The document outlines a meeting focused on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) study sections and common mistakes in NIH grant applications. It includes presentations on understanding the NIH peer review process, strategies for grant renewal, and common application pitfalls. A panel discussion provides insights on reviewed applications and how to interpret feedback from reviewers.

1. Inside NIH
Study Sections
and Common
Mistakes on
NIH
Applications:
Advice from the
Battleground
September 1, 2021
1-2:30 p.m.

2. 3
Agenda
Welcome and Introduction of Agenda: April Armstrong
Part 1 (40 minutes)
“The Inside Scoop on NIH Study Sections” by Chanita
Hughes-Halbert
“How to think like a reviewer” by Arthur Toga
“Strategies for grant renewal” by Gage Crump
Part 2 (50 minutes)
Panel Discussion: Thomas Buchanan, Sarah Hamm-
Alvarez, Chanita Hughes-Halbert, Art Toga, Gage
Crump, and April Armstrong

3. Panelists

4. 5
•Please submit questions using the Q&A
feature anytime throughout the meeting
•Please do not use the chat feature
•This meeting will be recorded and posted
online

5. The Inside
Scoop on NIH
Study Sections
Chanita Hughes Halbert, PhD
Department of Population and Public
Health Sciences
Norris Comprehensive Cancer
Center
University of Southern California
hughesha@usc.edu

6. Grant Process Overview
• Center for Scientific Review: Receives
and reviews applications that are
submitted to NIH
• Reviewers: Responsible for evaluating
the scientific merit and impact of
applications using established criteria.
• Study Sections:
• Integrated Review Group – study
sections that are clustered together
around a common scientific area
• Study Section – Scientists who are
experts in the field, mature/objective,
and diverse
https://public.csr.nih.gov/

7. Key Principles of NIH Peer Review
• NIH provides oversight of the process
• Fair
• Objective
• Study sections evaluate scientific merit
• Scientists who are experts in the field,
mature/objective, and diverse

8. Key Players in Study Sections
• SRO – Scientific Review Officer
• PO – Program Official
• Study Section Chair
• Reviewers

9. • SRO introduction and orientation
• Study section introductions
• Triage (not discussed)
• Primary, secondary, and tertiary reviewers provide
scores and critiques (and discussants)
• Discussion/questions among study section
• Discussion is summarized
• Reviewers provide scores again based on
discussion
• Study section members asked if voting outside of
the range
• Priority score is provided to applicant
• Summary statement is provided to applicants
Inside the Study Section

10. Q&A Session with Dr.
Hughes-Halbert (2
minutes)
12

11. Arthur W. Toga
www.ini.usc.edu
CIA
Think Like a Reviewer

12.  RFP
 RFA
 PA
 RFI

13.  PO
 SRA
 CSR
 Know the panel !
 The wisdom of Willie Sutton (circa 1933)

14.  Structured
 Clear
 Comprehensive
 Brevity
 What (aims), why (significance), when (timeline), how
(innovation and approach), who (investigators)
 Other Stuff
 What if X goes wrong?
 Validation
 Block the Critique

15.  Graphics not Groans
 Bullets, Bold and Beautiful

16. 1. Triage and Nerf
2. Arguments and Rebuttals
3. Déjà vu all over again

17.  If she says ‘that is nice dear…’
 Pass the elevator test
 iCRAP

18. Q&A Session with Dr.
Toga (2 minutes)
20

19. Strategies for grant renewal
Gage Crump, PhD
Professor, Stem Cell Biology and
Regenerative Medicine, Integrative
Anatomical Sciences
Eli and Edythe Broad CIRM Center for
Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell
Research at USC
21

20. What Reviewers Look for in R01 Renewal
• Productivity
• ~1 last-author publication per year of grant (bioRxiv and
other pre-prints count toward total)
• Minimum 1-2 papers in higher impact journals
** if productivity lower, consider new R01 instead
• Significant New Direction
• Avoid appearance of incremental advance
• At least one aim significantly different than prior R01
• Bring in new co-I/collaborator
** renewal needs some connection to prior R01
** ok to change title of renewal R01, grant number stays
same

21. Unique Aspects of R01 Renewal
• Progress Report
• ~1 page summarizing progress on each aim of prior R01
• Part of Research Strategy (counts toward 12-page limit)
• Flexible where to insert (I typically place between
Background and Preliminary Studies)
• Progress Report Publications
• Reviewers receive Summary Statement of R01 being renewed
• Based on previous reviewer comments will get a sense of
your previous aims, but will not have access to previous
Specific Aims or Research Strategy sections
• Its Ok to have changed directions or not completed some
aims as long as you have published well

22. Why to Renew vs. Submitting New R01
• Leverage strong publications in previous period
• Build on previous grant with exciting new findings
• Sympathy scoring for legacy grants – i.e. reviewers
impressed with long-standing grants (I’ve seen some for
45th year but >~15 years may help)

23. Q&A Session with Dr.
Crump (2 minutes)
25

24. Panel Discussion and
Q&A Session (50
minutes)
Please use the Q&A box
to submit questions
anytime
26

25. What is your general
approach to reviewing grants
for study section?
• What do you look at most
closely?
• Are there sections you place
less emphasis?
• How might your approach
be different if you are
primary vs secondary
reviewer?
27

26. What is your general
approach to reviewing grants
for study section?
• What do you look at most
closely?
• Are there sections you
place less emphasis?
• How might your approach
be different if you are
primary vs secondary
reviewer?
28

27. What is your general
approach to reviewing grants
for study section?
• What do you look at most
closely?
• Are there sections you place
less emphasis?
• How might your approach
be different if you are
primary vs secondary
reviewer?
29

28. 30
2. Common Mistakes on NIH Research
Applications and How to Avoid them:
• Specific Aims
• Research Strategy
• Significance
• Innovation
• Approach
• Preliminary studies
• Overall strategy
• Methodology and analysis

29. 2. Common Mistakes on NIH Research
Applications and How to Avoid them:
• Specific Aims
• Research Strategy
• Significance
• Innovation
• Approach
• Preliminary studies
• Overall strategy
• Methodology and analysis

30. 2. Common Mistakes on NIH Research
Applications and How to Avoid them:
• Specific Aims
• Research Strategy
• Significance
• Innovation
• Approach
• Preliminary studies
• Overall strategy
• Methodology and analysis

31. 2. Common Mistakes on NIH Research
Applications and How to Avoid them:
• Specific Aims
• Research Strategy
• Significance
• Innovation
• Approach
• Preliminary studies
• Overall strategy
• Methodology and analysis

32. 2. Common Mistakes on NIH Research
Applications and How to Avoid them:
• Specific Aims
• Research Strategy
• Significance
• Innovation
• Approach
• Preliminary studies
• Overall strategy
• Methodology and analysis

33. 2. Common Mistakes on NIH Research
Applications and How to Avoid them:
• Specific Aims
• Research Strategy
• Significance
• Innovation
• Approach
• Preliminary studies
• Overall strategy
• Methodology and analysis

34. Summary Statement

35. 3. The Summary Statement: Now what?
a.What is the role of your program officer in
assistant with your interpretation or response to
a statement?
b.How do you read and interpret it – what matters
most? Least?
c. Whether and how do you construct a response
and revision?
d.What should you do about inaccuracies?

36. 3. The Summary Statement: Now what?
a. What is the role of your program officer in
assistant with your interpretation or response to a
statement?
b.How do you read and interpret it – what matters
most? Least?
c. Whether and how do you construct a response
and revision?
d.What should you do about inaccuracies?

37. Your feedback matters.
Please complete the post meeting survey.

38. Inside NIH
Study Sections
and Common
Mistakes on
NIH
Applications:
Advice from the
Battleground
September 1, 2021
1-2:30 p.m.