Have you applied for, sponsored, or reviewed NIH fellowship applications? We would like to hear your thoughts on what works, what doesn’t, and how the process could be improved.
An anniversary is a time for reflection on our history, the goals we’ve accomplished, the challenges we’ve surmounted, and the lessons we’ve learned along the way. Our video, “Catalyst of Hope and Health,” reflects on CSR’s work over the past 75 years to ensure that grant applications sent to NIH receive fair, independent, expert, and timely scientific reviews that are free from inappropriate influences, so NIH can fund the most promising research. Since its establishment, CSR has also sought to continually improve.
Two NIH program officers join us in this NIH All About Grants podcast to discuss what should be considered when deciding whether or not to resubmit an application.
A cautionary tale about a breach of review integrity in the guise of a normal professional interaction.
NIH recently issued a clarification indicating that while grant applications should not include contingency or recovery plans for problems resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators may address effects due to the pandemic on productivity or other scoreable issues in the personal statement of the biosketch.
An NIH peer reviewer was approached by a well-known professional grant writing service to assist a client in preparing an NIH grant application. The service advertised phenomenal success in securing NIH funding for its clients. What would you do? …
Developing your application and wondering how reviewers will assess the vertebrate animal section (VAS)? If so, we encourage you to check out these two new resources. Read on for more…
On March 1, NIH Director Francis Collins announced NIH’s broad-based initiative, UNITE, to end structural racism and racial inequities in biomedical science. This is a recognition of the need for urgent, sustained effort on many fronts across the research enterprise, including in all parts of the NIH’s extramural processes, to change culture. While the NIH Institutes and Centers will examine their programmatic priorities and discretionary funding practices, here at CSR, we are committed to pushing ahead with efforts to protect the peer review process from the systemic biases that exist in all areas of the scientific community.
Understanding how peer review works is key to writing a good grant application. In this 44-minute video, NIH Peer Review: “Live” Mock Study Section, scientists have gathered virtually to review three fictional applications in response to a fictional Request For Applications (RFA).
Sharing an application with anyone who has not been officially designated to participate in the peer review process is a big no-no. It undermines the integrity of peer review. It disregards the confidentiality that is required of peer reviewers, who specifically sign a confidentiality agreement before accessing the applications. And it is specifically prohibited by NIH peer review policy.