Template-Based Critiques • Critique template contains a total of 18 boxes Reviewers should provide text for only those criteria that are applicable. 1. Significance 6. Resubmission 13. Overall Impact 2. Investigator(s) 7. Renewal 14. Budget and Period of Support 3. Innovation 8. Revision 15. Select Agents 4. Approach 9. Protection of Human Subjects 16. Applications from Foreign Organization 5. Environment 10. Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children 17. Resource Sharing Plan 11 Vertebrate Animals 18. Additional Comments to Applicant 12. Biohazards 25
View full slide show




For ALL Components • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • F.1. No title (Not Applicable to most awards.) F.2. Actual or anticipated challenges or delays and actions or plans to resolve them. – Please include any anticipated unobligated balances here and explanation for unobligated balance F.3. Significant changes to human subjects, vertebrate animals, biohazards, and/or select agents. G.1. Special Notice of Award and Funding Opportunity Announcement Reporting Requirements (Not Applicable) G.2. No title. (Not Applicable) G.3. No title. (Not Applicable) G.4. Human Subjects – G.4.a Does the project involve human subjects? – G.4.b Inclusion enrollment data – G.4.c ClinicalTrials.gov (Not Applicable) G.5 Human Subjects Education Requirement (Not Applicable) G.6 Human Embryonic Stem Cell(s) G.7 Vertebrate Animals (Not Applicable) G.8 Project/Performance Sites (Not Applicable) G.9 Foreign component (Not Applicable) G.10 Estimated unobligated balance (Not Applicable) G.11 Program Income (Not Applicable) G.12 F&A Costs (Not Applicable) H. Budget H.1 Budget Form H.2 Subaward Budget Form 40
View full slide show




RESEARCH PROPOSAL PREPARATION Suggested Suggested timeline timeline with with major major milestones milestones outlined. outlined. Key Key Partners Partners Mentors, Mentors, Collaborators Collaborators Dept DeptChairs Chairs&& Senior SeniorFaculty Faculty PI CCoonntin tinuuoouus fe s feeeddbac backk Review concept and provide feedback to investigator Review draft budget and proposal application and provide feedback to investigator Develop research concept. Discuss and circulate. Monitor funding alerts. Develop proposal based on feedback and discuss project with AA. 6+ 6+ Months Months AA AA // RA RA RA RA // OSP OSP Review funding alerts and announcements for possible support for investigator. NOTE: Planning and communication are key to working with Central Admin Offices Discuss upcoming research project with investigator notify central of intent to submit. Review guidelines and compliance requirements. Develop budget with AA. Complete proposal. 22 Months Months 44 Weeks Weeks Help investigator develop budget and seek commitments, resources and required approvals. Consult with AA and investigator to develop timeline that addresses proposal development, resources, protocols, required approvals, and budget. Complete admin. part of proposal. Review budget Submit proposal to OSP. Complete all protocols and compliance requirements with assistance of RA. 11 Week Week Help investigator complete all protocols and compliance requirements. Reviews proposal, certifies compliance requirements and provides institutional signature Investigator makes submission- Final Final Proposal Proposal Submitted Submitted to to Sponsor Sponsor Sponsor’s Funding Decision Not Not Funded Funded Funded Funded No go decision Investigator decides whether to revise Revise Reviseproposal proposalfor forresubmission resubmission/address /addressreviewers’ reviewers’concerns concerns Investigator Investigator reviews reviews critique critique&& recommenrecommendations dations Investigator Investigator decides decides whether whetherto to resubmit resubmit PI = Principal Investigator; AA = Department/Center/Institute/College Staff; RA = Research Administrator; OSP = Office of Sponsored Program Adapted from ‘The Funding Toolkit’ presented at NCURA 51 by Susan Gramling (UNC) and Natalie Goodwin-Frank (UW) OSP OSP Staff Staff negotiates negotiatesaward award Investigator Investigator manages manages research research project project
View full slide show




Career Award Review Criteria Additional Review Criteria:  Protection of Human Subjects from Research Risk  Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children in Research  Care and Use of Vertebrate Animals in Research  Biohazards  Resubmission Applications  Renewal Applications (as applicable) Additional Review Considerations:  Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research  Select Agents  Resource Sharing Plans  Budget and Period of Support 47
View full slide show




Additional Fellowship Review Criteria & Considerations • Additional Review Criteria – Protection for Human Subjects – Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children – Vertebrate Animals – Biohazards – Resubmission & Renewal factors • Additional Review Considerations – Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research – Select Agents Research – Resource Sharing Plans – Budget & Period of Support 14
View full slide show




Mentored K Awards: Review (cont) • Additional Review Criteria – – – – – Protection for Human Subjects Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children Vertebrate Animals Biohazards Resubmission, Renewal, Revision factors • Additional Review Considerations – – – – Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research Select Agents Research Resource Sharing Plans Budget & Period of Support 19
View full slide show




Peer Review Criteria  Scored Review Criteria: Significance, Investigator(s), Innovation, Approach, Environment  Scoring: 1-9 Scale, 10=Exceptional, 90=Poor  Percentile score (ranking) & priority score (raw number)  https://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/guidelines_general/Re view_Criteria_at_a_glance.pdf  Additional Review Criteria: Not scored individually, but considered in overall impact score: Protections for human subjects, inclusion of women, minorities & children, vertebrate animals, biohazards, resubmission, renewal
View full slide show




Institutional Training Additional Review Criteria & Considerations • Additional Review Criteria – Protection for Human Subjects – Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children – Vertebrate Animals – Biohazards – Resubmission, Renewal, Revision factors • Additional Review Considerations: – Diversity Recruitment Plan – Training in Responsible Conduct of Research – Select Agent Research – Budget and Period of Support 21
View full slide show




The NIH Peer Review Process Additional Review Criteria As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers: • Consider in determining scientific and technical merit • Do not give separate scores for these items. 23 • FOA-specific criteria • Protections for Human Subjects • Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children • Vertebrate Animals • Resubmission Applications • Renewal Applications • Revision Applications • Biohazards 23
View full slide show




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
View full slide show