Author: Mike Lauer

Are You On the Fence About Whether to Resubmit?

October 28, 2016
By

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? ….

, , , , , , , ,

10 Comments

Applying the Relative Citation Ratio as a Measure of Grant Productivity

October 21, 2016
By

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, ….

, , , ,

12 Comments

Give Us Your Feedback on Standards for Preprints, and Other Interim Research Products

October 11, 2016
By

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 ….

, ,

3 Comments

Measuring Impact of NIH-supported Publications with a New Metric: the Relative Citation Ratio

September 8, 2016
By

In previous blogs, we talked about citation measures as one metric for scientific productivity. Raw citation counts are inherently problematic – different fields cite at different rates, and citation counts rise and fall in the months to years after a publication appears. Therefore, a number of bibliometric scholars have focused on developing methods that measure citation impact while also accounting for field of study and time of publication. We are pleased to report that on September 6, PLoS Biology published a paper from our NIH colleagues in the Office of Portfolio Analysis on “The Relative Citation Ratio: A New Metric that Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level.” Before we delve into the details and look at some real data, ….

, , , ,

14 Comments

NRSA Postdoctoral Stipend Guidelines for FY2017

August 30, 2016
By

This month, NIH published the projected fiscal year 2017 stipend guidelines for postdoctoral trainees and fellows supported by National Research Service Awards (NRSAs). For NRSA-supported postdocs with less than one year’s experience, the stipend level will increase to $47,484. In keeping with the recommendation of the Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group of the NIH Advisory Committee to the Director, stipend levels then increase dependent on years of postdoctoral experience. ….

, , ,

7 Comments

Model Organisms, Part 3: A Look at All RPGs for Six Models

August 24, 2016
By

We are most appreciative of the feedback we’ve received, through the blog and elsewhere, on NIH support of model organism research. In part 1 of this series, we mentioned that we asked two separate groups to analyze NIH applications and awards. In parts 1 and 2 we primarily focused on R01-based data that were curated and analyzed by our Office of Portfolio Analysis. In part 3, we show results from a broader range of research project grant (RPG) data that were prepared and analyzed by our Office of Research Information Systems. This group used an automated thesaurus-based text mining system which delves into not only public data such as project titles, abstracts, public health relevance statements, but also the specific aims contained in RPG applications. ….

,

6 Comments

A Look at NIH Support for Model Organisms, Part Two

August 3, 2016
By

We were pleased to hear the feedback on our previous post on NIH-funded model-organism research. One question a number of you asked is: what’s happening with research involving mouse models? Thanks to additional work by colleagues in NIH’s Office of Portfolio Analysis (OPA) and Office of Extramural Research/Office of Research Information Systems, I’m excited to … Continue reading “A Look at NIH Support for Model Organisms, Part Two”

,

7 Comments

Join Us in Chicago to Learn About NIH Program Funding and Grants Administration

July 28, 2016
By

In the spring, I attended my first NIH Regional Seminar on Program Funding and Grants Administration. I greatly enjoyed meeting with a diverse group of scientists and science administrators. During two “Open Mike” sessions, I had the opportunity to engage in rich conversations with attendees on topics I frequently include on this blog. The conversations were enjoyable and insightful – there’s nothing like discussing such important issues like funding trends, research accountability, and grants policy face-to-face with new and early career scientists. …. Why am I writing about a seminar that took place in May? Because I have some good news for those of you who didn’t get a chance to come to Baltimore! NIH is hosting a second Regional Seminar this year, from October 26-28 …..

, ,

2 Comments

The Predictive Nature of Criterion Scores on Impact Score and Funding Outcomes

July 22, 2016
By

In order to develop and implement data-driven policy, we need to carefully analyze our data to understand the “stories behind our metrics.” Without analyzing our data to know what’s going on, we’re essentially flying blind! A group of authors from the NIH Office of Extramural Research sought to investigate the stories behind peer review scoring and why some grant applications are more likely to be funded than others. They extended analyses previously reported by NIH’s Office of Extramural Research and National Institute of General Medical Studies. Last month, they published their analysis of over 123,000 competing R01 applications and described the correlations of individual component peer review scores – significance, investigator(s), innovation, approach, and environment – with subsequent overall impact score, and funding outcome. ….

, ,

16 Comments

A Look at Trends in NIH’s Model Organism Research Support

July 14, 2016
By

Wangler, et al. recently published an article in Genetics on NIH funding for model organism research involving Drosophila. The authors extracted grant information from NIH ExPORTER and looked for the word “Drosophila” in either the title or abstract. By this approach the authors found that NIH support for Drosophila-based research is declining.

We chose to investigate further trends in NIH support for Drosophila and other model organism research. Two groups of NIH staff used two different approaches. Our Office of Research Information Systems (ORIS) used an automated thesaurus-based text mining system which mines not only project titles and abstracts but also the specific aims contained in the application; this is the system we use to generate “Research Condition and Disease Category” (or RCDC) tables, which are publicly posted to the NIH RePORT website. In a separate effort, our Office of Portfolio Analysis (OPA) supplemented a different text mining algorithm with extensive manual curation. Both methods – the wholly automated thesaurus-based text mining approach and the manual curation supplemented text mining approach – yielded similar findings. In this blog, we will present the results of the manually curated approach. ….

,

7 Comments