Certificates of Confidentiality for NIH Grants

Earlier this year I wrote a post about the 21st Century Cures Act and its changes that directly affect the NIH. One part of this new legislation contains provisions to improve clinical research and privacy through certificates of confidentiality.

Currently, certificates of confidentiality (or “CoCs”) are provided upon request to researchers collecting sensitive information about research participants. Soon, CoCs will be automatically provided for NIH-supported research, as set forth in the 21st Century Cures Act. …. Continue reading

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Pin on PinterestPrint this page

Updated Resource for Clinical Regulations Across the Globe

NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) ClinRegs website provides clinical regulations for countries around the world. Since its initial release, the site has undergone several functionality upgrades to make the site easier to use. The updated site includes: a new interactive map on the homepage to provide a clearer picture of the countries included; hyperlinked table of contents on each country ….. Continue reading

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Pin on PinterestPrint this page

Applications, Resubmissions, and the Relative Citation Ratio

Measuring the impact of NIH grants is an important input in our stewardship of research funding. One metric we can use to look at impact, discussed previously on this blog, is the relative citation ratio (or RCR). This measure – which NIH has made freely available through the iCite tool – aims to go further than just raw numbers of published research findings or citations, by quantifying the impact and influence of a research article both within the context of its research field and benchmarked against publications resulting from NIH R01 awards.

In light of our more recent posts on applications and resubmissions, we’d like to go a step further by looking at long-term bibliometric outcomes as a function of submission number. In other words, are there any observable trends in the impact of publications resulting from an NIH grant funded as an A0, versus those funded as an A1 or A2? And does that answer change when we take into account how much funding each grant received? …. Continue reading

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Pin on PinterestPrint this page

A Reminder of Your Roles as Applicants and Reviewers in Maintaining the Confidentiality of Peer Review

Imagine this: you’re a reviewer on an NIH study section, and receive a greeting card from the Principal Investigator (PI) on an application you are reviewing. A note written inside the card asks that your look favorably upon the application, and in return, the PI would put in a good word with his friend serving on your promotion committee. Do you accept the offer, or just ignore it? Or, do you report it? …. Or maybe several days after the initial peer review of your application, you receive a phone call from a colleague you haven’t spoken to in quite a while. The colleague is excited about a new technique you developed and wishes to collaborate. You realize the only place you’ve disclosed this new technique is in your recently reviewed NIH grant application. What do you do? …. Continue reading

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Pin on PinterestPrint this page