Fill and Sign the Wildlife Application Form

ENHANCING PEER REVIEW APPLICATION CHANGES: Reviewer Guidance Reading the Application Biographical Sketch Section • • • A Personal Statement should be included Applicants are encouraged to limit references to 15 Biographical Sketch page limit remains at 4 pages for most award mechanisms Resources Section • Instructions for the Facilities and Other Resources section better reflect the Environment criterion Research Plan Section Introduction • Most resubmission applicants will summarize their changes in the Introduction rather than marking up the text of their applications • Introduction to Resubmission or Revision applications page limit is 1 page (except T and R25 award mechanisms) Specific Aims • Specific Aims includes statement of overall impact • Specific Aims page limit is 1 page for all applications with this section Research Strategy • Includes 3 subsections: Significance, Innovation, and Approach • Preliminary Studies for New Applications or Progress Report for Renewal/Revision Applications can be a separate subsection within Research Strategy, or it can be included within the other 3 subsections • Research Strategy is generally 6 or 12 pages (see FOA for exceptions) Application Sections without Page Limits • • Reviewers need not consider any excess text that is inappropriately included in a section of the application that has no page limits (i.e. Protection of Human Subjects) Inclusion of excess text will be flagged in the Summary Statement Written Critiques and Scores Significance and Overall Impact • • • • Overall Impact is not a sixth review criterion, but a synthesis of all the (scored and not scored) review criteria In Overall Impact, reviewers should assess the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved The evaluation of Significance assumes that the “aims of the project are achieved” and/or will be “successfully completed” Significance of a project should be evaluated within the context of a (research) field, so reviewers should define the research field within the critique January 25, 2010 • Significance and Overall Impact Case Studies and FAQs are available on the NIH Web site Strengths and Weaknesses • • Reviewers should provide context for the strengths and weaknesses that influenced the overall impact/priority score Bulleted points should convey complete thoughts, identifying Specific Aim(s) being referenced, when applicable Advice to Applicants • • May be used for comments such as a recommendation to fundamentally revise before resubmission May be used to indicate that the applicant included excess text in one or more application sections that do not have page limits Scoring • • • • The written critique should support the scores Lack of personal statement in the Biographical Sketch may factor into the score for Investigator(s) Inclusion of excess text in a section that does not have page limits should not factor into the overall Impact/Priority score or criterion scores Assigned reviewers whose opinions changed as a result of discussion at the meeting should use IAR to modify their criterion scores and post revised critiques Summary Statements   Summary statements for ALL applications will include the criterion scores and critiques posted by assigned reviewers SROs will include an Administrative Note if reviewers noted the inclusion of excess text that would normally be placed in a page-limited section in one or more sections of the application that do not have specified page limits Policy and Review Changes Already in Place New Policy on Resubmissions: NIH will accept only a single amendment to all applications New Investigator (NI) and Early Stage Investigator (ESI) Policy: NIH will support NI R01 awards at success rates comparable to those for established investigators submitting new R01 applications Changes to Review: Enhanced Review Criteria, Templates for Structured Critiques, Scoring of Individual Review Criteria, New 1-9 Scoring Scale, Clustering of NI/ESI and Clinical Applications Background on Peer Review Enhancements Goals of Peer Review Enhancements   Recognize changing nature of research; identify and encourage new and early stage investigators; ease burden on research enterprise; and streamline time to award Fund the best science, by the best scientists, with the least amount of administrative burden Year-long Deliberative Effort Gathering Feedback & Input:  Request for Information, NIH Staff survey, IC White Papers, Internal Town Hall Meetings, External Consultation Meetings, Data Analysis, Internal and External Working Groups January 25, 2010