NIH is divided into two sections 1) Center for Scientific Review (CSR) 2) Institutes (eg., NIDDK, NCI, NHLBI) What is the difference? CSR organizes the.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Peer Review at the NIH Center for Scientific Review
Advertisements

Applicant and Reviewer Perspectives on the NIH Review process 2012 NIH Summer Institute Thursday, July 10, 2012 Steven Schinke.
Myths, Facts, and Suttons Law
Understanding and Dealing with Grant Review Panel Comments Randy R. Brutkiewicz, Ph.D. Assistant Dean for Faculty Affairs and Professional Development.
How a Study Section works
NIH Mentored Career Development Awards (K Series) Part 5 Thomas Mitchell, MPH Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics University of California San Francisco.
So, What Happens Now? The Summary and Implementation Reports and Implementation of Initiatives and Outcomes.
An Applicant’s Perspectives on the New NIH Changes Grover C. Gilmore.
The NIH Peer Review Process
REVIEW CRITERIA FOR NIH K01, K08, AND K23 (CAREER DEVELOPMENT) and K99/00 PATHWAY TO INDEPENDENCE AWARD GRANTS Liz Zelinski Former Reviewer and backup.
How Your Application Is Reviewed Robert Elliott, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer (SRO)
Laurie Tompkins, PhD Acting Director, Division of Genetics and Developmental Biology NIGMS, NIH Swarthmore College May 14, 2012 NIH 101.
California State University, Fresno – Office of Research and Sponsored Programs Basics of NIH – National Institutes of Health Nancy Myers Sims, Grants.
Center for Scientific Review National Institutes of Health Department of Health and Human Services Toni Scarpa NIH Peer Review: Continuity and Change NIDA.
Grant Writing Thomas S. Buchanan NIH Review Process Study Sections Review Criteria Summary Statement Responding to a Review.
The “Secrets” to Securing IES Funding: Some Lessons Learned as an IES Standing Panel Member Geoffrey D. Borman Professor, Educational Leadership and Policy.
The New NIH Review System: Reviewer’s perspective Liz Madigan, FPB School of Nursing.
How Your Application Is Reviewed Vonda Smith, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer (SRO)
Fundamentals of NLM Grants National Library of Medicine Extramural Programs Updated 2015.
What Happens After your Grant is Handed to the FedEx Guy.
1 Major changes Get ready! Changes coming to Review Meetings Considering Potential FY2010 funding and beyond: New 1-9 Scoring System Scoring of Individual.
The Life Cycle of an NIH Grant Application Alicia Dombroski, Ph.D. Deputy Director Division of Extramural Activities NIDCR.
How to Improve your Grant Proposal Assessment, revisions, etc. Thomas S. Buchanan.
The NIH Peer Review Process
Copyright © 2012 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Chapter 29 Writing Proposals to Generate Evidence.
NIH Review Procedures Betsy Myers Hospital for Special Surgery.
CSR Peer Review of NIH HIV/AIDS Grant Applications NIH Grantsmanship Workshop Diana Finzi, Ph.D. Chief, Pathogenesis and Basic Research Program Division.
EDU 385 Education Assessment in the Classroom
Board Expectations Leadership Role of the BOH President Committees Local Board of Health Training.
How PIs and the NIH Communicate: eRA Commons and Progress Reports Susan McCarthy DCB New Grantee Workshop March 15, 2013.
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.
1 HRSA Division of Independent Review The Review Process Regional AIDS Education and Training Centers HRSA Toni Thomas, MPA Lead Review Administrator.
NIH Mentored Career Development Awards (K Series) Part 5 Thomas Mitchell, MPH Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics University of California San Francisco.
Academic Activities Report, Faculty Assignment Report & Effort Reporting Session IFAS REC Retreat April 8 th, :15-5:00.
NIH Submission Cycle. Choosing a Study Section Ask Program Officer for advice Review rosters: – sp
1 Amy Rubinstein, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer Adrian Vancea, Ph.D., Program Analyst Office of Planning, Analysis and Evaluation Study on Direct Ranking.
Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.
Components of a Successful AREA (R15) Grant Rebecca J. Sommer Bates College.
PRESENTATION TO ASSOCIATION OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH AND PLANNING OFFICERS BUFFALO, NEW YORK JUNE 11, 2009 How Campuses are Closing the GE Assessment.
Certifying Your Data The Annual Performance Report (APR) is due each fall. Data collected in APlus will be used to generate sections of the APR for each.
Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.
Mary Ann Guadagno, PhD Senior Scientific Review Officer CSR Office of the Director Review Issues – CSR Surveys.
What Happens to your NIH Grant After You Hit the Send Button.
Restructured NIH Applications One Year Later:
An Insider’s Look at a Study Section Meeting: Perspectives from CSR Monica Basco, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer Coordinator, Early Career Reviewer Program.
1 Internet Assisted Review Review User Group April 22, 2002.
Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) Open Forum Session 19.
1 SCHOOL SITE COUNCIL. 2 Purpose: School Site Council The organization by which the school community comes together to chart the school’s path to improvement.
Grantsmanship: The Art and Science of Getting Funded Ronald Margolis, Ph.D. Senior Advisor, Molecular Endocrinology National Institute of Diabetes and.
NATA Foundation General Grants Program Process RC Chair identifies 3 RC members to review Pre-Proposal & information is sent for review (within 2 weeks.
Internal and External Peer Review Focused Group Discussion PAASE 06/15/2011.
Peer Review and Grant Mechanisms at NIH What is Changing? May 2016 Richard Nakamura, Ph.D., Director Center for Scientific Review.
The Promotion and Tenure Process at Alabama State University.
CJA 454 Week 4 Team Assignment Suggestion Paragraph for Grant Proposal Read the instructions for Week 5’s Learning Team assignment. Post a one paragraph.
MedStar Health Research Institute
NATA Foundation Student Grants Process
Module 5.
NATA Foundation General Grants Program Process
NSF/NIH Review Processes University of Southern Mississippi
NSF/NIH Review Processes University of Southern Mississippi
What Reviewers look for NIH F30-33(FELLOWSHIP) GRANTS
The NIH Peer Review Process
The NIH Peer Review Process
IITG Review Process First Stage: Peer Review
Rick McGee, PhD and Bill Lowe, MD Faculty Affairs and NUCATS
FSGP Process Step 1: Review of Scientific Merit
Team Check-Up Orientation Briefing
Study Section Overview – The Process and What You Should Know
NATA Foundation General Grants Program Process
Presentation transcript:

NIH is divided into two sections 1) Center for Scientific Review (CSR) 2) Institutes (eg., NIDDK, NCI, NHLBI) What is the difference? CSR organizes the review of proposals via study sections Institutes define programs and determine funding based on priority scores and program priorities

Center for Scientific Review Study sections run by Scientific Review Officer(SRO) SRO assigns proposals to study section members SRO organizes study section meeting SRO gives instructions and updates to reviewers prior to meeting SRO assembles final review comments and writes summary

Who is your Program Officer (PO)? A PO is your advocate in the institutes (usually) POs are not involved in the review process Good POs attend study section meetings to take notes but usually do not speak at the meeting You should speak to your PO after you receive your summary statement Develop a good relationship with your PO

Membership Study section members are chosen by the SRA Retiring members are often asked to suggest replacements One person acts as Chair and leads discussions Meetings 3 times per year – usually all day, sometimes 2 days Each review can last between 5 mins and 20 mins Applications are discussed in order based on initial scores posted online prior to meeting – best to worst. “Streamlined”/triaged grants (50%) are not discussed

Responsibilities of members Review about 9 grants (as primary, secondary or third reviewer) Write clear reviews and give a score from 1 (best) – 9 (worst) Declare conflict of interest if appropriate (e. g., same institution) Attend meetings regularly Be diligent, honest and fair – no personal attacks or innuendo

What does you score mean? Scores range from 1 (best) to 9 (worst) We are encouraged to “spread the scores” The actual score itself reflects the level of enthusiasm There are several scored categories, but only one overall score that counts in the end (it is not an average) Scores determine the “percentile”, which determines funding A given score (e. g., 25) may be funded in one institute, but not another