Demystifying
Federal Grant Review Process
1
The Panel
Alegria, PhD Francis Chesley, MD Willard Manning, PhD Ming Tai-Seale, PhD
Margarita
2
The Agenda
Grants for young investigators Review criteria and reviewer expectations How to write a proposal Responding to Study Section’s Concerns Views from AHRQ Questions and Answers
3
Research Grants for Young Investigators
Small grant R03: up to 2 years
total direct cost $50,000/yr
Exploratory/developmental grant R21: 2 years
total DC $275,000 up to $200,000/yr
R34: 3 years
total DC $450,000 up to $225,000/yr
4
Career Development Grants for Young Investigators
R34 dissertation grant F31 minority pre-doc F32 post-doc K01 Mentored career development award K02 Independent scientist career development award K08 Mentored clinical scientist development award …
5
6
Responding to Study Section's Concerns
Willard Manning Harris School of Public Policy Studies University of Chicago
7
Responding to Study Section's Concerns
Expect a second (or third) submission of your proposal Very few proposals funded first time unless oneshot announcement Prepare for a critical review Reviewers doing the review "cold" Reviewers work under pressure of short deadline while still teaching, seeing patients, etc. Reviewers do not have benefit of lengthy discussions with research team Reviewers do not have time to read the proposal over and over again
8
Facts about Review and Reviewers
Reviewers may not be from same discipline or specialty
Check the section roster, then PubMed/Google Many reviewers will have trouble with jargon Your technical terminology is unintelligable jargon to me unless explained "Collective efficacy" means what? "Diff-n-diff" means what?
HSR is multidisciplinary Unless the study section has many from your discipline, you must talk to a wider audience
9
Facts about Review & Reviewers (cont'd)
Basic Reviewing Principle Burden of proof of idea and approach is on the proposer If they cannot find what they need easily, they often will treat it as missing or inadequately described Reviewer's language is often very frank! But remember reviewers are:
Looking for problems Trying to help, esp. if they see some merit in proposal
10
Initial Response to “Pink” Sheets
Sulking is normal
Do not take it personally Get advice from agency staff ASAP
GET SENIOR HELP TO INTERPRET COMMENTS Reserve a "cold reviewer" to react to draft resubmission
Preferably with study section or area experience
Plan to resubmit unless "fatally flawed"
11
Responding to "Pink" Sheets
Leave plenty of time to
Overhaul in response to study section and agency staff comments Solicit reaction to revised submission from cold reviewer, preferably with study section or area experience
Respond accordingly
Do not rush to resubmit (July 1st after receiving June 6th)
12
Revising the Proposal
Outrage is OK for a personal reaction but never in a response! Take the feedback seriously as indicative of
Identify common themes across reviewers Respond to all concerns in "Response" as well as in text Thank the reviewers for their valuable comments Apologize for inadequacy of …
Gaps in exposition or logic Overly terse in key areas Organizational issues
13
Revising the Proposal (cont'd)
Even if you are "right," clean up the exposition to make the logic more transparent
Revise the whole proposal if needed Ask research team, senior colleague, cold reviewer for reaction
Revise again
For substance For ease of reviewers to evaluate
14
Common problems
Specific Aims
Not specific Largely rhetorical Process aims rather than hypothesis-driven Has literature but no synthesis Conceptual framework unclear Value-added unclear Pilot data Exploratory analysis Experience with these or similar data or methods
Background
Preliminary studies section lacks
15
Common problems (cont'd)
Research design and methods lack
Conceptual framework -- A flow chart is useful but inadequate
Alternative approaches not considered Weak or no link to hypotheses
Research design flaws or weak design Failure to address reliability and validity of data Questions of internal or external validity Wrong sample for research question, esp. if using a convenient sample you happen to have
16
Common problems (cont'd)
Not feasible as constituted Budget too large or too small Budget lacks adequate justification for
Scope too broad Research team lacks appropriate qualifications
Length of grant Level of effort
Substantial data analysis but no statistician/econometrician Economic analysis but no economist Large clinical component but no clinician
17
Common problems (cont'd)
PI is too junior, not enough senior involvement Project full of 5 percenters Lacks sense of own limitations Errors or omissions in human subjects, minority, gender areas
18
19
Questions & Answers
Panel
20
Resources
R34 PA: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pafiles/PAR-06-248.html R21 PA: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pafiles/PA-06-181.html R03 PA: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/r03.htm
21
22