Dr. Lani (Chi Chi) Zimmerman, UNMC Dr. Bill Mahoney, IS&T

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
How Your Application Is Reviewed Robert Elliott, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer (SRO)
Advertisements

B IOMEDICAL E NGINEERING Significance & Innovation Dawn M Elliott, PhD.
Website: where you can find all necessary forms! NIH Grant Writing 101 ASCEND March 2015.
Environment - Facilities/Equipment Randall Duncan Biological Sciences COBRE Grant Writing Workshop January 21, 2015.
Significance and Innovation Significance- The positive effect something is likely to have on other things Innovation- A new and substantially different.
Grant Writing Thomas S. Buchanan NIH Review Process Study Sections Review Criteria Summary Statement Responding to a Review.
The IGERT Program Preliminary Proposals June 2008 Carol Van Hartesveldt IGERT Program Director IGERT Program Director.
NIH Mentored Career Development Awards (K Series) Part 4
Grant Writing1 Grant Writing Lecture What are the major types of grants available in mental health research? What is the process of grant preparation and.
How to Write Goals and Objectives
Creating a Research Plan for a Career Development Award Jill Harkavy-Friedman, Ph.D.
How to Improve your Grant Proposal Assessment, revisions, etc. Thomas S. Buchanan.
Formulating an important research question Susan Furth, MD, PhD Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology and Clinical Research
THE NIH REVIEW PROCESS David Armstrong, Ph.D.
UAMS Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Policy WG NIH policy proposal. Goal: Incorporating global access licensing as one of the additional review criteria Question 1: Should we propose this.
Navigating the Changes to the NIH Application Instructions Navigating the Changes to the NIH Application Instructions EFFECTIVE JANUARY 25, 2010.
A Review of Recent Changes to NIH Forms & Instructions Jane Tolbert ORPA December 15, 2009.
Medical Audit.
1 Introduction to Grant Writing Beth Virnig, PhD Haitao Chu, MD, PhD University of Minnesota, School of Public Health December 11, 2013.
COMPONENTS OF A GOOD GRANT PROPOSAL Philip T. LoVerde.
Research Project Grant (RPG) Retreat K-Series March 2012 Bioengineering Classroom.
Grant Writing Basics. Topics of This Session Matching funding to your objective Telling your story Writing the budget.
R01 NIH Grants John E. Lochman, PhD, ABPP Center for Prevention of Youth Behavior Problems Department of Psychology Psychosocial Development, Risk and.
NIH Challenge Grants in Health and Science Research RFA OD
The NIH Grant Review Process Hiram Gilbert, Ph.D. Dept. of Biochemistry, Baylor College of Medicine Xander Wehrens, M.D. Ph.D. Dept. of Molecular Physiology.
NSF GRFP Workshop Sept 16, 2016 Dr. Julia Fulghum
AHRQ 2011 Annual Conference: Insights from the AHRQ Peer Review Process Training Grant Review Perspective Denise G. Tate Ph.D., Professor, Chair HCRT Study.
NSF IGERT proposals Yang Zhao Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Wayne State University.
Presubmission Proposal Reviews at the College of Nursing (CON) Nancy T. Artinian, PhD, RN, FAAN Associate Dean for Research and Professor.
Eloise Forster, Ed.D. Foundation for Educational Administration (FEA)
 NSF Merit Review Criteria Intellectual Merit Broader Impacts  Additional Considerations Integration of Research & Education Broadening Participation.
NIH Submission Cycle. Choosing a Study Section Ask Program Officer for advice Review rosters: – sp
1 Preparing an NIH Institutional Training Grant Application Rod Ulane, Ph.D. NIH Research Training Officer Office of Extramural Research, NIH.
Grant writing 101 The Art of Flawless Packaging Scott K. Powers Department of Applied Physiology and Kinesiology Scott K. Powers Department of Applied.
Tips on Fellowship Writing A Reviewer’s Perspective Wendy Havran.
G RANTSMANSHIP $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
How is a grant reviewed? Prepared by Professor Bob Bortolussi, Dalhousie University
OCTOBER 18, 2011 SESSION 9 OF AAPLS – SELECTED SUPPORTING COMPONENTS OF SF424 (R&R) APPLICATION APPLICANTS & ADMINISTRATORS PREAWARD LUNCHEON SERIES Module.
1 SBIR/STTR Overview Wang Yongqiang. 2 Federal SBIR/STTR Program ‣ A +$2Billion funding program set-aside for small businesses seeking to early stage.
ENHANCING PEER REVIEW: GUIDE FOR REVIEW OF RESTRUCTURED GRANT APPLICATIONS.
Pilot Grant Program EGAD Study OCCUPATIONAL & ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH.
Funding Opportunities for Investigator-initiated Grants with Foreign Components at the NIH Somdat Mahabir, PhD, MPH Program Director Epidemiology and Genetics.
Short and Sweet: Selling Your Science in 12 Pages ASBMR Grant Writing Workshop Friday, 15 October 2010 Toronto, ON Jane E. Aubin, Ph.D. Dept of Molecular.
Critiquing Quantitative Research.  A critical appraisal is careful evaluation of all aspects of a research study in order to assess the merits, limitations,
Research Strategy: Approach Frank Sellke, MD Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery Brown Medical School Providence RI AATS Grant Course 2011.
University of Virginia Innovation – How to Make Your Grant New and Unique Grant Writing Workshop American Association for Thoracic Surgery David R. Jones.
NIH R03 Program Review Ning Jackie Zhang, MD, PhD, MPH College of Health and Public Affairs 04/17/2013.
Reviewers Expectations Peter Donkor. Outline Definitions The review process Common mistakes to avoid Conclusion.
What is a Grant? A description of a research project you want to do? A thoughtful explication of a great new research idea? An intellectual magnum opus.
NIH Fellowships Overview
Writing an Effective K Application
Applying for funding: Tips fom the trenches
NSF/NIH Review Processes University of Southern Mississippi
NSF/NIH Review Processes University of Southern Mississippi
Research and Grant Writing
Grant Writing Information Session
The NSF Grant Review Process: Some Practical Tips
Research Project Grant (RPG) Retreat R-series
Writing that First Research Grant
Information Session January 18, :00-1:45 pm
Preparing Research Proposals for NSF and NIH April 20, 2018
BU Career Development Grant Writing Course- Session 3, Approach
How to Succeed with NIH: September 28, 2018
K R Investigator Research Question
UAMS Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Thomas Mitchell, MA, MPH Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics
S-STEM (NSF ) NSF Scholarships for Science, Technology, Engineering, & Mathematics Information Materials 6 Welcome! This is the seventh in a series.
Writing an Effective Grant Application
Opportunity fund grants at COM
Presentation transcript:

Dr. Lani (Chi Chi) Zimmerman, UNMC Dr. Bill Mahoney, IS&T The Proposal Review Process: An Insider’s Look at Federal Review Panels Panel consisting of faculty from UNO and UNMC who have served on review panels Dr. Lani (Chi Chi) Zimmerman, UNMC Dr. Bill Mahoney, IS&T Dr. Matt Germonprez, IS&T Dr. Mahadevan Subramaniam, IS&T

Create a checklist The organizations that offer grants usually publish a lengthy set of rules and guidelines for grant submission and that is what you need to review very carefully before any attempt at writing a grant. Read the entire application carefully. Make a list of questions you must answer and materials that have to be included. See what buzz words they are using and how they have defined them.

Don’t sound technical. The best grant proposals are clear, concise, and understandable. Use good solid English, easily understood by an average person. Avoid getting too intellectual or too technical in your writing.

Pay attention to detail. Having the assistance of a good editor to review your work with a trained eye will improve your writing tremendously.

Write a compelling story. Use images that are very dramatic and show the problems you are going to solve. You want to make the reader feel like they are right in the middle of the situation, so that they can imagine what it must be like.

Pretend you’re the funder (a) the organizations that received funding have many years of experience in the areas of concern, (b) the proposals are professionally presented, (c) the cause is clearly identified, (d) the parameters of need are expressed clearly, and (e) there is evidence of past success.

Find a good mentor or grant writing coach Grant writing, whether it is for yourself or for others requires a seasoned professional skill set in order to prepare grants that are award winning. A mentor is someone who is very talented in grant writing that guides you and helps you improve your skills.

Become great at researching funding sources There are international sources, national sources, regional sources and local sources for grant funding. Some of the easier grants to get are the smaller ones for local purposes. There are also grants available for a variety of distinct causes from foundations that have been set up specifically to support such grants. The U.S. government is also a major source.

Target a specific project for your proposal The majority of all grants, given for projects that help people, are given to specific cause instead of just general support. By focusing your grant proposal you will increase your chances of getting funded.

NIHOverall Impact. Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria, and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).

Significance. Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?

Investigator(s). Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?

Innovation. Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

Approach. Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

Environment. Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?

Additional Review Criteria Additional Review Criteria. As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit and in providing an overall impact/priority score, but will not give separate scores for these items. Protections for Human Subjects Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children Vertebrate Animals Biohazards Resubmission Renewal Revision