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 Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.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

2. Shortening the Research Grant Application Robert Finkelstein and Don Schneider Discussants Drs. McClain, Martinez, & Sassaman Peer Review Advisory Committee August 28, 2006 National Institutes of Health Department of Health and Human Services

3. Overview Charge to the application committee Preliminary activities Future plans

4. Charge to the Application Committee Came from Extramural Activities Working Group (EAWG), which oversees CSR governance and peer review related issues EAWG Co-Chairs are Story Landis (NINDS) and Norka Ruiz Bravo (Office of Extramural Research) Earlier this year, EAWG decided to consider whether the standard NIH grant application should be improved The Application Committee was formed (May 16, 2006) to consider possible improvements

5. Specific Goals Consider whether the page limit for the Research Plan section of the NIH grant application should be reduced Consider aligning the application sections more closely with the five review criteria (significance, approach, innovation, investigators, and environment) Focus on the standard research project grant (R01), and consider other mechanisms as appropriate

6. Grant Application Lengths [Research Plan] NIH Pioneer/HHMI4-5 pages (plus interview) Burroughs Wellcome6 pages United Kingdom8/12 pages Canada10/15 pages NSF15 pages NIH R0125 pages

7. Issues influencing the charge Many applicants and reviewers believe that the NIH application process is excessively time-consuming Reviewer workloads have declined from about 12 to about 6 applications each meeting over the past 10 years The number of reviewers at study sections, particularly temporary members, has increased sharply (35-50 reviewers at many meetings) CSR used nearly 20,000 reviewers last year – increasingly difficult to recruit quality reviewers

8. Application Committee Roster Robert Finkelstein (NINDS) Co-Chair Don Schneider (CSR) Co-Chair Mary Custer (CSR) Ann Hagan (NIGMS) Craig Jordan (NIDCD) Sherry Mills (OD) Philip Smith (NIDDK) Barbara Spalholz (NCI) Elizabeth Wilder (NIDDK) Terra Vinson (CSR) Analyst

9. Proposed Process Seek input from external and internal stakeholders Recommend an application length and format that facilitates the evaluative process and the advancement of science/health Vet this recommendation appropriately

10. Background Appendices will probably be eliminated from standard applications Clinical protocols will be moved to the human subjects section (not counted against page limit)

11. Preliminary Activities of Committee Exploratory (non-scientific!) gathering of opinions from extramural scientists - majority of applicants and reviewers appear to support shortening the application Presentation at EPMC – many members supported shortening efforts but urged broad communication with stakeholders and coordination with other changes (e.g., electronic submission) Preparation of a draft Request for Information (RFI) to solicit feedback

12. Future Committee Activities Issue RFI to solicit opinions from external and internal stakeholders Analyze results (CSR) Make recommendations to EAWG

13. RFI: sample questions For applicants: -Would a shorter application affect your ability to present ideas? -Would it affect preparation time? -Which of the current sections should be shortened? -Should sections be changed to align with review criteria? -Do clinical research proposals require a higher page limit? -etc. For reviewers: - Would a shorter application affect your ability to judge scientific merit? -Would it affect your willingness to serve as a reviewer or to review more applications? -Would it place any group of investigators/type of research at a disadvantage? -etc.

14. Distribution of RFI Publish in NIH Guide Develop version for NIH staff Use list serves (e.g., OER and CSR Peer Review Notes) Send to professional societies Distribute at CSR open houses for professional societies

15. Analysis of RFI Cheryl Oros, Director of CSR Planning, Analysis & Evaluation Use software when possible With six week posting, begin analyses prior to closing Acknowledge and respond to comments Share results

16. Timeline Possibilities (assuming some shortening) Ideally, changes in the application process should occur in a coordinated fashion Electronic receipt begins in early 2007 Adequate gathering of information and education of the community may make implementation prior to fall 2007 impractical

17. Discussants Dr. Craig McClain Dr. Joe Martinez Dr. Anne Sassaman