With the increasing focus of NIH on translational research and issues of rigor of the underlying scientific premise for proposed studies, many investigators have queried whether this might constitute a shift in NIH funding priorities away from animal studies and/or model organisms (primarily non-vertebrates)…
ACCESS EARLIER POSTS
RELATED TO:
GWSW Workbooks offer comprehensive, step-by-step instruction for creating proposals for a variety of funding agencies.
Ask the Experts – NEVER let this happen to you!
We recently received the following correspondence from an NSF grant applicant:
“Dear GWSW,
I was very recently unable to complete the submission of my CRII proposal, which was due to the NSF last Wednesday. I, unfortunately, made one of the worst mistakes I could make in my life. I delayed all the document uploading until the last minute without considering the delays that may occur during web document conversion. The deadline was passed by a minute or less when the proposal package was finally ready for submission, but it was unfortunately too late…
Part 4: Dangerous words to avoid in grant applications
Over the past several months, as a regular component of our weekly blog, we have been discussing the inappropriate usage of various English language words in grant applications. In many cases, such inappropriate usage can present concerns among reviewers as to what exactly is meant by the applicant…
What factors are really important in the valuation of NIH grant applications?
Approximately seven years ago in 2009, the NIH introduced a new series of criteria by which NIH grant applications could be “fairly” reviewed. At that time, five distinct review criteria, namely Significance, Applicant, Environment, Approach and a brand-new criterion, Innovation, were introduced. Reviewers of NIH grant applications were then required to comment on each of these five criteria …
Part 2: The growing dilemma with the biological/biomedical publication enterprise
In a recent post, we discussed a recent publication by R.D. Vale (“Accelerating Scientific Publication in Biology”, P.N.A.S. 2015; 112, 13,439-13,446, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1511912112) concerning the increased challenges associated with publication of new biological/biomedical research findings. In this recent publication, Dr. Vale offers one approach to potentially addressing this important issue…
(Perhaps not so) surprising findings regarding the reality of NIH and NSF grant proposal reviews
Almost everyone knows that grant proposals submitted to both the NIH and the NSF (and the USDA and NASA, among others) are evaluated for scientific quality by a process termed peer review. Conceptually, what this means is…
Dear Editor: How can you conclude that my manuscript is not acceptable for publication?
Most of us in academia have wanted to write such a letter at some time in our career. We all know that, fundamental to a successful career in academia is the ability to effectively publish your research findings. In an earlier post (May 22, 2016) we discussed some of the increasingly complex reasons why this is becoming increasingly difficult – especially for publication in what are considered “top rate” journals. Of course, the primary reason that submitted manuscripts are not published is lousy data. However, there are multiple other relevant reasons that, importantly, are potentially easily fixable!…
Part 3: Dangerous words to avoid in grant applications (and publications)
During the past several months, we have posted a series of blogs concerning what types of words and phrases to avoid in the preparation of grant applications. In this month’s blog on this topic, we consider the commonly used phrase…
Grant proposals vs manuscript publications: what’s the difference?
It is most unfortunate that many grant applicants, particularly those who are relatively new to the ‘game’, envision the process of writing a grant proposal with the same mindset as writing a scholarly article for publication in a prestigious professional journal…
Another inspiring NSF success story
Since joining the faculty in the Department of Psychology at Idaho State University in 2005, Professor Tera Letzring has had a strong interest in how accurate judgments of personality traits are made. She has, for many years, been interested in the fact that several factors influence how accurately someone can judge a person’s personality traits. In thinking about this and based on many discussions…
All federal funding agencies require data management plans in 2016
There are now fourteen federal funding agencies implementing this policy beginning in 2016. It is our suspicion that most readers of this page are highly likely to already be aware that the NSF, and to some extent the NIH, now require that applicants include a discussion of a data management plan in their grant applications.
The growing dilemma with the biological/biomedical publication enterprise
Considerable emphasis is routinely placed on the critical importance of frequent publication in peer-reviewed journals; preferably those with high impact (i.e., those journals with high Impact Factors). Yet, at the same time, and for a multitude of reasons, achievement of this goal has become increasingly challenging for most would-be authors…
Part 2: Dangerous words to avoid in grant applications
Probably among the most commonly used words in grant proposals is the verb/noun “(to) understand”. Applicants very frequently plan grant applications that have been designed to “understand” something, whether an explanation for a certain social phenomenon, a biochemical pathway, clarification of an as yet to be identified series of observations, or even a way to explain the underlying reasons for a given historical event. Thus, how common it is to read: “The objective in this proposal is to understand the underlying reasons for…”. Alternatively, there are those applicants who feel it important to be…
Three new NIH reviewer questions for applicants
Are you concerned about writing your next NIH grant application? If not, you probably should be, largely because of the major changes that NIH has recently implemented in how proposals are written and reviewed. Unfortunately the magnitude of these changes does not seem to be…
Would you like to make an immediate positive impression with reviewers?
Ask any experienced NIH reviewer about their experiences in reviewing NIH grant applications and they’re likely to provide you with a spectrum of answers in the way that they think about proposals (and the applicants who have written them). Nevertheless, it is remarkable how many very fundamental issues that reviewers identify as positive, are relatively common among all reviewers…
Ask the Experts: Do I need collaborators/consultants for my grant proposal?
I have considered inclusion of two advisers to help interpret (data) and write up results, but mostly for a relatively limited time/effort. However, they are significant contributors to my field with substantive expertise in the topic. If listed as Other Significant Contributors–collaborators, do they need person months and/or a sub-award? How would you suggest that I categorize these individuals on my R21 NIH grant application? …
Part 1: Dangerous words that should be avoided in grant proposals
Two words that should usually be avoided by applicants in preparing their grant applications are “IF” and “WHETHER”. These words represent distinct manifestations of the same concept, since “If” implies “It might or it might not”, and “Whether” always provides for the option “Whether or not”. The primary problem with their use is that they both provide opportunities for a negative outcome to occur. While it is certainly possible that either a positive or an alternative…
Forthcoming significant changes in NIH applications: guidelines for applicants
As we warned NIH applicants in several earlier Facebook posts (March 13 and 18, 2016), on March 25, 2016, the NIH published its ‘improved’ version of the Instructions for writing and submitting a grant proposal. In this publication is included the complete set of instructions that incorporates all of the new changes for the preparation of grant proposals to the NIH. In spite of the fact that the NIH website refers to the Application Guide, the instructions are no longer…
NIH to adopt MAJOR changes in grant applications in 2016 – Part 1
The NIH adopted MAJOR changes in grant applications beginning on January 25, 2016. These changes can be expected to have a profound impact on how applicants write their proposals (and how reviewers will review these proposals in the future). These changes have been prompted by the conclusion of NIH administrators that NIH-supported, and peer-reviewed, published research findings have been found frequently not to be reproducible. These collective concerns of NIH have been recently summarized…
Update on the NIH 5-year Strategic Plan
An update to the NIH 5 year Strategic Plan based upon the goals of the various NIH Institutes and Centers has recently been posted on the NIH website. We would strongly recommend that all NIH proposal applicants familiarize themselves with the key components of this newly-published 5 year Strategic Plan since this will dictate the various priorities…
Are you thinking about an NSF CAREER Award application?
If so, is your application designed in such a way that it indicates that you really appreciate its purpose? We would suggest that this is not a trivial question, particularly given the relatively intense competition for these awards. As a consequence, low overall success rates (# awards/# applicants) are, accordingly, often considerably lower than for standard NSF grants. It makes great sense that any applicant considering applying for an NSF CAREER award should…
How good is NIH peer review of grant proposals?
The NIH peer review system is often severely criticized by unsuccessful applicants (see e.g., A.D. Hollenbach, ASBMB Today, April 13, 2015) as being unfair to many productive investigators. We suspect that this would be the conclusion of many NIH grant applicants who have received a review of their proposal. Although there is little published evidence to support this concept, we would hypothesize that overall impact scores (or a lack of a score) correlate closely with levels of criticism of the peer review process.
Would you like to hone your proposal writing skills?
Experienced applicants, reviewers and funding agency officials generally agree that of the best ways to become a better proposal writer is to serve as a reviewer of proposals and most federal funding agencies provide opportunities to do this. The underlying reasons for being proactive in seeking out such opportunities are multiple. First, you will have the opportunity to observe the review process “up close and personal” which is likely to radically…
A recent “Ask the Experts” from a reader re: NSF Program Officer
“Dear GWSW,
I recently heard back from the NSF ECR program officer on my Overview and Objectives section and, while she did agree that the proposal was appropriately theory-focused, she had serious reservations regarding the unique contribution of my proposal (i.e. ‘the area is already well covered by other applicants’). I followed up with more details on the data and methodology of my study and…
How to be successful in writing peer-reviewed grant applications?
This important question was addressed in a recent detailed analysis of published manuscripts (Acad Med. 2015 Dec;90(12):1720-5 J.P.Wisdom, H. Riley and N. Myers). Based on their comprehensive analysis, these authors have formulated 10 specific recommendations for what individual applicants and their affiliated institutions need to do in order to…