1 / 21

PEER REVIEW

Changes is NIH Review Process and Grant Application Forms Shirley M. Moore Professor of Nursing and Associate Dean for Research Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing Case Western Reserve University. PEER REVIEW. Changes to Proposal Reviews Began in May/June 2009 Reviews.

gregory-jennings
Télécharger la présentation

PEER REVIEW

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. Changes is NIH Review Process and Grant Application FormsShirley M. MooreProfessor of Nursing and Associate Dean for ResearchFrances Payne Bolton School of NursingCase Western Reserve University

  2. PEER REVIEW

  3. Changes to Proposal ReviewsBegan in May/June 2009 Reviews • Enhanced Review Criteria • Significance, Investigator(s), Innovation, Approach, Environment • New Templates for Structured Critiques • Scoring of Individual Review Criteria • New 1-9 Scoring Scale

  4. Goals of the Changes • Clearer understanding of the basis of application ratings • More emphasis on impact and less emphasis on technical details • Succinct, well-focused critiques that evaluate, rather than describe, applications • Routine use of the entire rating scale

  5. Reviews When reading applications the assigned reviewers : • Identify major strengths and weaknesses • Assign scores of 1-9 to each of 5 “core” criteria • Assign an overall impact/priority score that ranges from 1-9

  6. Critiques Written critiques: • Use of bulleted points to make succinct, focused comments • Short narratives may occasionally be appropriate, but are rare • Focus is on major strengths and weaknesses (ones that impacted the overall rating of the application)

  7. Excerpt from a Critique Template • List major strengths and weaknesses that influenced the overall impact/priority score • Text limited to ¼ page per criterion, although more text may occasionally be needed

  8. Scoring of Individual Review Criteria • There are 5 “core” criteria for most types of grant applications • For example, the core criteria for R01s are: • Significance • Investigator(s) • Innovation • Approach • Environment • 9-point scale (1 = exceptional, 9 = poor)for the five “core” review criteria.

  9. Overall Impact/Priority Scores • Criterion strengths and weaknesses considered in determining the overall impact/priority score • Reviewers encouraged to use the entire 1-9 range

  10. Scoring Descriptions

  11. Scoring Descriptions

  12. Summary Statements • Overall impact/priority scores of discussed applications are the mean of scores voted by all eligible reviewers, multiplied by 10 • Final scores will range from 10-90, in whole numbers • Summary statements for ALL applications will include the criterion scores and critiques posted by assigned reviewers

  13. IAR: New Header Information in Critique • Preliminary IAR Critique now includes criterion scores

  14. Early Investigator and New Investigator Status New Investigator Early Investigator

  15. Major Changes to Applications Major changes for due dates on or after January 25, 2010 • Restructured application forms • Shorter page limits and new instructions For ALL competing applications: New, Renewal, Resubmission, and Revision NOT-OD-09-149, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-09-149.html

  16. Applicants Must Download New Formsfor due dates on or after 1/25/10 Applicants must return to FOA or reissued Parent Announcement to download new forms. Most forms will be available by December Applications submitted using incorrect forms will be delayed and may not be reviewed!

  17. Overview of the Changes Goal: Align structure and content of applications with review criteria and improve efficiency and transparency of the review process • Application forms revised in three sections: • Research Plan • Biographical Sketch • Resourcesand Facilities • Shorter page limits

  18. Forms Revised in Three Sections Research Plan: • Specific Aims • Includes new language about the impact of the proposed research • Research Strategy • Background and Significance, Innovation, Approach, includes Preliminary Studies/Progress Report • Select Agents Research - Reflect the criterion Resources: • Statement of how environment supports the proposed research Biographical Sketch: • Requires a Personal Statement and provide guidelines for the inclusion of references

  19. Shorter Page Limits Note: Follow FOA page limit requirements if different from the application instructions. Table of Page Limits: http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/page_limits.html

  20. Introductions for revised and resubmission applications are limited to 1 page

  21. For additional information: Enhancing Peer Review at NIH Web Site http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov Thank you for your review service

More Related