December 17, 2008
News Articles
Opportunities and Resources
Advice Corner
New Funding Opportunities
|
News Articles |
 |
Inside the New Peer Review
You've probably gotten wind of NIH's new application scoring scale, but you may be wondering how it and other new peer review features will actually work. Here's the nitty-gritty on what's coming in and what's going out.
Scoring Facelift
Starting with January applications, NIH is replacing its old scoring system with one with a smaller range.
Why? According to behavioral scientists, people cannot reliably make the 41 discriminations we had demanded of our reviewers. And multiplying raw scores by 100 exacerbated the imprecision of the resulting priority scores.
While recalibrating the scoring scale makes sense, it triggers other shifts in peer review procedures in both the Center for Scientific Review and institutes. See the table below for more information on the changes and their implementation.
Comparison of Existing and New Peer Review Processes
|
Function |
Old |
New |
| Assignment of priority scores |
Scores reflect reviewer judgment of a whole application: peer review criteria are unweighted and unrelated to the priority score. |
Unchanged, except assigned reviewers also score each criterion; those scores are also unrelated to the overall score. |
| Each reviewer scores to one decimal place:
1.0 is best, 5.0 worst. |
Each reviewer scores in whole numbers:
1 is best, 9 worst. |
| Determination of priority scores |
To create a raw score, reviewer scores are averaged and rounded mathematically to two decimal places, e.g., 1.34.
The result is multiplied by 100 to give an overall priority score, e.g., 134.
The possible scores range from 100 to 500. |
To create a raw score, reviewer scores are averaged and rounded mathematically to one decimal place, e.g., a 1.34 average yields 1.3.
The result is multiplied by 10 to give an overall priority score, e.g., 13.
The possible scores range from 10 to 90. |
| Streamlined applications |
Principal investigators get critiques from assigned reviewers. |
Principal investigators get initial scores for individual criteria and critiques from assigned reviewers. |
| Determination of percentiles |
Percentile range from 0.1 (best) to 99.5 (worst). Read How Percentiles Are Determined. |
Percentiles range from 1 to 99 in whole numbers. Rounding is always up, e.g., 12.1 percentile becomes 13. |
| With almost 1,000 possible percentile rankings, few applications are ranked the same. |
With 99 possible percentile rankings, some applications are ranked the same, making funding decisions more challenging.
For tie scores, funding decisions will be based on other important factors such as mission relevance and portfolio balance. |
| Percentile base |
NIH calculates percentiles using applications submitted for three review cycles. |
Unchanged, except for the first year of the transition to the new review processes:
First new cycle: NIH to calculate percentiles using those applications only.
Second new cycle: NIH to calculate percentiles using applications submitted for first and second cycles. |
Summary statements |
See a sample: Annotated Summary Statement (PDF). |
Assigned reviewers will provide feedback through scores for each criterion and critiques in a structured summary statement. |
Review Criteria |
Five one-word criteria plus descriptive information. |
One-word criteria unchanged; descriptions modified. See below. |
NIH announced the scoring changes in the December 2, 2008, Guide notice.
Revised Review Criteria
Reviewers will continue to use the same core review criteria: significance, investigator, innovation, approach, and environment, though NIH modified some of the descriptions that give reviewers additional guidance. For details, read the December 2, 2008, Guide notice.
Remember that, as always, the criteria do not directly relate to a priority score. Reviewers may vary the weight for any criterion, so it is not possible to calculate a final score from individual criterion ratings.
For example, they may assign a greater value to significance. Thus, an application with high significance may receive an outstanding priority score even if reviewers are less enthusiastic about the other criteria.
Ultimately, a priority score reflects the reviewers' judgment of an application's overall potential impact and merit. We explain how this works in How NIH Review Criteria Affect Your Score in the NIH Grant Cycle: Application to Renewal.
When New Processes Start
Many changes take effect with the January and February standard receipt dates, beginning on January 25, 2009, i.e., applications slated for September 2009 Council and FY 2010 funding.
See the peer review implementation schedule in the December 2, 2008, Guide notice.
Shorter Applications Next Year
Starting with applications for FY 2011 funding, Research Plans will shrink for many grant types. Twelve pages is likely for R01s, as we told you in our "NIH Recasts Peer Review" article in the October 1, 2008, NIAID Funding News.
For other grant types, we don't know the length. Stay tuned.
New Investigators: Line Redrawn Again, New
Interim Payline
Two news items affect new investigators, a category that includes early-stage investigators.
New interim payline
Just a few days before we published, NIAID set an interim payline at the 16 percentile for R01 applications from new investigators. Note that this is not a final payline.
Not sure of the difference? NIAID sets a conservative interim for R01s and other grant types so we can fund the best-scoring grants before we have a budget for the fiscal year.
Read about interim paylines and related budget information at Paylines and Budget Page Changes Throughout the Year.
Recent tweak of grant types
New investigator sands shift anew as NIH updates the list of grant types that determine who qualifies.
| On the upside. No career award (K) can stop you from qualifying as a new investigator -- previously some Ks meant losing new PI status. |
|
| On the downside. You can't qualify as a new investigator after receiving a phase II small business award (SBIR or STTR) or R33 phase of a R21/R33. |
|
We know how important this information is to many of you, so beware of outdated information.
You can find the list of allowed grant types in NIH's Definition of New Investigator, but note that the list in the application instructions often lags recent changes (NIH plans to eliminate that list and link to its site instead).
We are also maintaining our list on Are You "New"? to help you keep up with the latest status. To recap, here are the definitions:
- A new investigator is one who has not been a principal investigator on a major NIH grant that he or she applied for.
- An early-stage investigator is one who has completed one of the following within the past 10 years, whichever was later:
- A final research degree.
- Discipline-specific training required to become a researcher.
Also be aware that NIH plans to remove the new investigator checkbox from application forms.
Even before then, we will not use that box to identify new investigators. As with early-stage investigators -- see the next article -- we will identify new investigators by reviewing their history of NIH funding in the Commons.
Lastly, we want to remind you of a frequently forgotten rule: On a multiple PI application, all PIs must qualify as new or ESI for the application to get either status.
ESIs: Fill In Those Stats
If you're an early-stage investigator, make sure we know you are! If you don't, you may lose your opportunity to take advantage of ESI status.
Starting on January 19, 2009, enter the dates that you received your degree and completed discipline-specific training in your Commons personal profile.
As we told you before, we'll use those fields to identify you as an ESI, so it's critical that you key in that information.
Still unsure how ESI status might help you? Check out our previous article, "NIH Sets New Targets for New Investigators," in the November 21, 2008, NIAID Funding News.
Find Our FY 2009 Financial Management Plan
Is NIAID fully paying competing applications? Yes.
Are we capping renewals at 20 percent more than the last noncompeting award? Yes.
Now is the time in the fiscal year when NIH and the institutes set grant funding policies, so go to Financial Management Plan for the full scoop.
Find out about funding levels for noncompeting (and competing) awards and set asides for selective pay and R56-Bridge awards.
Confused by this jargon? You can access the glossary terms used in the Look It Up column in the right-hand navigation here or on the Financial Management Plan.
On a related note, we now have most of our interim paylines listed on NIAID Paylines.
New Adobe-Based Forms . . . With an Asterisk
As we've been telling you for months, NIH's transition to Adobe-based forms is moving forward for most grant types. Already, many grant application packages use the new forms, labeled "Adobe-Forms-A" in the Completion ID and Title.
New Forms and Then Some
But there's a caveat. NIH wasn't able to include some of the updates it had planned in Adobe-Forms-A. So it will have to issue a second version of the forms, expected around April 2009.
Due to the delay, you'll have to download yet another set of forms, Adobe-Forms-B, for applications with receipt dates in May 2009 and after.
Read the November 21, 2008, Guide notice for details on the transition and, if you're a peer reviewer, the December 9, 2008, Guide notice, which states that study section members must use the new forms even if they apply under continuous submission.
Our Advice: Check Your Forms Now
If you downloaded forms recently or followed a saved link to a download page, confirm that you downloaded a PDF: it should say "Adobe-Forms-A" in the Completion ID.
Also follow our advice, especially making sure your Adobe Reader is version 8.1.3 or 9.0, in "Onward to Adobe Forms" in the October 1, 2008, NIAID Funding News.
Forms do change from time to time. It's always a good idea to check the announcement -- up to the last minute before applying -- to ensure you have the latest forms.
Make sure you have a PDF. If you downloaded recently or followed a saved link, you might not have the PDF forms. |
|
On another note, be aware of a quirk in the system. As forms switch over, you may get messages from Grants.gov saying that your announcement has closed, then opened. Disregard these messages.
Transitions to Come
For the winter submission dates, do not use Adobe forms for small business applications, conference applications, and opportunities with non-standard submission dates expiring by January 31, 2009. By early February, NIH will post the new forms, so you can use them for the spring submission dates.
Be aware that career development award (K) applications are no longer paper. You will apply electronically using the new Adobe forms for the February 12, 2009, receipt date. For more information, go to eRA's Electronic Submission.
In addition, K applications follow a new approach for budget, reference letters, biosketches, and intramural labs. See the December 12, 2008, Guide notice for details.
|
Opportunities and Resources |
|
Addressing HIV Persistence -- Tell Us What You Think
Our Division of AIDS wants your thoughts on how best to tackle another piece of the HIV puzzle: residual viremia. Specifically, why it persists in patients on combination antiretroviral treatment and how it can be reduced or eliminated.
To help move along research in this area, NIAID proposes a collaborative approach among academia, the private sector, and the government. We ask you to cover this topic in your feedback. For other focus points, read the Request for Information.
Please limit your response to five pages and send it to Persistence@niaid.nih.gov by Thursday, January 15, 2009.
Can You Take Advantage of a Clinical and Translational Consortium?
Points of Contact for the CTSA Initiative
NIAID
Consortium-Appointed for NIAID
Web Links
|
|
Are you a clinical researcher looking for additional funding? A national consortium of medical research institutes funded through Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) can help with the following:
- Training scientists in multidisciplinary and translational research.
- Supplying tools that transcend research areas, such as those related to biostatistics and informatics.
- Offering regulatory and patient recruitment assistance.
- Working to break down barriers from laboratory to clinic.
NIH's National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) leads the CTSA program, aiming to fund 60 CTSAs in 2012 with a budget of $500 million a year. The consortium currently comprises 38 academic health centers in 23 states, including 14 centers added in May 2008.
If you are interested in benefiting from a CTSA, see if your institute is part of the consortium. Then, ask how you can tap into it.
To meet its goals, NCRR uses the following funding guidelines:
- New CTSA grant funds provide an increase of 35 to 45 percent over existing NIH clinical research resources (e.g., Roadmap T32 and K12 awards), up to $6 million in new funding.
- For applications with low levels of funding, NCRR supports at least $4 million, or $1.5 million in new funding, whichever is higher.
NCRR works closely with awardees to promote resource sharing through the consortium and to modify the scope of awards as necessary.
NIAID is actively involved: 128 of our grants are using or have used CTSAs as of May 2008. Three of our RFAs have encouraged the use of CTSA infrastructure and resources. In addition, NIAID staff members are helping to coordinate the various aspects of the consortium’s interactions with NIH.
Read the New Strategic Plan for HIV Research
NIH's Office of AIDS Research has just uploaded its FY 2010 Trans-NIH Plan for HIV-Related Research, the basis of the HIV-related budget request for next fiscal year.
|
Advice Corner |
|
Reader Questions
"How do I submit a revision to an R01 to expand the scope of of my research?"
After we fund your application, rarely you may need to expand the scope of your research. For information on scope, see What Constitutes a Change in Scope? in the NIH Grant Cycle: Application to Renewal and talk to your program officer for advice.
For that type of expansion, you need to apply and compete for funding. You could apply for a totally new grant, or you could apply for a revision.
For a revision, you create a full electronic application and request funds for the new aims only. Do not resubmit your original R01. Here are some more tips.
Describe the revision
Create a one-page introduction that describes the objective of the revision and how it influences the Specific Aims and Research Design and Methods.
Attach the introduction as a PDF to the Introduction to Application field of the PHS 398 Research Plan form.
Address budget changes
Describe budget changes for the rest of the project period in the budget justification attachment in the Research and Related Budget components. Don't include the original budget.
Include some information from original application
Include enough information from your original application to enable reviewers to evaluate the revision in relation to it.
Respond to criticisms
If your revision includes studies the scientific review group did not recommend, respond to criticisms in the summary statement by adding data you obtained since your original application or by revising substantially.
If you revise, mark revisions clearly and summarize them in your introduction.
For more information, see the Revision of a Grant SOP, and go to Part 11b. Not Funded, Reapply of the NIH Grant Cycle: Application to Renewal for help on revising an application.
NIH calculates the time limit for ESI status to the month. |
|
“Does NIH calculate the time limit for ESI to the month?” -- Jessica Goldhirsh, Brigham and Women’s Hospital
Yes. To be eligible for early stage investigator (ESI) status, you must be within the ten years of completing your terminal research degree or discipline-specific training, unless NIH grants an exception.
Exceptions include medical problems, disability, family care responsibilities, active duty military service, and possibly others. NIH is still developing guidelines so stay tuned.
You could still qualify as a new investigator if you have not yet had a major NIH award. You can read more about this topic on Are You New? and in the November 21, 2008, Guide notice.
"Can an investigator from a foreign organization qualify as a new PI?" -- June Ohata, HIV-Netherlands Australia Thailand Research Collaboration
Yes. So far, being an investigator from a non-U.S. organization does not affect new investigator status.
“How do I resubmit an SBIR application as a different company?” -- Catherine Henry, Grow LLC
NIH tracks your grant by the project and grant number, not company name, so use your new company’s information and DUNS number.
Be sure to note the change of company name or other company-related changes in the introduction to your resubmission.
|
New Funding Opportunities |
|
See these and older announcements at NIH Funding Opportunities Relevant to NIAID. |
Subscribe to Alerts