1. Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated. See the OER Public Archive Home Page for more details about archived files.archived OER Public Archive Home Page

2. Cycles for New Investigators Suzanne Fisher, Teresa Lindquist, Karl Malik, Don Schneider, Anita Miller Sostek, and Brent Stanfield

3. Compressing Cycles for New Investigators Background Is resubmission in the next cycle possible? Would a special receipt date for revised applications be helpful? What are implementation challenges? Opportunities

4. PRAC January 24, 2005 Dr. Zerhouni charged PRAC and highlighted his and community concerns for new investigators A new application submitted Feb 1 would be reviewed in June, and a summary statement would be available in July/August (for Oct council) If revision were necessary, the July 1 receipt date would have been missed, thus Nov 1, with Feb review and May council would be next receipt Fifteen months elapse from initial submission to possible award (with tenure in the sixth year requiring grant renewal, such a lengthy process can kill careers)

5. Background Information about New Investigators (NIs) NIH discontinued R29/First Independent Research Support & Transition mechanism in 1998 Definitions of New Investigators vary Shirley Tilghman wrote Science article “NIH Grantees: Where Have All The Young Ones Gone?” October 2002

6. Definitions of New Investigators Previous R29: Independent investigator five years or less beyond training Form 398 (self-identify): No previous PHS grant, except R03, R15, R21, K01, K08, K22, K23 Basic (some NIH reporting): No previous competing RPG support

7. 398 form1

8. Recommendations for Review of New Investigator Applications (CSR email April 2002) Philosophy – reviewers should judge new investigators in a manner appropriate for their current career stage, i.e., more training than track record Include new investigator guidelines and histogram of previous new investigator scores in mailing At each study section meeting, SRA should review new investigator guidelines and previous scoring behavior (and consider grouping)

9. Score distribution of applications reviewed by CSR, Council review cycles 2004/10-2005/05

10. Score distribution of applications reviewed by CSR, Council review cycles 2004/10-2005/05 (New investigators only)

11. Science Magazine, Volume 298, Number 5591, Issue of 4 Oct 2002, p. 40. The number of traditional NIH grants awarded to young investigators has declined, while those to researchers over 46 have grown

12. NIH 20%tile or Better Scoring Success Rates (R01s, CSR reviews) CouncilNI New (Type 1) EI New (Type 1) EI Renewal (Type 2) May 200115%17%34% May 200215%17%34% May 200315%18%33% May 200414%18%34% Councils 1/01-5/04 14.7%17.3%34.2%

13. NI Data – Oct 2004 to May 2005 CouncilNI apps% NI apps Total apps 20%tile Oct 2004 2,32125%9,16314% Jan 2005 2,34025%9,47715% May 2005 2,49924%10,37115%

14. Could one revise for the next cycle? Working back from study section meeting dates Oct/Nov study section meeting dates Sep 1 mail to reviewers Aug 20 special receipt of revised applications Jul 20 summary statements due (June/Jul study section meeting dates)

15. Would a special receipt date help? AIDS example – about 700 apps a cycle are received May 1, Sept 1, and Jan 2 (instead of Feb/Mar 1, Jun/Jul 1, and Oct/Nov 1) About 25% of AIDS applicants revise for the next cycle, e.g., submit May 1 (Jun/Jul review) and revise for Sept 1 (Oct/Nov review) Analyses of internal processes: about 40% of new investigators successful upon revision believe that revisions could be done in two weeks (most took 4-12 weeks)

16. AIDS NIs’ time with summary statements matters (1/01-10/04) TimeNumber (apps) Revise w/in 1 cycle 20%tileMedian Score Previous Median Score >30 days 7433 (45%) 42%181225 15-30 days 18338 (21%) 45%171207 <15 days 1166 (5%)50%170202

17. Time with summary statement and revisions

18. Time with summary statement and median priority scores

19. Implementation Challenges? Prepare summary statements for new investigators first, or release drafts without resumes prior to finalization of summary statements (would need OER approval) Fairness and timing: someone whose application is reviewed in early June would receive feedback much earlier than someone whose application is reviewed in July Which mechanisms, R01s or any mechanism used by new investigators If R03s, R21s, and Ks, implications exist for IC reviews Fairness to SRA: less than 2 weeks to recruit, assign, and mail revised new investigator applications Fairness to experienced investigators: some experienced investigators would be delayed in funding and revising

20. Effects of electronic receipt? With possible more rapid processing, receipt dates may be moved up, e.g., from Jun/Jul 1 to Jul/Aug 1 or Jul 1/Jul 15 If so, retain Aug 20 for new investigators or move all revisions (new & experienced investigators) to x?

21. Opportunities Complex interdependencies encumber making changes, e.g., NIH policy is to prepare summary statements in order best scored first, not new investigators’ first Data suggest that new investigators can judge well whether a quick revision is appropriate Shortening the cycle should be done – challenge is finding a way to do it (when, for whom?) Submitting Feb 1 and revising Aug 20 or x for fall review and Jan council could shorten the time from initial submission to an award from fifteen months down to eleven months