Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Tucker workshop core review criteria
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Tucker workshop core review criteria

166

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
166
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Crafting the "Significance” & "Innovation" sections of an R grant application.    CSR Core Review Criteria Joan Tucker, PhD Senior Behavioral Scientist RAND Corporation
  • 2. Slide 2 Five Review Criteria Each criteria is considered in determining the scientific and technical merit of an application: Significance Innovation Approach Investigator(s) Environment
  • 3. Slide 3 NIH Scoring System •  9-point rating scale is used for the impact/priority score (1 = exceptional to 9 = poor) •  A separate score is given for each of the 5 review criteria, as well as the “overall impact” score
  • 4. Slide 4
  • 5. Slide 5 NIH Scoring System •  9-point rating scale is used for the impact/priority score (1 = exceptional to 9 = poor) •  A separate score is given for each of the 5 review criteria, as well as the “overall impact” score •  An application does not need to be strong in all 5 categories to be given a good “overall impact” score
  • 6. Slide 6
  • 7. Slide 7 Significance •  Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? •  If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? •  How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
  • 8. Slide 8 Innovation •  Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? •  Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? •  Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
  • 9. Slide 9 Investigator(s) •  Are the PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? •  If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, do they have appropriate experience and training? •  If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments? •  If the project is multi-PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
  • 10. Slide 10 Approach •  Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? •  Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? •  If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects by managed?
  • 11. Slide 11 Approach (cont.) •  If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for the following justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed? 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children
  • 12. Slide 12 Environment •  Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? •  Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? •  Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?

×