Another Look at Applications Submitted During the Pandemic (Part 5): A Focus on Career Stage

June 28, 2022

In earlier posts, we looked at the distributions of gender and race of designated principal investigators (PI’s) of R01 and RPG applications submitted before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we extend on our prior analyses by presenting R01-equivalent application data on PI characteristics of Early Stage Investigators (ESIs).

Check Your Application for Completeness Before Submitting

March 9, 2022

We really care about the details. It is important to a fair review that all applicants competing together for funding have adhered to the same rules. It is also important that your application is submitted in a way that allows us to efficiently process your application and make it available for funding consideration. Consequently, your application will be checked at Grants.gov, by our eRA systems and finally by our staff before it is referred for review.

More Data on Applications Submitted During the Pandemic

October 20, 2021

Twice since the onset of the public health emergency we have taken a look at the number of research applications submitted together with some demographic information on the affiliated scientists. We are continuing to follow this analysis again here, focusing on NIH R01-equivalent and RPG application patterns during April 9 and August 8 over the past five years.

“All About Grants” Podcast – Human Subjects’ Protection and Monitoring Plans

October 29, 2020

Dawn Corbett, NIH’s Inclusion Policy Officer, shares why human subjects’ protection and monitoring plans are important in this next NIH’s All About Grants podcast. We will discuss what should be included in these plans as part of your application, what should be left out, what are risks and what are benefits to study participants, how reviewers assess it all, and so much more. 

RCDeCade: A Case Study to Show NIH Support Trends in an Emerging Scientific Field

August 2, 2018

A few weeks ago, we touted the value of the NIH’s Research, Condition, and Disease Classification (RCDC) system to give us consistent annual reporting on official research budget categories and the ability to see trends in spending over time. RCDC’s robust scientific validation process, which allows for such consistency, provides public transparency into over 280 different NIH budget categories.
RCDC categories do not encompass all types of biomedical research. So, how can we get this type of data for other research areas that are not encompassed in RCDC categories, especially those which are newly emerging fields? Are we able to use the same thesaurus-based classification system to explore other research trends?