1. How is a grant reviewed? Prepared by Professor Bob Bortolussi, Dalhousie University 2012 1

2. Grant Review Process Objectives: Understand the general process review panels follow. Understand criteria used for review. Understand how final decision is made. Learn how to apply for MicroResearch Grant. 2012 2

3. Grant Submission: Many applications now done electronically. ◦Check out process ahead of time. You may need to “register” weeks before. ◦Grants screened for eligibility. ◦Grant organize review panels. Remember. ◦Deadlines are final ! ◦No excuses accepted. 2012 3 “Click”

4. 2012 4 Dual Review System for Grant Applications Common First Level of Review Scientific Review Panel “ Scientific Review Panel” Provides Initial Scientific Merit Review of Grant Applications Rates Applications and Makes Recommendations for Appropriate Level of Support and Duration of Award First Level of Review Scientific Review Panel “ Scientific Review Panel” Provides Initial Scientific Merit Review of Grant Applications Rates Applications and Makes Recommendations for Appropriate Level of Support and Duration of Award Second Level Review… “Council” Assesses Quality of SRG Review of Grant Applications Makes Recommendation to Institute Staff on Funding Evaluates Program Priorities and Relevance Advises on Policy Second Level Review… “Council” Assesses Quality of SRG Review of Grant Applications Makes Recommendation to Institute Staff on Funding Evaluates Program Priorities and Relevance Advises on Policy

5. 2012 5 Review Principles Significance Investigator(s) Innovation Approach Environment Weakness es Good Bad

6. 2012 6 Significance: Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, will it improve scientific knowledge, and/or clinical practice? How will successful completion of the aims change... this field? (adapted from NIH) Review Principles

7. 2012 7 Investigator(s): Are the, researchers well suited to the project? Do they have appropriate experience/training? Accomplishments that advanced their field? If collaborative project, do they have complementary and integrated expertise? Is leadership approach and organizational structure right for the project*? Review Principles

8. 2012 8 Innovation: Does the proposal challenge or try to shift research or clinical practice models? Are there novel theoretical concepts, approaches, methods or interventions? “Generalizable”) ◦Are these novel in one field or in a broad sense of research? (Is it “Generalizable”) Do they propose a new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methods? Review Principles

9. 2012 9 Environment: Does the scientific environment contribute to the probability of success? Are institutional, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Review Principles

10. 2012 10 Approach: Is the overall strategy, methods, and analyses well-reasoned and justified to accomplish the aims of the project? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and markers for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, have they shown feasibility and how risky aspects be managed? Review Principles

11. 2012 11 Approach: If it is clinical research, are there plans for: protection of subjects from research risks, inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed? Review Principles

12. MicroResearch Grants How do you apply: … www.microresearch.ca “Apply for a grant” tab Download instructions Download application form (comes as word.doc) When to apply: Deadlines are in May and November 2012 12

13. 13 Authors Grants Office Intercept* 2012 Why? Missed deadline Missed Goals incomplete Application Process

14. 14 Authors Grants Office Intercept* Peer Review 1 2 3 Re-submit 2012 Revise Reject  Address All questions Revise

15. 15 Authors Grants Office Intercept* Peer Review 1 2 3 IRB Re-submit Approved !!! 2012 Get Started

16. 2012 16 Other Review Criteria Other Review Criteria Protections for Human Subjects Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children Vertebrate Animals Resubmission Applications Renewal Applications Revision Applications Biohazards

17. MicroResearch Grant Reviews Score Criteria (max 80 + 20): F F Feasibility: Is approach best for question I I Importance to maternal-child health N N Novelty E E Ethics and engagement of community R R Relevance: to science, community, MDG and MicroResearch goals (20 points). Other Considerations: Other Considerations: ◦Is there a good multi-disciplinary team? ◦Is there a good Knowledge translation plan? ◦Will there be appropriate mentors and coaches? 2012 17

18. 2012 18 MR Scores and Outcomes ImpactScoreDescriptorStrengths/ Weaknesses High Impact 100Exceptional 80Outstanding 70Excellent Moderate Impact 60Very Good 55Good 50Satisfactory Low Impact 40Fair 30Marginal 20Poor Strengths Weaknesses (adapted from NIH)

19. 2012 19 Outcome Decision How does MicroResearch make final decision? 1. External Reviews are summarized by a MicroResearch Officer. 2. Applicant is asked to respond to concerns, with help of the coach 3. Final decision based on: Unedited reviewer critiques and their scores Budget feasibility Response to concerns Fit with MricroResearch goals and MDG Fit with MricroResearch goals and MDG

20. MicroResearch Grants When to Get started? 3-4 months before deadline Get the team excited about project! Figure out help you will need. 1. Review your notes from this workshop. 2. Read “How to write a grant” (Chapter 16 on the memory stick) early. 3. Ask your coach to get involved early. ◦ Plan and write your outline, ◦ Assign tasks for team members, ◦ Plan to meet regularly, 2012 20

21. 2012 21 If at first you don’t succeed … Revise and resubmit. Handsreprtit.unh.edu