Comment on Proposed Changes to the NIH Biosketch

Paul Sheehy

The NIH Biographical Sketch is a standardized format used to present professional information in grant applications. It includes sections for a personal statement, positions and honors, selected peer-reviewed publications, and a list of current and prior research support.

To explore whether the format could be modified to better present an individual’s scientific abilities and accomplishments, NIH formed a working group that has just issued a request for information seeking input from the scientific community. The deadline for responses is June 29, 2012.

Filed under: NIH, Research Administration
Permalink: https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/index.php/2012/06/07/comment-on-proposed-changes-to-the-nih-biosketch/

View Comments (4)

  • Josh Wand says:

    In my opinion the biosketch can be frustratingly vague with respect to research experience/breadth/depth and funding status (“other support”). From a reviewer’s perspective, it can also be misleading. I would suggest that the old style research support that included more detail on effort and direct cost support be returned. The recent addition of a relevance statement in the biosketch is a good one and helps put things in clearer context.

    [Reply]

  • Graham Davies says:

    I like the changes. The Personal Statement is useful, more work, but is a good opportunity to focus.
    Likewise, the idea of 5 & 10 publications is good. It seemed strange initially, but again it helps focus.
    Being able to understand grant overlap is crucial but this is difficult.

    [Reply]

  • anonymous says:

    Since the new format was instituted, I had a reviewer undercount my pubs in PubMed and then ding me for the number s/he came up with. Bits and bytes are cheap. At least in electronic submissions, a longer publication list should be allowed in the biosketch to guard against reviewer carelessness of this kind.

    [Reply]

    Tom Reply:

    I would like to expand on this comment. Either have the reviewers only pay attention to the papers listed or allow a comprehensive list of publications to be included. It’s hard enough to get funded without the reviewers ignoring the recommended format. If they are going to do a lit search anyway, we might as well save them the effort, while at the same time ensuring that they are getting the correct information.

    [Reply]


Post a Comment




Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.