Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
The Rebuttal Letter
The Grief Cycle
Do NOT write
rebuttal letter
Write rebuttal
letter
The Process
• Contact program officer
o Telephone better than email
o Do not shoot the messenger
• Read summary statement ...
Common Fixable Problems
• Poor writing
• Insufficient information, experimental
details, or preliminary data
• Significanc...
Not Fixable or More
Difficult Problems
• Philosophical issues (reviewers believe
work is not significant)
• Hypothesis not...
The Rebuttal Section
• Length: 1 page
• Briefly summarize major criticisms
• Frame criticisms in a positive light
The revi...
The Rebuttal Section
• Some of the same reviewers will likely read
the revised version
• Reviewers will comment on respons...
The Rebuttal Section
• Be polite!
“The reviewer is just plain wrong.”
“We respectfully disagree.”
• Remember the viewpoint...
The Rebuttal Section
• Keep tone positive
• Try to convey commitment
and excitement
oAdditional data
oNew publications
• H...
Final Thoughts
• Make sure it is the best possible
o Maximize prelim data/publications
o Have others read it
• Only one re...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

K-to-R Workshop: the Rebuttal Letter (Rejected rGant)

253 views

Published on

UCLA CTSI K-to_R Workshop, October 29, 2015

Presenter:
Scott G. Filler, MD
Professor-in-Residence of Medicine at UCLA and Harbor-UCLA Medical Center
Co-leader, CTSI Center for Translational Technologies

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

K-to-R Workshop: the Rebuttal Letter (Rejected rGant)

  1. 1. The Rebuttal Letter
  2. 2. The Grief Cycle Do NOT write rebuttal letter Write rebuttal letter
  3. 3. The Process • Contact program officer o Telephone better than email o Do not shoot the messenger • Read summary statement closely o Especially the Resume and Summary of Discussion • Look for common themes
  4. 4. Common Fixable Problems • Poor writing • Insufficient information, experimental details, or preliminary data • Significance not convincingly stated • Approach not shown to be feasible, but applicant can demonstrate feasibility • Insufficient discussion of potential problems and alternatives approaches
  5. 5. Not Fixable or More Difficult Problems • Philosophical issues (reviewers believe work is not significant) • Hypothesis not sound or not supported by data presented • Work has already been done • Proposed methods not suitable for testing the hypothesis • Poor investigator or environment score
  6. 6. The Rebuttal Section • Length: 1 page • Briefly summarize major criticisms • Frame criticisms in a positive light The reviewers felt that we were unqualified to do the proposed work. vs. The reviewers felt that additional expertise in statistical analysis would strengthen the project.
  7. 7. The Rebuttal Section • Some of the same reviewers will likely read the revised version • Reviewers will comment on responsiveness to previous critiques • Make suggested changes, if reasonable • If suggested change is unreasonable, respectfully state why
  8. 8. The Rebuttal Section • Be polite! “The reviewer is just plain wrong.” “We respectfully disagree.” • Remember the viewpoint of the reviewer Grant not funded Grant may be funded
  9. 9. The Rebuttal Section • Keep tone positive • Try to convey commitment and excitement oAdditional data oNew publications • Have someone else read it
  10. 10. Final Thoughts • Make sure it is the best possible o Maximize prelim data/publications o Have others read it • Only one resubmission allowed of current grant • After 2nd rejection, can resubmit grant as a new proposal (no rebuttal section) • Consider submitting one Aim as an R21

×