1. NIH Submission Cycle

2. Choosing a Study Section Ask Program Officer for advice Review rosters: – http://www.csr.nih.gov/Committees/rosterindex.a sp http://www.csr.nih.gov/Committees/rosterindex.a sp Review paylines: – http://writedit.wordpress.com/nih-paylines- resources/ http://writedit.wordpress.com/nih-paylines- resources/ Include cover letter Check Commons to determine review group

3. Scientific Review Group Prior to meeting – Each application assigned two or more reviewers – Post preliminary scores (1.0 to 9.0) for each of the review criteria and overall impact score At meeting – Applications discussed in order of preliminary scores – Primary reviewer presents application – Other assigned reviewers offer comments – Discussion among entire group – Each member assigns impact score

4. Scoring rubric

6. http://public.csr.nih.gov/aboutcsr/contactcsr/pages/contactorvisitcsrpages/nih-grant- review-process-youtube-videos.aspx

7. Summary Statement Scientific Review Officer prepares Impact score: How likely this project will “exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field involved.” Not average of scores for five criteria Calculate mean of all eligible members’ impact scores and multiply by 10: range from 10-90 Percentile=match application’s overall impact/priority score against all applications assigned to study section during last three review cycles.

8. Responding Revise and resubmit if Ask someone unbiased to interpret summary statement. Wait a week. If you get a score. What things were bothering reviewers? Review SRO’s summary for overall temperature. Can add the right team member. Do not resubmit if No enthusiasm for the whole project. If don’t think it’s significant or innovative. You or your team is not qualified. PI has no track record in an area, decent publications.

9. An R01 NOT Resubmitted (no impact score) Although the investigators may be able to demonstrate a change in the adduction moment at the knee with the use of the novel foot wear, they will not explain how that foot wear accomplishes it. Little or no theoretical explanation was offered for the use of the foot wear nor is there an attempt to explain how it might work. As such, the significance of the study is severely reduced. The use of “sham” footwear is valuable, but additional control conditions should be included to better indicate the possible effects of footwear on knee OA, moments, etc. The investigators should seriously consider including some type of “standard” footwear and barefoot conditions.

10. A K23 resubmitted successfully Impact score: 20 However, the Review Committee identified some weaknesses that reduced their enthusiasm. While the research area is important, there are some issues related to the research design. For example, there is a concern that the research proposal is based on a large VA database which has complete focus on men when glucocorticoids are major drugs used by women with rheumatic diseases. In addition, there are some concerns about the proposal presentation and discussion. Furthermore, the reviewers note that a closer mentors’ involvement in the candidate’s application preparation will be helpful. Overall, the Review Committee is positive about the candidate’s commitment, mentors’ expertise, career development plan and institutional environment and support.

11. Response to Reviewers We have done additional work to verify the number of expected women and men in this study. In VA fiscal year 2005, we identified 225,841 patients who received a GC prescription at least once. 14,914 were women. This estimate is for a single year whereas our study will encompass eight years. Though women are certainly less prevalent than men, this is an older and relatively high risk population; therefore, the rate of CV diseases in both sexes is expected to be high. Thus, there should be enough women to be able to perform sex-specific analyses.

12. Research Project Grants Competing applications, awards, and success rates

13. 2011 N.I.H. Funding Success Rates by Submission No. of Type 1 Grants* Submission No.All Research Project Grants R01s only First (original)10.1%9.5% First Resubmission (A1) 37.7%36.8% Second Resubmission (A2) (if allowed) 27.8%26.1% Total Funding of Type 1’s 15.2%15.1% * Type I grants are new grants, as opposed to renewals

14. NIH Submission Schedule Cycle 1: Feb – Reviewed June/July – Council in Sept/Oct – Start December Cycle 2: June – Reviewed Oct/Nov – Council in Jan/Feb – Start April Cycle 3: October – Reviewed March/April – Council in May/June – Start July