WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog

Syndicate content
Customized Customer Support for Biomedical Researchers
Updated: 31 min 29 sec ago

By: Khandan Keyomarsi

Tue, 11/28/2017 - 00:44

Hello-I submitted a new R01 to NCI that was reviewed in June of 2017 and received a 9th percentile. I was told that the grant will be slated for awarding in January 2018. However, since we are still in CR and based on the comments you have posted on this site, is the payline going to be similar to 2017 (10th percentile) or is it going to be lower than 9th percentile?

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: SaG

Mon, 11/27/2017 - 13:48

Of course if your app was not discussed the last 2 sentences are not applicable.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Mon, 11/27/2017 - 09:24

Not a silly question at all. A 10th percentile R21 would be a sure bet at some ICs but not others (eg, NCI, at least until FY18 budget is signed into law). You should be in good shape for an award, but you can check with your PO when you get your summary statement and ask both about funding likelihood (you could ask if he/she is cautiously optimistic) and whether you should resubmit (as insurance, in case the budget has an unexpected cut). Congrats on submitting such a competitive application your first time out!

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: SaG

Mon, 11/27/2017 - 08:09

Since the vast majority of NIH reviewers have an NIH R01 grants inexperienced reviewers is unlikely to be a problem.

I have seen instances where a grant was at an inappropriate study section. But these cases are rare. The impact of your proposed work should be clear to scientists outside your field. For example, your reviewer 3 might be the world’s expert in DNA repair. If your grant is about transcriptional pausing it is up to you to provide them the general context and convince them of the importance of your work. Don’t expect a panel to contain the same 20 folks who travel in your scientific meeting circuit.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: SaG

Mon, 11/27/2017 - 08:03

I would add that since study section rosters are public you should be checking the past few meetings to see who is on the panel and if they have the correct expertise. It is better to raise your concerns to the SRO (and cc: the PO) well before the meeting meets. But, do not expect a panel full of the same 20 people who attend the same circuit of scientific meetings you do. Also, focus on the criticisms in the summary of discussion. These were the issues that were actually discussed (unassuming a good summary statement) and the main drivers of your score.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: maxT

Mon, 11/27/2017 - 04:11

Actually its 10th percentile. My mistake.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: maxT

Mon, 11/27/2017 - 03:53

Hi. Thanks for your great works. I have recently received a score of 10 in R21. What do you think is my chance to get it funded? This is my first proposal and I am nervous. Apology if the question is too silly.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Mon, 11/27/2017 - 00:37

You are absolutely correct not to appeal. Since this is a renewal, your PO will understand your concerns with the summary statement, so I would certainly recommend that you work with him/her on next steps. If this is the right study section for your science, then check to see how many regular vs temporary reviewers were on your panel (and consider whether the regular members would provide a more qualified review – if so, you can make this request of the SRO). If you are being reviewed by the same SRG that looked at your Type 1 application, your PO can comment on whether another study section might be better, since SRGs do change over the years (ie, the panel for your Type 2 application might have drifted in terms of interests and expertise from your Type 1 SRG). You can also use RePORTER to see what applications reviewed by this SRG are receiving awards to determine if your science matches these (especially Type 2 applications).

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: SadScientist

Sun, 11/26/2017 - 23:43

ScienceStuff – this is a systemic problem. Inappropriate and inexperienced people reviewing grants – perhaps inexperienced staff running review panels? If there is a way to contact you I’d like to discuss because I am experiencing a similar situation – perhaps worse.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: ScienceStuff

Sun, 11/26/2017 - 17:16

I am a fairly senior investigator whose competitive renewal just got triaged. While a minority of the comments pointed out reasonable issues of grantsmanship, many/most of the comments were just wrong with apparent lack of fundamental knowledge and clear lack of perspective/experience. Are there any potentially successful strategies to avoid repeat reviewers for the A1 that were seemingly very inexperienced and probably not qualified to review the initial submission? Or successful strategies for switching study sections? In my experience telling reviewers that they are wrong is not a successfully strategy for bringing them around to your side. Help!

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Sun, 11/26/2017 - 12:25

All ICs must be extremely conservative during the CR since they are operating on 90% of their FY17 appropriation, so paylines are necessarily lower than FY17 levels, and do not know what the FY18 appropriation will look like, so do not want to risk posting a payline they may not be able to sustain. Congress was supporting a slight increase for the NIH, but that could change if the tax cut bill passes since they must pay for the cuts. Council does not set or change paylines – the IC Director does this based on the final appropriation received, the number of applications scoring in a given percentile or score range, and IC programmatic priorities (ie, setting aside more or less $ for special initiatives, select pay, etc.). The paylines will be set/changed when the FY18 budget passes (and will be retroactive to the beginning of the FY, so applications that don’t make the interim payline will be picked up later – including any ESI payline extensions).

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Stellar

Sat, 11/25/2017 - 17:44

Hello, I have heard rumblings that the NCI pay line during continuing resolution will be = or< 8% . Anyone else heard this? when do the council decisions "change" from the 10% current for established R01 to the "new" 2018 / CR pay lines?

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Sat, 11/25/2017 - 08:52

Don’t panic yet – the PO is getting lots of emails from lots of PIs who just got their scores. Yours is probably a little high to be competitive, so your PO is probably concentrating on those who need to take steps for an award, such as JIT (for cycle 1 applications). Next week, try one more email asking if you should resubmit, which I suspect is likely, and a good time to talk about resubmission strategy. You might get back a happy note that you could be in line for funding, but mainly, you will communicate to your PO that you understand your situation and are seeking his/her help moving forward.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: HY

Sat, 11/25/2017 - 01:45

Hi writedit, Thank you very much for such valuable information. I am an ESI, submitted an R03 in June and got 19% percentile and impact score 35 on Oct 27. Summary statement is released on Nov 17. I requested primary institute to be NIGMS, however it was assigned to the secondary institute NHGRI. I emailed my PO on Nov 7, and again on Nov 20, but did not hear back. What would you suggest me to do next? Thank you!

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Wed, 11/22/2017 - 23:53

I do not know NIMH’s funding range for K01s, but this would not be out of range for some ICs. You will need to wait for your summary statement before following up with the PO – which you absolutely want to do (both to learn about your chances of funding and strategy for resubmission, if needed, since your PO would likely have attended the SRG meeting at which your application was discussed). Summary statements can take up to 6-8 weeks to be released, depending on the SRO’s workload. There is no reason to panic or rush – you would be resubmitting in March if needed, and you should have your summary statement in time to talk with your PO in December, which would give you a couple of months to prepare an A1 application if needed.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Wed, 11/22/2017 - 23:47

I am not sure what you mean by “invoking” a COI as the basis of an appeal, nor do I understand the scenario you are trying to describe. First, a PI can only appeal a factual error in a summary statement on objective grounds (not perceived bias or subjective difference of opinion). The PI has no idea which reviewers were assigned to his/her application, so the PI cannot claim there was conflict of interest involved in the review (and certainly not as the basis for an appeal). If the PI (applicant) has a co-investigator on the panel, the PI can indicate this conflict in his/her cover letter, and/or that co-investigator can recuse him/herself from the review and discussion. Now, if you are suggesting a competitor is a co-investigator with Dr. X on the SRG and therefore Dr. X has a COI that led to a negative review – again, this is a stretch, since you can only point to a factual error sufficient to sway the opinion of the entire review panel enough to alter the score. Before you “invoke” any sort of appeal, you should discuss the matter with your PO, who, having the facts, will be able to advise you on what to do. If the PO readily recognizes an objective problem, the PO should take steps to address the situation, if possible, without an official appeal to Council to approve a second review of the application as submitted. Otherwise, if the appeal is accepted, what happens is the exact same application is re-reviewed (after Council approves of this re-review – a huge time delay with no new science submitted). There is no change of score until the next review cycle following Council, and the application could receive a worse score or not be discussed, at which point you are out of options accept to resubmit (after a year or so of delay – you cannot submit a revised application during the re-review process but must wait until after the appeal and second review of the original application).

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: DenDritic

Wed, 11/22/2017 - 22:26

Thanks again for this valuable resource. I have a question with regard to “conflict of interest” as a basis to appeal peer-review outcomes. It is not clear to me how this could work post-review because of the risk that the reviewer looses their anonymity. If one invokes c-o-i with Dr. X on the review panel and PO/SRO/Council concur and accept the appeal, does that not expose Dr. X as the reviewer? Thank you in advance

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: eh

Wed, 11/22/2017 - 14:24

Hello, my K01 to NIMH was scored on October 31st. I have yet to receive the summary statements. My score was a 27 on the first submission. Any ideas on the range of typical scores that are funded at NIMH? Also, my impression was it was about 2 weeks for summary statements to come in. Is it worth following up with PO? Thanks so much!

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Wed, 11/22/2017 - 13:19

No, you can confirm with your PO about a specific institution to be sure, but foreign organizations are not eligible for either phase of K99/R00 applications.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Wed, 11/22/2017 - 13:13

Your PO won’t know about your R01 until the FY18 federal budget is signed into law, which probably won’t happen until next year (which is why your PO does not want you to wait before getting a resubmission ready). More broadly, an application can be considered for funding for as long as it is administratively active, which I believe is 2-3 years after submission. However, essentially, an application will be considered until the end of the FY in which it is submitted (Sept 30) and only rarely in the next FY (eg, if the original application from the prior FY has a better score than the resubmission & the IC wants to fund it). So, you should know by late next summer (August) whether your 14th percentile will be funded, though probably sooner, depending on the timing of the FY18 budget passage.

Categories: NIH-Funding