1 / 19

The Review Process: What do Reviewers Want?

The Review Process: What do Reviewers Want?. Anita H. Corbett, PhD. Associate Professor of Biochemistry Chair, F05 Cell Biology Study Section. The Peer Review System. Proposal assigned to three Reviewers Primary Secondary Discussant

sakina
Télécharger la présentation

The Review Process: What do Reviewers Want?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Review Process: What do Reviewers Want? Anita H. Corbett, PhD. Associate Professor of Biochemistry Chair, F05 Cell Biology Study Section

  2. The Peer Review System • Proposal assigned to three Reviewers • Primary • Secondary • Discussant • Primary and Secondary read and provide detailed critiques • Proposal discussed at study section • Preliminary scores • Discussion • Revised scores

  3. Scoring • Range from 1.0-5.0 • 1.0 is perfect (I’ve never seen it) • 5.0 is pretty dismal (I’ve seen it) • Typically scores range from1.2-4.0 • Funding level • Not determined and not discussed by Reviewers

  4. Review Criteria • Candidate • Sponsor and Environment • Research Proposal • Training Potential

  5. Review Criteria • Candidate • Sponsor and Environment • Research Proposal • Training Potential

  6. Candidate • Record of Accomplishment • Publication record • Previous research • Letters of Recommendation • Previous funding or awards • Grades

  7. Candidate • Publication Record is KEY! • Get your work published!!! • Must have at least one 1st author • Distinguish research articles and reviews or book chapter • A word on the ‘in preparation’ manuscript

  8. Candidate • Letters are also VERY important • Cultivate relationships with scientists who can evaluate you as a scientist • A collaborator (from a different institute) is better than a committee member • If papers are ‘in preparation’ make sure that letter writers are aware and discuss their status- particularly PhD advisor • Provide referees with detailed CV and Specific Aims page/CV of sponsor

  9. Review Criteria • Candidate • Sponsor and Environment • Research Proposal • Training Potential

  10. Sponsor/Environment • Largely determined when you select your laboratory • PI record of accomplishment • Publication • Funding • Placement of previous trainees • Institute • Make sure you or your sponsor provide info about the Institute- Emory ranked #2 Academic Institute in USA for post-docs

  11. Review Criteria • Candidate • Sponsor and Environment • Research Proposal • Training Potential

  12. Research Plan • Ten page proposal • Specific Aims Page • Background and Significance • Preliminary Data • Experimental Design • Be clear and concise! • Sell your work- how will the information you will gain contribute to human health

  13. Research Plan • Specific Aims Page • Provide context • State long-term goal • State Hypothesis • 2-3 Specific Aims • Sell your proposal

  14. Research Plan • Background and Significance • Provide context • Big picture concepts • What are the key questions and how will you address them • NOT an exhaustive review of the field • Provide a platform for your Specific Aims

  15. Research Plan • Preliminary Data • You don’t need much • You do need to demonstrate that the experiments can be done • Established expertise of the sponsor’s laboratory • Fine to use data from the lab but make it clear if the experiments are not yours

  16. Research Plan • Experimental Design/Methods • Focus on Experimental Design • Restate Specific Aim • Rationale • Experimental Approach • Data Analysis • Possible Outcome/Potential Implications • Possible Pitfalls/Alternative Approaches • Methods at the end (if at all)

  17. Review Criteria • Candidate • Sponsor and Environment • Research Proposal • Training Potential

  18. Training Potential • Inherent in lab/project but can be tailored • Project/Laboratory/Institute • Training plan from sponsor matters!!! • Should be tailored to the individual and how the sponsor will help the individual reach their stated career goal • A generic training plan will NOT cut it • Timing of submission

  19. A Final Word: Timing • When do I submit? • Sooner rather than later • Training potential starts to disappear the day you start in a lab • You don’t need Preliminary Data! • Reviewers notice if the application is written before or soon after starting • It might be worth waiting for papers to be in press

More Related