Demystifying the NIH grant application process.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Berg KM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2219790 | biostudies-other | 2007 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:Obtaining grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is increasingly competitive, as funding success rates have declined over the past decade. To allocate relatively scarce funds, scientific peer reviewers must differentiate the very best applications from comparatively weaker ones. Despite the importance of this determination, little research has explored how reviewers assign ratings to the applications they review and whether there is consistency in the reviewers' evaluation of the same application. Replicating all aspects of the NIH peer-review process, we examined 43 individual reviewers' ratings and written critiques of the same group of 25 NIH grant applications. Results showed no agreement among reviewers regarding the quality of the applications in either their qualitative or quantitative evaluations. Although all reviewers received the same instructions on how to rate applications and format their written critiques, we also found no agreement in how reviewers "translated" a given number of strengths and weaknesses into a numeric rating. It appeared that the outcome of the grant review depended more on the reviewer to whom the grant was assigned than the research proposed in the grant. This research replicates the NIH peer-review process to examine in detail the qualitative and quantitative judgments of different reviewers examining the same application, and our results have broad relevance for scientific grant peer review.
| S-EPMC5866547 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Research funders use a wide variety of application assessment processes yet there is little evidence on their relative advantages and disadvantages. A broad distinction can be made between processes with a single stage assessment of full proposals and those that first invite an outline, with full proposals invited at a second stage only for those which are shortlisted. This paper examines the effects of changing from a one-stage to a two-stage process within the UK's National Institute for Health Research's (NIHR) Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme which made this change in 2015. METHODS:A retrospective comparative design was used to compare eight one-stage funding competitions (912 applications) with eight two-stage funding competitions (1090 applications). Comparisons were made between the number of applications submitted, number of peer and lay reviews required, the duration of the funding round, average external peer review scores, and the total costs involved. RESULTS:There was a mean number of 114 applications per funding round for the one-stage process and 136 for the two-stage process. The one-stage process took a mean of 274 days and the two-stage process 348 days to complete, although those who were not funded (i.e. the majority) were informed at a mean of 195 days (mean 79 days earlier) under the two-stage process. The mean peer review score for full applications using the one-stage process was 6.46 and for the two-stage process 6.82 (5.6% difference using a 1-10 scale (with 10 being the highest), but there was no significant difference between the lay reviewer scores. The one-stage process required a mean of 423 peer reviews and 102 lay reviewers and the two-stage process required a mean of 208 peer reviews and 50 lay reviews (mean difference of 215 peer reviews and 52 lay reviews) per funding round. Overall cost per funding round changed from £148,908 for the one-stage process to £105,342 for the two-stage process saving approximately £43,566 per round. CONCLUSION:We conclude that a two-stage application process increases the number of applications submitted to a funding round, is less burdensome and more efficient for all those involved with the process, is cost effective and has a small increase in peer reviewer scores. For the addition of fewer than 11 weeks to the process substantial efficiencies are gained which benefit funders, applicants and science. Funding agencies should consider adopting a two-stage application assessment process.
| S-EPMC7067561 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many granting agencies allow reviewers to know the identity of a proposal's principal investigator (PI), which opens the possibility that reviewers discriminate on the basis of PI race and gender. We investigated this experimentally with 48 NIH R01 grant proposals, representing a broad range of NIH-funded science. We modified PI names to create separate white male, white female, black male and black female versions of each proposal, and 412 scientists each submitted initial reviews for 3 proposals. We find little to no race or gender bias in initial R01 evaluations, and additionally find that any bias that might have been present must be negligible in size. This conclusion was robust to a wide array of statistical model specifications. Pragmatically, important bias may be present in other aspects of the granting process, but our evidence suggests that it is not present in the initial round of R01 reviews.
| S-EPMC6699508 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Literature suggests that the route of feeding may impact the immune system. This study examines changes in gene expression due to route of feeding in healthy volunteers. Healthy volunteers were fed contniuous parenteral diet or continuous enteral diet for 72 hours
2010-04-29 | GSE21534 | GEO
Project description:BackgroundA diverse research workforce is essential for catalyzing biomedical advancements, but this workforce goal is hindered by persistent sex and racial/ethnic disparities among investigators receiving research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In response, the NIH-funded National Research Mentoring Network implemented a Grant Writing Coaching Program (GCP) to provide diverse cohorts of early-career investigators across the United States with intensive coaching throughout the proposal development process. We evaluated the GCP's national reach and short-term impact on participants' proposal submissions and funding outcomes.MethodsThe GCP was delivered as six similar but distinct models. All models began with an in-person group session, followed by a series of coaching sessions over 4 to 12 months. Participants were surveyed at 6-, 12- and 18-months after program completion to assess proposal outcomes (submissions, awards). Self-reported data were verified and supplemented by searches of public repositories of awarded grants when available. Submission and award rates were derived from counts of participants who submitted or were awarded at least one grant proposal in a category (NIH, other federal, non-federal).ResultsFrom June 2015 through March 2019, 545 investigators (67% female, 61% under-represented racial/ethnic minority, URM) from 187 different institutions participated in the GCP. Among them, 324 (59% of participants) submitted at least one grant application and 134 (41% of submitters) received funding. A total of 164 grants were awarded, the majority being from the NIH (93, 56%). Of the 74 R01 (or similar) NIH research proposals submitted by GCP participants, 16 have been funded thus far (56% to URM, 75% to women). This 22% award rate exceeded the 2016-2018 NIH success rates for new R01s.ConclusionInter- and intra-institutional grant writing coaching groups are a feasible and effective approach to supporting the grant acquisition efforts of early-career biomedical investigators, including women and those from URM groups.
| S-EPMC7652313 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:Several publication databases now index the associated funding agency and grant number metadata with their publication records. Librarians who are familiar with the particulars of these databases can assist investigators and administrators with data gathering for publication summaries and metrics required for renewals of and progress reports for National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants. Methods:Publication lists were pulled from three main indexers of publication-associated funding information (NIH RePORTER, PubMed, and Web of Science), using iterative search strategies. All discovered variations for the cited grant number of interest were recorded and tested. Publication lists were compared for overall coverage. Results:A total of 986 publications citing the single grant number of interest were returned from the given time frame: 920 were found in PubMed, 860 in NIH RePORTER, and 787 in Web of Science. Web of Science offered the highest percentage of publications that were not found in the other 2 sources (n=63). Analysis of publication funding acknowledgments uncovered 21 variations of the specific NIH award of interest that were used to report funding support. Conclusions:This study shows that while PubMed returns the most robust list of publications, variations in the format of reported funding support and indexing practices meant no one resource was sufficient to capture all publications that cited a given NIH project grant number. Librarians looking to help build grant-specific publication lists will need to use multiple resources and be aware of the most frequently reported grant variations to identify a comprehensive list of supported publications.
| S-EPMC6466482 | biostudies-other
Project description:Literature suggests that the route of feeding may impact the immune system. This study examines changes in gene expression due to route of feeding in healthy volunteers. Healthy volunteers were fed continuous parenteral diet or continuous enteral diet for 72 hours Blood samples were collected prior to feeding and 72 hours after feeding. Monocytes were purified using Rosette Sep protocol. We used microarrays to identifiy genes with significantly changed expression.
2010-05-27 | E-GEOD-21534 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:Fifteen human volunteer subjects (18-40 years of age) and 5 Trauma patients were studied. One volunteer group (saline + LPS [n = 8]) received a 12 hour infusion a second volunteer group (cortisol + LPS [n = 7]) received a 12 hour infusion of cortisol (3 µg/kg/min). After 6 hours of saline or cortisol infusion, intravenous lipopolysaccharide (2 ng/kg) was administered to all subjects. Blood samples were collected at 0 hours, 6 hours and 24 hours relative to LPS administration at 0 hours. Blood samples were drawn from a grounp of Trauma patients shortly (day1-5) after admission and later in their ICU stay (day 5-7). Leukocytes were isolated from these blood samples, total RNA extracted, and microarray analyses performed using Affymetrix Focus GeneChips® on samples yeilding sufficent quantity and quality RNA for analysis.
2010-06-11 | GSE22278 | GEO
Project description:ImportanceThe Surgeon General's Call to Action to Prevent Skin Cancer broadly identified research gaps, but specific objectives are needed to further behavioral intervention research.ObjectiveTo review National Institute of Health (NIH) grants targeting skin cancer-related behaviors and relevant outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsA portfolio analysis of the title, abstract, specific aims, and research plans of identified grant applications from 2000 to 2014 targeting skin cancer-related behaviors or testing behavioral intervention effects on cancer-relevant outcomes along the cancer continuum.Main outcomes and measuresFunding trends were compared along the cancer control continuum, with respect to investigator demographics and use of theory, technology, policy, and changes to environmental surroundings (built environment).ResultsA total of 112 submitted applications met inclusion criteria; of these, 40 (35.7%) were funded, and 31 of the 40 were interventions. Comparing the 40 funded grants with the 72 unfunded grants, the overall success rates did not differ significantly between male (33.3%) and female (37.3%) investigators, nor did the frequency of R01 awards (36.7% and 28.1%, respectively). Among intervention awards, most (24 of 31) addressed prevention. Fewer awards targeted detection alone or in conjunction with prevention (3) or cancer survivorship (4), and no grant addressed emotional sequelae or adherence behavior related to diagnosis or treatment. Fewer than half of funded grants aimed for clinically related targets (eg, sunburn reduction). Use of theory and technology occurred in more than 75% of grants. However, the full capability of proposed technology was infrequently used, and rarely did constructs of the proposed behavior change theory clearly and comprehensively drive the intervention approach. Policy or environmental manipulation was present in all dissemination grants but was rarely used elsewhere, and 19.4% included policy implementation and 25.8% proposed changes in built environment.Conclusions and relevanceGrant success rate in skin cancer-related behavioral science compares favorably to the overall NIH grant success rate (approximately 18%), and the success rate of male and female investigators was not statistically different. However, gaps exist in behavioral research addressing all points of the skin cancer control continuum, measuring interventions that hit clinically related targets, and leveraging technology, theory, and environmental manipulation to optimize intervention approach.
| S-EPMC5817496 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The National Institutes of Health Undiagnosed Diseases Program (NIH UDP) applies translational research systematically to diagnose patients with undiagnosed diseases. The challenge is to implement an information system enabling scalable translational research. The authors hypothesized that similar complex problems are resolvable through process management and the distributed cognition of communities. The team, therefore, built the NIH UDP integrated collaboration system (UDPICS) to form virtual collaborative multidisciplinary research networks or communities. UDPICS supports these communities through integrated process management, ontology-based phenotyping, biospecimen management, cloud-based genomic analysis, and an electronic laboratory notebook. UDPICS provided a mechanism for efficient, transparent, and scalable translational research and thereby addressed many of the complex and diverse research and logistical problems of the NIH UDP. Full definition of the strengths and deficiencies of UDPICS will require formal qualitative and quantitative usability and process improvement measurement.
| S-EPMC5060938 | biostudies-literature