1 / 17

Archived File

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 The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated. See the OER Public Archive Home Page for more details about archived files.

royce
Télécharger la présentation

Archived File

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. Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated. See the OER Public Archive Home Page for more details about archived files.

  2. Shortening the Research Grant ApplicationRobert Finkelstein and Don SchneiderDiscussants Drs. McClain, Martinez, & Sassaman Peer Review Advisory CommitteeAugust 28, 2006 National Institutes of HealthDepartment of Health and Human Services

  3. Overview • Charge to the application committee • Preliminary activities • Future plans

  4. Charge to the Application Committee • Came from Extramural Activities Working Group (EAWG), which oversees CSR governance and peer review related issues • EAWG Co-Chairs are Story Landis (NINDS) and Norka Ruiz Bravo (Office of Extramural Research) • Earlier this year, EAWG decided to consider whether the standard NIH grant application should be improved • The Application Committee was formed (May 16, 2006) to consider possible improvements

  5. Specific Goals • Consider whether the page limit for the Research Plan section of the NIH grant application should be reduced • Consider aligning the application sections more closely with the five review criteria (significance, approach, innovation, investigators, and environment) • Focus on the standard research project grant (R01), and consider other mechanisms as appropriate

  6. Grant Application Lengths[Research Plan] • NIH Pioneer/HHMI 4-5 pages (plus interview) • Burroughs Wellcome 6 pages • United Kingdom 8/12 pages • Canada 10/15 pages • NSF 15 pages • NIH R01 25 pages

  7. Issues influencing the charge • Many applicants and reviewers believe that the NIH application process is excessively time-consuming • Reviewer workloads have declined from about 12 to about 6 applications each meeting over the past 10 years • The number of reviewers at study sections, particularly temporary members, has increased sharply (35-50 reviewers at many meetings) • CSR used nearly 20,000 reviewers last year – increasingly difficult to recruit quality reviewers

  8. Application Committee Roster • Robert Finkelstein (NINDS) Co-Chair • Don Schneider (CSR) Co-Chair • Mary Custer (CSR) • Ann Hagan (NIGMS) • Craig Jordan (NIDCD) • Sherry Mills (OD) • Philip Smith (NIDDK) • Barbara Spalholz (NCI) • Elizabeth Wilder (NIDDK) • Terra Vinson (CSR) Analyst

  9. Proposed Process • Seek input from external and internal stakeholders • Recommend an application length and format that facilitates the evaluative process and the advancement of science/health • Vet this recommendation appropriately

  10. Background • Appendices will probably be eliminated from standard applications • Clinical protocols will be moved to the human subjects section (not counted against page limit)

  11. Preliminary Activities of Committee • Exploratory (non-scientific!) gathering of opinions from extramural scientists - majority of applicants and reviewers appear to support shortening the application • Presentation at EPMC – many members supported shortening efforts but urged broad communication with stakeholders and coordination with other changes (e.g., electronic submission) • Preparation of a draft Request for Information (RFI) to solicit feedback

  12. Future Committee Activities • Issue RFI to solicit opinions from external and internal stakeholders • Analyze results (CSR) • Make recommendations to EAWG

  13. RFI: sample questions • For applicants: -Would a shorter application affect your ability to present ideas? -Would it affect preparation time? -Which of the current sections should be shortened? -Should sections be changed to align with review criteria? -Do clinical research proposals require a higher page limit? -etc. • For reviewers: - Would a shorter application affect your ability to judge scientific merit? -Would it affect your willingness to serve as a reviewer or to review more applications? -Would it place any group of investigators/type of research at a disadvantage? -etc.

  14. Distribution of RFI • Publish in NIH Guide • Develop version for NIH staff • Use list serves (e.g., OER and CSR Peer Review Notes) • Send to professional societies • Distribute at CSR open houses for professional societies

  15. Analysis of RFICheryl Oros, Director of CSR Planning, Analysis & Evaluation • Use software when possible • With six week posting, begin analyses prior to closing • Acknowledge and respond to comments • Share results

  16. Timeline Possibilities(assuming some shortening) • Ideally, changes in the application process should occur in a coordinated fashion • Electronic receipt begins in early 2007 • Adequate gathering of information and education of the community may make implementation prior to fall 2007 impractical

  17. Discussants • Dr. Craig McClain • Dr. Joe Martinez • Dr. Anne Sassaman

More Related