eRA is strengthening the security of its modules on November 30 by moving to the ‘https only’ secure connection for websites, as mandated for all federal agencies. With the implementation of this security protocol, older internet browsers may not work, and you may need to update your browser to access any eRA module, including eRA Commons, ASSIST, IAR and iEdison. …. Continue reading
It is a longstanding NIH policy that a principal investigator needs to seek prior approval from NIH before submitting a grant application with direct costs of $500,000 or more for a single budget year. You now have the option to electronically submit these prior approval requests through eRA Commons …. Continue reading
NIH is committed to improving the participation of all people in our small business research SBIR & STTR programs. One of the goals of the SBIR and STTR programs is to encourage participation in innovation and entrepreneurship by socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses (SDB) and women-owned small businesses (WOSB) …. NIH has issued a request for information (NOT-OD-17-008) to better understand the barriers that prevent SBIR/STTR awardees from participating in the existing diversity supplement program, and to inform its consideration of developing a new diversity supplement …. Continue reading
When applicants receive their summary statement resulting from the review of an application that was assigned a score outside of the ICs funding range, there are important decisions to be made that, ideally, should be based upon evidence. What is the likelihood that an application like this one will be funded? If I resubmit the application, what changes might improve the chances for a successful resubmission?
Recall that in 2014, NIH relaxed its resubmission policy (OD-14-074) to allow applicants to submit a new (A0) application following an unsuccessful resubmission application. Also, we recently posted a piece showing that review outcomes for new applications submitted following an unsuccessful resubmission had about the same funding success as other new applications. But some applicants may wonder, what is the funding success for a resubmission application? …. Continue reading
The authentication plan is only for established key biological and/or chemical resources, as defined on our website. Do not include plans for the authentication of data sets, databases, machinery, or electronics in the authentication plan attachment. If the Research Strategy does not propose use of key biological and/or chemical resources, the …. Continue reading
The authentication plan should be provided as a separate attachment (Item 15 in the Research Plan). The plan should be brief (no more than one page is suggested), and it should include a description of the methods proposed to authenticate key biological and/or chemical resources prior to use and at regular intervals, if appropriate. Key resources and the methods for authentication will vary by research field. …. Continue reading
Last April we posted a blog on the measurement of citation metrics as a function of grant funding. We focused on a group of R01 grants and described the association of a “citation percentile” measure with funding. We noted evidence of “diminishing returns” – that is increased levels of funding were associated with decreasing increments of productivity – an observation that has been noted by others as well.
We were gratified by the many comments we received, through the blog and elsewhere. Furthermore, as I noted in a blog last month, our Office of Portfolio Analysis has released data on the “Relative Citation Ratio,” (or RCR) a robust field-normalized measure of citation influence of a single grant (and as I mentioned, a measure that is available to you for free).
In the follow-up analysis I’d like to share with you today, we focus on a cohort of 60,447 P01 and R01-equivalent grants (R01, R29, and R37) which were first funded between 1995 and 2009. Through the end of 2014, these grants yielded at least 654,607 papers. We calculated a “weighted RCR” value for each grant, …. Continue reading
Many scientific disciplines, like physics and mathematics, routinely communicate research findings through preprints — manuscripts that have not yet gone through the formal peer review, editing, or journal publishing process. However, this is still a relatively novel concept in biology and clinical research. …. we at NIH are interested in feedback from you, to get a fuller understanding of the current use of preprints in the broader NIH-supported research community, accepted preprint standards, whether preprints should be included in NIH applications and reports, and how investigators could report them. …. Not only are we interested in your current use of preprints — and other interim research products — but perhaps most importantly we’d like your feedback on the specific standards that need to be in place for their citation, particularly for citation in NIH applications and reports …. Continue reading