1 / 11

Resubmission Policy

Resubmission Policy. CSR Advisory Council. Della Hann, PhD Deputy Director, Office of Extramural Research National Institutes of Health. Rationale. For NIH Internal Use Only. Enhancing Peer Review initiative: NIH reduced the number of resubmissions from two to one

britanni-singleton
Download Presentation

Resubmission Policy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Resubmission Policy CSR Advisory Council Della Hann, PhD Deputy Director, Office of Extramural Research National Institutes of Health

  2. Rationale For NIH Internal Use Only Enhancing Peer Review initiative: NIH reduced the number of resubmissions from two to one Policy aimed to address trend in which successive resubmissions were scored more favorably, resulting in queuing of meritorious applications prior to being funded

  3. Monitoring 2010 Policy From November 2012 Rock Talk

  4. NIH Budget

  5. Comparison of Resubmission Policies Previous Policy (January 25, 2009 – April 16, 2014) Applications submitted are permitted only a single amendment (A1) Following an unsuccessful resubmission (A1), applicants may submit the same idea s a new (A0) application. New applications do not need to demonstrate substantial changes in scientific direction. New Policy (April 17, 2014 – Present) • Applications submitted were permitted only a single amendment (A1). • Following an unsuccessful resubmission (A1), applications could be resubmitted only after fundamental revision to qualify as new.  • New applications were expected to substantially differ in content and scope. For NIH Internal Use Only

  6. New Resubmission Policy: Details For NIH Internal Use Only • NIH will not assess similarity of science in new (A0) applications to previously reviewed submissions when accepting applications for review • The following associated policies will not change: • NIH will not accept a resubmission application submitted more than 37 months after submission of corresponding new (A0) application . • NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time, including: • a new (A0) application submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of an overlapping resubmission (A1) application.  • aresubmission (A1) application submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of the previous new (A0) application.  • an application that has substantial overlap with another application pending appeal of initial peer review.

  7. New Resubmission Policy: Public Reaction For NIH Internal Use Only

  8. New Resubmission Policy: Positive Comments “I am tremendously grateful to the NIH for listening to the feedback from all sides, and making what I think will be viewed as a welcome change to many bright, qualified young scientists who are having trouble competing with big, established labs for funding of their first grant.” “This is indeed great news. Thank you NIH for listening to our concerns. I am a relatively new investigator and given the time frame we have to set up the laboratory and generate sufficient data for R01, it’s almost impossible finding new research direction that would dazzle reviewers after unsuccessful submission. thank you so much again.” For NIH Internal Use Only • Most cited benefit: The new policy will help new investigators • Helps new investigators compete with established labs • Gives young investigators hope • Other benefits include: • Research/careers will not be as negatively impacted by a single reviewer • New policy offers encouragement to persevere (improved morale) • New policy addresses concern with prior policy which forced major changes in scientific direction

  9. New Resubmission Policy: Negative Comments “as a reviewer, this is not positive. the reality is that this will not increase your chances of getting funded, only more funding will do that. you may have more chances but so will everyone else. the probability of getting funded will stay the same. the only thing it will do is increase the workload on reviewers, which will decrease the quality of the reviews. it’s hard to see how there is anything positive to this.” “Study sections overwhelmed… There are going to be thousands of grants that were turned down over the past two years all resubmitted in the next round or two. There is no reason not to and it will be used to show administrators that one is still actively pursuing research“ For NIH Internal Use Only • Most cited concern: Increased reviewer workload/burden • Other concerns include: • Increase in queuing/time to award • Reduction in quality of applications • Increase in study section “shopping” with the same application • An increase in number of applications will hinder new investigators more than established labs resulting in a greater disparity between top awardees and new investigators

  10. Monitoring the Policy:Peer –Reviewed Applications 2004-2013

  11. Monitoring the Policy:Applications Reviewed per Applicant 1990-2013 For NIH Internal Use Only

More Related