Uploaded byUCLA CTSI
A Tactical Approach to Writing Your Grant Application - 2023
The document provides a comprehensive guide to preparing NIH R01 grant applications, highlighting essential topics such as preparation timelines, reviewer criteria, and tips for successful submissions. It stresses the importance of early preparation, understanding the grant process, and seeking feedback from mentors and peers. Additionally, it outlines the key sections of the R01 grant proposal and the review process, emphasizing the significance of a well-structured application.
More Related Content
Similar to A Tactical Approach to Writing Your Grant Application - 2023
![How to Craft the "Significance” & "Innovation" [Filler] - 2023](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/fillersignificanceinnovation2023-231106193724-1a0824f3-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
A Tactical Approach to Writing Your Grant Application - 2023
- 1. William Parks, PhD Departmentof Medicine Cedars-Sinai Medical Center A Tactical Approach to Preparing Your Grant Application
- 2. Topics • Emphasis onan NIH R01 Submission • Preparation and Timelines • Reviewers and Review Criteria • Investigator Criterion – Preparing Your Biosketch • Presentation Tips Institute Assignment Study Section Assignment You ➜ ➜ ➜ CSR ➜ ➜ Reviewers ➜ Back to You OCGA ORA Grant Admin
- 3. My Central Recommendations •Read other grants – both successful and unsuccessful • Become familiar with the grant-submission process, rules, and deadlines Both NIH and Your Institution’s Rules • Give yourself plenty of time • Get as much admin stuff – letters, budget, forms etc. – done or lined up early • Get feedback from your mentor, committee, other faculty, your peers, and this and other workshops
- 4. Preparation and Timelines InstituteAssignment Study Section Assignment You ➜ ➜ ➜ CSR ➜ ➜ Reviewers ➜ Back to You OCGA ORA Grant Admin
- 5. How to Submityour Application 1. Be familiar with NIH forms, etc. 2. Identify your group’s grant administrator 3. Tell this person that you plan to submit an R01 for Feb 2024 •Do this 2-3 months – if not longer – ahead of the due date •Important: You are not the only one submitting a grant 4. Email your documents to your grant admin person • Get the easy stuff done early (coming up) 5. Grant admin uploads components and builds application 6. Institution uploads to grants.gov
- 6. Grant Preparation: NIHThings to do Well in Advance • Familiarize yourself with NIH grants, forms, instructions, and due dates • All grants: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/parent_announcements.htm • NIH Forms: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/forms.htm • Page Limits: http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/page_limits.html • Due Dates: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm • Instructions and more: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide.html • Know what Institute to target and what they are in interested in • RFA, Program announcements, etc.: https://grants.nih.gov/funding/searchguide/index.html#/ • By Institutes: http://www.nih.gov/icd/ • Know your competition • RePORT (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools): http://report.nih.gov/ • Database of all NIH grants, success rates, and much more Good video on some grant preparation tips: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAOGtr0pM6Q
- 7.
- 8. Instructions Download Research Instructions Gohere: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide.html Other Useful Sites • How to apply videos: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide/video/index.htm • Portal to lots of info: https://www.nih.gov/grants-funding • Fellowship kiosk: https://researchtraining.nih.gov/programs/career-development
- 9.
- 10. Current Forms, PA,Review Criteria, etc. – A Useful Site https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/parent_announcements.htm All Grants:
- 11. NIH Dates forNew (A0) R01s in 2024 Feb 5 Jan 29 June Sept Dec June 5 May 29 Oct Jan Apr Oct 5(7) Sept 30 Feb May July • OCGA* (UCLA) or ORA** (CS) submits your application to Grants.gov • Your submission deadline to them is 5 (UCLA) or 3 (CS) business days before the NIH due date. *Office of Contract and Grant Administration **Office of Research Administration NIH Due Dates NIH Submission Due Date UCLA Due Date# Study Section Review Council Review Funding Begins UCLA Due Dates #Estimates; actual dates are posted quarterly
- 12. Timeline for aFeb 5, 2024, Deadline Dec 2024 Funded! Good Score Submit Reviewed Think Plan Data Write Feedback Re-write Admin Stuff Feb (Jan) 2024 Summer/Fall 2023 Oct to Jan 2023/24 Jun 2024
- 13. Timeline for aFeb 5, 2024, Deadline Oct 2024 Feb 2025 Jul 2025 Funded! Fair Score Resubmit Re- reviewed Realistically a 2-year + Process Good Score Submit Think Plan Data Write Feedback Re-write Admin Stuff Critique 2-3 weeks later Reviewed Feb (Jan) 2024 Summer/Fall 2023 Oct to Jan 2023/24 Jun 2024
- 14. Grant Preparation -Things to do Well in Advance • Give yourself plenty of time • Formulate your ideas and think • Testable hypothesis that advances a field • Present your ideas and aims to your colleagues • Do this more than once • Know the literature & be critical • Issues and controversies • What gaps will your work fill • Generate preliminary data • Support all hypotheses • Confirms feasibility • Publish • The importance of this cannot be stressed enough • Read successful applications! • Seek advice • Enlist collaborators, consultants • Special reagents, techniques, advice • Obtain letters • Take care of the administrative stuff • Budgets • Human subjects, animals, biohazards, etc.
- 15. R01 Grant Sections •Face Page • Table of Contents • Performance Site • Project Description: Abstract • Project Narrative: 2 sentences • References Cited • Facilities and Other Resources • Equipment • Key Personnel • Biosketches • Budget (all years) • Budget Justification • Introduction (resubmission only) • Specific Aims • Research Strategy • Significance • Innovation • Approach • Protection of Human Subjects • Women & Minorities • Planned Enrollment Table • Children • Vertebrate Animals • Select Agents • Multiple PI Plan • Letters of Support • Resource Sharing • Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources • PHS Assignment Form
- 16. R01 Grant SectionsYou Prepare or Obtain • Face Page • Table of Contents • Performance Site • Project Description: Abstract • Project Narrative: 2 sentences • References Cited • Facilities and Other Resources • Equipment • Key Personnel • Biosketches • Budget (all years) • Budget Justification • Introduction (resubmission only) • Specific Aims • Research Strategy • Significance • Innovation • Approach • Protection of Human Subjects • Women & Minorities • Planned Enrollment Table • Children • Vertebrate Animals • Select Agents • Multiple PI Plan • Letters of Support • Resource Sharing • Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources • PHS Assignment Form
- 17. R01 Grant SectionsThat are Easy • Face Page • Table of Contents • Performance Site • Project Description: Abstract • Project Narrative: 2 sentences • References Cited • Facilities and Other Resources • Equipment • Key Personnel • Biosketches • Budget (all years) • Budget Justification • Introduction (resubmission only) • Specific Aims • Research Strategy • Significance • Innovation • Approach • Protection of Human Subjects • Women & Minorities • Planned Enrollment Table • Children • Vertebrate Animals • Select Agents • Multiple PI Plan • Letters of Support • Resource Sharing • Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources • PHS Assignment Form
- 18. R01 Sections ThatDo Not Differ That Much Among Applications • Face Page • Table of Contents • Performance Site • Project Description: Abstract • Project Narrative: 2 sentences • References Cited • Facilities and Other Resources • Equipment • Key Personnel • Biosketches • Budget (all years) • Budget Justification • Introduction (resubmission only) • Specific Aims • Research Strategy • Significance • Innovation • Approach • Protection of Human Subjects • Women & Minorities • Planned Enrollment Table • Children • Vertebrate Animals • Select Agents • Multiple PI Plan • Letters of Support • Resource Sharing • Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources • PHS Assignment Form
- 19. R01 Grant SectionsThat Require the Most Effort • Face Page • Table of Contents • Performance Site • Project Description: Abstract • Project Narrative: 2 sentences • References Cited • Facilities and Other Resources • Equipment • Key Personnel • Biosketches • Budget (all years) • Budget Justification • Introduction (resubmission only) • Specific Aims • Research Strategy • Significance • Innovation • Approach • Protection of Human Subjects • Women & Minorities • Planned Enrollment Table • Children • Vertebrate Animals • Select Agents • Multiple PI Plan • Letters of Support • Resource Sharing • Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources • PHS Assignment Form
- 20. NIH Grant ReviewProcess How Your Application is Evaluated What Matters to the Reviewers Institute Assignment Study Section Assignment You ➜ ➜ ➜ CSR ➜ ➜ Reviewers ➜ Back to You OCGA ORA Grant Admin
- 21. National Institutes ofHealth
- 22. NIH Institutes andYear Established http://www.nih.gov/icd/ Office of the Director AIDS Research Women’s Health National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism 1970 National Inst of Arthritis, Musculo- skeletal & Skin Dis 1986 National Cancer Institute 1937 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases 1950 National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research 1948 National Institute on Drug Abuse 1974 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 1969 National Institute on Aging 1974 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 1962 National Institute on Deafness and Other Communi- cation Disorders 1988 National Eye Institute 1968 National Human Genome Research Institute 1989 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 1948 National Institute of Mental Health 1949 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke 1950 National Institute of General Medical Sciences 1962 National Institute of Nursing Research 1986 National Library of Medicine 1956 Center for Information Technology 1964 Center for Scientific Review 1946 National Center for Complementary & Integrative Health 1999 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases 1948 Fogarty International Center 1968 National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences 2011 Clinical Center 1953 National Institute of Biomedical Imaging & Bioengineering 2000 National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities 2010
- 23. Who’s Responsible forReview of Your Application? F Series CSR K Series Institutes RPGs (R01s, R21s) CSR Big Grants Centers, T32, Program Projects Institutes • All use the same mechanism and structure • Peer-review at a Study Section Training/Career Grants Institute Specific Councils $$
- 24. The Fate andEvaluation of Your Proposal Pretty dull and needlessly long video of this topic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuuAGROm_1Q&feature=relmfu Your can influence this process Institute Assignment Study Section Assignment You ➜ ➜ ➜ CSR ➜ ➜ Reviewers ➜ Back to You • Suggest Institute assignment • Suggest Study Section • Identify conflicts • Identify areas of needed expertise • Do not recommend specific reviewers PHS Assignment Form OCGA ORA Grant Admin
- 25. Who Do YouCall? • Institute based • Before submission • After initial (study section) review • Has influence on funding • Tracks progress Program Officer (PO) Scientific Review Officer (SRO) • CSR (mostly) or institute based • During initial review stage • Has no influence on funding PO SRO Submit to NIH Grant Preparation Resubmit to NIH 2nd Review Funded 1st Review PO
- 26. Study Sections • CSR:Center for Scientific Review • ~50,000 applications per year (77% of all applications) • Study Sections (>200) Organ or disease focused • ~24 members per study section essentially all from academia • 40-90 applications per Study Section meeting • 3 reviewers per applications • 10-12 applications per member (>240 pages) • Information at the CSR web site • Study section scope and policies • Roster of reviewers • Schedules • Study sections are advisory - they do not fund applications. • More videos: https://public.csr.nih.gov/NewsAndPolicy/PeerReviewVideos
- 27. Review Criteria andScoring
- 28. How Your Applicationis Scored and Ranked 1. Criterion Scores 2. Overall Impact Score – this is the one that matters Two Components
- 29. Scored Review Criteria IndividualTraining F-series Grants • Candidate • Career development plan Career goals and objectives Plan to provide mentoring • Research Plan • Mentor(s), consultants, collaborators • Environment & Institutional commitment Career Development K-series Grants Investigator Initiated R-series Grants • Significance* • Investigator* • Approach* • Innovation • Environment Focus on training potential Focus on the science and you *Most important • Candidate • Training Potential • Research Plan • Mentor(s), consultants, collaborators • Environment & Institutional commitment
- 30. Scored Review Criteria– R Proposals Overall Impact or Criterion Strength Score Descriptor High 1 Exceptional 2 Outstanding 3 Excellent Moderate 4 Very Good 5 Good 6 Satisfactory Low 7 Fair 8 Marginal 9 Poor • Criterion Score • Whole numbers: 1-9 • 1 (exceptional); 9 (um, well let’s just hope you never get a 9) • Significance • Investigator • Approach • Innovation • Environment
- 31. Scored Review Criteria– R Proposals Overall Impact Overall Impact or Criterion Strength Score Descriptor High 1 Exceptional 2 Outstanding 3 Excellent Moderate 4 Very Good 5 Good 6 Satisfactory Low 7 Fair 8 Marginal 9 Poor • Criterion Score • Whole numbers: 1-9 • 1 (exceptional); 9 (um, well let’s just hope you never get a 9) • Overall Impact Score • Not the mean of the criteria scores – but within their range • Different criteria are weighted by each reviewer • Significance • Investigator • Approach • Innovation • Environment
- 32. Scored Review Criteria– R Proposals Overall Impact Overall Impact or Criterion Strength Score Descriptor High 1 Exceptional 2 Outstanding 3 Excellent Moderate 4 Very Good 5 Good 6 Satisfactory Low 7 Fair 8 Marginal 9 Poor • Criterion Score • Whole numbers: 1-9 • 1 (exceptional); 9 (um, well let’s just hope you never get a 9) • Overall Impact Score • Not the mean of the criteria scores – but within their range • Different criteria are weighted by each reviewer • Significance • Investigator • Approach • Innovation • Environment 4 2 4 6 2 2-6
- 33. Scored Review Criteria– R Proposals Overall Impact Overall Impact or Criterion Strength Score Descriptor High 1 Exceptional 2 Outstanding 3 Excellent Moderate 4 Very Good 5 Good 6 Satisfactory Low 7 Fair 8 Marginal 9 Poor • Criterion Score • Whole numbers: 1-9 • 1 (exceptional); 9 (um, well let’s just hope you never get a 9) • Overall Impact Score • Not the mean of the criteria scores – but within their range • Different criteria are weighted by each reviewer • Final Impact Score, Percentile • Mean of all scores x 10 ➤ 10 – 90 • Percentiled against all applications across 3 meetings • Significance • Investigator • Approach • Innovation • Environment
- 34.
- 35. Review Process -Before the Meeting • Applications available about 6 weeks before meeting (all via web) • Scores and critiques are uploaded 1 week before study section • Each criterion is given a score: 1, 2, 3…9 (outstanding to really bad) • These are not discussed at the Study Section • But they are included in the Summary Statement you will get • Each reviewer gives each application an overall Impact Score (1-9) • Impact Score is not the mean of the criteria scores • Impact Score is key, and the only score discussed • Initial scores and critiques become available to all committee members • Based on the initial impact scores by the 3 reviewers, bottom 50% are not discussed
- 36. The Review Process- at the Meeting Good video of a mock Study Section https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBDxI6l4dOA • Review Grants - random order • Assigned reviewers state their initial impact scores: 1, 2, 3…9 • 1˚ reviewer, 2˚, 3˚, then open for discussion • Human subj, vertebrate animals, etc. • All members vote (score) • Budget, others • Final Impact Score = (Mean of all scores) x 10 • Expressed as a % of all scores over 3 meetings • 15-20 min per application • Begin at 8 am EST (i.e., 5 am PST) • Cramped room full of laptops and several jet-lagged reviewers
- 37.
- 38. Review Criteria –Useful Links https://grants.nih.gov/policy/peer/reviewer-guidelines.htm https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/parent_announcements.htm All Grants Rigor & Reproducibility https://grants.nih.gov/policy/reproducibility/index.htm https://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/guidelines_general/R eviewer_Guidance_on_Rigor_and_Transparency.pdf Documents and Instructions for Reviewers
- 39. Current Forms, PA,Review Criteria, etc. – A Useful Site https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/parent_announcements.htm All Grants: Read these sections R01
- 40. R01 Grant Sections •Face Page • Table of Contents • Performance Site • Project Description: Abstract • Project Narrative: 2 sentences • References Cited • Facilities and Other Resources • Equipment • Key Personnel • Biosketches • Budget (all years) • Budget Justification • Introduction (resubmission only) • Specific Aims • Research Strategy • Significance • Innovation • Approach • Protection of Human Subjects • Women & Minorities • Planned Enrollment Table • Children • Vertebrate Animals • Select Agents • Multiple PI Plan • Letters of Support • Resource Sharing • Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources • PHS Assignment Form
- 41. R01 Grant SectionsReviewers Care About • Face Page • Table of Contents • Performance Site • Project Description: Abstract • Project Narrative: 2 sentences • References Cited • Facilities and Other Resources • Equipment • Key Personnel • Biosketches • Budget (all years) • Budget Justification • Introduction (resubmission only) • Specific Aims • Research Strategy • Significance • Innovation • Approach • Protection of Human Subjects • Women & Minorities • Planned Enrollment Table • Children • Vertebrate Animals • Select Agents • Multiple PI Plan • Letters of Support • Resource Sharing • Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources • PHS Assignment Form
- 42. R01 Grant SectionsReviewers Really Care About • Face Page • Table of Contents • Performance Site • Project Description: Abstract • Project Narrative: 2 sentences • References Cited • Facilities and Other Resources • Equipment • Key Personnel • Biosketches • Budget (all years) • Budget Justification • Introduction (resubmission only) • Specific Aims • Research Strategy • Significance • Innovation • Approach • Protection of Human Subjects • Women & Minorities • Planned Enrollment Table • Children • Vertebrate Animals • Select Agents • Multiple PI Plan • Letters of Support • Resource Sharing • Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources • PHS Assignment Form
- 43. Review Criteria -Investigator • Early Stage Investigators (ESI) • More emphasis on experience and training • Publications are important but not critically so • ESIs get a bit of break with productivity – but just a bit • Quality and relevance of publications are important criteria • Reality: Numbers and quality do matter. Your competition may have more. • Pay line handicap varies by institute https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-17-101.html https://grants.nih.gov/policy/early-investigators/index.htm
- 44. ESI Success Rates– a Bit Lower? New Established No difference by gender
- 45. ESI Success Rates– or the Same? New Established NIH Data Book
- 46. Review Criteria -Investigator • Not a review criterion • Does not affect scoring • Cannot even be discussed NIH/CSR Rules Independence Reality • However, it is in the reviewer’s mind • If you remain associated with your mentor, include a letter from him/her confirming your independence • My Advice: Do not include your mentor as key personnel • Do not say your lab space is in their lab space • Get a letter from your chair indicating commitment to you
- 47.
- 48. Formatting • For allsections you prepare • MS Word.docx • 0.5-in margins • 11 pt Arial • No header or footer • Submit to grant admin as PDFs Guide: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide.html#format Fonts: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide/format-and-write/format-attachments.htm Page Limits: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide/format-and-write/page-limits.htm • Facilities and Other Resources • Budget Justification • Introduction (resubmission only) • Specific Aims • Research Strategy • Human Subjects pages • Vertebrate Animals • References Cited • Multiple PI Plan • Resource Sharing • Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources
- 49. Presentation and Style •Zero tolerance for tpyos • Avoid excessive use of abbreviations • Avoid vague terms: e.g., ‘affects’, ‘influences’ • Avoid pleonasms: “…has been shown to…” • Clean, concise English • Active voice is better than the passive voice • Simple, clear language
- 50. Presentation and Style •Paragraphs and spaces • Don’t make it look dense or cluttered • Zero tolerance for tpyos • Avoid excessive use of abbreviations • Avoid vague terms: e.g., ‘affects’, ‘influences’ • Avoid pleonasms: “…has been shown to…” • Clean, concise English • Active voice is better than the passive voice
- 51. Which Would YouRather Read?
- 52. Presentation and Style •Paragraphs and spaces • Don’t make it look dense or cluttered • Flow • Logical transitions from sentence to sentence, paragraph to paragraph • Do the work for your reader • Use some system (bold, numbers) to outline sections and subsections •Again, read successful applications • Zero tolerance for tpyos • Avoid excessive use of abbreviations • Avoid vague terms: e.g., ‘affects’, ‘influences’ • Avoid pleonasms: “…has been shown to…” • Clean, concise English • Active voice is better than the passive voice
- 53.