Review Outcomes of R03s in CSR, Part II

1
Review Outcomes of R03s in CSR, Part II

• Valerie L. Durrant, Ph.D.
• SRA, Health of the Population IRG Center for
  Scientific Review

2
Conclusions from PRAC 5/2006

• Review outcomes of R03s are similar to Type 1
  R01s
• No systematic differences in score distributions
  for R03s reviewed in different review venues

3
R03 review outcomes are similar in different
review forums (from PRAC 5/2006)
Percent of Type 1 R01 and R03 applications
reviewed in standing study sections and R03
applications reviewed in small mechanism SEPs in
score categories (Oct 2005-Jan 2006 council
rounds)
4
Questions for follow-up from 5/2006 PRAC
presentation

• Are the averages hiding variation among study
  sections?
• Does the differential treatment of R03s/R21s
  occur with streamlining?
• Tracking outcomes of small grants from new
  investigators (recommendation)

5
Additional analysis

• Examining variation across study sections
• Focus on streamlined in last 3 rounds
• 10 R03s over last 3 rounds
• Closer look at PAs/types of R03 apps
• Type of PA?
• New vs. amended apps
• New vs. experienced PI

6
Reminder R03s are a relatively small percent of
CSR-reviewed applications
Percent of applications reviewed by CSR by
mechanism (January 2006-October 2006 council
rounds)
N50,801
Percent of R03s (CSR-reviewed) increased from
2.1 to 3.2 between 2000 and 2006.
7
Reminder Most R03 applications are reviewed in
standing study sections
8
streamlined No systematic variation across
study sections
9
Majority of CSR-reviewed R03 applications come in
response to PA 03-108 (recently replaced by PA
06-180)
Percent of CSR-reviewed application by mechanism
(October 2005-January 2006 Council rounds)
10
More likely to have new investigator as PI
R03 applications have other unique characteristics

• Less likely to beresubmitted

Reviewed in CSR
11
Score distribution of type 1 R03s for new and A1
applications looks similar to R01s
Note CSR-reviewed applications only, data based
on A0 and A1 designation in QVR.
12
Score distribution of Type 1 R03s with
experienced and new PIs looks similar to those of
Type 1 R01s, FY 2004
FY 2004 data with OER-recoded New PI based on
grant history. CSR reviewed applications only.
13
Conclusions

• No evidence of systematic bias in the
  streamlining or score distribution of R03s across
  study sections.
• Review outcomes of amended R03s and R03s with
  new/experienced PIs look similar to their R01
  counterparts.

14
Acknowledgements

• Teresa Lindquist, Program Analyst, CSR, and OER
  data analysts
• Dr. Elaine Sierra-Rivera, Deputy Chief, Oncology
  IRG, CSR
• Dr. Michael Martin, Division Director, DPP
• Dr. Cheryl Kitt, Deputy Director, CSR