|
Transitions
![Image of Norka Ruiz Bravo](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090131001020im_/http://nexus.od.nih.gov/nexus/images/NORKA_BRAVOPRINT.jpg) As some of you may already know, in November, I will transition as Director
of the Office of Extramural Research (OER) and NIH Deputy Director for Extramural
Research (DDER) to the role of Special Advisor to the NIH Director.
I personally believe that the leadership of high level positions like that of
the DDER should turn over every five or six years to make room for new perspectives
and direction, and November marks the completion of my fifth year of service
as NIH DDER. Dr.
Zerhouni’s departure makes this an ideal time for my own transition. From
the position of Special Advisor to the NIH Director I can continue to contribute
to the NIH mission.
I am very proud of all that we have been able to accomplish in our five years
together. Much remains to be done, and we have a number of challenges ahead –– such is the nature of biomedical research. Perhaps our most serious immediate challenge is the financial conflict of interest (FCOI) issues still facing our extramural research community. In this regard, NIH has taken –– and I am sure will continue to take –– necessary action in a thoughtful and measured way to ensure that the integrity of the scientific research that we support is maintained and that we preserve public trust. I am confident that the NIH-supported biomedical research community is fully engaged and aware of the gravity and complexity of the issues before us. I know that many of you, scientists, academic leaders, and professional societies are poised to respond to the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) as soon as it emerges from the clearance process, and I am looking forward to the product of this community discussion.
Dr. Sally Rockey, my deputy since 2005, has agreed to serve as the interim
DDER. Prior to arriving at the NIH, she was the Deputy Administrator, Information
Systems and Technology Management Unit, Cooperative State Research, Education
and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. In that role, she provided
leadership for and managed all aspects of the agency’s information technology
and software applications, spearheading the successful reconstruction of its
ailing IT department and bringing the department into compliance with USDA
and OMB directives. Sally is also an expert in grants management and the peer
review process. I am grateful for her willingness to assume the role, and
I am confident that under her leadership the NIH-supported extramural research
community will continue to thrive.
It has truly been a privilege to work with you and to serve our extramural
research community as the NIH DDER. I will long remember the friendship,
support, and challenges we have shared and look forward to continuing to work
with you and serve our community in my new role.
— Norka Ruiz Bravo, Ph.D.
OER Director and NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research |
|
Dr. Norka Ruiz Bravo to transition to a new role as Special Advisor to the Director, NIH
In his October 17 memorandum to Senior Staff, NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni had the following to say about Dr. Norka Ruiz Bravo and her tenure as NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research and Director, Office of Extramural Research:
"Dr. Norka Ruiz Bravo has provided outstanding service to NIH and the biomedical research community in her capacity as NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research. Her leadership is evidenced by NIH’s continued success in this area. Dr. Ruiz Bravo has made critical contributions to the development and implementation of the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research and many of its initiatives. In addition, she played a leadership role in developing and implementing transforming NIH policies, such as the Public Access and the Multiple Principal Investigator policies, and eSubmission, the NIH transition from paper to electronic submission of applications."
"She initiated the use of mathematical modeling to improve our understanding of the dynamics of the biomedical research workforce, and contributed greatly to the discussion and resulting programs to address the plight of new investigators. She catalyzed the development of the RePort website for NIH data, and led the development of the Animals in Research Project, a proactive agenda to enhance communication about the importance of animal models in research and address the increasing use of violence against NIH-supported researchers who use animal models." We look forward to Dr. Ruiz Bravo continuing to contribute her expertise and experience in her new role and we wish her the very best. |
New NIH Policy to Fund Meritorious Science Earlier
The new NIH policy decreasing the number of amended grant
application resubmissions from two to one will help ensure earlier funding
of high quality applications and improve efficiencies in the peer review system.
For more information on this new policy, please see the relevant
NIH Guide Notice. The new policy is part of a continuing series of changes to the NIH
peer review system following an in-depth review and a year-long self-assessment
that concluded in June 2008. Additional data and information on the policy
are available at the Enhancing
Peer Review Web site.
|
NIH Encourages Use of New Electronic Process for Reporting Financial Conflicts of Interest
![metallic people in a group typing on laptops](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090131001020im_/http://nexus.od.nih.gov/nexus/images/peers.jpg) The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has issued a Guide
Notice on the Financial
Conflict of Interest (FCOI) Module, a new feature of the NIH electronic Research
Administration (eRA) Commons. The FCOI Module gives institutional users the
ability to electronically prepare and submit FCOI reports and other required
documents through the Commons, enhancing management of FCOI reports. Currently,
the FCOI reports are submitted to the Chief Grants Management Officer of the
NIH awarding component. The FCOI Module allows institutional users to:
- initiate and prepare FCOI reports
- electronically submit reports and supporting documents
- search and view FCOI reports previously submitted through the Commons
- edit or rescind submitted reports (with NIH assistance)
- access history of actions
The FCOI Module is part of the eRA Commons, an online interface where
grantees and federal staff share information. The current version of the
FCOI Module incorporates feedback from a small-scale pilot test performed
in the summer of 2008 with nine institutions that are members of the Commons
Working Group. Based on feedback from the initial pilot participants, NIH
now expands the pilot to all Federal Demonstration
Partnership members and a small sample of non-FDP members. Additional information on the FCOI Module can be found on the eRA
Commons page.
|
Preparing for Changes in Peer Review
The first stages of implementation of changes in NIH peer review will begin
in January and February 2009. These changes will be timed to apply to all
three standard review/award cycles in each fiscal year. Please see the chart
below showing the precise timeline by review/award cycle. While many details
continue to be worked through, the first set of changes are highlighted below:
Scoring
To improve the transparency of the scoring process:
- Before a review meeting, assigned reviewers and discussants will score
applications on the five review criteria using a scale greater than 1-5.
- Each assigned reviewer and discussant will also provide a preliminary
overall score using the new scale.
- At the meeting, discussed applications will receive an overall score from each eligible (i.e., without conflicts of interest) panel member and these scores will be averaged, multiplied
by 10, and called the priority score.
- The priority scores then will be percentiled against the appropriate base. The new scoring system will necessitate the establishment of new percentile bases. Percentiles will be reported
in whole numbers.
Critiques
To improve the quality of the critiques and
to focus reviewer attention on the review criteria:
- Before the review meeting, in addition to preliminary scoring, assigned reviewers will provide written critiques of the application through an electronic template that will prompt for strengths and weaknesses for each criterion.
- After the meeting, the critiques will be compiled into a summary statement that will
be shorter and more focused than current summary statements due to standardized
organization and reporting of strengths and weaknesses.
- Discussed applications also will have a summary of the panel’s discussion at the meeting.
- Feedback for Streamlined Applications. Currently, applications not considered to be in the more meritorious half are “streamlined.” Streamlined applications are not discussed by the full review committee and are not assigned numerical priority scores, but the applicants do receive the reviewers’ critiques.
- In 2009, streamlined applications will receive scores in addition to
the reviewers’ critiques to help applicants assess whether or not they should
submit an amended application.
Balanced and Fair Reviews Across Career Stages and Scientific Fields
- The New Investigator Policy was modified to identify Early Stage Investigators
(ESIs), see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-08-121.html,
and becomes effective beginning with traditional R01 applications received
for the February 2009 receipt dates.
- Another notice containing specific guidance for ESIs will be released on October 31, 2008.
- Where possible, NIH will cluster new investigator applications (including ESIs) for review.
- The same clustering approach will be considered for clinical research applications.
Amended Applications:
To speed the funding of meritorious science and minimize reviewer burden:
- NIH has issued a policy announcement decreasing the number of resubmissions
(i.e., amendments) permitted from two to one. Beginning with applications
intended for the January 25, 2009 due date, all original new applications
(i.e., never submitted) and competing renewal applications will be permitted
only a single amendment (A1).
- To facilitate this transition, original new and competing renewal applications submitted for FY 2009 or earlier, i.e. prior to January 25, 2009, will be permitted two resubmissions.
Enhanced Review Criteria
- The current five scoring criteria will have clearer descriptions,
with questions for reviewers to consider in evaluating each criterion.
- The application instructions will be updated to inform applicants of these
revised questions.
Funding Round |
Non-AIDS Receipt Dates |
AIDS Receipt Date |
Review Date |
Council Date |
Award Date |
FY 2010
Cycle 1 |
Jan/Feb 2009 |
May 7, 2009 |
May/June 2009 |
Sept/Oct 2009 |
Jan/March 2010 |
FY 2010
Cycle 2 |
May/June 2009 |
September 7, 2009 |
Oct/Nov 2009 |
Jan/Feb 2010 |
March/May 2010 |
FY 2010
Cycle 3 |
Sept/Oct 2009 |
January 7, 2010 |
Feb/March 2010 |
May/June 2010 |
July/Sept 2010 |
FY 2011
Cycle 1 |
Jan/Feb 2010 |
May 7, 2010 |
May/June 2010 |
Sept/Oct 2010 |
Jan/March 2011 |
FY 2011
Cycle 2 |
May/June 2010 |
September 7, 2010 |
Oct/Nov 2010 |
Jan/Feb 2011 |
March/May 2011 |
FY 2011
Cycle 3 |
Sept/Oct 2010 |
January 7, 2011 |
Feb/March 2011 |
May/June 2011 |
July/Sept 2011 |
The full set of application submission dates for each cycle can be found at:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm
For more information on Enhancing Peer Review and the NIH Guide Notices referenced in this document go to:
http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov
Keep abreast of the latest in the Enhancing Peer Review Implementation effort by joining a new Enhancing Peer Review listserv. |
FY 2009 Continuing Resolution to Provide Continuing Budget Authority for Federal Agencies and Programs Through March 6
The CR applies the terms of the FY 2008 appropriations for the period covered by the CR. When the 111th Congress convenes in 2009, it will need to complete action for FY 2009 funding.
Until the final FY 2009 appropriation is enacted, NIH will issue non-competing research grant awards at a level below that indicated on the most recent Notice of Award (generally up to 90% of the previously committed level). This is consistent with NIH practice during the CRs of FY 2006 - 2008. NIH will consider upward adjustments to these levels after the final appropriation is enacted, but expects institutions to monitor their expenditures carefully during this period.
Additional details are available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/financial/index.htm. |
NIH Increases Public Access Policy Compliance Efforts
Starting this month, NIH will be stepping up its efforts to ensure compliance
for the Public Access Policy as described in a recent NIH Guide Notice. To
ensure compliance with the Public Access Policy, NIH Program Officials will
check applications, proposals or progress reports to see if citations of papers
appearing to fall under this policy include a PubMed Central Identifier or
appropriate alternative. NIH staff will inform the Program Directors/Principal
Investigators (PDs/PIs) via an email if citations appear out of compliance
and will copy the Institutional Business Official on the email.
The PD/PI will be asked to respond via email to both the Program Official
and the Institutional Business Official with confirmation of compliance, or
an appropriate explanation. Confirmation is the citation for the paper plus
the appropriate identifier as described in the NIH Guide Notice.The NIH Guide
Notice also contains a summary of application instructions pertaining to citations,
and details on demonstrating compliance through the eRA Commons using eSNAP.
For slides, articles, and other training materials and communications about
the Policy, please see http://publicaccess.nih.gov/communications.htm.
Results of the Public Access Public Comment Process
Public comment on the Public Access Policy and NIH’s response is now available at http://publicaccess.nih.gov/comments.htm.
Overview of Feedback
In response to an open meeting and request for information on NIH Public
Access Policy, NIH received 613 unduplicated comments from a broad cross-section
of the public, including NIH-funded investigators, members of the general
public, patient advocates, professional organizations, and publishers. These
comments and NIH’s response are available at http://publicaccess.nih.gov/comments.htm.
Most comments offered broad support for the policy as written. Many comments
requested a reduction in the delay period before papers can be made publicly
available on PubMed Central. In some cases, comments expressed concern about
the Policy, others asked for clarification, and still others suggested alternatives
to NIH’s implementation. These questions and concerns fall into several broad
categories:
- The potential administrative burden on Program Directors/Principal Investigators
and grantee institutions;
- Details such as applicability, cost reimbursement,
compliance monitoring, and enforcement, and publisher support;
- Issues such as submission procedures, tracking submitted papers, version of the
paper submitted, and managing and protecting copyrights;
- The relationship of the Policy to copyright law and the Administrative Procedures Act.
- The potential impact of the Policy on publishers and NIH.
NIH also received
comments describing implementation efforts by numerous awardee institutions
and publishers. In some cases, libraries took the lead on educating their
faculty, and supporting them in interpreting publishing agreements and submitting
manuscripts to NIH. In other cases, offices of sponsored research provided
guidance on the NIH Public Access Policy disseminated to their faculty community
via the web, memos, seminars and VideoCasts. Still other institutions described
collaborations between libraries, offices of sponsored research, university
counsels, and technology transfer offices. Several universities and private
groups described the development of new policies on scholarly communications,
and new publishing forms and addenda that their faculty could use to ensure
compliance with the Policy.
NIH Response
The report details NIH's response to concerns and steps to facilitate compliance
with the law.
- In May, July, and September of 2008 NIH updated the Public Access website
to clarify the applicability, goals and anticipated impact of the policy,
the methods to submit papers, and document compliance.
- In June 2008, NIH updated the NIH Manuscript Submission System (NIHMS), the online mechanism
for submission of manuscripts to PMC, to allow Principal Investigators/Program
Directors (PDs/PIs) to delegate all aspects of submission tasks to authors,
and to allow publishers who submit manuscripts to the NIHMS on behalf of
authors to exert greater control over manuscript delay periods.
- In August 2008, the National Library of Medicine issued a new web tool to help the
scientific community obtain PubMed Central Identifiers in bulk.
- In September 2008, NIH issued a Guide
Notice reminding awardees about the compliance process and providing details concerning NIH’s monitoring plan for Fiscal Year 2008.
Results
These efforts appear to be working. NIH estimates approximately 80,000
papers arise from NIH funds each year, and this total serves as the target
for the Public Access Policy. During the voluntary policy, from May 2005
to December 2007, NIH was able to collect a total of 19% of targeted papers,
from all sources. Under the first five months of the new Policy (April to
August 2008), this rate jumped to an estimated 56% of papers per month.
Conclusions
These first few months show progress in implementing the Public
Access Policy requirement due to active support from the academic and publishing
communities. However, work still remains, as over 40% applicable papers
per month remain unsubmitted.
Implementation and process refinement will
continue in the coming months. NIH has established voluntary partnerships with many publishers to facilitate the depositing of manuscripts and final published papers, and expects these partnerships
to continue to expand, and the percentage of submitted papers to grow. For
example, as of October, approximately 475 journals now directly submit final
published articles arising from NIH funds directly to PubMed Central (see
http://publicaccess.nih.gov/submit_process_journals.htm). NIH will also continue to engage the
community to ensure implementation proceeds in the
most efficient and effective manner possible.
The NIH Public Access Policy, mandated by Congress, requires the results
of NIH-supported research to be publicly available through the National
Library of Medicine’s digital archive, PubMed Central, within 12 months
after the official date of publication. The Policy is intended to advance
science, provide public access to the published results of NIH-funded research,
and improve human health. In order to implement the law in a transparent
and participatory manner, NIH formally sought public input through an open
meeting and a Request for Information (RFI).
|
|
NIH Seeks Proposals for 2009 Director's Pioneer and New Innovator Awards
![researcher with test tubes](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090131001020im_/http://nexus.od.nih.gov/nexus/images/researcher.jpg) NIH welcomes proposals for 2009 NIH Director's Pioneer Awards and New Innovator
Awards. Both programs are part of the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research and
support exceptionally creative scientists who take highly innovative, potentially
high-impact approaches to major challenges in biomedical or behavioral research.
Pioneer Awards provide up to $2.5 million in direct costs over 5 years and
are open to scientists at any career stage. New Innovator Awards provide up
to $1.5 million in direct costs over the same period and are for early career
investigators who have not received an NIH regular research (R01) or similar
NIH grant. NIH expects to make 5 to 10 Pioneer Awards and up to 24 New Innovator
Awards in September 2009. To continue its strong record of diversity in these
programs, NIH especially encourages women and members of groups that are underrepresented in NIH research to apply.
The Pioneer Award competition begins with a proposal submission period from
November 17 to December 17, 2008. See Pre-Application for the 2009 NIH Director’s
Pioneer Award Program (X02) (PAR-09-012) for instructions and http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/pioneer for more information. Send questions to pioneer@nih.gov.
The New Innovator Award competition begins with a proposal submission period
from December 15, 2008 to January 15, 2009. See Pre-Application for the 2009
NIH Director’s New Innovator Award Program (X02) (PAR-09-013) for instructions
and http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/newinnovator for more information. Send questions
to newinnovator@nih.gov.
The NIH’s new Transformative R01 Program (T-R01s) will allow highly creative,
“out-of-the-box” projects to be supported. The T-R01 Program represents a
High Risk/High Reward Demonstration Project in which novel approaches to peer
review and program management are to be piloted. The application submission
period is from December 29, 2008 to January 29, 2009. See http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/T-R01/ for more information. Send questions to T_R01@mail.nih.gov.
The NIH Roadmap for Medical Research, launched in 2004, is a series of initiatives
designed to address fundamental knowledge gaps, develop transformative tools
and technologies, and/or foster innovative approaches to complex problems.
Funded through the NIH Common Fund, these programs cut across the missions
of individual NIH Institutes and Centers (ICs) and are intended to accelerate
the translation of research to improvements in public health. OPASI, in collaboration
with all NIH ICs, oversees programs funded by the Common Fund. Additional
information about the NIH Roadmap and Common Fund can be found at www.nihroadmap.nih.gov. |
Changes Coming to the NIH Registration Process for Peer Reviewers
A May 2008 NIH Guide Notice (NOT-OD-08-075) announced plans to discontinue use of
the U.S. Treasury Central Contractor Registration (CCR) system for facilitating electronic disbursement of reviewers’ honoraria and reimbursements for expenses incurred
during their participation in NIH peer review meetings (see also NIH Guide Notice NOT-OD-09-009NIH Guide Notice NOT-OD-09-009). Instead, a new, electronic system has been developed to facilitate this process, thanks to the efforts of staff from the
Office of Financial Management , NIH Scientific Review and Evaluation Award System, Electronic Research Administration, the Center for Scientific
Review, the Office of Extramural Research, and Committee Management Specialists. The new system is undergoing pilot testing, with full implementation
planned for early 2009.
Reviewers should do the following during this interim phase:
- Update their residential address information in the eRA Commons now,
in preparation for the system conversion.
- Ignore e-mails from CCR prompting them to renew their CCR registration
once it expires.
- Until further notice, ignore e-mails from the Internet Assisted Review
system prompting them to update their banking information in the eRA
Commons.
The NIH is committed to ensuring that reviewers receive their disbursements
as quickly and efficiently as possible. Additional information will be provided
as the transition to the new registration system progresses. Thank you for
your continued efforts on behalf of the NIH peer review process.
Questions may be directed to Dr. Sally Amero, NIH Review Policy Officer,
Office of Extramural Research, NIH (301-435-1418; ameros@od.nih.gov).
|
|
Join the Enhancing Peer Review Listserv
Keep abreast of the latest in the Enhancing Peer Review Implementation effort by joining a new Listserv. |
NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research Announces New Director, Office of Extramural Programs
Dr. Norka, Ruiz Bravo, NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research, has announced that Sherry Mills, M.D., M.P.H., will assume the position of Director, Office of Extramural Programs (OEP), Office of Extramural Research (OER), to be effective November 9, 2008. As OEP Director, Dr. Mills will provide executive scientific leadership for the initiation, coordination, and oversight of NIH policies for extramural program administration, peer review and coordinating resolution of associated human subjects concerns that arise during the process, and the development of human resources for research. |
HHS Office of Human Research Protections Finalizes Documentation on Engagement of Human Subjects in Research
The HHS Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP) has posted on its Web
site a finalized guidance document entitled, “Guidance on Engagement of Institutions
in Human Subjects Research.” The public comments submitted on the draft document
were very helpful as this guidance document. The finalized
guidance is on the OHRP
Web site. This new guidance document replaces two prior OHRP guidance
documents on the engagement of institutions in human subjects research: (1)
the January 26, 1999, document on “Engagement of Institutions in Research,”
and (2) the December 23, 1999, document on “Engagement of Pharmaceutical Companies
in HHS Supported Research.” The Federal Register notice announcing the
availability of this new guidance document can be found at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-25177.htm or http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-25177.pdf.
OHRP has also posted a revised version of the “Guidance on Research Involving
Coded Private Information or Biological Specimens” that includes minor changes
that were made for consistency with the new guidance document on the engagement
of institutions in human subjects research. |
Jerry A. Menikoff, M.D., J.D, appointed as the director of the Office for Human Research Protections
Department of Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Health Joxel García, M.D., M.B.A.,has announced the appointment of Jerry A. Menikoff, M.D., J.D. as the director of the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), Office of Public Health and Science, Office of the Secretary.
Prior to joining OHRP, Dr. Menikoff served as the director of the Office of Human Subjects Research and as a bioethicist, at the National Institutes of Health. He has written extensively on research and human subject protections, including several books and numerous journal articles, over the past fifteen years.
Before his NIH appointments, Dr. Menikoff served for nine years as the chair of the human subjects committee and the hospital ethics committee at the University of Kansas Medical Center. His educational background includes an M.D. from Washington University and law and public policy degrees from Harvard. In addition, Dr. Menikoff has held academic positions in schools of law at the University of Akron, the University of Chicago, and Hofstra University. He is on leave from the position of associate professor of law, ethics and medicine at the University of Kansas. |
A New Gateway to Protein Structures
Hosted by Rutgers University, the PSI-Nature
Structural Genomics Knowledgebase (PSI-SGKB) serves as a continually updated gateway to research data and other resources from the Protein Structure Initiative
(PSI). First established in spring 2008, the PSI-SGKB is now re-launched in collaboration with Nature Publishing Group (NPG), with NPG contributing editorial content to help researchers stay informed
about developments in structural biology and structural genomics.
Protein structure can tell us a great deal about how living systems function
and can help with drug development and in understanding human disease. However,
protein structure information is sometimes not easily interpretable by researchers
working outside structural biology.
"One of the overarching goals of the PSI is to enable scientists interested in a particular protein family to obtain a relevant structure that can guide functional or
disease-related studies," said Jeremy M. Berg, Ph.D., director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, the component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
that developed the PSI. "The PSI-SGKB is a portal to the wealth of resources available for speeding discoveries about these molecules so vital to our health."
The PSI was launched in 2000 by NIH to determine protein structures on a
large scale. Over the course of the initiative, PSI-supported research centers
have produced more than 3,200 structures, published around 1,000 scientific
papers, and developed many techniques now employed in labs around the world.
|
|
Reviewers Soon to Have Easier Accessibility to Encrypted CDs
Institutions often have to walk a fine line between implementing security
measures to protect data and ensuring that business flow is not disrupted.
So it was this April at NIH when a directive called for a renewed emphasis
on security of information including that on portable electronic devices.
At NIH’s electronic Research Administration (eRA), the organization that provides
and supports grants systems for NIH and its partner agencies, this meant protecting
the grant information on the compact disks containing grant application information
given to peer reviewers. Working closely with NIH leaders in the review community,
management moved quickly to implement an interim solution. The short-term
fix — implemented May 15, 2008 — required a reviewer to enter a password each
time a grant application, a summary statement or supplemental material was
accessed on the CD.
eRA was not deluged by complaints because reviewers understood the need
for the security measure. However, both eRA and the NIH staff who work with
the review community realized that the solution was cumbersome. If a CD contained
20 grant applications, it meant that a reviewer had to enter a password at
least 60 times to access the applications and related materials. How could
one make it less painful for reviewers?
An option to merge all documents into one giant PDF was deemed unsatisfactory
because it was too slow to open the PDF on typical laptops used by reviewers.
eRA brainstormed the issue with its user community and together, hit upon
a more workable solution... Each grant application, along with its summary
statement and supplemental material, was bundled into one PDF document that
was password-protected. For each bundled grant application, a reviewer will
enter the password once and then can then navigate freely within the PDF document. eRA appreciates the time and effort spent by the review community for the sake of
‘appropriate peer review’ and hopes that this change will make their work just a bit simpler.
The new safeguard became effective for CD orders placed on or after Oct.
15, 2008.
|
|
Research, Condition, and Disease Categorization (RCDC) Open House Meetings
You are cordially invited to the NIH campus in Bethesda, Maryland, to speak
with RCDC staff about the new RCDC public reporting Web site. During the 90-minute
session, RCDC staff will demonstrate the new site and respond to audience
questions. These sessions will be held throughout fall 2008 and early winter
2009, and each session will have the same format. Meeting dates are subject
to change. Please check back periodically for schedule changes, http://rcdc.nih.gov/RCDC_OHM/Default.aspx.
If you plan to attend, please select a listed date from the Web site that best fits your schedule, and then send an RSVP with your name, organization, and email address to rcdcpublicinfo@mail.nih.gov. |
|