From the NIGMS Feedback Loop Blog: Discussing Your Application’s Review with Your Program Director

Study sections review applications three times a year, about halfway between the submission date and the second level of review by an advisory council. We are currently in the midst of the review cycle for the January 2013 Council meeting, which means that applicants will be getting their summary statements soon.

A recent post described a new NIH resource to explain the next steps after the review of your application. One of them is to contact your program director to discuss the critique, and I highly encourage this. Program directors read hundreds of summary statements each year, so we have a good idea about the comments that might have influenced your score, the likelihood that your application will be funded, and the types of revisions that might make your application more competitive.

Your Resubmission—Application Act Two

Nobody likes bad news, but unsuccessful applications are a fact of life every investigator eventually faces.

But unlike the director of a Broadway play, you don't have to worry about your audience walking out on your second act. Your reviewers will play their part, keen on seeing how you addressed their critiques.

Before we discuss the ins and outs of resubmitting, let’s back up to earlier events where you judge whether resubmitting is your most effective tack.

After you learn your application is not fundable, you’ll first need to spend time to effectively deal with your anger and frustration.

When you've done that, you'll be ready to take a cold hard look at your options and do a thorough analysis of your situation so you can determine what to do next.

NIH Transparency Helps Offset Austerity

As the National Institutes of Health (NIH) confirms plans to reduce non-competing research grant awards by at least 10 percent as long as the FY 13 continuing resolution is in effect, the agency is pumping out a wide range of resources to build researchers’ capacity to be strong applicants and responsible stewards of federal funding.

The Center for Scientific Review’s Peer Review Notes, published primarily for NIH staff and reviewers, is a rich source of information on review policies and procedures. The September 2012 issue includes fresh perspective on innovation and peer review from Sally Rockey, director of the NIH Office of Extramural Research; advice for new reviewers by former NIH study section chairs; discussion of how reviewers can use the “Additional Comments for Applicants” box to provide thoughtful recommendations to applicants; and insight into who exactly takes part in review meetings.

GRC recommends that researchers and administrators at all experience levels subscribe to Peer Review Notes and to two institute-specific resources that routinely deliver NIH- and even government-wide insight.

From GrantWeek: ED Board Offers IES Planning and Competition Insight

During an October 5, 2012 meeting of the National Board for Education Sciences, GRC staff joined a discussion on the future of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), the primary research arm of the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Background information and meeting materials will provide important insight to researchers who are preparing to compete for FY 13 and 14 federal education research funding.

Although IES remains one of ED’s most selective grantmaking units, it has steadily increased the number competitions—beginning with just three in its inaugural year—and awards. In FY 12, for example, the institute supported 49 new projects through the National Center for Special Education Research and 33 new projects through the National Center for Education Research. IES leaders are currently working their way toward FY 13 funding decisions, with reviewers wrapping up evaluation of proposals submitted in June before turning to last month’s round of submissions.

Meanwhile, the institute is seeking comments on a new FY 14 research topic, tentatively titled Continuous Improvement Research in Education. With a February competition planned, the program will offer $1.5 million over five years for research on the ways education system components work together to generate desired outcomes. The broad objectives are to create a safe, orderly, and supportive learning climate for students from preschool through high school; improve students’ transition to high school; and increase access to college and postsecondary training.

The continuous improvement research topic will join the existing Evaluation of State and Local Education Programs and Policies (84.305E) and Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships in Education Research (84.305H) topics under a new program umbrella, Partnerships and Collaborations Focused on Problems of Practice or Policy. These will complement, not replace, IES’s established Education Research Programs (84.305A).

NIH: Next Steps?

NIH recently created an online resource, Application Guidance: Next Steps, to address  frequently asked questions that investigators have about the application review process as well as what the "next steps" are. The questions are grouped into three categories: Scores, Funding Decisions, and Resubmitting.  Questions include:

• What does the score mean; will my application be funded?
• When and how will I know if my application will be funded?
• Are all submissions to RFAs new applications?

Further information on the Review Process itself is linked on the Next Steps page and can be found at the Peer Review Process website.