NIDCR Small Grant Program (R03) Guide for Written Review

PA Number: PAR-07-418

PURPOSE: The National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) uses the Small Grant (R03) mechanism to support pilot and developmental research that is likely to lead to a subsequent Individual Research Project Grant (R01) application from new investigators who are in the early stages of establishing an independent research career.

The R03 research must be focused on one or more of the areas within the biomedical and behavioral scientific mission of the NIDCR. For details, please see the Program descriptions listed in the Division of Extramural Research.

ELIGIBILITY: ONLY NEW INVESTIGATORS are eligible to apply for NIDCR R03 awards. Individuals who have received NIH support for previous research (e.g., R01 or anyone with R03 support ) are not eligible. Individuals who have received only training or career development support from the NIH (e.g., K01, K08, K12, K16, K22, K23, K25, K99/R00, F30, F32, and T32) are eligible. Any current support by the F32 and T32 mechanisms must be terminated before an R03 grant can be awarded.

REQUIREMENTS:

• The NIDCR requires that the Principal Investigator (PI) commit a minimum of 20% effort to the R03 project.
• Letters of support from the Institution (preferably from the Dean or Departmental Chair) are strongly encouraged. The letters should describe the nature of the PI's appointment and commitments to the PI, such as laboratory and office space, technical assistance, or travel funds.
• Research plan, Items 2-5, may not exceed 10 pages.
• R03 appendix materials may include only preprinted questionnaires or surveys.  No publications or figures are allowed in the appendix.
• Up to two revision of a previously reviewed small grant application may be submitted.

Please use the following format to evaluate R03 applications and to write your review. Your comments will be used essentially unedited in the final summary statement sent to the applicant.

CRITIQUE FORMAT

Review of R03 mechanisms should be based upon the five standard review criteria Significance, Approach, Innovation, Investigators, and Environment). R03 applications usually will not have the same level of detail or extensive discussion of experimental methodologies and background information. Appropriate justification for the research may be provided through literature, citations, data from other sources, or investigator generated data. However, it is important to note that preliminary data typically are not required to justify support for these studies.  Therefore, less emphasis should be placed on the traditional indicators that are used in the review of R01 mechanisms. Instead, reviewers should evaluate the conceptual framework and general approach to the problem. If preliminary data are provided, they must be evaluated scientifically.

Please use as little descriptive information as possible; only evaluative statements should be included. For resubmitted applications, also comment briefly on whether the application is improved or not. In addition, provide a one sentence summary of your evaluation at the end of each section.

1. Significance:  Does this study address an important problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge or clinical practice be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?  What is the likelihood that the data generated by the proposed project will be sufficient for a subsequent R01 application? 
2. Approach:  Are the conceptual or clinical framework, design, methods, and analysis adequately developed, well integrated, well reasoned, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?  For applications designating multiple PDs/PIs, does the Leadership Plan ensure that there will be sufficient coordination and communication among the PDs/PIs?  Are the administrative plans for the management of the research project appropriate, including plans for resolving conflicts? 
3. Innovation:  Is the project original and innovative? For example: Does the project challenge existing paradigms or clinical practice; address an innovative hypothesis or critical barrier to progress in the field? Does the project develop or employ novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, tools, or technologies for this area?
4. Investigators:  Are the PD/PIs appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator and other researchers? Does the PD/PI and the investigative team bring complementary and integrated expertise to the project (if applicable)?
5. Environment:  Do(es) the scientific environment(s) in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed studies benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, or subject populations, or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support?

OVERALL EVALUATION: After considering all of the review criteria, briefly summarize the most important points of the critique, indicating the relative importance of the major strengths and weaknesses of the application in terms of the five review criteria in arriving at your recommended priority score. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to receive a good rating. Provide the key reasons for your recommendation of a level of scientific merit based on the NIH rating scale.

BUDGET:  Evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed budget in relation to the proposed research. Identify any apparent scientific or budgetary overlap with active or pending support. Two years of support may be requested. Budgets up to $150,000 in Direct Costs over the two years of the R03 award may be requested. The PD/PI must commit a minimum of 20% effort to the project.