In the Final RPPR you should report on the individuals that worked on the project during the last budget period minus any approved no-cost extensions. You can find this and more in the RPPR FAQs.
Looking for a grant award you heard about? Go here! Perhaps how many trainees NIH supported? You got it! Research spending on a certain disease? Done! Comparing NIH to another federal funder? Look no further! As you can see, NIH shares a quite diverse array of data associated with our funded grants in a transparent way. But, that does not mean we share everything. Continue reading
Do you have a vision for the future of improving scientific reviews? Are you a first-rate Scientific Leader seeking a career at the Center for supporting the most preeminent biomedical research institutes in the nation and the world? If so, the NIH has the perfect opportunity for you! Continue reading
In March 2017, we wrote about federal funders’ policies on interim research products, including preprints. We encouraged applicants and awardees include citations to preprints in their grant applications and progress reports. Some of your feedback pointed to the potential impact of this new policy on the peer review process. Continue reading
Eight months ago, CSR Director Dr. Richard Nakamura and I posted a blog on “A Reminder of Your Roles as Applicants and Reviewers in Maintaining the Confidentiality of Peer Review.” We asked you to imagine a scenario: you are a reviewer for an upcoming panel meeting, and shortly before the meeting an investigator associated with an application communicates with you, asking for a favorable review in exchange for an academic favor. We asked what you would do – accept the offer, ignore it, or report it?
We used the blog as an opportunity to remind all of us how important it is that we all do our utmost to assure the integrity of peer review. …. Continue reading
The scientific community is paying increasing attention to the quality practices of journals and publishers. NIH recently released a Guide notice (NOT-OD-18-011) to encourage authors to publish in journals that do not undermine the credibility, impact, and accuracy of their research findings. This notice aims to raise awareness about practices like changing publication fees without notice, lacking transparency in publication procedures, misrepresenting editorial boards, and/or using suspicious peer review. Continue reading
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
An investigator’s long-term success depends not only on securing funding, but on maintaining a stable funding stream. One way to assure continued funding is to submit a competing renewal application. However, as we noted earlier this year, while new investigators were almost as successful as experienced investigators in obtaining new (type 1) R01s, the difference between new investigator and experienced investigator success rates widens when looking at competing renewals (type 2s), and success rates of new investigators’ first renewals were lower than those of experienced investigators. In addition, we know that since the end of NIH’s budget doubling in 2003, success rates for competing renewals of research project grants overall have decreased. To further understand trends in success rate for R01 competing renewals (“type 2s”) I’d like to share some additional analyses where we look at characteristics of type 2 R01 applications, and the association of their criterion scores with overall impact score and funding outcomes. Continue reading
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? …. Continue reading
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. …. Continue reading