A Reviewer’s Perspective on G20 Grants Lyndon J. Goodly DVM, MS, DACLAM May 2016–ACLAM Forum.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

NCAR Scientific and Research Engineering Staff Appointments Process Bill Randel 2014 Appointments Review Group (ARG) Chair November 12, 2013.

Advertisements

NIH Mentored Career Development Awards (K Series) Part 5 Thomas Mitchell, MPH Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics University of California San Francisco.

How Your Application Is Reviewed Robert Elliott, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer (SRO)

THOMAS MEMORIAL LIBRARY A NEW VISION FOR THE “LIGHTHOUSE OF KNOWLEDGE”

How Your Application Is Reviewed Vonda Smith, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer (SRO)

November 13, 2009 NIH PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS: 2010 REVISONS.

1 Major changes Get ready! Changes coming to Review Meetings Considering Potential FY2010 funding and beyond: New 1-9 Scoring System Scoring of Individual.

Capstone Design Project (CDP) Civil Engineering Department First Semester 1431/1432 H 10/14/20091 King Saud University, Civil Engineering Department.

Director, AREA Program National Institutes of Health Meet the Experts in NIH Peer Review, November 2014.

Using QBS A Qualifications-Based Selection Process Presenters: Ron Brenke, PE - QBS Manager.

A Possible SE 685 Project Automated Reviewers’ Report For ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology)

Nancy L Desmond, Ph.D. Division of Neuroscience & Basic Behavioral Science Key Things to Know about Research Project Grants (R01)

NIH OBSSR Summer Institute July 2012 National Institutes of Health U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Overview of the NIH Peer Review Process.

CSR Advisory Council Meeting May 19, 2014 Editorial Board Review A Few Good Reviewers Don Schneider, Ph.D.

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.

Copyright © 2012 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Chapter 29 Writing Proposals to Generate Evidence.

Public Works Contracting Marsha Reilly Office of Program Research House of Representatives recommended.

NOMMA & NOMMA Education Foundation Research Program Progress report presented to the ICC Code Technology Committee December 13, 2006 Phoenix, AZ Progress.

Lessons Learned: Applying to NIFA for Large Coordinated Agricultural Projects Presentation to Western Region Extension and Research Directors Franklin.

The Center for Symptom Management The NIH review process Kathryn Lee, RN, PhD April 3, 2009 MDP.

Planning & Writing Laboratory Reports A Brief Review of the Scientific Method.

The Review of Your NIH Grant Application Begins Here Richard Nakamura, Ph.D. Director NIH Center for Scientific Review.

Washington State Human Rights Commission 1949 We Will Survive.

NCAR Scientific and Research Engineering Staff Appointments Process Jeff Stith 2012 Appointments Review Group (ARG) Chair October 5, 2011.

University Planning: Strategic Communication in Times of Change Cathy A. Fleuriet Ana Lisa Garza Texas State University-San Marcos Presented at the July.

NIH Mentored Career Development Awards (K Series) Part 5 Thomas Mitchell, MPH Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics University of California San Francisco.

Presubmission Proposal Reviews at the College of Nursing (CON) Nancy T. Artinian, PhD, RN, FAAN Associate Dean for Research and Professor.

Richard Nakamura, Ph.D. October 2014 CSR Goals and Philosophy.

Scientific Merit Review René St-Arnaud, Ph.D. Shriners Hospital and McGill University CCAC National Workshop May 13, 2010, Ottawa (Ontario)

1 A Training and Curriculum Development Partnership for Automated Manufacturing Jess Lee Niebuhr Anoka-Ramsey Community College

SACS and The Accreditation Process Faculty Convocation Southern University Monday, January 12, 2009 Presented By Emma Bradford Perry Dean of Libraries.

Financial Rep Meeting July 14, SPONSORED RESEARCH ROBERTA MCMANUS 2.

Creating Ministry Ownership of the Software Development Process Jeffrey Wood Information Systems Director Compassion International ICCM June 1997.

1 Preparing an NIH Institutional Training Grant Application Rod Ulane, Ph.D. NIH Research Training Officer Office of Extramural Research, NIH.

Fabrication. Fabrication in 5 easy steps: 1.Choosing vendors 2.Ordering materials 3.Fabricating materials 4.Packing materials 5.Shipping materials.

12/11/2009 Writing a NIH Grant Application Ellen Puré, PhD, Professor and Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs, Wistar Institute Mitchell Schnall.

NOAA Cooperative Institutes John Cortinas, Ph.D. OAR Cooperative Institute Program, Program Manager NOAA Cooperative Institute Committee, Chairperson.

Funding Caroline Wardle Senior Science Advisor, CISE Directorate National Science Foundation

Status Report on ILC Project in Japan Seiichi SHIMASAKI Director, Office for Particle and Nuclear Research Promotion June 19, 2015.

Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.

Analysis of Overall Impact Scoring Trends within AHRQ Peer Review Study Sections Gabrielle Quiggle, MPH; Rebecca Trocki, MSHAI; Kishena Wadhwani, PhD,

Changes is NIH Review Process and Grant Application Forms Shirley M. Moore Professor of Nursing and Associate Dean for Research Frances Payne Bolton School.

Insider’s Guide to NIH Peer Review for Reviewers Richard Kitsis, M.D. Former Chair CSR’s Myocardial Ischemia and Metabolism Study Section.

Associate Fellow Nomination Discussion John Dankanich February 3, 2015.

College of Engineering CIVE 4750 Using QBS A Qualifications-Based Selection Process Adapted from a presentation by QBS, Inc. 215 N. Walnut St. Lansing,

How is a grant reviewed? Prepared by Professor Bob Bortolussi, Dalhousie University

Restructured NIH Applications One Year Later:

An Insider’s Look at a Study Section Meeting: Perspectives from CSR Monica Basco, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer Coordinator, Early Career Reviewer Program.

After testing users Compile Data Compile Data Summarize Summarize Analyze Analyze Develop recommendations Develop recommendations Produce final report.

OCTOBER 18, 2011 SESSION 9 OF AAPLS – SELECTED SUPPORTING COMPONENTS OF SF424 (R&R) APPLICATION APPLICANTS & ADMINISTRATORS PREAWARD LUNCHEON SERIES Module.

National Center for Research Resources NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH T r a n s l a t I n g r e s e a r c h f r o m b a s i c d i s c o v e r y t o i m.

The Role of a Program Director NCI Division of Cancer Biology New Grantee Workshop October 18-19, 2010 Jerry Li, MD, PhD Division of Cancer Biology NCI/NIH.

Copyright 1999, S.D. Personick. All Rights Reserved. Telecommunications II Your Term Paper.

National Center for Research Resources NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH T r a n s l a t I n g r e s e a r c h f r o m b a s i c d i s c o v e r y t o i m.

CU Development Grants 2016 Information Session 482 MacOdrum Library June 2 nd, 2016.

Real Property Policy Update Planning and Development Committee August 4, 2015.

Peer Review and Grant Mechanisms at NIH What is Changing? May 2016 Richard Nakamura, Ph.D., Director Center for Scientific Review.

Southeast Rail Extension Update RTD Board of Directors FasTracks Monitoring Committee March 3, 2015.

The NIH Biosketch UZ-UCSF CTU Writer’s Workshop July 2017

NATA Foundation Student Grants Process

NSF Graduate Research Fellowship

NSF/NIH Review Processes University of Southern Mississippi

NSF/NIH Review Processes University of Southern Mississippi

Grant Writing Information Session

External Peer Reviewer Orientation

STRAW MODELING GUIDELINES

SMART & CARING GRANT APPLICATION WORKSHOP

Study Section Overview – The Process and What You Should Know

Construction Management Services April 16, 2018

Presentation transcript:

A Reviewer’s Perspective on G20 Grants Lyndon J. Goodly DVM, MS, DACLAM May 2016–ACLAM Forum

= NIH REVIEW PROCESS

1) What’s the process (Big Picture)? 2) Who is conducting the review? 3) Type of reviewers 4) What’s the review criteria? 5) What’s the scoring scale? 6) What are reviewers looking for? 7) Recommendations 8) Questions Things You Should Know: G20 Reviews

Preliminary review Critiques submitted Review committee meets Initial overall impact score presented Applications with worst scores triaged What’s the Process – Big Picture? Critiques presented by each reviewer Committee individually scores final overall impact score Written critiques finalized Best scored applications proceed to Phase II

First Level of Review: Peer Review (Initial Review Group) Veterinarian Architect or Engineer Scientist Second Level of Review: Council of Councils Who is Conducting the Review?

Experienced Thorough Last Minute Tough Types of Reviewers New Thoughtful Picky Fair

1.Overall impact 2.Scientific merit & organization of total / component parts 3.Administrative and leadership capabilities of applicant 4.Anticipated effect of project on other relevant research programs and facilities in geographic area & nationwide 5.Need for the project or additional space 6.Project Design, including: What’s the Review Criteria? Design Plan Engineering Criteria Line Drawings Architectural Criteria

What’s the Scoring Scale?

Scoring scale is 1 – 9 Very best: 10 (1 X 10 = 10) Worst: 90 (9 X 10 = 90) Not Discussed: How does this happen?

Wow Factor: Impactful Well written Easy to read Provides requested information What Are Reviewers Looking For? Well justified “Why(s)” are well articulated Degrees of separation Mistake(s) & error(s) free

Read the whole RFA Know review criteria Write grant with reviewers in mind Write your grant early Recommendations! Hire architect or engineer to complete line drawings Conduct a RED team review Volunteer to serve on a review board

QUESTIONS?