WriteEdit-Grant Questions Blog

Syndicate content
Customized Customer Support for Biomedical Researchers
Updated: 9 hours 25 min ago

By: Celtics

Wed, 11/15/2017 - 17:54

Hi,

We recently received a score of 30 (no percentile) for an NCI’s provocative questions R01 application (A0). I am an ESI. Does this application still have a chance to get funded?

Thanks.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Wed, 11/15/2017 - 17:52

Hmm. If it really is an issue with the junior status of your mentor, your PO should be able to help make the case that your team will help mentor the junior mentor (so a win-win for you both). It sounds like you did all the right things – I am never sure how reviewers expect more junior investigators to grow as mentors if they aren’t allowed to mentor K awardees (what, they’re okay to practice on grad students & postdocs for a while?), especially in the setting of team mentorship where everyone learns.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Kaden

Wed, 11/15/2017 - 17:14

Many thanks for the insight. I received my summary statement. The critiques’ individual scores look reasonably good (1 to 3) but the overall impact score is dramatically higher (40), possibly because in the study section concerns were raised by other members. The only major concern is my mentor being a junior faculty. Despite adding a senior co-mentor and advisory committee members to my application, this became the main weakness of my application. I will have to talk to the PO to figure out how to address this. I feel that this is one of those weaknesses that I have little control over!

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: lucien

Wed, 11/15/2017 - 13:11

Dear All,

I just received a score of 30 for an NLM EXPRESS RESEARCH R01 application. Does anyone here have experience of this PAR (PAR-16-404 or previously PAR-13-300)? On the NLM website, it says, “applications with Impact scores 30 or better are the most likely to be considered for funding”. Assuming the 2018 funding situation is similar as 2017, how likely I will be considered for funding. Should I start preparing a re-submission?

Many thanks!

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: SaG

Wed, 11/15/2017 - 08:57

Tell your PO you are considering an appeal to get a Special Emphasis Panel re-review of the A1 app.Council can force CSR to do this.So can the institute. Might be time to get your PO fully involved in solving this.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Bioinorganic Chemist

Tue, 11/14/2017 - 18:09

R15 in reversal, I had a ~20% R01 at NIGMS that was submitted in June 2016 that was being considered for funding until the very end; 2 JIT requests and lots of updates and convos with the PO, and a rebuttal request. It didn’t end up getting funded and we re-submitted a A1 in June 2017 that did not even get discussed.

My take home is what has been echoed by others- its frustrating, but keep submitting. If put in 10 *PERFECT* grants, you should only expect 1 (maybe 2) to get funded. It’s the life we chose!

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: R15 In Reverse!

Tue, 11/14/2017 - 17:36

Update: This has been brutal and just completely unacceptable. Current feedback is “oh sorry the SRO made a mistake”. Now I’m sitting here with no grant submitted for review this cycle/fiscal year. I may have to go higher up the chain. I don’t even care about not getting the summary statement and critiques (although I will keep asking for them at this point). I followed the instructions given by the SRO and they threw him under the bus and offered no compromise.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Tue, 11/14/2017 - 00:22

It sounds like you should be okay with the A1, especially if you can provide your PO with a response to not the dissenting reviewer’s critique in detail but whatever was highlighted in the summary of discussion (you could even send a 1-page response draft in advance of talking with him/her). The fact that you have been talking with your PO all along is great, as is the significant improvement in score – all of which NCI will take into account (plus your ESI status). Even if NCI does not reach the 25th percentile for NGRI, which is doubtful (but not impossible, depending on their FY18 appropriation), they will make exceptions for select pay, and your PO should be able to make a good case for you. Just be prepared with a response and any science updates when you next communicate with your PO.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Zhuoli Zhang

Mon, 11/13/2017 - 16:51

thank you very much

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Andrew

Mon, 11/13/2017 - 16:30

My R01- A1 was recently reviewed and was awarded a percentile in the low 20’s (NCI is the IC). I am an ESI. There was difference in opinion during the discussion with 2 reviewers giving high-impact scores for significance/ innovation/ approach and one reviewer dissenting. Strong significance/ innovation was also recorded in the A0 and the resubmission improved the score by greater than 10 percentile points. I think my PO likes the project based on our post- A0 discussion but I have not spoken to them yet. I would be grateful for your feedback on what my options are. The dissenting reviewer’s critique did not expose a fatal flaw or anything- it seemed more due to myopic vision than anything else. As such, I am not sure it can be improved by resubmission (virtual A2) as it was of philosophical nature. I am within the NGRI bracket but then again, this is NCI. Would be grateful for your thoughts.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: trying

Mon, 11/13/2017 - 14:59

Thank you writedit for your response! I will make sure to follow up here with whatever happens so others can include it in their estimation of chances too.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: SaG

Mon, 11/13/2017 - 13:54

Listen to your PO. Resubmit. You need PO support to get a 13% funded at NCI and even then there is no guarantee.

NCI Funding Policy for RPG Awards FY2017

“Most Traditional (R01) applications with scores up to and including the 10th percentile and Exploratory Development (R21) applications with scores up to an including the 7th percentile will be funded without additional review.”

https://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/grantspolicies/FinalFundLtr.htm

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Zhuoli Zhang

Mon, 11/13/2017 - 10:51

RO1 application was assigned to NCI and reviewed on Sep. 26-27, 2017. The proposal received a 13-percentile score. Is it possible to be funded in current application? PO asked to plan resubmission. How should i deal it with?

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: SaG

Mon, 11/13/2017 - 08:42

You should demand to see the Summary Statement from the A1 review.. If they do produce it ask why it is so late. If they can’t, keep demanding it and asking what the problem is. You might cc: your PO too. This is very strange.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Sun, 11/12/2017 - 18:06

Did the SRO back you up on your explanation that you had withdrawn it at his suggestion? I believe, strictly speaking, he was correct about the summary statement: this is why you cannot submit an A1 application before receiving the A0 summary statement (application is still considered under review until then). If no summary statement was added to your eRA Commons account, the application should not have been considered reviewed – but I am not sure if different rules are used to determine A1/A2 status (ie, panel completion is sufficient to trigger A1 designation). Did your status change to SRG review completed when the SRO pulled the application? What did your eRA status say? I would suggest talking with the SRO (if you have not) and your PO about the A1 and whether it can simply be converted to an A0 by removing the Introduction/response to the prior review – and submitting the same application as an A0 in Feb (if they won’t let you convert the A1 to an A0 for Oct submission).

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Sun, 11/12/2017 - 17:54

Strictly speaking, no – but another IC would need to agree to accept the A1 (you can’t just submit it without talking with a PO who is willing to accept it). With the SRG, again, you probably want to check with the SRO of the new SRG to be sure your science is appropriate. In your submission, you would need to justify the need for different expertise if it is not clear why the original SRG is not appropriate (otherwise, CSR might send it back to the original SRG). You might want to consider just an A0 to the new IC and SRG rather than trying an A1 based on the prior summary statement. Your current PO and PO in the new IC can give better advice based on your particular situation.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: writedit

Sun, 11/12/2017 - 17:48

Congress only passed a budget framework – not the actual federal budget. The government is still operating under a continuing resolution (90% of FY17 levels) and will probably be extending the CR when it ends in December unless they can quickly deal with tax reform and the budget bill. Paylines should go up once the federal budget is passed and signed into law, at which point they will be used retroactively to fund applications in limbo due to the CR.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: P S

Fri, 11/10/2017 - 18:59

I have a question regarding the federal budget process and their impact on paylines, both interim and final. On Oct 5, NIAID set their interim FY2018 payline at 9th percentile (lower than 11th percentile last year). Would the budget that congress passed in late October have had any meaningful info that would impact this interim score, or interim scores that other institutes may be planning? Or do things remain in flux regardless of the budget congress passed until the president signs it into law? Thanks for this wonderful resource.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: john chandler

Fri, 11/10/2017 - 17:25

Wondering if anyone has experience with this – does a resubmission have to go to the same institute & study section? I will like to change both if it is allowed.

Categories: NIH-Funding

By: Robert Visalli

Fri, 11/10/2017 - 14:42

I need some advice or comments. This scenario is unbelievable.

Renewal application submitted 6/2015 received score of 25. Final pay lines not set until 8/2016 – not funded

Resubmitted application as A1 2/2017 received score of 41. SRO calls prior to release of summary statements (7/2017) offering opportunity to withdraw and resubmit. Perhaps due to absence of progress report or ? – was never completely clarified. Something odd must have happened at that review. No summary statements will be issued if I chose to resubmit. I thought this a bit odd that the opportunity was offered after panel review but he assured me the review was considered incomplete without issuing a summary statement.

Worked my butt off revised and submitted 10/2017. Application gets posted as an A2. That immediately worried me but since the same SRO was listed I figured it would get switched to A1 based on the conversation in July. NIH just withdrew my application because I cannot submit an A2. Of course I know that but this was supposed to be the A1 re-submission. They refuse to honor the advice given to me by I the SRO. App is dead.

Considering prep time this went from 3/2015 through 11/2017 – over 2-1/2 year at one time scoring a 25 and missing funding by what I estimate as 1%.

I wonder what options I have – appeals? legally? This is unbelievable …..and I’m completely exhausted.

Categories: NIH-Funding