1. Tips on Fellowship Writing A Reviewer’s Perspective Wendy Havran

2. How Does the Review Process Work? Study section 2-3 reviewers Triage Meeting with 5-10 minute discussion All study section members vote Decisions sent +/- comments and +/- scores

3. Application Details That Matter Criteria for application Forms and formatting Reference letters Animal or human subjects approvals READ THE DIRECTIONS!!

4. Criteria for Review Candidate Mentor Potential for training Research environment Scientific merit

5. The Candidate Potential to become productive independent scientist Previous research Past productivity – quality over quantity Evidence of commitment to career in research Reference letters

6. Sponsor and Training Environment Research expertise Prior experience as mentor Funding for project Laboratory environment Plan for mentorship

7. Importance of the Mentor Input from the mentor is critical Start early discussing ideas for proposal It is obvious if PI did not read the proposal Also obvious if you just copied the PI’s NIH grant Give mentor time and stress the importance of their input Make sure they put some effort into the training plan Having a famous mentor does not help you if the reviewers feel that you will not interact with them Generic training plan or reference letter is not good

8. Training Potential Preparation for an independent career Must augment conceptual and/or experimental skills Key aspect of review

9. Research Proposal Scientific merit Training potential Contributions of candidate and sponsor 2-3 specific aims Realistic timetable Preliminary data helpful - critical if have already been in the lab

10. Common Mistakes No explicit hypothesis Descriptive research – favorite criticism Correlative research – never prove hypothesis Significance unclear No expected outcomes, potential pitfalls or alternative strategies

11. Additional Criteria for Disease Foundations Relevance of individual and project to society goals High quality, novel proposal focused on methods and scientific goals relevant to disease Must discuss relevance to disease Relevance alone is not enough

12. Additional Information for Senior Fellowships Show requirement for additional funding - to reach full independence or - obtain additional training in different area On trajectory to an independent career Obtain independent position by end of award

13. Scoring and Selection 1.0Perfect, very rare, the goal 1.2Outstanding, no real weaknesses 1.4Outstanding, very minor weaknesses 1.6Excellent, minor weaknesses 1.8 Excellent, weaknesses that detract 2.0Very good, some significant flaws 2.2Better than average, resubmit 2.4Needs significant improvement >2.5Below average, don’t want to see it again 1.33

14. Should You Reapply? Realistically evaluate comments What does the score say? Will you still meet the criteria? Call program person for advice

15. How To Improve Your Chances READ THE DIRECTIONS Start early…it takes longer than you think Look at a successful application Identify a specific testable hypothesis Make it clear to reviewer outside of your field Be interesting – reviewers read 12-30 grants and yours may be last Have your sponsor and lab mates critique it Edit and proof….No typos!

16. Good Luck!!!