This series aims to raise awareness and inspire creative problem solving of the challenges in maintaining integrity in peer review. In this case, Dr. Smith, who is being considered as a reviewer for the application, is a professional associate of Dr. Jones, the PI on the application. However, Dr. Smith had not declared a conflict with that application. Continue reading
NIH recognizes that a lot can happen to interrupt the 4-year K99 eligibility window. Since one of the most popular reasons for extension requests involve childbirth, NIH will approve an extension of one year for childbirth, consistent with the NIH Extension Policy for Early Stage Investigator Status (ESI), effective immediately. Men, those adopting children, and same-sex partners of individuals giving birth can also apply for an extension. Continue reading
Before you hit submit, check out the Submission Policies page for answers to questions you may have. Continue reading
No, letters of intent are not required. Submission of a letter of intent is not binding and the letter is not part of the application review. Continue reading
In this next installment of the NIH’s All About Grants podcast series, we talk about how NIH manages conflicts of interest to ensure that we maintain integrity throughout the peer review process. Sally Amero, Ph.D., NIH’s Review Policy Officer, joins us and explains why it is important to manage these conflicts, what is and is not a potential conflict, how to disclose conflicts, and who is involved throughout the peer review process. Continue reading
My colleagues within the NIH Office of Portfolio Analysis sought to answer this call. Drs. Ian Hutchins and George Santangelo embarked on a hefty bibliometric endeavor over the past several years to curate biomedical citation data. They aggregated over 420 million citation links from sources like Medline, PubMed Central, Entrez, CrossRef, and other unrestricted, open-access datasets. With this information in hand, we can now take a better glimpse into relationships between basic and applied research, into how a researchers’ works are cited, and into ways to make large-scale analyses of citation metrics easier and free. Continue reading
In a paper recently published in Science Advances, we delved into the underlying factors associated with the funding gap between white and black researchers. We identified three decision points where disparate outcomes arose between white and black researchers: 1) the decision to bring applications to discussion during peer review study section meetings; 2) impact score assignments for those applications brought to discussion; and (3) a previously unstudied factor, topic choice – that is what topic the investigators chose to study. Continue reading
Whether you’re an awardee or an applicant interested in Career Development (K) awards, you probably have some questions. Use this post as a starting point to getting your answers with the following resources. Continue reading
We make data on all funded NIH grants available to the public on the RePORT website. One of the ways we provide information is by school/department, which you can explore using the Awards by Location feature. Because of inconsistencies in the way information on department and school names are provided in grant applications, grantee officials may want to make changes in how that information is reflected in NIH systems. Continue reading
General registration rates for the NIH Regional Seminar on Program Funding and Grants Administration in Phoenix, AZ end on October 11. If you are new to the world of NIH funding then don’t miss this opportunity to register before the deadline! Continue reading