1. What Reviewers look for NIH F30-33(FELLOWSHIP) GRANTS
Liz Zelinski, PhD
Former Reviewer for NIH/ZRG F12A
and
NIA-S K award study section
7 March 2017

2. F30 Competing applications, awards, and success rates
Data and chart description for this slide can be located at 2

3. Definition
F30 and F33: A fellowship application has a research project that is integrated with the training plan.  The review will emphasize the applicant’s potential for a productive career, the applicant’s need for the proposed training, and the degree to which the research training proposal, the sponsor, and the environment will satisfy those needs.

4. Individual Criteria Scores

5. Applicant/Candidate More is better:
Refereed publications
First-authored publications
High-level journals
Undergrad & graduate grades (F applicants)
Previous awards, especially national ones
Prior training “pedigree”
Letters that say “outstanding” or “one of the best ever”
How the previous training experience leads up to the proposed research training

6. Sponsors, fellowship faculty
Sponsor’s/Co-sponsor’s/collaborators/consultants’ contributions to the field of the research fellowship
Research accomplishments
NIH funding as PIs, especially grants that extend beyond the current year or two
Track record of producing successful trainees
Co-sponsor who is senior if the sponsor is junior
Clear evidence that the research plan development was actively supervised by sponsor
Letters of commitment with specific plans for working with applicant from all faculty parties
Clear evidence of collaboration across all faculty on behalf of the candidate
Consistency of the plans in the applicant’s, sponsor’s, and additional faculty’s statements

7. Research Training Plan:
Research Study
Dissertation or Postdoc proposal
Same basic criteria as for all NIH research grants
Scientific significance, originality, feasibility
Theoretically important research question with clear explanation of how the research fits the “so what?” question
Evidence that the applicant conceived the research (and that the sponsor carefully reviewed it to ensure its scientific merit)
Evidence that the training aspect of the research can really be accomplished (eg learning fMRI in one year when the applicant has no prior experience in it)

8. Research Training Plan Besides the Dissertation
Classes, Seminars, other Education
F31: Classes taken should extend beyond the “normal” educational progression
F31, F31 Diversity & F32: Formal classes to prepare applicant for conducting the research and broadening knowledge of the field as needed
Description/schedule of lab and individual meetings with sponsor, with co sponsors, collaborators, consultants, with frequency specified; local area meetings relevant to the field
Clear evidence that the sponsor is involved with specifying the formal educational experience

9. Training Potential
Justification that the training experience as a whole “adds value” beyond the usual:
F30, F31 & F31 Diversity: A normal graduate experience in that institution
F32: simply working with the sponsor on a training grant or a project in her lab
Generally requires working with someone that the applicant has not previously worked with or a project that provides a major extension of the skill set of the applicant

10. Institutional Environment & Commitment to Training
The obvious resources (computing, imaging, subject pool, well characterized patient sample, etc)
Letter of commitment or evidence that the fellow will spend nearly all the time on the fellowship activities (i. e., not teaching or doing clinical service)
Intellectual environment relevant to the fellow’s needs, e.g. faculty in other departments, visiting faculty, etc.; faculty level role models

11. Process: Fellowships
Reviewers are in topical “temporary” study sections (e.g. Cognition & Perception)
Some reviewers are members of the standing (main) study section
Reviewers get applications each, with approximately even distribution as first, second, and third reviewer
Posting of reviews about a week before the meeting
Reviewers asked to read the other reviews for an application in advance to consider what the others say and possibly change scores
Order of review determined by mean impact score
50-60% of applications except for F31 diversity (all of those are discussed)

12. Review Discussion (10-15 min)
Chair asks the three reviewers to give their initial impact score
First reviewer gives a very brief summary of the elements of the training program; there is a tendency to outline the research study part of it in a bit more detail. Discusses the evaluative part of his or her review in the context of the summary covering all the content elements, and then Human Subjects Protection, Women, Minorities, Children comments.
Second reviewer: nonoverlapping comments only.
Third reviewer: anything else not discussed.
Discussion open to whole group.
Verbal summary by chair of the application: strengths & weaknesses.
Reviewers give their final impact scores (and will change their reviews to align with the scores). The range of scores given is the general range for the study section members to follow. If anyone want to score outside the range, they so indicate and provide their rationale. They write it up for the review document.
Voting (on paper & online)
First reviewer is asked to comment on responsible conduct of research training and appropriateness of budget (duration of award) for program staff. These are not included in the voting.