Response to Prior Review and Resubmission Strategies Yuqing Li, Ph.D Division of Movement Disorders Department of Neurology Center for Movement Disorders.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Recent Study Section Comment for a Faculty Members NIH Application The University of Pittsburgh is an outstanding research institution with an excellent.
Advertisements

ing%20for%20Success.pdf Information from NIH: Louis V. De Paolo NICHD Roger G. Sorensen.
Writing a Fellowship Part 1. My Fellowship History In my third year as a post-doc fellow I received a Leukemia and Lymphoma fellowship for senior fellows.
How to Review a Paper How to Get your Work Published
How a Study Section works
How to write a Research Grant? or How to get a grant rejected? Spencer Gibson Provincial Director, Research CancerCare Manitoba.
An Applicant’s Perspectives on the New NIH Changes Grover C. Gilmore.
Ten Fatal Flaws of NIH Grant Submissions (and how to avoid them) Steffanie A. Strathdee, PhD Thomas L. Patterson, PhD.
How your NIH grant application is evaluated and scored Larry Gerace, Ph.D. June 1, 2011.
Effective January 25, 2010 and beyond Information from Part 5. Research Plan of NIAID’s NIH Grants Cycle Website.
INSTITUTE OF BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES WRITING GRANT PROPOSALS Thursday, April 10, 2014 Randy Draper, Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research Room 125, IBS.
David Fuller Dept. of Physical Therapy McKnight Brain Institute University of Florida R03 and R21: When Are They Appropriate? GMS 6096:
How Your Application Is Reviewed Vonda Smith, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer (SRO)
PRESENTER: DR. ROBERT KLESGES PROFESSOR OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AND MEMBER, DEPARTMENT OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND.
RGC Grant Applications in Biology & Medicine Formulating and Writing winning proposals Kathy Cheah, 2003.
Grant Writing1 Grant Writing Lecture What are the major types of grants available in mental health research? What is the process of grant preparation and.
Getting Funded: How to write a good grant
David Lodowski APPLYING FOR A K99. K99/R00 PROVIDES 2 PHASES OF SUPPORT 1 st Phase: mentored support 90,000/year for up to 2 years* with at least 1 year.
How to Improve your Grant Proposal Assessment, revisions, etc. Thomas S. Buchanan.
Formulating an important research question Susan Furth, MD, PhD Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology and Clinical Research
Effective proposal writing Session I. Potential funding sources Government agencies (e.g. European Union Framework Program, U.S. National Science Foundation,
Welcome to the Grant Jungle Spencer Muse Department of Statistics Bioinformatics Research Center NC State University.
Enhancing Peer Review at NIH University of Central Florida Grant Day Workshop October 26, 2009 Anne K. Krey Division of Scientific Review.
THE NIH REVIEW PROCESS David Armstrong, Ph.D.
UAMS Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Grant Writing: A Primer for the Initial Application
A Roadmap to Success Writing an Effective Research Grant Proposal Bob Miller, PhD Regents Professor Oklahoma State University 2011 Bob Miller, PhD Regents.
4) It is a measure of semi-independence and your PI may treat you differently since your fellowship will be providing salary support. 2) Fellowship support.
Why Do Funded Research?. We want/need to understand our world.
STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESS 1. Build and Sustain a Vital Research Environment Understand the NIH extramural research program –Know the guidelines, deadlines,
Academic Research Enhancement Award (AREA) Program Erica Brown, PhD Director, NIH AREA Program National Institutes of Health 1.
1 CHE 594 Lecture 28 Hints For a Prospective Faculty Candidate.
NIH Challenge Grants in Health and Science Research RFA OD
The NIH Grant Review Process Hiram Gilbert, Ph.D. Dept. of Biochemistry, Baylor College of Medicine Xander Wehrens, M.D. Ph.D. Dept. of Molecular Physiology.
NIH Mentored Career Development Awards (K Series) Part 5 Thomas Mitchell, MPH Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics University of California San Francisco.
AHRQ 2011 Annual Conference: Insights from the AHRQ Peer Review Process Training Grant Review Perspective Denise G. Tate Ph.D., Professor, Chair HCRT Study.
Presubmission Proposal Reviews at the College of Nursing (CON) Nancy T. Artinian, PhD, RN, FAAN Associate Dean for Research and Professor.
Diego E. Rincon-Limas. Ph.D. GMS 6096: Introduction to NIH Grant Writing for Biomedical Sciences University of Florida Departments of Neurology and Neuroscience.
Fellowship Writing Luc Teyton, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Immunology and Microbial Science
Tips on Fellowship Writing A Reviewer’s Perspective Wendy Havran.
National Institutes of Health AREA PROGRAM (R15) Thomas J. Wenzel Bates College, Lewiston, Maine.
Thoughts on grant writing David Fuller Dept. of Physical Therapy McKnight Brain Institute University of Florida GMS 6096: Introduction.
NSF Peer Review: Panelist Perspective QEM Biology Workshop; 10/21/05 Dr. Mildred Huff Ofosu Asst. Vice President; Sponsored Programs & Research; Morgan.
Diego E. Rincon-Limas. Ph.D. GMS 6096: Introduction to NIH Grant Writing for Biomedical Sciences University of Florida Departments of Neurology and Neuroscience.
How to Prepare Your NIA Proposal Vincent Lau, Ph.D. VP of Research and Graduate Education Chief Science Officer.
Cindy Collins ETEC 665 Grants for Technology Writing a Winning Proposal.
Ronald Margolis, Ph.D. National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases Amanda Boyce, Ph.D. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal.
How is a grant reviewed? Prepared by Professor Bob Bortolussi, Dalhousie University
Restructured NIH Applications One Year Later:
Insider Guide to Peer Review for Applicants Dr. Valerie Durrant Acting Director CSR Division of Neuroscience, Development and Aging.
OCTOBER 18, 2011 SESSION 9 OF AAPLS – SELECTED SUPPORTING COMPONENTS OF SF424 (R&R) APPLICATION APPLICANTS & ADMINISTRATORS PREAWARD LUNCHEON SERIES Module.
Funding Opportunities for Investigator-initiated Grants with Foreign Components at the NIH Somdat Mahabir, PhD, MPH Program Director Epidemiology and Genetics.
Down the Road to Funding: Getting That First NIH Grant Dr. Ann M. Schreihofer Department of Physiology Medical College of Georgia
NIH R03 Program Review Ning Jackie Zhang, MD, PhD, MPH College of Health and Public Affairs 04/17/2013.
Grant Writing for Success
Presenter: dr. Robert Klesges Professor of Preventive Medicine
NATA Foundation General Grants Program Process
NSF/NIH Review Processes University of Southern Mississippi
Development of a Research Proposal: The COBRE Saga
NSF/NIH Review Processes University of Southern Mississippi
The NSF Grant Review Process: Some Practical Tips
How to Write a Successful NIH Career Development Award (K Award)
Rick McGee, PhD and Bill Lowe, MD Faculty Affairs and NUCATS
Preparing Research Proposals for NSF and NIH April 20, 2018
Approach Section: The “Meat” of the Proposal
Grant writing Session II.
How to Succeed with NSF: September 14, 2018
Study Section Overview – The Process and What You Should Know
NATA Foundation General Grants Program Process
Presentation transcript:

Response to Prior Review and Resubmission Strategies Yuqing Li, Ph.D Division of Movement Disorders Department of Neurology Center for Movement Disorders and Neurorestoration The Evelyn F. and William L. McKnight Brain Institute University of Florida

Outline Summary statement Summary statement Decision to resubmit or switch to another project/idea Decision to resubmit or switch to another project/idea How to Prepare for Resubmission How to Prepare for Resubmission Specific issues Specific issues

Summary Statement Sample Summary statement Sample Summary statement Choosing Study Sections: Choosing Study Sections: based funded projects in your field and member composition. based funded projects in your field and member composition. Talk to program officer Talk to program officer Specify it clearly in cover letter Specify it clearly in cover letter Exclude conflict of interests reviewers Exclude conflict of interests reviewers Contact program office for insight Contact program office for insight

Summary Statement Overall impact score and percentile Overall impact score and percentile Five components: Five components: Significance Significance Investigator(s) Investigator(s) Innovation Innovation Approach Approach Environment Environment Strengths and weaknesses Strengths and weaknesses Protection for Human Subjects Protection for Human Subjects Vertebrate Sections Vertebrate Sections

Whether to resubmit or not Scored application: consult with collaborators and mentors Scored application: consult with collaborators and mentors Triaged or unscored application: Triaged or unscored application: Resubmission will be very difficult Resubmission will be very difficult Additional problems not mentioned in the summary statement present further impedance for success Additional problems not mentioned in the summary statement present further impedance for success It is doable as long as you fix all the problems It is doable as long as you fix all the problems Triaged or unscored application: Triaged or unscored application: Change to another mechanism or another funding agency Change to another mechanism or another funding agency

However to resubmit Significance Significance How to pick an important topic How to pick an important topic You can always change what you do after you are funded You can always change what you do after you are funded Rare disease: to associate it to impact beyond your field to major disease Rare disease: to associate it to impact beyond your field to major disease Disease-focused research but try to have impact on basic biological processes as well Disease-focused research but try to have impact on basic biological processes as well

However to resubmit Investigators Investigators Lack of independence Lack of independence Obtain a private foundation grant first Obtain a private foundation grant first Publish or perish Publish or perish Turn any data from postdoc period into your own publication, even with your previous mentor as a collaborator. Turn any data from postdoc period into your own publication, even with your previous mentor as a collaborator. Collaborators to cover areas you as a PI lacks Collaborators to cover areas you as a PI lacks Publications with collaborators will strengthen the application Publications with collaborators will strengthen the application

However to resubmit Innovations Innovations Conceptually, new ideas will advance field Conceptually, new ideas will advance field Technical innovation, a new tool, a new method Technical innovation, a new tool, a new method A new approach to a field A new approach to a field Cutting edge approaches, effective use of the university core facilities Cutting edge approaches, effective use of the university core facilities

However to resubmit Approach Approach Logical design of aims Logical design of aims Central hypothesis tested by 2 to 4 complementary aims Central hypothesis tested by 2 to 4 complementary aims Cutting edge approaches, effective use of the university core facilities Cutting edge approaches, effective use of the university core facilities Collaborations to expand the scope of the project, you will not penalized for enlisting more collaborators, with an eye toward promotion and tenure evaluation later Collaborations to expand the scope of the project, you will not penalized for enlisting more collaborators, with an eye toward promotion and tenure evaluation later Collaborations, publications, preliminary data to establish feasibility. Collaborations, publications, preliminary data to establish feasibility.

However to resubmit Environment Environment As one of the 108 Carnegie High Research Activity University, overall university environment is excellent As one of the 108 Carnegie High Research Activity University, overall university environment is excellent Florida State UniversityTallahassee FL Florida State UniversityTallahassee FL University of Central FloridaOrlandoFL University of Central FloridaOrlandoFL University of FloridaGainesvilleFL University of FloridaGainesvilleFL University of MiamiCoral GablesFL University of MiamiCoral GablesFL University of South Florida-TampaTampa FL University of South Florida-TampaTampa FL

However to resubmit Environment Environment Department Chairman Chair/Division Chief support: seed money; time protect for research; space right now or promised space if funded. Department Chairman Chair/Division Chief support: seed money; time protect for research; space right now or promised space if funded. Seek out local collaborators: win-win situation Seek out local collaborators: win-win situation Get membership in centers and insitutes to package it very differently Get membership in centers and insitutes to package it very differently

However to resubmit Things will help for the resubmission: Things will help for the resubmission: More papers published, possibly high impact papers More papers published, possibly high impact papers Preliminary data to demonstrate the feasibility Preliminary data to demonstrate the feasibility Preliminary data to support your hypothesis Preliminary data to support your hypothesis Access to new reagent (antibodies, cell lines, animal models) Access to new reagent (antibodies, cell lines, animal models) Access to new equipment and facility Access to new equipment and facility

However to resubmit Introduction: Introduction: Limited to one page Limited to one page Thank the panel members Thank the panel members Fully address the issues in the Resume and Summary of Discussion Fully address the issues in the Resume and Summary of Discussion Address most, if not all, of the concerns raised by all three reviewers Address most, if not all, of the concerns raised by all three reviewers Remember to thank them again near the end Remember to thank them again near the end 3 Example: 3 Example:

Specific Issues Biased reviewer: Biased reviewer: Try to exclude the reviewer Try to exclude the reviewer Try to switch to another study section Try to switch to another study section Address the question head on and follow the suggestion of the bias reviewer Address the question head on and follow the suggestion of the bias reviewer Proposal went to the wrong reviewer: Proposal went to the wrong reviewer: Try to write for people outside of the field and get them excited about your work Try to write for people outside of the field and get them excited about your work Point out the error in a diplomatic way and turn the reviewer into an advocate for your proposal Point out the error in a diplomatic way and turn the reviewer into an advocate for your proposal