1. REVIEW CRITERIA
FOR NIH K01, K08, AND K23 (CAREER DEVELOPMENT) and K99/00 PATHWAY TO INDEPENDENCE AWARD GRANTS
Liz Zelinski
Former Reviewer and backup chair for NIH/ZRG F12A
AND
Current member, NIA-S K award study section
13 November 2014

2. K awards
The objective of these programs is to bring candidates to the point where they are able to conduct their research independently and are competitive for major grant support. Current NIH policies require that, by the time of the award, applicants must be U.S. citizens, non-citizen U.S. nationals, or have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence. Please note that this requirement applies to all the mechanisms below, EXCEPT the K99/R00.

3. K award wizard

4. Individual Criteria Scores

5. K01/K08/K23 SCORED REVIEW CRITERIA
Candidate
Career Development Plan/Career Goals & Objectives
Research Plan 
Mentor(s), Co-Mentor(s), Consultant(s), Collaborator(s)
Environment and Institutional Commitment to the Candidate
Protection of Human Subjects/Animal Protection
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, & Children
Vertebrate Animals
Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research

6. Applicant/Candidate: What reviewers look for
More is better:
Refereed publications
First-authored publications
High-level journals
Evidence of leadership (K candidates)
Previous awards, especially national ones
Prior training “pedigree”
Letters that say “outstanding” or “one of the best ever”
How the previous training experience leads up to the proposed research training

7. Mentoring team on K awards: What reviewers look for
A team with the “right” mix and number of mentors, co-mentors and others as needed
Evidence that the mentors read and critiqued the proposal
Current research support is available for mentee

8. K01/08/23/25/99/R00 Plan/Goals: What Reviewers look for
Formal coursework relevant to meeting the goals and research plan; informal mentoring/tutoring
Discussion of regular attendance at appropriate local institutional seminars and meetings, including grand rounds, lab groups
Frequency and duration of meetings with mentoring team members
Frequency of progress monitoring/including mention of remedial actions if needed by the entire mentoring team
Attendance at appropriate professional meetings, including presenting
Formal training as appropriate in grant proposal development
A timeline for goal based activities over the course of the award
Specific benchmarks in the timeline (e.g., papers to be produced, R01 submission)
Verification of plan details, especially mentoring activities in the mentors’ statements

9. Research Plan for K awards: What reviewers look for
Likelihood that the work, if successful, will be of high impact
The research plan fits with the stated career goals and training plan
Timeline for completing the elements of the research is appropriate given the training needed and the workload of the research plan

10. K Environment and Commitment: What Reviewers Look for
Letter of support with the appropriate level of commitment for the release time of the candidate
For junior applicants, a faculty appointment is not contingent on obtaining a K award
What institutional resources will be provided (office space, clerical help, RA’s, statistical consulting) to support the research

11. K: Budget and Period of Support
Appropriateness of budget beyond the 75% release time is evaluated
Budget is similar to that of a smaller R01 with travel, equipment, materials and supplies permitted

12. Training in Responsible Conduct of Research
1) Format – the required formal of instruction, i.e., face-to-face lectures, coursework, and/or real-time discussion groups (a plan with only on-line instruction is not acceptable);
2) Subject Matter – the breadth of subject matter, e.g., conflict of interest, authorship, data management, human subjects and animal use, laboratory safety, research misconduct, research ethics;
3) Faculty Participation – the role of the sponsor(s) and other faculty involvement in the fellow’s instruction;
4) Duration of Instruction – the number of contact hours of instruction (at least eight contact hours are required)
5) Frequency of Instruction – instruction must occur during each career stage and at least once every four years.  Plans and past record will be rated as ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE, and the summary statement will provide the consensus rating of the review committee. 

14. K01, K08, K23, K99/00 Review OVERALL IMPACT
Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood that the proposed career development and research plan will enhance the candidate’s potential for a productive, independent scientific research career in a health related field, taking into consideration the criteria below in determining the overall impact score.
April guidelines

15. Process: NIA K study sections
Reviewers are interdisciplinary researchers and the study sections are broadly disciplinary
NIA-S mostly social and psychological sciences
NIA-N mostly neuroscience
NIA-B mostly biological sciences
Submission of reviews about 3 days before meeting
All applications are reviewed; order varies with availability of program officers to listen in
Telephone reviews are allowed
Reviewers get 5-10 applications to review; funding mechanisms much more varied than CSR study section fellowship groups

16. Review Discussion (10-15 min)
Chair asks the three reviewers to give their initial impact score
First reviewer gives a very brief summary of the elements of the training program; there is a tendency to outline the research study part of it in a bit more detail. Discusses the evaluative part of his or her review in the context of the summary covering all the content elements, and then Human Subjects Protection, Women, Minorities, Children comments.
Second reviewer: nonoverlapping comments only.
Third reviewer: anything else not discussed.
Discussion open to whole group.
Verbal summary by chair of the application: strengths & weaknesses.
Reviewers give their final impact scores (and will change their reviews to align with the scores). The range of scores given is the general range for the study section members to follow. If anyone want to score outside the range, they so indicate and provide their rationale. They write it up for the review document.
Voting (on paper & online)
First reviewer is asked to comment on responsible conduct of research training and appropriateness of budget (duration of award) for program staff. These are not included in the voting.

17. Resubmissions after Review
Introduction: Describe all responses to reviewers, indicate how changes to application will be identified (eg italics, underline)
Be as responsive as humanly possible
More publications and coursework finished
Fast turnaround but not too fast!