1. How your NIH grant application is evaluated and scored Larry Gerace, Ph.D. June 1, 2011

2. Tips for writing your first R01 application  Read successful grant applications and summary statements from other PIs  Follow the criteria stated in PHS-398 for the content of Specific Aims, Significance, Innovation, Approach  Use models and/or data in “Background” and “Approach” to boost clarity and reviewers’ confidence  Keep text from being too crowded; e.g., use spaces between sections  Get feedback on your application from others before submitting (start early!)

3. Overall Impact (“score”): Overall Impact (“score”): exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved Assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved Five Core Criteria (basis for “score”): Five Core Criteria (basis for “score”): 1)Significance 2)Investigator(s) 3)Innovation 4) Approach 5) Environment 3 Six criteria scored, each with a value of 1-9: Scored review criteria for NIH grants

4. 1 Exceptional Exceptionally strong with essentially no weaknesses 2 Outstanding Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses 3 Excellent Very strong with only some minor weaknesses 4 Very Good Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses 5 Good Strong but with at least one moderate weakness 6 Satisfactory Some strengths but also some moderate weaknesses 7 Fair Some strengths but with at least one major weakness 8 Marginal A few strengths and a few major weaknesses 9 Poor Very few strengths and numerous major weaknesses Instructions to NIH grant reviewers for scoring: Score Descriptor Additional Guidance on Strengths/Weaknesses

5. ImpactScoreDescriptorStrengths/Weaknesses High Impact 1Exceptional Weaknesses 2Outstanding 3Excellent Moderate Impact 4Very Good 5Good 6Satisfactory Low Impact 7Fair 8Marginal 9Poor Strengths Percentiles associated with scores and descriptors often ~15 th percentile

6. Portion of bullet point NIH review template

7. Scoring in the core criteria 1) Significance Is the application of major importance for advancing basic science and human health? Is the work novel and does it have impact on both specific area and broader range of research topics? Does the work address the question in a multidimensional manner; e.g. using multiple and/or interdisciplinary approaches?

8. 2) Investigator(s) Does the PI present a cogent Personal Statement in Biosketch on background and skills? Is the PI’s track record indicative of success? Is the impact of the work increased with collaborations that enhance depth? Scoring in the core criteria

9. 3) Innovation Does the work provide methodological advances or refinements and are these applicable to broader areas? Does the work promise significant conceptual advances (changing general thinking about the problem)? Does the work identify new pathways, mechanisms, etc. that “open up” major new research avenues? Scoring in the core criteria

10. 4) Approach Is the problem focused and go into sufficient depth to allow significant advances on key problems? (~3 Aims) Can the work realistically be accomplished in 4/5 years? Is rationale for each Aim provided? (introductory paragraph) Are predicted outcomes and alternative approaches for sub-aims presented? (end of each sub-aim) Is there preliminary data to justify feasibility of project? Scoring in the core criteria

11. 5) Environment Does the “local intellectual environment”, institution and neighboring institutions support a successful outcome? Is the needed equipment available and accessible? Scoring in the core criteria