Reviewing NIH Grants

1
Reviewing NIH Grants

• The MEETING
• The CRITIQUE

2
PRIOR TO THE MEETING

• Receipt of applications 8-10 weeks before
• Number of applications 10-15 per person
• Assignment of review
• Online submission of review and scoring

3
AT THE MEETING

• Configuration of the group
• Ad Hoc reviewers
• Conflict of interest
• The process of triage
• Presentation of critique and score

4
REVIEWING RO1s in IMMUNOLOGY
A personal perspective I believe it generally
works!
An imperfect process with personality and
peer-level accountability
CREDIBILITY IMPORTANCE
5
TWO TYPES OF REVIEWER

• Read THEN review (TWO PASSES DETAILS)
• 2. Read AND review (ONE PASS CLARITY)

6
SUBSTANCE is everything but dont forget FORM
7
RO1 CRITIQUE

• SIGNIFICANCE
• APPROACH
• 3. INNOVATION
• INVESTIGATOR
• 5. ENVIRONMENT

8
1. SIGNIFICANCE
The first and major hurdle!

• Does the study address an important problem?
• If the aims of the application are achieved,
• how will scientific knowledge be advanced?
• What will be the effects of these studies
• on the concepts or methods that drive the field?

Sections A B in the application
9
A SPECIFIC AIMS
PAGE 1 The most critical page of the proposal

• One paragraph to define the problem, establish
  its
• importance and your presence, state the
  hypothesis
• and outline your approach.
• 2. Summarize everything for the reviewer here.
• Give them the arguments and information to use in
  
• your favor at the study section.
• 4. Write it as a guide then come back and
  re-write it
• to fit the details.

10
B BACKGROUND SIGNIFICANCE

• Dont summarize the whole literatureFOCUS
• Detail what they need to know to evaluate
• YOUR PROPOSAL not the entire field.
• Lead into each specific aimRationale.
• Repetition
• -Tell them what youre going to tell them
• -Tell them
• -Tell them what youve just told them

11
BACKGROUND SIGNIFICANCE
As a reviewerI want to enjoy a clear narrative
and learn something new.
12
2. APPROACH
The major focus of the critique!

• Is the conceptual framework well-developed?
• Are the design, methods and analyses adequately
• developed, well-integrated and appropriate to
  the aims?
• Does the applicant acknowledge potential problems
• and consider alternative tactics?

Sections C D in the application
13
C PRELIMINARY RESULTS
Your opportunity to IMPRESS!

• 1. Dont assume the reviewer is familiar with
  your work.
• 2. Organize by results pertinent to each specific
  aim.
• 3. Keep relating back to the proposed
  experiments.
• Demonstrate that you have the capacity and
  experience
• Preliminary results that indicate plausibility of
  approach
• and likelihood for success

14
D RESEARCH DESIGN METHODS
This is itDONT BURN OUT NOW!

• Leave yourself plenty of roomdont die out on
  the last aim
• Dont be OVER-AMBITIOUSdepth not breadth!
• Re-set the scene assume the reviewer is starting
  here.

15
D RESEARCH DESIGN METHODS
Structure well to cover all basesdetails and
ease of reading.

• One paragraph as overview
• One paragraph to overview each Specific Aim.
• Deal with SUB-AIMS separately.
• Each Sub-Aim
• Rationale
• Experimental Design and Methods
• Expected Results
• Alternative Strategies Future Directions

16
SUBSTANCE is everything but dont forget FORM
17
RO1 CRITIQUE

• SIGNIFICANCE
• APPROACH
• 3. INNOVATION
• INVESTIGATOR
• 5. ENVIRONMENT

18
3. INNOVATION

• Does the project employ novel concepts?
• Are the aims original and innovative?
• Does the project challenge existing paradigms or
• develop new methodologies or technologies?

19
4. INVESTIGATOR

• Appropriate training and experience?
• The quality and appropriateness
• of other researchers brought into project?

20
5. ENVIRONMENT

• Contribute to the probability of success?
• Take advantage of unique features
• within the environment?
• Employ useful collaborations?
• 4. Is there evidence of institutional support?

21
OVERALL EVALUATION

• Address strengths and weaknesses of the
  application.
• Recommend a score reflecting the impact on the
  field.
• Weight the review criteria as you feel
  appropriate.
• Does not need to be strong in all categories
• to deserve high merit.