6 Comments
Remember, the modified biosketch format is required for applications submitted to NIH for due dates on or after May 25, 2015. Biosketch format pages, instructions, samples and FAQs are available on the Biosketches section of the SF424 (R&R) Forms and Applications page.
We encourage applicants to use the Science Experts Network Curriculum Vitae (SciENcv) system to generate their biosketches in the new format. NIH’s National Library of Medicine/National Center Biotechnology Information (NCBI) has published a number of resources, such as a video tutorial and user guide, to help you use SciENcv.
SciENcv provides you with full control of the content displayed in your SciENcv biosketches. If you have an NIH eRA Commons, National Science Foundation FastLane, My NCBI/My Bibliography, and/or ORCID account, you can easily populate your SciENcv profiles with information from any or all of these accounts.
Perhaps this is routine, but it seems short-sighted to issue a NEW format for the NIH biosketch yet the template provided indicates that it is ONLY approved through August of this year…. “OMB No. 0925-0001/0002 (Rev. 08/12 Approved Through 8/31/2015) “.
I was frustrated trying to use PubMed to build My Bibliography. Can anyone explain how to put publications into My Bibliography that PubMed can’t find? I don’t want to hand enter them individually as I have quite a few, eg from IEEE publications.
Not sure why yet again we have to learn a new Biosketch format.
These modifications take time to learn and changing them so frequently is a burden in PI’s time.
NIH, like other federal agencies, is notorious for dwelling on the non-essentials. And helping those with high levels of funding secure even more funds. With the new format, a has-been with few new ideas will have a greater chance of impressing the reviewers than someone new to the area, but with a novel approach. All changes so far have only helped those with name recognition. This is coming at an enormous cost to innovation. It has also served to demoralize the vast body of scientists and made the the scientific profession less attractive to the younger generation.
I like this new format from the perspective of an applicant and a reviewer. It allows new, mid-career, and senior investigators to present themselves in their best light. It allows reviewers to quickly and more accurately evaluate the trajectory of a career that looking at an unannotated bibliography. My institution uses a similar strategy for making reappointment and promotion decisions. I believe this is a substantive improvement given that reviewers are often asked to review applications that lie outside their area of direct expertise.
I’m a firm believer in the saying, “If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” Seems like NIH has come up with yet another way to burden the PI, while justifying the existence of whoever came up with this “innovative” new Biosketch idea. It was not that long ago that the Biosketch format was changed (streamlined) to list the investigator’s 5 publications most relevant to the proposal under consideration, plus up to 10 more that also are relevant and illustrate the PI’s history in the field, competence in the methods to be employed in the studies, etc. I have yet to see even ONE compelling argument for WHY, now, we’re being required to use the latest iteration of a Biosketch format.