how your application is reviewed vonda smith, ph.d. scientific review officer (sro)
TRANSCRIPT
How Your Application Is Reviewed
Vonda Smith, Ph.D.
Scientific Review Officer (SRO)
Your SRO is a doctoral-level scientist with expertise relevant to your field who manages the overall peer review of your application.
Your Scientific Review Officer Takes Charge
Your SRO Assigns at Least Three Reviewers to Your Application
• Demonstrated scientific expertise/research support
• Doctoral degree or equivalent
• Mature judgment
• Work effectively in a group context
• Breadth of perspective
• Impartiality
• Diversity
• Geographic distribution
What Your SRO Looks for When Recruiting Reviewers
The Study Section Meeting
Your SRO Convenes the Study Section Meeting
• Any member in conflict with an application leaves the room
• Reviewer 1 introduces the application and presents critique
• Reviewers 2 and 3 highlight new issues and areas that significantly impact scores
• All eligible members are invited to join the discussion and then vote on the final overall impact score
At the Meeting: Application Discussion
• Reviewers typically discuss the top half of the applications
• The panel will discuss any application a reviewer wants to discuss
Discussions Focus on the Best Applications
• Overall Impact
Assessment of the likelihood that the proposed training will enhance the candidate’s potential for a productive, independent scientific career.
• Five Core Review Criteria
Main Review Criteria
1. Fellowship Applicant –Scholastic performance–Productivity commensurate with career stage–Aptitude and enthusiasm –Clarity of stated career goals –Letters of reference –Mentoring committee for pre-docs is a plus
Five Core Review Criteria
2. Sponsors, Collaborators, and Consultants− Documented mentoring successes − Expertise in the field
–Present productivity–Funds available to cover research expenses–Co-mentor to cover weaknesses –Clearly defined roles for mentors and collaborators
Five Core Review Criteria
3. Research Training Plan–Significance & impact of the proposed research–Logical hypothesis–Clarity, feasibility and alternative strategies–Stats, vertebrate animals, human subjects–Sophisticated technologies and approaches –Likelihood training will lead to publications and degree
− Appropriate for the applicant fellow's stage of research development
Five Core Review Criteria
4. Training Potential− Is there individualized training that addresses
weaknesses and career development needs?− Will participants learn new technical skills, new design
approaches?− Do training activities match career goals?− Will training confer an advantage to be competitive?− Will the the applicant fellow receive requisite
individualized and supervised experiences?
Five Core Review Criteria
5. Institutional Environment and Commitment to Training− Scientific environment − Opportunities for collaborations within and outside
institution if needed − Resources available
Five Core Review Criteria
Reviewers are asked to state whether the proposed training is “Acceptable” or “Not Acceptable”
• Is there formal and face-to-face training?• Are all ethical topics clearly depicted?• Are faculty participating in the training?• Will the total hours of training be at least 8 contact hours?• Are future opportunities/refreshers for continued training
listed?• Does retraining occur every 4 years or at every career stage?
Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research
9-Point Scoring Scale
• Each panel member provides an overall impact score.
Range of Scores
• After discussion, assigned reviewers state final Overall Impact Scores, defining the score range.
• Panel members may vote outside this range although any intent to do so must be declared.
Scoring
• Resource Sharing Plans: –Data–Model Organisms –Genome Wide Association Studies
• Foreign Organizations• Select Agents • Budget
Other Considerations that Do Not Affect Overall Impact Scores
Electronic reviews are used to facilitate reviewer participation
Electronic Review Platforms• Telephone Assisted Meetings• Internet Assisted Meetings• Video Assisted Meetings
Your Application Could Be Reviewed Electronically
Your SRO
• Prepares summary statements
• Provides information to NIH Institutes and Centers
After Your Review
• Scores for each review criterion
• Critiques from assigned reviewers
• Administrative notes if any
If your application is discussed, you also will receive:
• An overall impact/priority score and percentile ranking
• A summary of review discussion
• Budget recommendations
Your Summary Statement
Check the Status of Your Application in NIH Commons
• Read instructions and the most recent updates for the funding opportunity
• Clearly state rationale and design of proposed investigation• Provide sufficient detail so reviews will know what you mean • Refer to pertinent literature • Include well-designed tables and figures• Include a well-designed training plan that addresses the
candidate’s development and deficiencies• Present an organized, lucid write-up• Obtain pre-review from faculty at your institutionNIH Grant Writing Tips
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/grant_tips.htm
When Preparing an Application
• Impact • Exciting ideas• Clarity of the research and training plans• Realistic aims and timelines -- Don’t be overly
ambitious• Brevity with things that everybody knows• Noted limitations of the study• A clean, well-written application
What Reviewers Look for in Fellowship Applications
NIH Office of Extramural Research
http://grants.nih.gov/
NIH Center for Scientific Review
http://www.csr.nih.gov
Key NIH Review and Grants Web Sites
Before You Submit Your Application• A Program Officer at an NIH Institute or Center• Scientific Review Officer
After You Submit • Your Scientific Review Officer
After Your Review • Your Assigned Program Officer
Who Can Answer Your Questions?