April 21, 2020
As we continue to address the effects of the COVID-19 public health emergency on NIH-supported research, we are aware of applicant concerns about the potential impact of this temporary emergency situation on the outcome of peer review. We want to reassure applicants that we released guidance for reviewers that makes it clear that, when reviewing applications during the coronavirus pandemic national emergency, reviewers should assume that issues resulting from the coronavirus pandemic, such as the following, should not affect scores.
April 17, 2020
The current outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has introduced new cybersecurity risks both at NIH and across the globe. As targeted phishing attacks prey on our desire to access trustworthy information and many of us make a shift toward remote work, we all need to be vigilant and take accountability for cyber safety. Here are some key tips to stay safe and avoid scams.
April 16, 2020
CSR will conduct all summer peer review meetings using one of three platforms – 1) video; 2) telephone; 3) web-based discussion. A majority will take place using the Zoom video platform. We want to provide information about how we are maintaining the security and confidentiality of our review meetings.
April 15, 2020
In the past few months, the scientific community has ramped up research in response to the SARS‑CoV‑2 pandemic; dozens of peer-reviewed articles and preprints on this topic are being added to the literature every day (Figure 1). This rapidly expanding effort has created challenges for scientists and the medical community who need to analyze thousands of scholarly articles for insights on the virus.
April 13, 2020
On April 14, the NIH Office of Intramural Training and Education is hosting a workshop on Supporting Yourself and Your Trainees During the Coronavirus Pandemic that is open to all. In this workshop we will provide PIs, program leaders and research group heads with insights and strategies for supporting themselves, their trainees and staff during this difficult time.
April 13, 2020
As you can imagine, NIH is devoting significant resources to COVID-19. To get funding as quickly as possible to the research community, we are using Urgent and Emergency competing revisions and administrative supplements to existing grant awards. When responding to these types of funding opportunities, it is important that you understand how they work.
April 8, 2020
Working from home is the new reality for many people these days. As part of this new world, we are using our internet tools more and more, challenging the safety and security of these electronic systems likely to a degree not seen before. It is with that in mind that I would like to take a few minutes in this, and upcoming, posts reminding everybody about the importance of cybersafety in our online lives.
March 26, 2020
The public health emergency due to COVID-19 is causing difficulties in many aspects of our lives. My colleagues and I here at NIH are well aware of the challenges being felt in the research community as institutions are closing, people are being asked to practice social distancing, and resources and attention are justifiably focused on public health needs. We recently updated our website with a slew of additional FAQs, new funding opportunities, as well as a video message from me, where I address some of the most common questions.
March 13, 2020
Due to the potential exceptional impact of the declared public health emergency, we want to assure our recipient community that NIH will be doing our part to help you continue your research. Our website on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Information for NIH Applicants and Recipients has a list of available resources.
February 27, 2020
Over the past several years we have heard consistent concerns about the complexity of review criteria and administrative load of peer review. To address these concerns, CSR has convened a working group of our advisory council, charged with recommending changes to research project grant review criteria that will improve review outcomes and reduce reviewer burden. We would like to hear your thoughts on the issue. How might review criteria be modified to obtain the best evaluations of scientific merit?
6 Comments