RFA-RM-07-004: Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research via Methodological and Technological Innovation in the Behavioral and Social Sciences (R21)

Frequently Asked Questions

NOTE: Even though the technical assistance online meeting has already taken place, potential applicants are encouraged to register. If there are additional communications regarding the RFA, registered applicants may be contacted via email. To register send an email to RMTAmeeting@mail.nih.gov; in the body of the message include your name, institution, department, position title, degree(s) earned (and field(s) of study).

General questions about the application process

1. To whom are we submitting or applications, if not to an institute?
   This is an NIH Roadmap initiative. While NIDA is administering the application and review of RFA RM-07-004 applications, it is doing so on behalf of all NIH Institutes and Centers. See links on FAQ website to Roadmap and to missions of individual NIH Institutes and Centers.
2. What does “MODIFIED” Exploratory/Developmental (R21) mean?
   It means that although the R21 funding mechanism is being used, the time and funding amount of the typical R21 have been changed. For RM-07-004, the total costs allowed have been increased to $300,000 per year for up to four years, as described in the RFA.
3. Why do I need to submit a letter of intent? How long should it be?
   Letters of intent help the NIH staff gauge needs for the scientific review of the applications. In addition, sometimes letters of intent are used to gauge responsiveness to the RFA, and in some cases applicants can be informed, before writing an entire application, that their application may be deemed unresponsive. Letters should be brief and there is no standard format. However, it is suggested that the letter be on the letterhead of the applicant organization, that the PI or PIs be named (along with their affiliations). The letter should state that the writer intends to submit an application in response to RFA RM-07-004. Finally, include a paragraph describing the research project. Note that applicants will not be judged, rewarded, or penalized regarding the content of their letter, but it is informative to NIH staff.
4. I have never applied using the electronic submission process, do you have any advice?
   Yes, get started early to ensure there will be enough time to deal with any last minute technical difficulties. In addition, you may wish to view an NIH telecast on electronic submission at http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/training.htm.
5. Whom should I contact regarding questions about the review and about funding?
   Until the review, contact the Scientific Review Administrator specified in eCommons for review questions and the Grants Management contact regarding funding questions. After the review, discuss the review, funding and subsequent plans with the assigned Program Official.
6. In addition to contacting Dr. Mabry or Dr. Onken about RFA ideas, should the prospective PI contact a project officer from the other institutes who might be interested in supporting the work?
   In addition to contacting Drs. Mabry and Onken, it is perfectly appropriate to contact a project officer from another NIH Institute. Project officers from other institutes may have specific expertise in a scientific area relevant to your particular grant application. They may also be useful in identifying alternative funding opportunity announcements for which your project may be appropriate. However, we do not recommend talking to another project officer as a substitute for discussing your application with Drs. Onken and Mabry.
7. What is the timing for review, priority score release, summary statement release, and funding decisions?
   The review committee will meet in summer of 2007 and the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse will meet on September 11–12, 2007. Once the review committee meeting date is established, it is posted on eCommons. Scores are typically released several days after the review. Summary statements (pink sheets) contain the reviewers’ critiques of the application and will be completed within approximately six weeks of the review. The timing regarding tentative and final funding decisions varies among NIH Institutes and Centers; program staff should be contacted for questions about funding.
8. Are post-submission deadline materials permitted?
   It is expected that the application will be complete when it is submitted. For this and similar requests, contact the Scientific Review Administrator.
9. Are foreign applications acceptable?
   Yes, foreign applications may be submitted under this RFA. There are several additional requirements for foreign applications, and they are described within the RFA.
10. Is international work permitted under this RFA?
    Yes.
    Can a proportion of the work be done abroad?
    Yes.
    Will a subcontract with a foreign institution pose any problems?
    A foreign subcontract grantee is entitled to an 8% indirect cost (F&A) rate. Note that an additional narrative is required as part of the application to support a foreign component.
11. Do new investigators need mentors to serve as PIs or co-PIs on the application?
    No, this is not required. However, as appropriate, new investigators may wish to consider consultation with more experienced investigators during the application preparation phase and to seek feedback from them on drafts of the application.
12. Can two distinct proposals have the same PI?
    Yes. However, applicants should be aware that consideration will be given to the issue of whether or not a PI has the capacity to carry out the two distinct proposals.
13. If you have 2 PIs from 2 different institutions, do both institutions get their full F and A (Facilities and Administrative) costs, in which case you'd lose a lot out of that $300K to indirects?
    Correct. Each institution is entitled to their negotiated indirects (F&A) unless they choose to waive that right and they must do so in writing.
14. Are “partnered” or “linked” applications permitted?
    No, linked applications are not permitted under this announcement. Although NIH offers other specific announcements and funding mechanisms that encourage linked or cooperative studies, this option is not a part of this RFA, though subcontracts may be used, as needed. Please contact program staff for further guidance.
15. How many applications do you think you will receive and how many will get funded?
    It is not possible to know how many applications will come in until after the application deadline (February 23, 2007). There are enough funds set aside to fund approximately ten applications.
16. Meeting the submission deadline will be very difficult: is this the only round of submissions for this mechanism?
    Yes, this is the only round of submissions for these set-aside funds. If applicants are not funded under this announcement, they may submit a new application at a future date.
17. If my application is not funded under this RFA, can I resubmit it?
    This RFA is a one time solicitation and NIH does not have plans to reissue it. However, if your application is not funded, you may submit a revised application. Under NIH policy, it would be considered a new application. The standard receipt dates for new applications would apply. The application would likely be reviewed by a standing study section. Since it would be considered a new application, no introductory section should be included. After review scores are posted and summary statements are available for this RFA, and if it becomes clear that the application will not be funded, applicants are encouraged to discuss with NIH Program staff whether or not resubmitting the application as a new application is reasonable.
18. I have an application that I submitted to NIH previously and wasn’t funded. Can I resubmit it in response to RM-07-004?
    If you have previously submitted an application to NIH that was not funded, you may resubmit it to this RFA, provided that it fits the requirements of this announcement. Under NIH policy, it would be classified as a new application, and there should be no introductory section.
19. Is there any other general advice you can give?
    Yes. Applicants should make sure their project is related to the mission of NIH and, because this is a Roadmap initiative, proposed projects should be relevant to the mission of two or more NIH Institutes or Centers (IC’s) (or alternatively, relevant to an area that falls between the missions of the NIH IC’s).

Up to Top

Questions about financial aspects of the application

21. Are indirect costs in addition to the $300,000 annual cap or included in that figure?
    The $300,000 annual cap reflects total costs, which include both direct and indirect costs (indirect costs are also known as F&A). Thus, indirect costs are included within the $300,000 annual cap.
22. Is the budget modular? If the 300k is total - how do you do a modular budget?
    If the direct costs being requested are less than or equal to $250,000, NIH stipulates that the budget must be modular. Since the $300,000 is total costs (which include both direct and indirect costs), it is anticipated that most of the grants submitted will have direct costs of $250,000 or less and will be modular.
23. Do indirect costs for subcontracts have to come out of the direct cost of the budget? Yes, subcontractural indirect costs (F&A) are considered a direct cost charge to the grant.

Up to Top

Questions pertaining to the scientific content of the application

24. Can you expand on the requirement that the application needs to address the mission of two or more NIH Institutes or Centers?
    Because this is part of the NIH Roadmap RFA, applications must have cross-Institute relevance, and therefore must span interests of at least two NIH Institutes or Centers, or alternatively, a proposal may address a need that falls between the missions of the Institutes or Centers (IC’s). See brief missions of the 27 NIH Institutes and Centers at http://www.nih.gov/about/index.html#mission.htm
25. Why is interdisciplinarity important?
    If the application is not considered interdisciplinary, as described in the RFA, it will be deemed unresponsive to the RFA. In addition, the review committee will be guided by the RFA, and will determine and assess the degree of appropriate interdisciplinarity of the application. Applicants are encouraged to convey why each discipline is important, the contribution each discipline makes to the overall project, how it is complementary to other disciplines, and how bringing together this combination of disciplines is likely to result in successful creation of the envisioned tool.
26. In a multiple PI application (that includes behavioral scientists); does it matter whether the contact PI is a behavioral scientist?
    As long as a behavioral or social scientist(s) is part of the investigative team, the contact PI does not need to be a behavioral or social scientist.
27. Do non-MD academic clinicians qualify as complementary interdisciplinary counterparts/scientists?
    Non-MD academic clinicians may or may not qualify as complementary interdisciplinary scientists, depending upon the goals of the application, and depending upon the other members of the interdisciplinary team. In general, applicants are advised to make a case that the disciplines that they are bringing together each makes a specific contribution that is complementary to the contribution of the other disciplines in the proposal, and that by bringing the specific combination of disciplines together, the proposal has a very good chance of succeeding in its goals. Another requirement is that at least one member of the team be a behavioral or social scientist.
28. What do micro and macro mean in this context?
    The figure in the RFA called, “Scope of the Science” describes micro and macro levels of analysis.
29. What does the requirement for “two levels of analysis” mean? Fig. 1 shows individual and social in one color bar; does this mean that tools to study the interaction between individual and social influences do not qualify as two levels?
    In general, at least two of the levels in the figure should be integrated or bridged as part of the proposal. It is reasonable to consider social and individual as distinct levels, however for specific cases, applicants are advised to discuss with Drs. Lisa Onken or Patty Mabry. All applicants are encouraged to specify which levels their proposed project addresses and give a rationale as to why integrating these particular levels is important and potentially fruitful.
30. Can the methodology developed be proposed to be piloted within this grant mechanism?
    Yes. The piloting of a tool (i.e., a methodology or technology) may be proposed as part of the application to develop the tool.
    Is piloting the tool expected in the grant proposal?
    It depends on the particular project. In general, applicants should propose what makes the most sense for their particular project and fits within the budgetary guidelines outlined in the RFA. As always, applicants are encourage to pose specific questions to one of the scientific contacts, Drs. Mabry and Onken.
31. How much of the grant should be for tool development and how much for testing?
    There is no specific requirement for this. It is incumbent upon the applicants to determine and clearly explicate in their proposal what makes sense for the tool they are proposing to develop.
32. I am unclear on how much to focus on a specific area of application versus broad application- there are implications in this for forming the interdisciplinary team.
    The application must be specific enough to achieve its goal of development of a methodology or technology as described, but broad enough to be relevant to research in more than one NIH Institute or Center (or, alternatively, a proposal may address a need that falls between the missions of the IC’s).
33. Does extending an available quantitative tool, qualify as “tool development”?
    Yes, extending an available quantitative tool may qualify as "tool development.” For example, taking a data analytic technique used in economics, physics, or biology and adapting it for use on problems linking the behavioral and social sciences with other disciplines would qualify.
34. How important is it to address a health issue with the development of this tool?
    Addressing research on a health issue is critical. Applications on issues not related to research on some aspect of health will not be considered responsive to this RFA and will be returned. Applicants are advised to familiarize themselves with the NIH mission and the mission of the component Institutes and Centers (see link on the upper left of the FAQ web page).
35. I want to develop a new conceptual model for conducting interdisciplinary research, is this acceptable under this RFA?
    No. The reason is that in order to be responsive, you must be developing a new methodology (i.e., research design, data collection technique, measure, or statistical analysis approach) or a new technology to facilitate interdisciplinary research.
36. I want to develop a manual, compendium, or other product that catalogues existing behavioral and social science research methodologies that could be used as a reference by other interdisciplinary researchers; would this be responsive to the RFA?
    No. It would not be responsive because you are not proposing to develop a new methodology, measure or technology, as described in the RFA.
37. Can this RFA be used to test a scientific theory?
    The primary purpose of this RFA is not theory testing. The RFA calls for the development of tools (i.e., research methodologies, measures and/or technologies) that will facilitate future interdisciplinary research. However, if the primary purpose of the application is to develop a new interdisciplinary research tool, and if in doing so, a theory is tested, this is acceptable.
38. Would a randomized clinical trial be acceptable?
    A randomized clinical trial (RCT) compares the efficacy or effectiveness of clinical interventions. This is not the purpose of this RFA, and therefore, if it is the intent of the applicant to test a clinical intervention, the application will be judged non-responsive. RFA RM-07-004 calls for the development of interdisciplinary tools (i.e., methodologies and/or technologies) that will facilitative interdisciplinary research. One way to think of this is that the RFA calls for the development of research tools (i.e., research designs, data collection techniques, new measures, statistical analytic techniques, or new technologies to facilitate these areas). When the project is completed, what new tool will now exist that the next researcher can use in his/her own interdisciplinary research to better address a research question of import? Applicants are encouraged to provide a rationale for why such a tool is needed, identify potential users of the new tool, and give examples of the types of research questions the tool could help address. That said, if the primary purpose of the application is to develop a new interdisciplinary research tool, and it is necessary to conduct a randomized clinical trial in order to develop this tool, then it is acceptable to conduct an RCT. But, be advised it should be very clear to the reviewers that the primary purpose of the application is tool development.
39. Would the development of a clinical intervention be responsive to this RFA?
    No, the development of a clinical intervention would not fit the purpose of this RFA, although NIH may still be interested in receiving the application via another funding opportunity announcement or mechanism. RFA RM-07-004 calls for the development of tools (i.e., methodologies and/or technologies) that will facilitative interdisciplinary research. Applicants are encouraged to address the question: How would another researcher be able to use this tool when I am done with this project? It is perfectly acceptable to include the development of a clinical intervention as part of the proposal, if the primary purpose of the application is to develop a new interdisciplinary research tool, and if the development of a clinical intervention facilitates the tool’s development. (See also, previous question).
40. My project focuses on development of a tool relating to animal research, is this something you’d be looking for?
    It depends, but probably such an application would not be considered responsive to this RFA. If the primary purpose of the proposed project is to develop a tool to improve animal research, then no, it would not be responsive. If however, the tool being developed pertains to human research, but a necessary step in developing the tool involves animal research, this would be acceptable.
41. Is sleep research included among the areas of interest?
    It was not possible to list all areas of interest to NIH in the RFA. Although many areas of interest are not listed, if the stated goals of the RFA are met, any research area related to human health is included. As with all Roadmap initiatives, the research topic selected should be in line with the mission of one or more Institutes or Centers, or fall between the missions. See www.nihroadmap.gov for more on Roadmap and http://www.nih.gov/about/index.html#mission.htm for more on missions of the individual Institutes and Centers.
42. Has NIH funded such an initiative aimed at tool development before?
    Although there has not been an RFA exactly like this, selected NIH Institutes have had initiatives on methods and tool development. For example, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-07-072.html and http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-06-343.html.
43. What if, after thoroughly reviewing the RFA and talking to the scientific contacts, I feel that my research idea is solid, but does not fit under this RFA?
    You should consider submitting it as an “investigator-initiated” application. You are encouraged to talk to a program official at the appropriate NIH Institutes or Centers. Scientific contacts for this RFA, Drs. Onken and Mabry, may be able to help you identify the appropriate program officials if you are having trouble identifying them yourself.

Up to Top

Questions regarding the review process

44. How will the reviewers evaluate my application?
    The reviewers will be guided by the review criteria specified in Section V. Application Review Information in the RFA at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-RM-07-004.html. This RFA’s review evaluation criteria of Significance, Approach, Innovation, Investigators and Environment incorporate both NIH’s R21 funding mechanism features and features specific to this RFA. The plans to protect human subjects and other factors listed in this section of the RFA may also influence final priority scores. Only the criteria listed in the RFA will be used to evaluate the applications.
45. Who will the reviewers be? Will there be a drug abuse emphasis?
    The NIH scientific review process is an independent one. As such, the review is administered by NIH staff, but the reviewers themselves are not NIH staff. The Scientific Review Administrator (SRA, who is an NIH employee) will recruit a review committee of scientists specifically for the purpose of reviewing applications to RFA RM-07-004. This is called a Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) and consists of independent reviewers with scientific expertise that is needed, given the content of the applications submitted to this RFA. The review process will be managed by the Office of Extramural Affairs of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), but applications need not incorporate drug abuse aims as this RFA is an NIH-wide Roadmap activity. The expertise of the review committee that is convened will be appropriate for the applications received.
46. Will I know who reviewed my application?
    The review panel roster will be posted and available to applicants in eCommons. However, the names of the specific reviewers assigned to write critiques for specific applications remain confidential.
47. It would be helpful to me to have additional verbal feedback regarding my application after the review. May I contact the reviewers listed on the roster to talk with them about the review?
    Absolutely not. This would seriously compromise the integrity of the review process. The Program Officer and/or the Scientific Review Administrator will be happy to assist you depending on the nature of your question.
48. How does my score get assigned?
    After separate discussion of each application that is to be scored, all voting members of the review committee assign a score. These scores are then averaged to provide a single score. Thus, the committee as a whole is responsible for the final review recommendation and score for each application.
49. What happens after the scientific review and how are funding decisions made?
    After the scientific review, the priority scores, the Summary Statements, and the applications themselves will be sent to the program staff. Because this is a Roadmap Initiative, an NIH-wide Project Team consisting of representatives from across NIH’s Institutes and Centers will meet to discuss the applications. This Team will come to a consensus regarding which applications it recommends for funding. This list of recommendations is known as a funding plan. The funding plan will be reviewed by senior leadership of the NIH Roadmap initiative. The National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse will be responsible for the second level of review, concurring or not with the recommendations of the initial peer review. Council concurrence is needed before an application can be funded. Funding decisions are based on a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the score provided by the review committee and programmatic interests and needs. After the funding plan is approved, it is possible that one or more institutes may find an application that is outside of the funding plan particularly attractive, and decide to fund it with their own Institute’s or Center’s funds even though the application was not funded with the RFA’s Roadmap set aside funds.
50. How will I know if my score is good enough to get funded?
    Your program officer will discuss funding with you; his/her name will be listed in the eCommons. Please note, however, that funding can never be guaranteed until a Notice of Grant Award is issued.
51. What special requirements apply if I have a collaborator in a foreign country? (see related questions, numbers 10 and 11 above)
    With respect to budget, if the grant is being submitted as a Modular budget, explain at the bottom of the Modular budget page how many modules would be required for the foreign consortium. Some grantees provide the actual dollar amount of the consortium. If the grant is not submitted as a Modular grant, then a separate detailed consortium budget would be necessary.
    
    With regard to what to include about the Consultant and foreign CoPI, you should include biosketches for such key personnel in NIH format. The roles of both the Consultant and the Co-PI should be specified in the the budget justification and consistent with the study plan.
    
    With regard to the Co-PI, it is important to distinquish whether this is one of multiple PI’s or whether in fact the foreign collaborator is a co-investigator? This is a critical question and requirements will be very different, depending on the answer to that. If the foreign collaborator is one of multiple PIs the applicant should follow instructions on the multiple PI webpage at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/multi_pi/index.htm. If the answer is not apparent from that page, send questions by email to multi_PI@mail.nih.gov.
    
    The application should state why the foreign involvement is justified for the study, e.g. world-best expertise, a best population/established site to study the question, or a technique or infrastructure established there that is key to the study. If the foreign collaborator is a one of multiple PIs who are all equally responsible for the application (i.e., not a co-investigator), she/he will need a DUNS number for application submission obtained from his/her institution's Signing Official who's also registered along with their Institution. The submission of the foreign component might need to be accomplished by the identified organization's Signing Official; registration and PI DUNS number acquisition for submission as a Co-Principal Investigator for a multi-PI, and registration with ERA Commons to obtain the necessary username will take time if not already in place. Note that DUNS and ERA registration can be challenging for some countries, institutions and individuals and should be begun early in the process.
52. I am somewhat confused about the requirement to “integrate” across the multiple levels identified in Fig 1. I want to develop a new technology to measure a group of variables which are all at the individual level. However, I see this tool being implemented at the community level, that is it could be used to measure individual’s behavior in community settings like nursing homes or in private cargivers’ homes. Would this constitute “integration” across levels?
    In order to truly integrate across levels, you must do more than develop your measure at one level of analysis. Simply applying a methodology or technology you develop at a different level of analysis is usually not sufficient to be considered integration. What would be considered integration of levels would be if the measure you developed brought together data from multiple levels to create the new measure. For example, in addition to bringing in data regarding individual behavior, perhaps you could pull in data at the biological level (e.g., through blood, hair, cheek swab, saliva, urine) to create a new composite measure. Of course, you will also want to demonstrate why integrating those particular levels would yield something of value.
53. In my mind, the measure I am proposing to develop for this RFA does integrate across multiple levels: individual and family. But, according the figure, these are not separate levels. Do I have to bring in another level?
    Of course, it is always recommended that you discuss your proposal with Dr. Mabry or Onken. If you feel you are truly integrating across different levels, even though they are not listed as separate levels on the figure, you may put a statement in your application describing which levels of analysis your methodology/technology is addressing and describe why they are distinct levels even though they are listed on the same level in the diagram.
54. I am using the standard R21 headings for my application (Specific Aims, Background/Significance, Preliminary Studies/Progress Report, Research Design and Methods). Is this the correct format to follow?
    Yes, use the standard format for the R21 (i.e., the headings you named under the Research Plan and then the Human Subject and subsequent categories) to organize your application. Within those headings, make sure that the review criteria described in section V.2 of the RFA (significance, approach, innovation, investigators, environment, administrative issues) are addressed. The review criteria in section V.2 do not map onto the R21 guidelines for organizing an application in part because, for example, the significance of the project could be described in several places. Thus, you are not bound by hard and fast rules about where in the application to address specific review criteria. The following guidance on where each review criteria could be addressed may be helpful to you.
    
    The potential significance of the research can be brought out through the literature review and the theoretical background described in the Background/Significance part of the Research Plan. Significance can also be reflected in each of the Specific Aims and elsewhere as appropriate. The Research Design and Methods is usually where applicants describe strategies and methods of research, analysis and potential next steps, demonstrating in detail how the Specific Aims will be achieved. In addition, limitations and back-up plans can be described there. Innovation is usually evident either in the overall idea and/or the specific approaches, and although sometimes applicants call attention to this, judgments about the degree of innovation should be realistic. The qualifications of the investigators of the research team should be evident from the requested NIH-format biosketches that include related education, activities, honors, publications, etc. The suitability of the environment(s) for the proposed study should be supported by the Resources component of the application and unusual strengths could be emphasized elsewhere, when appropriate.
55. I am not sure how to frame the research question or how to articulate the specific aims for the type of project called for in this RFA (i.e., tool development). Can you provide any guidance?
    With respect to framing the research question, you should begin by describing the state of the current methodology/technology used to address particular types of research questions. Demonstrate the shortcomings of current approaches and describe what tool you will develop to fill the gap. Explain how what you will develop will improve on existing methodologies or technologies. Then identify types of research questions that future researchers could address using your tool (or how using your tool to address these research questions would be easier or result in improved data quality or interpretation). With regard to specific aims, they should directly relate to the methodology or technology you are developing and its validation.
56. I am proposing to develop a new tool that will help clinicians better assess and diagnose patients. Is this appropriate for this RFA?
    No, if the primary or sole users of the tool are clinicians. If however, the tool you are developing will be useful to researchers and it coincidentally is also useful to clinicians, then the application would be responsive. The RFA specifies “interdisciplinary research “tools,” or methodologies and technologies including measures, research designs, as well as analytic methods and techniques” so it’s especially important to specify how your proposed tool could potentially benefit researchers.
57. How will the scientific reviewers for this RFA be identified? Is it appropriate for the applicant to suggest reviewers? Can the applicant recommend against specific reviewers?
    Regarding reviewer identification, the scientific review administrator (SRA) develops an “expertise list” for each application, and uses literature searches and other approaches to identify potential reviewers with expertise in the specialties of each application; the assembled group of reviewers so identified constitutes the unique special emphasis panel (SEP) that evaluates the scientific merit of the applications submitted in response to this RFA. Regarding suggesting reviewers, although as part of the general discussions that applicants may have with NIH Program staff while developing their application, types of reviewers and unusual aspects of the application may be discussed, it is not appropriate for the applicant to recommend specific reviewers since this may generate conflicts of interest. Regarding recommending against specific reviewers, if the applicant feels there may be important professional or personal issues that may make the assignment of particular reviewer(s) problematic, he/she may contact the SRA to discuss the potential issue; such discussions may be before application submission, or after application submission, optimally well before (6 weeks before) the review meeting date.
58. How will the recently revised NIH guidelines regarding appendix material limitations affect materials that may be included in the appendix?
    The NIH Notice posted November 17, 2006, NIH NOT-OD-07-018, “New Limits on Appendix Materials for all NIH/AHRQ/NIOSH Grant Applications Beginning with Receipt Dates on or after January 3, 2007” became active January 3, 2007 with appendix size and content limitations differing slightly from those of RFA RM 07-004. However, NOT-OD-07-018 specifies that “exceptions will be noted in specific FOAs”; RFA RM-07-004 is one such exception to NOT-OD-07-018. With respect to RFA RM-07-004, applicants should consult Section IV.6 of the RFA, “Appendix Materials,” where they may find the following guidance regarding appendix materials:
    • Up to five publications, manuscripts (accepted for publication), abstracts, patents, or other printed materials directly relevant to the proposed project. Do not include manuscripts submitted for publication. See NOT-OD-06-053.
    • Publications in press: Include only a publication list with a link to the publicly available on-line journal article or the NIH PubMed Central (PMC) submission identification number. Do not include the entire article.
    • Manuscripts accepted for publication but not yet published: The entire article may be submitted electronically as a PDF attachment.
    • Manuscripts published but a publicly available online journal link is not available: The entire article may be submitted electronically as a PDF attachment.
    • Surveys, questionnaires, data collection instruments, clinical protocols, and informed consent documents.
    • Graphic images of gels, micrographs, etc. provided that the image (may be reduced in size) is also included within the (stated) page limit of Items 2–5 of the Research Plan component. No images may be included in the Appendix that are not also represented within the Research Plan.
    Do not use the Appendix to circumvent the page limitations of the Research Plan component. An application that does not observe the relevant policies and procedures may be delayed in the review process.

59. Can you please provide information on responsiveness to this RFA?
    This RFA has a number of requirements in order to be considered responsive; non-responsive applications will be returned and not be reviewed. For a complete description of all requirements for applications under RM-07-004, please see the RFA at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-RM-07-004.html as well as other questions/responses on this page.

    All of the following criteria must be met in order for an application to be considered responsive:

    1. Focus on the development of measures, research methods, & technologies to enhance the conduct of research: The purpose of this RFA is to develop new/innovative measures, methods, and technologies that support the interdisciplinary integration of human social and/or behavioral science with other disciplines across varying levels of analysis. Applications that do not have a primary focus on the development of measures, research methods, and/or technologies to support research will be considered non-responsive. Research methods include: research designs, data collection tools, measures, and/or data analytic techniques.
    2. Human focus. The project(s) proposed should pertain to human problems and be human focused. While animal research may inform the proposed work and animal researchers may be part of the research team, applications with a focus primarily on animal research will be deemed non-responsive.
    3. Interdisciplinary approach: Proposals that involve multiple disciplines, but do not completely achieve integration of human behavioral or social science with other scientific discipline(s), will be considered non-responsive.
    4. Interdisciplinary teams: Applications must involve interdisciplinary research teams. Applications which do not propose an interdisciplinary research team will be deemed non-responsive.
    5. Inclusion of behavioral and/or social scientists: Interdisciplinary teams must include behavioral and/or social scientists in addition to scientists from other discipline(s). Applications that do not include clearly identified behavioral and/or social scientists will be considered non-responsive.
    6. Multiple levels of analysis: The purpose of this RFA is to develop new/innovative measures, methods, and technologies that support the interdisciplinary integration of human social and/or behavioral science with other disciplines across varying levels of analysis. Applications focused on only one level of analysis will be considered non-responsive.
    7. Trans-NIH focus. Because this RFA is part of the NIH Roadmap initiative, applications should address research needs that apply to more than one Institute or Center, or that “fall between” the missions of the Institutes or Centers. Applications that do not have a trans-NIH focus will be considered non-responsive.

    If you have not yet contacted Drs. Mabry or Onken to discuss your proposal, and/or if there is any uncertainty regarding responsiveness after re-reviewing the above guidelines, please contact Dr. Mabry (301) 402-1753 or Dr. Onken (301) 443-2235 as soon as possible. Although responsiveness will be determined by the Roadmap Project Team, and there is no way to determine the responsiveness of an application before it is reviewed by the Project Team, it is our goal to help you avoid the submission of a non-responsive application.
    
    Note that responsiveness of an application does not necessarily mean that the peer reviewers will consider it to be of high scientific merit. Review criteria are listed in section V.2 of the RFA.

Up to Top