but there is the possibility. 1 percentile should get funded I hope. If not, that is ridiculous.

writedit said
July 23, 2009 @ 11:09 pm · Edit
Wow – congrats! – writedit

D said
July 23, 2009 @ 11:10 pm · Edit
Wow. Congratulations! That is a great score.

Don’t forget. Your first quarterly report is due Oct. 10. You’ll have had your money for what, 10 days? Actually I wonder if you will have to make the Oct. 10 deadline.

april said
July 23, 2009 @ 11:21 pm · Edit
I was told that if it isn’t funded by the recovery act funds that the institute may pick it up. Thanks for the congrats! I won’t celebrate until I see the award letter tho!

sahsaj said
July 24, 2009 @ 5:46 pm · Edit
Congratulations! No such luck for me for my RC1:(

Valerie said
July 24, 2009 @ 12:08 pm · Edit
I just received a score of 13 for a K01 to NIMH. Judging from postings and conversation with program officer, I am encouraged. However, there’s no way to clearly interpret scores until all scores from this past review round are in. Per my p.o., only then will paylines begin to be considered. But even then, what’s awarded and when are contingent upon what the 2010 NIH budget looks like and when it is passed. So, ambiguity and uncertain abounds!

Sudhakar Akulapalli said
July 24, 2009 @ 12:24 pm · Edit
I have noticed NHLBI and NIA announced FY2009 payline for established, new investigators (NI) and early stage investigators (ESI) are different. I am a new and also early stage investigator, my RO1 was scored 25 percentile (1st cycle) June 2009. NCI FY2009 payline16/22 percentile for established/new investigators. Unfortunately NCI FY2009 was not mentioned about early stage investigators (ESI) payline. I lile to know that 25 percentile will be with in the payline for the new and early stage investigator under FY2010 budget plan. Is I need to weight upto the next council meeting or resubmit my grant in noveber 2009, please suggest.

Harish said
September 8, 2009 @ 12:38 pm · Edit
I’m in the same situation. Got a score of 38 and 24% on my R01 (ESI). NCI payline for FY09 is 25% from ARRA funds, but not sure this will hold good for FY10. My PO suggested me to get ready for resubmission. Can’t wait till the council review gets done in Oct.
I would appreciate if anyone has info regarding NCI FY10 paylines.

writedit said
September 8, 2009 @ 1:09 pm · Edit
This may not be good enough for the lean interim paylines at the start of FY10, though it might get picked up later in the FY … but by then, you would have resubmitted. I’d go with your PO’s advice, since the November resubmission will give you the space to address reviewer concerns (12-p resubmission in March may put you at a disadvantage). If your A0 is funded, the A1 is withdrawn, and you’ve only lost the time spent on the revised application.

My main caveat would be if reviewers wanted to see more preliminary data – if you don’t have these by November, then you’ll need to wait (since you only have one more shot).

taterhead said
September 8, 2009 @ 2:51 pm · Edit
Thanks for posting this comment. It gives me more information to better judge my situation. I’m also ESI and received a 37 on an R01 submitted in response to an RFA. I didn’t get a percentile, since it was an special RFA study section, so it difficult to know where I stand. Guided by my PO’s advice, I’ll be submitting a new app (can’t actually resubmit since it was an RFA) in October, but still holding out a tiny bit of hope that the first one is funded.

Monica said
July 24, 2009 @ 5:51 pm · Edit
I received a score of 39 and a 7th percentile score for an RC1 submitted to the NIDDK. I assume it probably won’t be funded.

D said
July 24, 2009 @ 6:32 pm · Edit
You are probably right. You could start hitting up your NIDDK PO to see if they will fund it with NIDDK ARRA money. It is possible that you were one of the better scoring NIDDK apps in that study section.

Zacky said
July 26, 2009 @ 1:03 am · Edit
My RC1 proposal receives 49 and 12% from NIGMS. I guess it will not be funded. Do Challenge Grants consider ESI status ?

AJ said
July 26, 2009 @ 6:38 pm · Edit
Mine received 37 and 8% from NCI. I assume it probably won’t be funded either

dbrumb said
July 28, 2009 @ 6:20 pm · Edit
Is a score of 31 from NHLBI for a K08 enough?

D said
July 28, 2009 @ 6:37 pm · Edit
At this point I do not think anyone knows. No one is used to the new scoring system yet so it is hard to say whether a given score is in the funding range. It depends on how all of the other Ks from NHLBI score and how many they can fund with this fiscal year’s money. Keep in mind that Congress has not yet given NIH a budget for this fiscal year. Another monkey wrench.

Fred said
July 31, 2009 @ 5:06 am · Edit
I got on my RC1 a 7th percentile and a 38 score. I’m hopeful because a 7th is decent. My RC1 is under consideration primarily by NICHD, but also by NIDDK and NINDS.
Any advice on how to proceed?

writedit said
July 31, 2009 @ 7:39 am · Edit
You can find a full discussion of RC1 scores and strategies here on the main blog. Be sure you’ve made contact with the PO for the Challenge Topic to which you applied as well as your “usual” PO, whether this is at NICHD, NIDDK, or NINDS. You won’t be one of the 200 to receive OD funding, but you may fall within the top 10% of one of these ICs for that particular Broad Challenge Area (1-15, not the individual topic). Good luck!

S Hyder said
July 31, 2009 @ 8:29 am · Edit
I just received the summary sheet for RC1 (not discussed). Some of the comments wriiten clearly indicate that the reviewer(s) did not have proper background to review the proposal. Anyone else in similar situation?

Also, the summary sheet indicates answering critques when resubmitting. I thought there was no resubmission of RC-1s? Am I missing something or does this indicate that even if you submit the proposal as an RO1 the reviewer’s comments need to be addressed as “Introduction”.

Thanks

D said
July 31, 2009 @ 8:42 am · Edit
There are probably 20,000 people who feel the same way you do. I think CSR was lucky to find enough warm bodies to read all of the RC1 apps. BTW, NIH wouldn’t say that they didn’t have the expertise. They would say that the reviewers had a broad scientific background that gave them a high level overview of the field.

The language on the SS is template language that goes out on all R01 SS. Just ignore it. You can not resubmit an RC1 as an amended application. You can only submit it as a new R01 or R21 or other appropriate mechanism.

AP said
July 31, 2009 @ 11:08 am · Edit
Hey Everyone,

This is for the F32s from the NCI submitted last December. The award annoucements are starting to go out to applicants. I was scored based on the old scoring system (my proposal was a resubmission) and I received a priority score of 150 and was told today that it is in the fundable range. Best of luck to everyone!

nick said
July 31, 2009 @ 5:57 pm · Edit
Our impact score is 32 and percentile score is 6. It seems like the odds of being awarded is very low. After doing some research, I am puzzled with what I have learned regarding how NIH is planning to use the stimulus money. It seems like some NIH institutes is currently considering awarding failed applications which have the percentile score of 30 or below. They are going to reject Challenge Grants proposals which are below 2 or 3 percentile score. This just does not make any sense to me. Since both past and present proposals went through similar scientific reviews, we should assume that their scores are comparable. If so, why would they prefer proposals with 30 percentile score over the ones with 3 or 6 percentile score? Since the Challenge Grant topics were suggested by the institutes, they could not make an argument based on differences in research subject. It is simply not FAIR if NIH award proposals rated 30 while reject those rated 6. It is also waste of public money to support low-quality research proposals instead of those which are rated excellent and above. My suggestion is to initiate online petition to the NIH director requesting the change in their policy on challenge grants. Here is the contact info for Raynard S. Kington, M.D., Acting Director:
NIHKingtonDirect@mail.nih.gov
I could almost hear some of you saying it is worthless. Remember we have nothing to lose other than few minutes in writing an email message to the director.
thank you
nick

pankaj kapahi said
August 2, 2009 @ 2:51 am · Edit
wonderful blog ! and a great resource , the NIH should pay for this- it would help cut their costs!

Do you know the cut off score for the competive supplements under the ARRA.

Thanks

D said
August 2, 2009 @ 8:19 am · Edit
Maybe WritEdit should submit a grant to fund this work .

Emaderton3 said
August 11, 2009 @ 11:31 am · Edit
I am as confused as everyone else. I submitted a K25 for the February deadline that went to NCI. I received a priority score of 30. The comments on my summary statement were not very critical and only seemed to point out very minor things that were not a big deal at all. I talked to the PO, and she could not really give me any information due to the budget not being passed yet and the fact that no one knows what to make of the new scoring system. She wouldn’t even give me a suggestion as to whether or not I should definitely resubmit. Originally I was told that a funding decision would probably not be made until March or April of next year (because Congress usually delays passing the budget)! But, she said they may know something by November. I know that the NIH budget was approved by the appropriations committee very recently, but it still needs to be voted on. After reading many of the comments here, I guess no one would know any better whether a 30 for a K award is a fundable score?

writedit said
August 12, 2009 @ 6:18 pm · Edit
During the prior administration, the federal government routinely operated under a continuing resolution (meaning the prior FY budget levels) until a new budget was passed. This year, there is a chance the FY10 federal budget could be passed by the start of the fiscal year (Oct 1) … or at least soon after. However, the budget will not be much more than a continuation of FY09 levels due to the low increase in NIH base appropriation anticipated (~1.4%).

Now, I think you have a reasonable shot with your K25 score of 30 since NCI shows a 42% success rate with this mechanism and since the scoring procedure is so new (i.e., some leeway may be given since reviewers are not familiar with how to assign scores and may be conservative at first). This latter is conjecture on my part though.

I’m surprised the PO didn’t simply advise you to resubmit … and you should certainly consider revising the application for the next round in case it is necessary. The worst that will happen is that you submit an amended application and the initial submission is funded in the meantime. The resubmission is withdrawn, and your funding starts immediately (i.e., you don’t wait for the A1 to be reviewed etc.). Extra work, but you’d have all your bases covered … plus some extra grantwriting practice. ; – )

Prasanna said
November 11, 2009 @ 6:26 pm · Edit
Hi,
My resubmitted (NICHD) my K25 is pending Review (next week).I am curious to know whether a score around 30 is fundable under the new system. I know your score is in this range according to the above comment.

Thanks,
PR

KT said
August 12, 2009 @ 10:25 am · Edit
Does anyone know or heard from anyone what is the NCI cut-off for a competitive supplement to an RO1. Mine doesn’t seem to have a percentile, just a priority score of 40

Bhagavatula Moorthy said
September 12, 2009 @ 4:55 pm · Edit
I got a priority score of 32 and percentile of 22 on a new RO1 (first submission). The grant will be reviewed in the NHLBI Oct 2009 council. In their website, the NHLBI says they will rebalance success rates for the 2010 FY, which means they will award about 60% applications in their AO submission. What do you think is my chance? My PO does not know how this will be implemented, so she advised me to re-submit. If I wait until March, then I will only be allowed 12 pages. Any advice?

Sundar said
September 12, 2009 @ 5:32 pm · Edit
I got a Priority score of 50 and pecentile of 12 on my RC1 application assigned to NHLBI. I was told that they are funding up to percentile of 15, but should have score of 10-40. But I was also told that up to score of 50 is still possible under the select pay policy. Any idea, how to go about this? Also I did not receive any JIT from NHLBI yet. Is there still time, or I should think I am out? Any comments.

D said
September 12, 2009 @ 7:32 pm · Edit
For select pay you need to bug your PO to convince his/her boss and boss’ boss that your work is so novel/innovative/exciting that it is worth funding outside the payline/scoreline. If you got great scores in innovation but weaker scores in approach you might have a shot. Also, if you can convince them that you score was do to a factual error (this has to be obvious and blatant) that would help too.

Begging and saying that you will have to shut down your lab and fire people probably doesn’t hurt either.

KUMAR said
September 18, 2009 @ 10:49 am · Edit
Since yesterday, the status of my RC grant with 15 percentile says “pending award. Non fellowships”. What does this mean? It was assigned to NCI.

XJB said
September 22, 2009 @ 1:24 am · Edit
Does anyone have idea about the NIGMS R01 payline for FY2010?
I got an impact score 26 and percentile 14%.
I justtalked with my PO today.
The PO said that I had better than 50/50 chance to be funded, but I had to wait until Nov-December for the funding decision. The PO also said that it was up to my own judgment if I shall resubmit or not.

By the way, I am an early-stage investigator and this is my first submission.
Anyone here can give me some suggestion? Shall I resubmit my proposal?

D said
September 22, 2009 @ 7:53 am · Edit
That is a great score for an ESI first submission. Congrats.

This might not be much help but NIAID has a preliminary payline for FY 2010 of 6%. NI/ESIs will have a preliminary payline of 10%. Both are likely to go up a few points once Congress sets a budget and they see how many ARRA grants get recycled. So, since NIGMS recently has had a payline a few points higher than AI you do have a decent shot of getting funded.

I think you definitely should resubmit if the major weaknesses are fairly easy to address. That is no new major experiments were requested or a request to publish more papers. If the reviewers are just asking for a rewrite of some parts of your aims or clarification of your experimental design then a resubmission is the best idea.

This upcoming cycle is the last with a 25 page R01. It is not clear how NIH will grandfather in prior submissions. They might not. So, it will be less work to rewrite this app then if you wait until next year and have to cut it down to 13 (12+1 for SAs) pages. On the downside it is more work for you that might not be necessary and you could get a worse score. The latter shouldn’t be a big concern because NIGMS could still fund your first submission…I think.

So, resubmit for this round if you can. Double check with you PO about my last statement.

XJB said
September 22, 2009 @ 8:01 am · Edit
D, thanks a lot for your great comment. I would say that NIAID is crazy. 6% is just like lottery.

Emaderton3 said
September 22, 2009 @ 12:39 pm · Edit
As I have posted before, I received a priority score of 30 on a K25 to NCI. The council review meeting was last week. I have talked to my PO, and this person still could not tell me anything on my chances of funding. I have to wait until December when the decisions are made. Since the council has met, wouldn’t you think that someone could at least tell me if I was close to the cutoff of funding if they go by last year’s numbers as an approximation?

XJB said
September 22, 2009 @ 12:46 pm · Edit
My PO gave me the following responses: 1) you have a very good chance; 2) you have better than 50/50 chance; 3) you have to make your own decision if you want to resubmit or not. This really makes me confusing and I don’t know what to do.

D said
September 22, 2009 @ 12:51 pm · Edit
You are probably on the bubble and there are many factors that could affect you getting funded. My guess is that no one wants to promise you funding only to have to reverse themselves later. Unfortunately there is not much for you to do except wait, hope and perhaps resubmit.

Mark Ebell said
September 24, 2009 @ 1:09 pm · Edit
I had a 6th percentile for a Challenge Grant to NLM, was asked to submit JIT information. Last update is “Pending Council Review”, and council supposedly met on 9/15. Anyone know when we’ll be notified of the funding decision?
Best, Mark Ebell / UGA

DS said
September 24, 2009 @ 6:36 pm · Edit
Any new on NIDCR council meeting held today.
I regular study section I received priority score of 34 and I am NI.

Ezo said
September 24, 2009 @ 7:45 pm · Edit
Hi All
the study session for my R01 is coming up in october (NICHD). Does anybody know the pay-line for this agency?
Thank you
Ezo

Suds said
September 28, 2009 @ 10:11 am · Edit
Does anybody know the payline for NEI FY2009? The study session for my R01 is coming up in october (NEI).
Suds

writedit said
September 28, 2009 @ 10:40 am · Edit
Grants reviewed this October will be funded in FY10. However, Congress hasn’t passed a budget for FY10 … though no matter what, the NIH budget will again be no growth (~1.5% increase from FY09), so the paylines will be no higher than … and perhaps lower than … FY09. The overachievers at NIAID demonstrate this with their drop to an interim payline at the 6th percentile. You shouldn’t expect payline info from mere mortal ICs for some time – not until after the budget passes, and not until they figure out how to handle the new scoring system and minimal percentile data for these early rounds – and how to estimate the potential spike in applications due to recycled ARRA submissions (RC1s, RC2s, R15s, etc.) and ARRA awardees getting in line for continued funding.

peluhukay said
September 30, 2009 @ 12:49 pm · Edit
hmm…waiting for budgets/funding decisions is frustrating! I have a priority score of 25 on my final resubmission of my K01 through NCRR and they had the council review half a month ago. I have my start date as Dec 1, so am anxiously awaiting to hear about my chances of having this funded as this was my last submission. However, I honestly never received a notice on my first resubmission about funding whereas I did receive a notice saying my original application would not be funded. Does anyone know when NCRR will make funding decisions? From reading comments above, it looks like some of the other K awards submitted around the same time are waiting until Dec to hear. I have tried to contact my PO, but have not heard back yet.

Emaderton3 said
September 30, 2009 @ 1:01 pm · Edit
I was originally told March or April of next year, but November/December of this year now seems to be what everyone is hearing. You probably will not get much information from your PO until the decisions are actually made.

Emaderton3 said
September 30, 2009 @ 12:59 pm · Edit
There was a story this morning on CNN about President Obama visiting NIH today and announcing $5 billion dollars for research grant money. It sounds like the focus of some of the money is for cancer research (my K25 is awaiting a funding decision by NCI). The article says that this money is part of the Recovery Act, so does that mean it will only fund grants that were specifically submitted for that money, or will it also be used to fund established NIH programs like R01s and K awards?

writedit said
September 30, 2009 @ 1:05 pm · Edit
I could be wrong, but I believe he is just publicizing the benefits of $5B out of the NIH’s allocated $10.3B will be spent on “groundbreaking medical research” … that is, he is touting the awards already made (or obligated as of today anyway) versus announcing an additional $5B in funding.

peluhukay said
September 30, 2009 @ 1:10 pm · Edit
I emailed my PO back when the stimulus money was first announced and was told (at least for NCRR) that the stimulus money does not really apply to K awards. I am not sure if this is true for all K awards and for all institutes (I had a 175 on my previous K01 submission, so was hoping the stimulus money would help it get funded…turns out NCRR only funded 1 of the 8 applications they received last year when previous years have been near 50% success rate).

Emaderton3 said
September 30, 2009 @ 1:45 pm · Edit
Good luck. I emailed my PO back just to see if I could find out if my score was in the top third of the scored grants. NCI has had a 40% success rate for K25 awards for the last two years, so I figure if the budget stays roughly the same that they will award the same number. I may have a chance then if my score is in the upper tier. But I haven’t heard anything yet.

SM said
September 30, 2009 @ 5:01 pm · Edit
When will NCI announce its new payline for 2010. Also, till-then what would be the interim NCI payline. What is the history of interim payline with NCI. Do the the interim payline include new investigator like me with 10 percentile.

Kumar said
October 4, 2009 @ 3:02 pm · Edit
I got notification from the NHLBI that my Challenge grant, which was on the 12 percentile (priority score 50) was not funded. I heard that the payline was funding up t0 15 percentile, but also needed a PS of 10-40. I looked at NIH reporter, and noticed that NHLBI awarded 135 Challenge grants. In their Website, they had planned to award up to 200 challenge grants (NHLBI funds). This is in addtion to the OD’s 200 grants accross NIH intitues. I am sure I would have been funded if they awarded what they say would in the website.

My question is can they still pick up some grants in this fiscal year, is they still have ARRA money left? Or are all the funds already obligated or commited?

Please advice.

Tarek said
October 7, 2009 @ 12:09 pm · Edit
Hello,
I just received a priority score of 19 on K99 resubmitted application (NCI). Does anyone know the chances of my application of getting funded?

Thanks in advance!

writedit said
October 7, 2009 @ 12:29 pm · Edit
The K99s are really competitive, especially at NCI (33% success rate … 103 submitted, 34 funded in FY08). Your 19 would be roughly a 145 in the old priority score scale, which is likely on the bubble … but Program has some leeway on these if your focus is of particular interest.

Deborah said
November 5, 2009 @ 5:40 pm · Edit
Okay, my PO just told me that my score of 27 was very, very good and would have been funded under the FY08 and 09 paylines. I am #8 out of 63 applications (13th percentile). Therefore, unless the paylines decrease dramatically for 2010, I have a very, very good chance of being funded.

NCI’s past paylines and success rates (FY08=29%, 34 awarded/119 applications and FY09=24%, 25/104 applications). This information was gleaned from my PO.

I think your score of 19 is fantastic and definitely will be funded.

Emaderton3 said
November 6, 2009 @ 1:07 pm · Edit
Deborah, I was curious how you got this information from your PO. I am awaiting info on the first submission of a K25 to NCI, and I have asked many times for my chances for funding. I even asked how I ranked out of the total number of applications, but my PO wouldn’t tell me. Since your is also a K award to NCI, we should have the same PO.

By the way, I had received a priority score of 30. I have not heard anything from NCI nor have a received a JIT request. Is that a bad sign?

writedit said
November 6, 2009 @ 1:26 pm · Edit
Deborah has a fabulous PO. Because they get so few K25s, it seems as though your PO should at least be able to tell you where you stand in that pile though. NCI has a fourth Council meeting at the end of November (NCI & NHBLBI meet 4x per year instead of 3x per public law) so may make additional funding decisions then, though gankutsuoh noted the interim NCI paylines (passed along by another helpful PO) below.

Emaderton3 said
November 6, 2009 @ 1:49 pm · Edit
That should be my fabulous PO as well! Since you had pointed out that they have funded 40% of K25′s over the last 2 years, I am still optimistic with my score. But, to be safe, I am working on my resubmission for next week.

Deborah said
November 6, 2009 @ 8:50 pm · Edit
I got this information from my PO by quoting this blog (without revealing the source) saying that a 19 priority score by Tarek (above) would not likely be funded under current NCI guidelines.

She replied quite candidly that the information was erroneous, false, and flat out not true.

Then she gave me the funded stats for previous years and told me I was #8/63, etc. She also said I have a great score and it would have been funded under ’08 and ’09 standards so I should be very happy about my score (indicating to me that I will be funded under ’10 payline). In other words I am not on the bubble but truly inside the bubble and loving every minute of that bubble!

writedit said
November 6, 2009 @ 11:53 pm · Edit
Congratulations, Deborah! Based on the info your PO gave you for FY08 & FY09, NCI probably funds 8-11 K99s per cycle, which is a lot. NHLBI funded 25 in FY08, but most ICs fund fewer than 10-12 per year, not per cycle (of course, they usually get fewer applications, too … though NIGMS received 114 applications and only funded 16 for a 14% success rate). The key is knowing where you stand in your IC’s pile for your mechanism, especially with the new scores, and again, you have a wonderful PO for being so forthcoming with this info. Congrats on the great PO, too!

Emaderton3 said
November 7, 2009 @ 7:56 pm · Edit
I asked her for the same information last month, but she would not give me my ranking of my grant. I even put it in the context of them funding 40% over the last two years and asking if I would make the cutoff! But, that must mean they are making some decisions now!?

Tarek said
November 8, 2009 @ 4:17 pm · Edit
My PO just told me that my application ranks as number 2 among this and the previous cycle. She said that a 19 is an OUTSTANDING score and that there is no reason why my proposal would not be funded. As you see from the language she’s using, her comments is free of any commitment to fund an application. Thus, I am surprised that she told Deborah that they will in fact fund her application! A second point that was made is that NCI do not give a percentile, yet she was giving me a rank of my application. Is the rank different than percentile??

Emaderton3 said
November 8, 2009 @ 7:55 pm · Edit
I don’t think they do percentiles for K awards. Also, my PO told me they had an unusually large number of applicants this year. So I’m not sure the percentages for grants funded will be maintained this year. For example, they funded 40% of K25′s the last two years but I think they had something like ~12 applilcations. If that number doubles, I doubt they could fund 40% this year. That is why I am worried!

writedit said
November 8, 2009 @ 9:16 pm · Edit
Rank is just that – a direct rank ordering of applications from best to worst based on score. SROs rank applications for discussion based on preliminary impact score, and program ranks them based on the final impact score assigned. So you are ranked second (congratulations!) and Deborah was ranked 8th (out of 63 … I sure hope that 63 represents two cycles of applications – Feb & June – versus just one cycle).

Percentile estimates relative rank and is calculated as the percentage of applications receiving a better impact score from the reviewing SRG during the past year (see actual equation here). Current percentiles are a bit fuzzy since there are only 2 rounds of data – and these are based on a new scoring system. NCI reviews their own K applications (not CSR), so I assume Deborah calculated her own percentile based on the rank order info from her PO versus having it assigned by the NIH. Now, NCI will still need to take into account the number of applications submitted this last cycle (Oct & Nov 12), but they have an idea of how many applications they can fund per cycle by now and which scores fall in this range by rank ordering.

As an aside, having all these data shared here suggest that Toni Scarpa’s hope that reviewers only score 1s in exceptional cases and spread their scoring out seems to be fulfilled, at least for now, at least for these K99s at NCI.

Deborah said
November 9, 2009 @ 11:45 am · Edit
Tarek,

My PO did NOT tell me I would be funded and I never said that. I said quote, “She also said I have a great score and it would have been funded under ‘08 and ‘09 standards so I should be very happy about my score (indicating to me that I will be funded under ‘10 payline)” unquote.

“would have” and “indicating” do not seem definite to me.

writedit,
Yes, this is my ranking out of two rounds. My PO also said not to forget that there is another round of applications for January and they have over 50 applications so far. So unless these new apps are the cats meow and so insightful tht they push me out of the ranking….however, I am still going to remain optomistic.

writedit said
November 9, 2009 @ 12:00 pm · Edit
I don’t think I ever clarified for Emaderton3 that his K25 PO at NCI is not the same as the K99 PO (and NCI has its own K99 program, the Howard Temin Pathways to Independence Award in Cancer Research, so this K99 discussion won’t necessarily translate to other K99 applicants). Some ICs have an all-purpose career development/training PO, but not the bigger ones like NCI.

And yes, Deborah, you (& Tarek) should remain optimistic.

Tarek said
November 9, 2009 @ 11:30 pm · Edit
Deborah, and writedit,

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding! I tried to get more info from the PO but won’t get beyond the standard replay that you have a good score but cannot comment any further until the budget is passed. Any idea when will they have a funding decision? A second point Deborah raised is about the next review cycle. Will the outcome of this review affect funding and/or rank for the current or previous cycles of revisions? I am totally confused now.

Simon said
October 7, 2009 @ 12:34 pm · Edit
I have a score of 13 on a resubmitted K01 (NIMH/NICHD shared) – are these as competitive as the K99? I passed council review and the PO was switched to the person who handles Ks for NICHD, which I presume is a good sign. Any sense about chances of funding? Thanks in advance!

writedit said
October 7, 2009 @ 12:56 pm · Edit
Let’s see … your 13 would be the equivalent of a 115 priority score, and in FY08, NICHD funded 6 of 12 K01 applications received (50% success rate -NIMH was 23 for 64 or a 36% success rate) … so you should be cautiously optimistic about funding – congratulations!

Simon said
October 7, 2009 @ 1:10 pm · Edit
Thanks to each of you who replied re my K01 app/score for your input and good wishes. Special thanks to those who maintain this website – very useful! I will remain cautiously optomistic.

peluhukay said
October 7, 2009 @ 12:49 pm · Edit
I think that is a great score! If you go to: http://grants.nih.gov/training/outcomes.htm and click on Success Rates for Career Development Awards by Institute and Center you can download an xls document which shows the number of applications received and awards given for each K grant and each NIH center. What is concerning for me is that NCRR usually funds 40-50% of K01s, but in 2008, they only funded 1 out of 8 applications!!! It looks like the success rate of NICHD was 50% and for NIMH was 36%, so I would think your chances are good.

SM said
October 9, 2009 @ 10:21 am · Edit
Like NIAID, why does not other institutes announce their interim payline.

Srini said
October 10, 2009 @ 3:43 pm · Edit
Hi , Is 14 a fundable score for K08 grant in 2009 ?

writedit said
October 10, 2009 @ 4:03 pm · Edit
I hate to be overly optimistic with anyone, but this is the equivalent, roughly, of a 120 in the priority score days, which also almost certainly would have been funded. Some ICs are more competitive than others, but I cannot think of one that would have a payline below 120/14 … if your program officer doesn’t automatically suggest preparing a resubmission, that could be all the hint you’ll get.

Srini said
October 10, 2009 @ 4:45 pm · Edit
vow !! really appreciate it , that’s exactly what my bro’s ( i posted the query on his behalf ) PO had told him – no need to resubmit .

stellar said
October 10, 2009 @ 6:22 pm · Edit
Hi writedit,
can you tell me where you are getting these decoder keys for the K grants. I have learned from your reading that a score of 14=120, and a 13 = 115 from the above two postings. what is this line look like?
what are 15, 20, 25 in old scores?>

writedit said
October 11, 2009 @ 1:02 pm · Edit
[(15 – 10) x 5] + 100 = 125
[(20 – 10) x 5] + 100 = 150
[(25 – 10) x 5] + 100 = 175
[(30 – 10) x 5] + 100 = 200
[(35 – 10) x 5] + 100 = 225
((40 – 10) x 5] + 100 = 250

Anything higher is essentially in triage territory (even if scored)

[(impact score – 10) x 5] + 100 = priority score

This formula was originally posted by Emerdaton3 with the appropriate caveat that the old priority score doesn’t mean the same thing as the new impact score … though this at leasts helps you mentally place your application in the pile. The percentiles will be much harder to get a handle on until at least 3 submission cycles have gone by … and now again, until at least 3 submission cycles of the shorter application format.

XJB said
October 11, 2009 @ 2:09 pm · Edit
If you compare the two figures in the following place

https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2009/09/22/the-new-scoring-system/

You will see that your conversion formula is not that accurate.
instead I would suggest
[(impact score – 10) x 3.5] + 100 = priority score

XJB said
October 11, 2009 @ 2:11 pm · Edit
Due to the new NIH policy, for established investigators, very likely you need to get a prelim score <=30 to be discussed.

writedit said
October 11, 2009 @ 2:55 pm · Edit
Dookie posted your formula (using a 3.5 multiplier) previously as well. I’m not quite sure why the NIGMS figures plotting score against percentile demonstrate that the equation using a multiplier of 5 is not accurate, however. The equation (with x 5 multiplier) does work to put the impact score in priority score scale … though, as noted above, the meaning in terms of percentiles and funding likelihood does not convert as well. Thank you so much for posting the link, which provides nice insight into how the new scoring procedure is shaking out.

For comparison …

[(15 – 10) x 5] + 100 = 125 vs {x 3.5} = 117
[(20 – 10) x 5] + 100 = 150 vs {x 3.5} = 135
[(25 – 10) x 5] + 100 = 175 vs {x 3.5} = 152
[(30 – 10) x 5] + 100 = 200 vs {x 3.5} = 170
[(35 – 10) x 5] + 100 = 225 vs {x 3.5} = 187
[(40 – 10) x 5] + 100 = 250 vs {x 3.5} = 205
[(90 – 10) x 5] + 100 = 500 vs {x 3.5} = 380

stellar said
October 11, 2009 @ 7:33 pm · Edit
thanks to you and XJB both. XJB’s may be more accurate, since the reviewers are given the explicit instructions to use the whole scale…. so there should be just as many 80′s as 20′s…
there cetainly were more 150′s than 350 scores given with teh old system…. so this would tend to shift scores HIGHER, and thus the 3.5X multiplier might be more accurate.. at least it is data driven. that being said, two excellent folks on this page seem to have good 13 and 14 on their K awards, and i do not remember seeing may old scores of 110…. [(13-10)X3.5]+100

Srini said
October 10, 2009 @ 10:04 pm · Edit
Just curious to know on my K08 query , the score obtained on 1st submission ( our case ) vs the SAME score obtained on a re-submission , is there any difference w.r.to grant ?

Tanya said
October 12, 2009 @ 4:00 pm · Edit
About K99 payline
Just got the email from the PO of NCI, predicting that the payline for k99 will be likely between 10-34. Anybody has any comments on this? Is it reasonable or it’s just a wild guess? I got a score of 25 and hopefully it will be funded.

D said
October 12, 2009 @ 4:02 pm · Edit
Not much of a guess by the PO. This is like saying the odds of you getting funded are between 0 and 100%.

Deborah said
November 3, 2009 @ 1:22 pm · Edit
I got a 27 and received the same email. I don’t understand “D” ‘s reply to you. Is he saying the PO doesn’t know anything or is he saying the PO does have a good idea?

CHP said
October 13, 2009 @ 11:00 pm · Edit
I have a priority score = 30 on an STTR at NIAID, but no word yet on STTR paylines for FY10. I was asked for JIT info and my PO was rather non-committal on whether to resubmit (which I already have-comments easy to respond to). Any insight into fundability and the timing of this in my case? Do you think it would pay out, if funded, before the New Year? Thx!

writedit said
October 14, 2009 @ 8:39 am · Edit
Although the score is a little high for STTR (SBIRs get funded above 200), you’ve said all the right things to suggest a good possibility of funding … JIT request (I assume this is an e-mail rather than eRA commons request), PO not immediately telling you to think about resubmitting. If you submitted last Feb, you should be funded by the New Year – if in June, then not until next spring. Things might be running a little behind with the extra burdens placed on grants management at the NIH by ARRA.

D said
October 14, 2009 @ 3:45 pm · Edit
NIAID has set their interim NI/ESI R01 payline at 10% . http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/budget/budg-paylines.htm

The regular R01 interim payline remains at 6%.

Mimi said
October 18, 2009 @ 4:28 am · Edit
Hello everyone,

I got a score of 23, 10th percentile for my NCI R01 and I’m a new investigator. Commons says council review was completed on Sep 17. It’s been a month now but I haven’t been requested to submit JIT. My PO told me that this grant will be funed. However, no words from NIH/Commons yet. I’m becoming more anxious nows. Any suggestions?

Thanks!

SM said
October 20, 2009 @ 11:52 am · Edit
Hi, Mimi,

I am also a new investigator with 10 percentile and went through september council. My PO says to wait till the next fiscal payline is announced. NIAID is transparent with its interim paylines of regular and new investigator. I hope NCI will also announce its paylines soon too. I agree that this puts upon us an unending anxiety and pressure.

gankutsuoh said
October 20, 2009 @ 2:35 pm · Edit
I am a New Investigator with 15 percentile (NCI) and went through Scientific Review last month. Council Meeting is scheduled in January 2010. I was requested JIT last week and have just submitted it. My PO also told me that they cannot say anything until the 2010 budget passes the congress.

gankutsuoh said
October 29, 2009 @ 4:06 pm · Edit
I was requested JIT by e-mail from on October 11. My R01 (NCI) received Scientific Review on September 23. It was a pretty quick movement.
I had a chance to ask officers at the NCI about info to include in JIT. Some said “Congrats” and others said nothing delighting. Of course, it does not guarantee anything.

Y said
October 20, 2009 @ 4:41 pm · Edit
I am a New/ESI investigator with 17 percentile (NIGMS) and was requested JIT. My PO said the application will get serious consideration for funding and ESI will help. How likely can I get funded? I’m getting really worried when I read about the interim payline at NIAID. Wondering if I should do an expedited resubmission while the R01 is still 25-pages.

D said
October 20, 2009 @ 4:57 pm · Edit
The good news is that NIGMS usually has a much better payline than NIAID (preliminary 10% for ESIs at NIAID this year). The bad news is that NIGMS hasn’t said what theirs will be for this year.

So, you have ~2.5 weeks to resubmit. The questions you need to ask yourself is if 1). Can you make the changes the reviewers request in that short amount of time and 2) is it worth wasting your only resubmission on a rushed job?

If the reviewers only want cosmetic changes (modest rewrite or drop an aim) then the rush job might be fine. If they want substantial new data or a major change in focus then you are better off waiting.

My guess is that you would be better off taking the time to rewrite your grant in the 12+1 page format and doing a great job responding to the reviewers criticisms.

XJB said
October 20, 2009 @ 5:19 pm · Edit
We are in the same boat. Mine is 14% and I am anxiously waiting for funding decision from NIGMS.

Y said
October 20, 2009 @ 7:20 pm · Edit
Was your grant reviewed in June or very recently?

I heard that in previous years NIGMS could fund new PI into lower 20s. So even if there is a drop this year, 14% should be ok. 17% could be really iffy.

xjb said
October 20, 2009 @ 7:35 pm · Edit
My proposal was reviewed in June. I know that in FY 2008, one NI got funded with 23%. However, since this year many Challenge Grants will be converted to R01, it is hard to tell if 14% is safe or not.
In addition, will NIGMS give more benefit to ESI than NI?

Y said
October 21, 2009 @ 11:45 am · Edit
By the way, I am curious how many challenge grants really come back as R01 in October. Expanding a 12-page challenge grant to a 25-page R01 could still be a lot of work. Based on what I see around me, most challenge grants are not resubmitted; two are resubmitted as R21. Also, based on the grant database that I can access at my institution, I don’t see a substantial increase in the # of R01 submitted in the October cycle.

Or maybe this is just my wishful thinking..

XJB said
October 21, 2009 @ 11:50 am · Edit
Then why does NIAID have so low interim payline?

writedit said
October 21, 2009 @ 12:06 pm · Edit
Because, yet again, the federal government is operating under a continuing resolution, and therefore FY09 budget levels … not that there will be much of an increase in FY10 (1.4%, I think). Plus, in addition to recycled challenge grants, the ICs need to anticipate PIs with 1 or 2 years of ARRA funding submitting renewals/new applications to continue these projects.

With regard to the recycled RC1s, I’ve seen them going back as R21s and DP2s … and I suspect a large portion will wait for the 12-p application format next Feb … or even better, the 6-p R21 format. I think I heard the NIH experienced a 15% increase in R01 submissions in October, which may have been due as much to the last-chance to use 25 p as the RC1/RC2 recycling.

XJB said
October 21, 2009 @ 12:15 pm · Edit
Considering that the resubmission deadline for R01 is Nov 5, there should be more than 15% increase in R01 submissions in the October round.

D said
October 21, 2009 @ 12:18 pm · Edit
Recylced RC1s come in as new applications. Not resubmissions. Any bump in November will come from the rush of 25 page R01s wanting to resbumit before the new page limits.

Y said
October 28, 2009 @ 5:32 pm · Edit
xjb – have you got any news from your PO?

I just talked with my PO at NIGMS. he said funding decisions on grants submitted in June will probably be made in November-early December. For my grant, It’ll be around next Jan-Feb.

He also suggested me to wait for the decision on my application, and not to resubmit right away. He said if I resubmit and get a worse score, it could negatively affect the decision on the current application.

XJB said
October 28, 2009 @ 5:44 pm · Edit
No, The PO just said it was my own judgment if I should resubmit or not. Maybe I will talk with my PO again tomorrow.

Y said
October 29, 2009 @ 3:17 pm · Edit
Please let us know if you get more information from your PO.

My PO said it’s eventually my decision (on resubmission or not), but he kept suggesting me to wait and also talked about the danger of getting a worse score on resubmission. So I’ll listen to him. Although I think my score is really iffy.

Also, did you submit your JIT request? The ERA commons says we should wait for the request from NIH, but the NIGMS has a website asking people scored under 20% to submit a JIT within 2 weeks of summary statement. I forgot to ask my PO about this.

Emaderton3 said
October 29, 2009 @ 3:21 pm · Edit
But if you resubmit for the next cycle, you should know by then whether you got funded on the original submission, correct? Then you can ask your PO to just pull your resubmission (at least that’s what my PO said for my K award).

Y said
October 29, 2009 @ 3:25 pm · Edit
My grant was reviewed in October and I was asking my PO about an expedited resubmission by November 20 – so if I resubmit, the grant will be reviewed in early Feb (probably before the decision on the current application).

Is that also your case or did you wait for a full cycle (I think only NI R01 can be resubmitted right away..)?

Emaderton3 said
October 29, 2009 @ 3:29 pm · Edit
My K award was submitted for the February 12 deadline. It went through council review last month. I can resubmit it for the November 12 deadline. The budget (hopefully) will be passed within the next two months, and they are expecting to make decisions in December. My PO told me that if I get funded she will simply pull my resubmission. Perhaps my dates work differently for this award.

John M said
October 29, 2009 @ 3:51 pm · Edit
The K process has some differences than that for R01s. K grants don’t get percentiled and the option for expedited resubmission on the same funding cycle is available only to NI/ESIs with R01 applications that are close to fundable and that have easily addressable concerns on the review.

Y said
October 20, 2009 @ 7:42 pm · Edit
NIGMS doesn’t publish their payline so it is unclear to me how much extra points they give to New/ESI PIs and whether there is a difference between these two categories.

When are you going to get the funding decision? I guess your council meeting was in September so shouldn’t you know the answer pretty soon?

laghs said
October 20, 2009 @ 7:55 pm · Edit
I am not so worried about 17 percentile at NIGMS. That is also the same percentile I got yesterday (also for NIGMS). I’ll do nothing and wait for the money to come. If even 17 couldn’t make it for an ESI, then I’d just quit science altogether and go back to industry, when my life was much easier without the need to be a serious writer.

Betsy said
October 21, 2009 @ 12:48 am · Edit
I’m a new investigator (first grant app) and just received an impact/priority score of 36 for an R03 to NCI. No percentile yet, study section was last thurs/fri. Thoughts?

James said
October 21, 2009 @ 10:05 am · Edit
I’m in the same boat. I got a 38 on my R03 (NIAAA), and it is my first grant as well. It has been over a month since the council review. I was told we wouldn’t know about paylines until the federal budget gets approved, but that a 38 on a R03 just might squeak through this time. Definitely resubmit as we probably won’t get a definitive answer before the next submission deadline.

writedit said
October 21, 2009 @ 12:01 pm · Edit
These are nice scores for first-time grant applications! (I dare say most don’t get scored the first time in). However, you won’t get a payline break as new investigators for R03s. The mechanism does have a higher payline than R01s and R21s, but time – especially an FY10 budget – will tell whether scores in the 30s will be funded.

Betsy said
October 21, 2009 @ 12:18 pm · Edit
James, I don’t have my critiques yet, so I can’t really resubmit. How long after your study section did it take to get the critiques? My council review date isn’t until Jan. 2010, so it looks like I have awhile to wait.

Is it appropriate to call the PO and feel him out about funding possibilities? When I talked to him about my proposal idea, he was very kind and open.

If one uses the conversion formulas proposed, using 5 as the multiplier gives me a score of 230, just outside the 210 payline. But 3.5 gives me 191. I like the 3.5 formula better!

And boo for no payline break for R03s!!

James said
October 21, 2009 @ 1:45 pm · Edit
Ahh. I misunderstood what you had written. You just went through the scientific review process and gotten your score, not council review. It took about a month after I got my impact score until I got the reviewer comments. I, too, missed the first resubmission date, because i did not have my comments. Mind you that my grant was scored in Mid-June, and I am still told it will be several months until I know if that score is fundable.

And there is no official break for being a new investigator, but maybe an unofficial ‘push’ to all those wonderful POs out there? I mean…it is just $100k right? Don’t they have that in the back of their desk drawyers? between the couch cushions?

Not having percentiles is really a killer. Especially when our only comparisons are to the ARRA grants, which is not a fair comparison. My colleague was funded with a score of 45 on his challenge R01 and he was in the 14th percentile.

the waiting is the hardest part….besides actually having to do the work of course…

EL said
October 22, 2009 @ 5:08 pm · Edit
I am a new investigator, my R01 was scored 15 percentile and 31 priority score in June 2009 study section. NHLBI FY2009 payline is 15/20 percentile for established/new investigators. The council meeting was held this Tuesday (10/20/09), I just saw my eRA common updated as “Council review completed”, but no further info is available. I would like to know that 15 percentile will be with in the payline for the new investigator under FY2010 budget plan. please suggest.

D said
October 22, 2009 @ 6:26 pm · Edit
Sounds like you have a great chance of getting funded. Your program officer will know more. It is possible that they may hold off funding you until later in the cycle or until NIH gets a budget from Congress. They don’t want to make promises now that they can’t keep later.

Kumar said
October 27, 2009 @ 12:28 pm · Edit
The NHLBI has phased out the special paylines for new investigators. Also, was your grant the first submission (A0)? Then you have a great chance. The reason I ask that is because, NHLBI is planning to pay based on the ammendment status. So, A0 will be compared against each other, A1, and A2 with their counterparts. The success rate willl be the same for A0, A1, and A2. Neverthless, the percentiles will be re-calculated based on ammendment status.

Good luck!

xjb said
October 27, 2009 @ 12:33 pm · Edit
If NHLBI phased out the special payline for new investigators,
does this mean that only ESI will be treated favorably?

writedit said
October 27, 2009 @ 7:34 pm · Edit
Yes. They’re trying to get away from funding 82-year-old new investigators, though I’m not sure if it means they’ll go cold turkey or just lower the non-ESI new investigator break gradually.

Kumar said
October 27, 2009 @ 8:19 pm · Edit
Yes, the ESI will still be treated favorably!

Spookyfaust said
October 22, 2009 @ 7:38 pm · Edit
Does anyone have an idea of where the FY 2010 budget is (as it makes it way through congress)? The official government websites are of little use in providing real time updates.

Waiting to figure out what my NIAID K01 priority score actually means….

Thanks.

Qpang said
October 23, 2009 @ 3:53 am · Edit
I am new investigator and qualified as an ESI. I got a score of 30 in June cycle, my percentile is 19% (NHLBI). The NIAID’s new payline really scared me. I was feeling good before this new came out. Now I wonder if I should talk to my program office. Can anybody give me some suggestions about what I say with PO. Thanks a lot!

D said
October 23, 2009 @ 7:50 am · Edit
Definitely talk to your PO. They should have the best inside information about your chances of getting funded. 19% sounds border line to me but each Institute has there own funding plans.

Even though NIAID has the second highest budget it also tends to get a lot more apps than other institutes so their payline tends to be lower.

John M said
October 23, 2009 @ 10:55 am · Edit
Call your PO and directly ask about your chances of being funded. Also ask about whether you should re-submit an amended application for the next cycle. It is probably better to resubmit now for the Nov 5 deadline with the 25 page format than to wait until February. That would be the first cycle of FY2011 and would require reformatting for the 12 page limit and subjecting yourself to another whole unknown budget situation.

I am also an ESI with an R01 in the FY2010 first cycle (submitted as an A1 in March, reviewed in June). I called my PO the week before the council meeting to discuss whether I should plan on resubmitting for the Nov 5 deadline. At a score of 25/13% he suggested that I should not resubmit. Though he wouldn’t commit officially, he did speculate off the record that the ESI payline would probably be in the 18-20 range so you are going to be close. I was also told that final paylines might not be available for several weeks.

I also asked him about the NIAID interim payline and was told that NHLBI paylines are usually higher and that NIAID has so much of their money already targeted to specific programs that there isn’t as much money available for general R01s. Also as previously mentioned, NIAID gets a lot of applications.

Good luck.

Y said
October 23, 2009 @ 11:09 am · Edit
Did your PO predict that the payline will go down a few % pts for FY2010?

Qpang said
October 23, 2009 @ 1:29 pm · Edit
Thanks for your responses.

I have three more questions:

1. Should I make an appointment by email with my PO and then call him/her? Or just pick up the phone and call. My friend told me that because POs are always busy, sometimes they are not near by their phone.

2. I have another friend, who got 36 score, but his percentile is higher than mine, 18%. He was assigned to a different study section, but in the same institute as mine. So, how is the payline calculated? Is it based on the scores of all the applicants in one institute or that in different study sections?

3. Is there anywhere I could find the information regarding the number of applicants in certain cycle or physical year?

Thanks a lot!

Peng

D said
October 23, 2009 @ 2:22 pm · Edit
@Qpang my suggestions are:

1). Email first and then call. Repeat until you get in contact.
2). Funding almost always goes by percentile. Percentiles were introduced to even out the scoring variability between study sections. But, if you are on the bubble your score can also be taken into account.
3). CSR publishes that info. But, it won’t be too helpful. Submit your grant when it is in optimal shape. I believe that trying to submit for the “right” cycle doesn’t help much. The random variability of scoring overwhelms any effect.

John M said
October 23, 2009 @ 2:23 pm · Edit
Call or email the PO. They are going to be busy these days, but my PO in NHLBI has been amenable to my calling. I called after I got my score and I left a voice mail and he called me back later that day. When I called last week, he picked up the phone and answered my question on the spot.

Paylines for R01s are based on percentages. That is how comparisons can be made more fairly across different study sections that may rate harder or easier. The NIH website has details on how percentages are calculated, but basically they are calculated within study sections, but for study sections with less than 25 applications in a given cycle, the scores are percentiled across the institute. My grant was reviewed in a special study section because of conflicts with a former mentor being on the initially assigned study section and my summary statement states that it was percentiled against “Total CSR base”.

qpang said
October 23, 2009 @ 5:46 pm · Edit
Thank you very much! I learned a lot for your responses.

Recently I begin to realize that I have not paid much attention to NIH policy during the last several years. The only thing I know is 3 numbers, 15% for regular PIs, 20 for new investigators and 25% for ESIs.

It seems to me that even the 25% for ESI is conditional, which is “if expedited administrative review resolves summary statement comments”. Does it mean if the review can not be resolved, even you are ESI with a percentile, e.g, 21% , you still will not get funded? Based on what facts will the POs think the review is reolved?

I have been curious how the 25% is determined to fund ESI. According the released NIH policy on 10/31/2008 (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-09-013.html), the NIH intends to support New Investigators at success rates comparable to those for established investigators submitting new applications. Does it mean that all the NIs (including ESIs) are grouped, and 10% of them (established PI has a payline of 10%) will be funded? The last person’s percentile in that 10% of NIs will be considered as the final payline for ESI?

Thanks alot!

whimple said
October 23, 2009 @ 8:05 pm · Edit
You’re wasting valuable time worrying about this. You should be revising your grant for rapid resubmission this November before you have to cut it in half due to the new page limits. Other than a couple of wasted weeks, there’s no downside to a resubmission.

John M said
October 26, 2009 @ 10:01 am · Edit
Success rate and payline percentage aren’t quite the same thing. Your percentage score is a measure of how well your application was rated in relation to others in the study section, and the payline is a level set by the institute that will allow funding number of grants that can be covered by the budget. Success rates is basically the number of grants funded divided into the number of applications submitted. It may be higher or lower overall than the payline percentage depending on budget size of funded projects, number of applications submitted in a given year and other factors.

See this document for more explanation: http://www.nih.gov/about/researchresultsforthepublic/successrates.pdf

Please do provide an update on what your PO says. The info would be helpful to other NHLBI applicants is gauging where they stand.

qpang said
October 25, 2009 @ 7:11 pm · Edit
Thank for your suggestion. The downside is that I only have one more chance for resubmission which is ready yet at this moment.

qpang said
October 26, 2009 @ 7:03 pm · Edit
I will, thanks!

Dimitri said
October 27, 2009 @ 11:26 am · Edit
I am in a different boat that many of you, as my R21 doesn’t have percentile scores. I got a 25, which was great to see on the Commons page! It was the June 2009 review cycle, and council met in September. My PO has been really helpful, and told me that he couldn’t give me any indication of my funding chances since there is no budget yet. But he did suggest (back in August) that I reapply since I had very minor changes. I resubmitted in September (it’s a special deadline). So now I have my R21 with a 25 score sitting and waiting for funding, but at least my resubmission is already in the queue for review (and can be withdrawn if the other is funded).

I wish I had percentile scores to know where I stand, though. It is frustrating to wait (but better than having a worse score…I’ve been there before).

sp said
October 27, 2009 @ 9:27 pm · Edit
Does anyone have a feel for a 27 priority score / 28 percentile at NIGMS for ESI. A1 submission.

thanks

laghs said
October 27, 2009 @ 10:17 pm · Edit
The score is great but the percentile is a little low. I am surprised to see a 27 score with only 28%tile… For my study section, a score of 30 equals 12%tile. According to my PO at NIGMS, a grant with below 20%tile will be invited to submit JIT. Between 20-30 will be in the grey area. Above 30%tile has little chance (although still in the grey area if 60% applications to Ao applicants. I did a JIT request from the NHLBI. My PO says paylines are not yet decided, and she doubts if my grant will make it, as they will be conservative as the NHLBI expects a flood of unfunded RC1s. So she says I may want to re-submit. But I am a bit confused about the JIT request. I have been told JIT request means my application is being considered seriously. Is that true? Should I wait until decisions are made, or re-submit. I am thinking of re-submitting in March, but that will mean I will have to do the 12 page format. Will this put me in a big disadvantage? The comments are very mild, so it is easy to fix.
The NHLBI is also conservative in Octiber council and then they move up gradually. I would hate to go through the painful revision process, if they pick up the original later in the fiscal year.

Please advice.

D said
October 28, 2009 @ 5:48 pm · Edit
The JIT request is now standard for unsolicited apps that score 20 percentile or better.

“The 20 percent-or-less policy is NIH-wide for all PIs. Here’s a hypothetical example of how it works: if NIAID’s payline is at the 12 percentile and an application receives a percentile of 20, the Center for Scientific Review would send a standard automailer.”

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/qa/justintime.htm#findout

Kumar said
October 28, 2009 @ 6:09 pm · Edit
I did not get the JIT request from CSR (erA commons). I got the request from the Grants Management Office of the NHLBI. Also, my percentile is 22 not 20!

qpang said
October 28, 2009 @ 9:13 pm · Edit
Does anybody know how the policy that 60% of A0s will be funded works.

If only 2 A0s are submitted in one cycle, and both get a traditional percentile of 80%, will one of these 2 A0s be funded? If that is true, it is ridiculous.

I would think that the A0s should first meet a minimal percentile or score and then can be funded under the new 60% A0s policy.

Any thoughts?

Kumar said
October 28, 2009 @ 10:59 pm · Edit
I did not say they will fund 60% of Aos. What they say is that if they rank the percentiles of Ao, A1, and A2 grants separately, and also ensure that % appications funded for A0, A1, and A2 are the same, then if they look at the final numbers, they expect, based on past history that over 60% of the awarded grants will be A0s.

For example, if they got a total of 1200 applications in which there are 700 A0s, 400 A1s, and 100 A2s. If they fund 20% of the applications under each category, then the final funded grants will be 140 A0s, 80 A1s, and 20 A2s. So of the total 240 funded grants, 140 will be A0s, which is about 58%. In this way, they can avoid pick good science early and avoid resubmissions.

They came up with this idea as they noticed after looking at past history that >75% applications which received a percentile of 25 or better were funded in the A1 or A2 versions. This is alo the reason they have eliminated A2s.

I hope this is clear.

qpang said
October 29, 2009 @ 12:15 am · Edit
It was released as “…..make >60% of its grant awards to A0 submissions”. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/funding/policies/rsr.htm.

So, I was wrong, it should not be that 60% of A0s will be funded, instead, 60% of funds will be allocated to support A0s.

If that is the case, how could this be possible, “…….so that success rates for A0, A1, and A2 applications are equal, http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/funding/policies/rsr.htm. ” Unless, there are much more A0s than A1s or A2s, just as you assumed (700 A0s vs 400 A1s vs 100A2s).

Boyle said
October 29, 2009 @ 11:12 am · Edit
2010 federal budget was finally signed by President Obama yesterday. How long does it take for institutes like NHLBI to decide payline after budget approval (considering that their October council meeting is over)?

laghs said
October 29, 2009 @ 11:55 am · Edit
But that was only about the defense budget.

D said
October 29, 2009 @ 12:29 pm · Edit
I agree with laghs. I think that the bill signed today was the National Defense Authorization Act. It funds the DoD (and some other stuff) but not NIH. At least not this year.(http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2647)

The general answer is that NIH (or at least NIAID since few other Institutes have published paylines yet) already has plans to raise the paylines as soon as the Prez signs a budget. The bigger unknown/worry now is how many recycled RC1s come in for the Feb. deadline.

xjb said
October 29, 2009 @ 12:41 pm · Edit
What do u mean by the following sentence.

The bigger unknown/worry now is how many recycled RC1s come in for the Feb. deadline.

To my understanding, the proposals submitted for the Feb deadline will be funded using the FY 2011 budget, right?

D said
October 29, 2009 @ 1:57 pm · Edit
There are ~18,000 unfunded 12 page RC1s (with reviewer comments) sitting on PIs computers. It won’t be too hard to resubmit them as new 12 page R01s in Feb, 2010. The more apps that come in the lower the payline is.

John M said
October 29, 2009 @ 1:57 pm · Edit
February 2010 deadline grants will by on FY2011 cycle. The question for paylines for FY2010 is how many RC1s came back as R01s for the Oct deadline.

xjb said
October 29, 2009 @ 2:10 pm · Edit
However, those RC1 resubmitted as R01s in Feb 2010 have nothing to do with the FY 2010 budget. I remember that writedit has mentioned that there is around 15% increase in the number of R01 submissions for the Oct 2009 cycle. Therefore, we shall be able to estimate the number of RC1s submitted for FY 2010.

qpang said
October 29, 2009 @ 6:46 pm · Edit
Will those RC1s coming back as RO1 for Oct 2009 cycle be treated as A0s or A1s?

writedit said
October 29, 2009 @ 6:50 pm · Edit
RC1s coming back as R01s or R21s (at any cycle) will be A0s – new applications, not amended resubmissions.

qpang said
October 29, 2009 @ 6:55 pm · Edit
Is it because those RC1s did not get review comments?

writedit said
October 29, 2009 @ 7:04 pm · Edit
Whether an RC1 was scored or not does not matter. The research proposed in an RC1 application will need to be submitted to a different mechanism and hence as a new application (versus amended submission). The NIH covers this in its ARRA FAQ:

… applications that are not selected for funding may be submitted in response to another funding opportunity announcement (FOA). These applications must be submitted as new applications, not resubmissions. Therefore, the application should not include an introduction, should not make references to the previous review, and should be submitted for the appropriate due date for new applications as noted in the FOA.

and in the notice issued last May cautioning PIs not to recycle their RC1s in June:

When an unfunded application that was reviewed for a particular research grant activity code is to be submitted for a different grant activity code, it is to be prepared as a new application.

writedit said
October 29, 2009 @ 3:24 pm · Edit
I’ll try to do a post on this when I get past some grant deadlines, but many of you might like to read NIAID’s article on Rating Applications: Scores and Percentiles, which does a nice job of illustrating why applications with the same Impact Score have different percentiles and how percentiling is used to counter the tendency of study sections to begin clustering scores at the lower end of the scale.

Kal said
October 29, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
Hi Writeedit,

Who actually makes the recommendations for new paylines at NCI? Is it a committee of advisors to the Dirctor? My program director said she is not involved. I really hope they take the problems associated with the new scoring system into consideration. I read a blog in which the study section members described their experiences. They are asked to follow the new critique format. starting with the overall impact, significance, then investigators. There are no detailed discussions of the approach (so familiar to the prior way of doing business). So the rest of the panel, who for the most part haven’t actually read the application being discussed, have no idea what the proposal is about. There seems to be lot of frustration there. So, in the absence of vigorous input from the panel, I can see the scores are subjected to different interpretations, and that members voting in whole numbers. Four (very good) can easily become five (good). Any info that you can share with us will be appreciated. Thanks.

writedit said
October 29, 2009 @ 10:11 pm
I believe the IC’s office of extramural management (or equivalent) calculates the paylines using a standard formula (taking into account the budgeted $ for that mechanism, # applications reviewed, average award size for mechanism) and historical data for each funding mechanism. NIAID probably, as usual, describes it best on their Funding Decisions Tutorial. However, whether they stick with a strict threshold or not, and whether they release their target payline, varies widely from IC to IC. NIMH keeps the flexibility to consider anything from 10-20th percentile for funding (but no guarantees, so a 19th percentile could get funded while an 11th does not). NIAID and a handful of others lay out their paylines in detail. Which is better (or worse): knowing your application is outside the payline, or not being sure where it sits in the pile?

laghs said
October 30, 2009 @ 12:03 am
Writedit, could you tell when a new investigator will lose his new PI status – does it happen at the time the award letter is issued, or earlier? My council meeting will be held in late January. Currently, I have another R01 to be resubmitted next month. It seems to me this grant will be reviewed in Feb 2010 with my ESI status intact. I wonder whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. I heard some reviewers are harsh to new investigators. One of my friends suggests that I hold the resubmission until my ESI status is clearly gone. But I don’t want to wait until FY2011. Thanks for your input.

qpang said
October 30, 2009 @ 5:38 am
ESIs who have a percentile >5 but 5 but 5 and <10 rule is only stated by NHLBI. May not be the case for NIGMS, where sp’s grant is being considered.

writedit said
November 4, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
Only PIs count toward the special ESI payline. For a multiple PI application, all the PIs must be ESI. The status of any other senior/key personnel (co-investigators etc.) are not considered.

AK said
November 4, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
When do you think NIH will start funding FY2010, knowing the fact that there is backlog in the budget/spending bill and the HHS bill has not even gone to the senate voting- seems far away. Specifically, February submissions that have a start date of December 1- What happens here?

Kumar said
November 4, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
I do not think we need to worry that much. Since NIH is under CR, they will continue to pay from December 1. it is just that they will pay according to 2009 payline and will be conservative.

Kumar

qpang said
November 4, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
Should we expect an adjusted percentile coming out first before judging our chance to be funded?

writedit said
November 4, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
Your percentile won’t change – that is linked to the study section in which your grant was reviewed. The IC’s payline may improve later in the FY … but of course, we still don’t know any paylines except NIAID’s interim R01 (6th/10th percentile for established/new investigators).

John M said
November 4, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
What happen is that the grants start late. I have a grant in the same cycle with a likely fundable score. I am not expecting to see money by Dec 1. Based on what my PO told me last week on the telephone, there may not even be funding decisions by Dec. 1.

Dimitri said
November 4, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
My PI said the exact same thing John M just said. It’s frustrating, but I understand their position as well.

laghs said
November 4, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
Has anybody ever excluded study section members as potential reviewers? I have a competitor sitting on the roster. It would be very helpful if I could exclude him.

Kumar said
November 4, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
Laghs: You may call your SRO and express this concern. He or she may ask for an email explaining why you would like to exclude this person. If they are satisfied, they will request the member to be in conflict and leave the room when your application is discussed. So, the bottom line is you need to have a convincing case!

Good luck!

Kumar

CD0 said
November 4, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
If you are going to try to convice the SRO to exclude a reviewer who sits regularly in the study section and have a good reason, I suggest that you also try convince him/her to exclude your application from the CD that this reviewer will get with all the materials to be discussed…

In any case, consider that your application will be discussed by a bunch of experts and nobody wants to appear full of obvious prejudices, negative opinions and bad criteria in front of the entire study section that may review your own grant a few months later…

Tricky matter…

laghs said
November 4, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
Thanks, Kumar and CDO. I will try my best on this. Fortunately, this person is an ad hoc member, so things might be a little easier.

grantlover said
November 4, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
Does a priority score of 45 for R43 (SBIR) submitted to NIAID is good enough for consideration for funding.? Thanks for the help.

writedit said
November 4, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
Hmm. That 45 is probably on the edge, probably above what the interim payline will be. The question is how other SBIRs are being scored in the new system.

Kal said
November 4, 2009 @ 10:26 pm
Writeedit,
Do you know if they will set new paylines as normal (usual) and the ARRA (slightly higher) for 2010 at NCI? I assume the ARRA funding is still available for this to be done. I have an RO3 which scored 48 (on the edge as you will say), hoping to get it funded. The priority scores were 210 (usual) and 225 (ARRA). Thanks.

writedit said
November 4, 2009 @ 10:50 pm
I could be wrong, but I don’t foresee any ICs setting ARRA paylines for FY10 or picking up any more beyond payline awards with stimulus funding. There could still be some supplements funded with ARRA $ (NHGRI has its FY10 admin supplement deadline set for Dec 1, for example), and there are a number of outstanding ARRA-related awards to be made (only one open competition, with several in various stages of peer review, such as S10, C06, R15, and small business opportunities).

gankutsuoh said
November 5, 2009 @ 10:43 am
My PO has just e-mailed me that “the NCI FY2010 interim payline is 15% and that the “Star R01″ (for New Investigators) payline is 20%. It could go higher once a budget passes, but it will not go lower.” The PO has also stated “Congrats!!!” Funded!!!

gankutsuoh said
November 5, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
My PO has let me know that it was decided yesterday that the interim NCI FY2010 payline for R01 is 15% and that the “Star R01″ (for New Investigators) pay line is 20%. It could go higher once a budget has passed, but it will not go lower. The PO has also mentioned “Congratulations!” and I am funded!!! Unfortunately, no info is available about other grants.

AK said
November 5, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
That’s a good news. I hope my PO at NCI is also aware of this!! This will really help many of us.

whimple said
November 5, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
I’ve lost track of what the fiscal years mean. Does FY refer to the date the grant was submitted, or to the date the grant will start being paid on? Is the start of FY2010 October 1, 2009? How exactly does this work?

D said
November 5, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
I believe it means the date the grant is awarded. So, if you submit June 2009 it will be paid with FY2010 dollars.

Y said
November 5, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
Is this NCI FY2010 interim payline better than its 2009 payline (without ARRA)? If so that’s encouraging…

laghs said
November 5, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
About the same. The official FY2009 payline was 16. But obviously this FY10 interim payline is conservative, and it could go higher later.

Y said
November 5, 2009 @ 8:18 pm · Edit
Historically, does NIGMS have better paylines than NCI?

laghs said
November 6, 2009 @ 12:30 am · Edit
Yes, look at this: http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Research/Application/trends.htm

Y said
November 6, 2009 @ 11:58 am
Did you talk to your PO about the chance of 17% for ESI at NIGMS? I remember we have the same percentile.

From what I heard from my PO, it is at least encouraging.

laghs said
November 6, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
My PO said that I should be “cautiously optimistic”. But he also said that anyone with 1-20 percentile should be “cautiously optimistic”. So I guess this means quite positive. I would be really really surprised (and frustrated) if a 17 percentile for an ESI wouldn’t get funded. Given the newly released interim paylines from other institutes, I don’t expect any major change in payline at NIGMS for FY11.

peluhukay said
November 5, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
Just received notice this morning from my PO that the my K01 was selected for funding (K01 thru NCRR)!!! Just have to wait for the NOGA to make it official, which should occur within a few weeks time (PO wasn’t sure exactly when this would happen). So, it looks like NCRR is making budget decisions now.

asaid said
November 5, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
My R21 application for NIAID received an impact score of 23 from the BDMA study panel. I talked to the PO, he said it is a great score but can’t say anything more because the budget is not set. This was a resubmission but if we had to resubmit practically speaking there is really not much to improve in the application. NIAID has a very conservative payline for R21 (it was 137 last year). I talked to some other panel members and they said 23 will most likely get funded but I am not very sure what will happen. Any comments?

writedit said
November 5, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
Congratulations to all of you finally getting some good news about your applications! Thanks so much for sharing your updates here so others know where they might stand.

gankutsuoh said
November 5, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
writedit-
Thank you for providing us with this great site. You and your site have been so helpful.
-Gankutsuoh

AK said
November 5, 2009 @ 6:57 pm
I am new investigator with a 10%ile. I wrote to my PO after I learned from one of the folks (thanks) who posted that the NCI’s interim pay-lines for regular/New investigator are 15/20. The PO wrote to me back that this is true, and my situation is hopeful. However, the PO mentioned that this has to be also approved by National Cancer Advisory Board. Now, my grant has already completed the September council. Now, I do not know what this means for me. Should I inform him that my application has completed council review.

I thank all who participate on this site- this is a great site. To put it simple ” this makes life a lot easier, and most importantly, help us prepare best for the next step”

Kumar said
November 5, 2009 @ 7:47 pm
The NHLBI has just posted its 2010 paylines. It is 16 for A0, 9 for A1, and 7 for A2. For ESI it will be 5-10 pecentile higher. I am established investigator who got 22 percentile on an A0 submission. Usually the NLHBI very conservative in October council, and percentiles usuallly go up aftet budget is passed etc, and they do say that paylines will be updated throughout the year. My situation is tricky. I have only one more chance, and my pecentile needs to drop to single digits to be considered as an A1. So, should I wait and hope thr payline reaches 22 at some point? Please advice.

writedit said
November 5, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
I too think the likelihood of a 6-pt jump in the A0 payline is low (NIAID is hoping to go up 4 pts to the 10th percentile), though not impossible. You do have a tricky situation, especially with the concurrent drop in page length and overhaul of the research narrative format/content. Who knows what will happen with the Cycle I application reviews. On the other hand, study sections will have figured out that A1s won’t be in line for $ without remarkably low scores, so it will be interesting to see what happens with A1 and A2 scores next round. If you think you’ll have a killer A1 ready in March, there’s no need to wait certainly. And you could shop the proposal with the AHA (applications due Feb 2, 2010).

gankutsuoh said
November 5, 2009 @ 8:12 pm · Edit
All I can say is that I would be very very surprised if the payline reaches 22 and that I would definitely avoid a (re)submission for FY2011.

Kumar said
November 6, 2009 @ 11:08 am
Gankutsuoh:

Thanks for your advice. But I did not re-submit in November (for May 2010 council). So I am planning to re-submit in March 2010, so it will be for 2011 fiscal year, which I am afraid will be worse than this year!

My PO was telling me the last time I spoke to her that they were expecting many applications because of unfunded RC1 applications coming back as new RO1s (A0s). So, since they mention that teh sucess rate will be the same for A0s, A1s, and A2s, dont you think I still stand a chance with my 22 percentile? The reason I say this is because: for example, if they received 600 Aos, and if the success rates was 15%, then they will award 90 A0s in this council. The unfunded RC1s that were submitted in October 2009 will be considered for the May 2010 council. Also, A2s are being phased out, so in May 2010, there may say 900 A0s, and 350 A1s and very few A2s. So, if the success rate is still 15% (the NHLBI maintains the same success rate througout the fY), then they would fund 135 A0s, as against 90-100 in October and Feb councils. So, is there stiill a chance, my grant will be picked up in May 2010? Of course, I will submit in March and do the best I can. Just a thought!

Any comments!

gankutsuoh said
November 6, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
Sure, anything is possible on theory. Also, the payline is just one of many factors, though most significant admittedly, for a PO to pick up a grant. If I were you, I will do the following before resubmitting in March. 1) First, check the term of possible reviewers of your A0. Will they be still on the roaster in June, October 2010 and review your A1? There is no guarantee that the same reviewers will review your A1. 2) Look into the possibility to have other ICs with much better payline (i.e. NIGMS) review your A1. You are required to significantly change your A1 including a format. Why not also changing the reviewing IC? Asking in the cover letter is easy and free. 3) Consider passing the March resubmission. If you submit A1 in March and get worse score in June, it might negatively affect the PO’s funding decision on your A0 following the May Council meeting. Just my 2 cents.

Mark said
November 5, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
I’m an established investigator that got a 13th percentile on an A1 NHLBI R01. Because of my original submission date, I’m entitled to an A2 submission. What do you think the chances are of the payline rising 4% points to cover this? I will prepare to submit in March but am wondering if you have an intuition about this.

I also want to thank you for hosting this site. It feels like you are helping many people.

writedit said
November 5, 2009 @ 10:34 pm
NIAID hopes to raise their standard R01 payline 4 percentile points from the 6th to the 10th percentile … but they’re pretty low to start with. It’s not out of the question, but I think you are smart to plan for a March resubmission – although it means cutting your research narrative in half (more than probably). My guess is that the A1 and A2 paylines would go up at most a point or two given NHLBI’s emphasis on making at least 60% of their awards to A0 applications.

Speaking of A2s, everyone should keep in mind that 2010 is the last year for submitting their grandfathered second amended application (resubmission). No more will be accepted after Jan 2011.

And you all do a great job helping each other here – many, many thanks for all the personal anecdotes and tips from POs passed along as comments!

EL said
November 6, 2009 @ 10:55 am
Mark: I have a similar status as you. I am a NI got 15 percentile on A1 NHLBI R01. Due to the NHLBI 2 new policies: no 5 percentile favor to NI, and rebalancing success rate among A0, A1 and A2, I am unlikely be funded, and I have to do an A2 resubmission in next March cycle.
My question is: does anyone know if there is an opportunity that my application could be considered by another Institute. In the eRA common, it was primarily assigned to NHLBI, but National Institute Aging was also listed. If NIA posted a payline that higher than 15, can I ask to switch to NIA.
Another question, can I ask to change primary assignment Institute when I submit the A2 in the next March cycle, if I still submit it to NHLBI, I have to get score better than 7 percentile to be funded.
Please advice.

writedit said
November 6, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
You can request IC assignment in your cover letter, but you’ll have wanted to talk with a PO in NIA about this first to be sure they will accept it as a primary assignment. I don’t know what your research is, but if other ICs, such as aging, might be interested, by all means start talking with appropriate POs in the other ICs. You don’t have to stick with the IC assigned by CSR (though it does mean NHLBI was willing to accept the proposal as the primary sponsor).

It’s too late to change assignment for your A1, but you can certainly make this request in the cover letter for your A2 submission. In case you weren’t aware, you can (and should) also ask for specific study section assignments in the cover letter and indicate the type of expertise that will be needed to review your proposal in case the SRO needs to find an appropriate ad hoc reviewer)

whimple said
November 6, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
I wonder what the unintended consequences of NHLBI messing with paylines this way will be. It seems a strange thing to implement now, what with the grant format changing so dramatically in January and with the -A2 applications all disappearing on their own after next year.

writedit said
November 6, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
I agree this is a terrible time to introduce these major changes (going cold turkey on cutting of NI breaks, separate paylines based on amendment status). The new impact scores are still a work in progress, and the percentiles won’t mean much for a few more cycles … and next the application length and format radically change. A lot of good science is going to fall through the cracks at NHLBI … either that, or they’ll be making a lot of select pay awards.

Svetlana said
November 6, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
I agree – one wonders why NHBLI bothered with A2′s disappearing. So unneccessary.

It is almost perfect design to add despair and anger to an already capricious mechanism.

Kal said
November 6, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
For those who had an RO3 with NCI, the cutoff score is 30, which is exactly equivalent to the priority score 200 in previous years. So, the formula discussed in this forum, [(X (your current 2 digit score) – 10) x 5] + 100 appears to suit well at least in this case. On a different topic, I would appreciate hearing your opinions/experience – I had an RO1, and am currently debating whether to submit my next grant as a competing continuation or as a brand new RO1. Which approach to follow – any obvious advantages for competing continuations under the current setting? Thanks.

writedit said
November 6, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
You’ll want to go with the Type 2 competing renewal. You will have a higher likelihood of funding, and it is actually good to introduce new aims in a competing renewal, assuming you achieved the prior project aims (or made good progress) and the new aims are derived from the prior work.

You can look at the historic success rate for R01/R01-equivalents by application type (new, renewal, etc.) and by amendment status for just competing renewals. In 2008, the success rate was just 8.3% for an A0 Type 1 application versus 23.7% for an A0 Type 2 (competing renewal). For amended submissions, the success rate went up to 39.2% and 51.3%, respectively.

Therramus said
November 6, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
Hi,
I got a 7.0 percentile on my NHBLI A2 RO-1 and do not qualify for ESI. The payline for the October counsel for A2s was just posted at 7.0 for 2010. My RO-1 will go to the February counsel.

My question is would this app be considered “grayzone” as its precisely at the payline or are grant at payline considered within the zone of “payable” grants ?

Thanks

John M said
November 6, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
You should be funded. I am pretty sure that payline means up to and including the cutoff point.

gankutsuoh said
November 6, 2009 @ 6:46 pm
Ditto.

Therramus said
November 7, 2009 @ 9:51 am
Thanks for the responses. I guess now the wait.

Kumar said
November 6, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
Like I said I got a 22 percentile on a A0 submission for an RO1 (NHLBI). The council met on October 20. As early as September 25 (weeks before the council meeting) I got a JIT request from the Grants management office of th NHLBI. I was asked again to submit JIT on October 14 (a week before council), as the GM specialist needed some clarification. I took these as signs that I will be funded, but was surprised to see the paylines just posted that A0 will be funded up to 16 percentile. Does any body know why was asked for JIT twice. I was of the impression that JIT request from the IC (not standard mailer from CSR) is an indicator of funding! Can anybody post some thoughts.

In fact, I never got a JIT request in the past and was not funded! Also, when I was close in the past and was not funded, I did not get a JIT request. For example, I got a 23 percentile in 2008 (payline was 15.0), and did not get JIT request, nor funding.

John M said
November 6, 2009 @ 11:29 pm
I suspect that for this first cycle of a new FY, that NHLBI asked for more JITs since they did not know where the cutoff was going to be initially, and so that grants can be picked up later if paylines increase after the budget is finalized.

22% may not get a JIT request for the next council cycle.

writedit said
November 7, 2009 @ 12:16 am
Usually a JIT request is good news with high likelihood of funding, but POs also want to be sure any potentially fundable application has all administrative issues cleared prior to Council. I’m sure NHLBI’s rejiggering paylines by amendment status left a lot of applications that received JIT requests, like yours, in limbo. NIAID has a nice JIT FAQ.

qpang said
November 6, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
Does anybody know something about “expedited review”? Does it totally depend on your POs? What is “resolve comments”? Do you have to have new data to support your case?

“Resolve comments” is the intention of those policy maker to have your POs help you to improve your proposal before they fund you. Or, “resolve comments” doesn’t matter, only the relationship between you and your POs matters.

Thanks!

John M said
November 6, 2009 @ 11:27 pm
To qpang:

One of my colleagues got an R01 funded on expedited review as a new investigator for NHLBI a couple of years ago. I think that “expedited review” meant was that a revised version that addressed the comments was administratively reviewed without it having to go through the study section again. “resolve comments” means that the issues can be addressed relatively easily–usually without having to provide lots of new data.

Discuss with your PO. I thought you posted previously that your grant was at 19%. If you are an ESI with an A0 application, you should be funded.

qpang said
November 7, 2009 @ 9:32 am
To John,

I read your previous posts and found you will be definitely funded. Congratulations!

Based on your colleague’s experience, do you know if the expedited review is a one time deal or you can communicate with your PO back and forth several times to finally resolve the comments?

Thanks!

qpang said
November 6, 2009 @ 11:52 pm
Thanks John! Unfortunately mine is A1 application. The regular payline for A1 is 9%. Even though my percentile still lies in the range for expedited review, I don’t know what my chance will be.

In the summary statement, the first paragragh (I assumed it should be the summarized major concerns by program officer) mentioned two major concerns the reviewers had. But in the critiques from each reviewer mentioned one more major concern. Do you know if it is the program officer who wrote the first paragraph of the summary statement? For me, the first two major concerns in the first pargraph are easy to respond. For the third one, it can be addressed but there is a little bit weak support at this moment for me to address. What is your thought? Thanks a lot!

writedit said
November 7, 2009 @ 12:04 am
The SRO, not the PO, writes the Resume and Summary of Discussion paragraph of the summary statement, and this is where you should concentrate when preparing your response. This paragraph reflects the discussion of the entire study section. If the Summary did not raise the third concern, this might have been resolved during the discussion or identified as not critical to determining the final impact score. However, you might want to ask whether you need to address just the Summary of Discussion comments or the individual critiques as well for this expedited review.

qpang said
November 7, 2009 @ 12:24 am
Thanks a million, John and Writedit.

It becomes more and more clear to me that I need to talk to my PO. I am so regretful that I did not to call my PO at the time when I first got the summary statement. Hopefully it is not too late.

Thanks again!

Kumar said
November 7, 2009 @ 10:19 am
I know my colleague, who is an ESI and had 29 percentile got funded by NHLBI this September (2009 funds). The procedure is as follows: if eligible, you will get an email from the NHLBI program officer, asking you to submit the response to crtiques in summary statement. You will be given 5 pages to respond, and you need to answers all the questions, or write a rebuttal if you cannot answer. Basically, you need to write very well, and be polite. Usually, you will get the email about 1-2 weeks after council. I hope this helps.

John M said
November 7, 2009 @ 10:32 am
Yes, call the PO and discuss. It will help prepare for resubmission and you will get an idea of what to do. This new A1/A2 payline policy is not good in my opinion. I worry that a grant like yours that scores 19% on one cycle and moves up to a 10 or 12% won’t get funded as an A2 even if it has a priority score better than an A1 at 16%. For younger investigators going for their 1st R01, that can kill a career.

qpang said
November 7, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
John, I am confused about your comment. Will my A1 appllication be treated as an A2 after expedited review?

qpang said
November 7, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
The expedited review means not going to study section. The expeditedly-reviewed response should not get scored, so there will not be any percentiles. I doubt it will be treated as an A2 after expedited review.

John M said
November 7, 2009 @ 8:43 pm
I think it is like Kumar said. My understanding of the process is that the response is submitted directly to the PO, not the CSR. If the response is adequate then the PO can “pick up” the grant as a select pay. I have not seen anything yet about this process for NHLBIs for FY2010. I don’t think the expedited review gets scored. Basically the original grant score stands as is, but the grant gets funded on an extension of the payline for the ESI that has “resolved comments”.

I could be wrong about this, so best to take it up directly with the PO and follow their instructions.

qpang said
November 7, 2009 @ 10:26 pm
John, thanks.

I just looked at previou funding paylines for FY2009 and 2008 (http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/funding/policies/archive/operguid09.htm), they all had a definitive payline number for any category of applicants (EI, NI and ESI). But for FY2010, the policy for ESI (5 point above and expedited review for 5-10 points above) seems to me that it is only a guideline at this moment. The definitive payline is not decided yet, probably will be updated throughout the fiscal year. Am I right?

DAP said
November 7, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
Hi, I recieved an email late friday for my JIT on a K submitted 11/08 and reviewed in june 09. I was preparing my resubmitt when I got this wonderful news. Peace

John M said
November 7, 2009 @ 8:46 pm
You should make sure to talk with your PO before cancelling resubmission. Receiving JIT request is great, but not a guarantee of funding. Since the K resubmit deadline is a only few days away, you don’t want to miss it if the funding is not for sure.

Emaderton3 said
November 7, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
I second that. Just resubmit, and if you get funding, you can get your application pulled.

Amit Reddi said
November 10, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
Does anyone have any idea what the rough cut-offs are for funding using the new 10-90 scoring system for the F32 applications? Can you apply a scaling factor and simply calculate the old score, between 100-500?

Thanks

writedit said
November 10, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
If you scroll up through these comments, you’ll see two equations for converting the impact score to the old priority score: one that does a straight 1:1 conversion, one that better matches current scores with former descriptors and scoring ranges. You can look at FY09 paylines for now since most ICs aren’t publishing updated numbers (those who do so at all) and may not until after the CR is converted into a final appropriations bill and signed into law.

mali said
November 10, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
Amit, Have you received scores yet? Ive been checking and havent seen any scores posted on eracommons.

Amit Reddi said
November 10, 2009 @ 12:52 pm · Edit
yeah, got scores this morning;

writedit said
November 10, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
From the NLM: Fundable Range. NLM uses Merit Scores rather than percentiles as the basis for award decisions. For experienced investigators, applications with scores 30 or better are the most likely to be funded. For (1) Early Stage investigators and New investigators seeking their first R01 research grant, or (2) applicants for Career Transition (K99) awards, applications with scores of 45 or better will be considered for funding. All grant awards are subject to the availability of funds.

Boyle said
November 10, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
How long NHLBI takes to decide payline for K / F awards after announcing R / P award paylines?

C said
November 10, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
I’d like to know too. I can’t believe I submitted the application in Feb and still have no idea if my K99 (NHLBI) will be funded. The new scoring system makes things worse, as you can’t easily map one score onto the other distribution.

John M said
November 11, 2009 @ 11:01 am
Probably pretty soon. Deadline for amended R01s was Nov 5 and paylines came out Nov 6. The deadline for revised/resubmitted K grants for the last cycle of FY2010 is Nov 12 so after that they should have a good idea of the number of grants they have for the year. They can then set an initial payline. It may be adjusted later in the year.

Good luck!

CHP said
November 10, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
I had an R01 A2 reviewed at study section this Monday (Im a NI/ESI investigator). It received a 27 with 20%tile. The primary IC is NCI, but it is also listed with NIAID and NIDCR. Is it true that paylines. Questions: 1) Does anyone know definitively what the payline is for NI/ESI at NCI for FY10? 2) Do grants submitted 9/09 get funded under the FY09 or FY10 budget? 3) Since NIDCR doesnt post paylines, is it appropriate to call the appropriate PO for NIDCR and make a preliminary inquiry if they might be interested in funding the grant if NCI cannot? (I assume NIAID will not since those paylines seem to have gone way down lately.

Thank you!

D said
November 10, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
1) I don’t
2) It will funded with 2010 dollars
3)I would suggest talking to your NCI PO first. 20% might make for an NCI NI. If NCI doesn’t sound hopeful then call the NIDCR PO. You are right about NIAID.

Good luck.

CHP said
November 10, 2009 @ 11:03 pm
Thanks! Anyone out there hear about NCI paylines for FY10? Any NI have experience dealing with NIDCR (how do you find out about what they are funding?)

Chris said
November 10, 2009 @ 11:52 pm
Has anyone hard about K01 paylines from NIDDK in the most recent council? I received a priority score of 19 on a June submission and am wondering about my chances for funding. My PO has given me the standard “cautiously optimistic” response. Thanks in advance.
-Chris

Tishka said
November 11, 2009 @ 7:36 am
I think you have a very good chance. Congrats!

Tishka said
November 11, 2009 @ 7:38 am
My PO said my 1st submission K01 score is in the “grey zone”. Can someone please tell me what that means?

D said
November 11, 2009 @ 8:07 am
It means “maybe”. Historically, others with your score have been funded and have not been funded. It depends on unknowns like the final NIH budget, how many others submitted Ks that got better scores than you, what happens in the next review round etc.

Funding is really rank order dependent not score dependent. If your score is a 25 and you are in the top five and they will fund 5 then you are in.

If your score is a 20 and you are NOT in the top five and they will only fund 5 then you are out.

The PO probably knows where you rank but not exactly how many they will fund.

mali said
November 11, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
I wondered if any of you know the range of F32 scores that were funded by NCI with the new scoring system? Is a 31 hopeful or should I through in the towel? Its an A2 so I dont get any more chances.

Jeff said
November 11, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
I’m wondering this also as I got a 32. I submitted to NIGMS (with NCI as a secondary) so we’ll see what happens I guess.

Ak said
November 12, 2009 @ 4:57 am
The name of grant management specialist (GMS) appeared on my commons page yesterday. Knowing that my appication is most likely within the payline and PO in our conversations, understandably, was always positive but never guaranteed funding- can I contact GMS to confirm the start date. Kindly guide me, as I’m a new investigator.

Thanking in advance for your valuable advice.

DrugMonkey said
November 12, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
can I contact GMS to confirm the start date

You can contact the GMS or the PO but in most cases they are going to tell you nothing other than “Wait until the Notice of Award has been issued.”. That and various versions of re-stating where your grant is in the process..most of which you can deduce from commons anyway.

Sounds from your comment that you are getting way ahead of yourself, though. Have you so much as put in your JIT and Other Support yet? Are you past Council even? If neither of these things are true you sure as heck are not getting even a smell at a “confirmation of the start date”.

ARedd said
November 12, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
Hey Jeff and Mali

Good luck with your scores; I got a 33. (F32 NIGMS) What did your PO’s say?

I asked my PO what this meant in terms of funding, and this was his response; very neutral! Any more clues from your PO’s?

“Initial funding decisions will likely be made in early March with successful applicants notified of a fellowship offer; otherwise applications will remain active until the automatic withdrawal date. Since this is also one of the first funding cycles using the current scoring system, until we have the scores from all the study panels reviewing applications, it’s difficult to estimate how your score ranks. In general, you should also come to no conclusions concerning the probability of funding by National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), since the priority score accorded your application is only one of the factors that NIGMS staff considers in making funding decisions.”

Jeff said
November 12, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
Hi ARedd,

Thanks for the feedback! I haven’t gotten a chance to talk to my PO and won’t until next week. Looking at historical funding data for the NIGMS it is interesting how they don’t strictly follow the scores for funding decisions. Did your PO indicate what other factors they take into account when making funding decisions? Also when will they get all of the scores back from all of the study panels?

ARedd said
November 12, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
My PO referred me to the Q and A section of the NIGMS website:

http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Training/IndivPostdoc/PostdocFellowsFAQ.htm

But training potential and time already spent in the sponsor’s lab (which I guess would diminish training potential, are two key criteria, along with relevance of your research to the mission of a specific institute.

My adviser tells me that this is not a slam dunk score, but also one that has a chance. Using the old scoring system, she says she has had students get the F32 with a score as low as 225, (2004ish), which I think would translate to a score of roughly 45 or so according to these plots:

https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2009/09/22/the-new-scoring-system/

Medical Writing, Editing & Grantsmanship