1 / 9

Responding to NIH Grant Reviews

Responding to NIH Grant Reviews. Christopher J. Hernandez, Ph.D. Associate Professor Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department of Biomedical Engineering Cornell University Adjunct Assistant Scientist, Hospital for Special Surgery. hernandezresearch.com.

karis
Download Presentation

Responding to NIH Grant Reviews

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. Responding to NIH Grant Reviews Christopher J. Hernandez, Ph.D. Associate Professor Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department of Biomedical Engineering Cornell University Adjunct Assistant Scientist, Hospital for Special Surgery hernandezresearch.com Cornell –HSS Program in Biomechanics

  2. Hernandez Grant Writing Strategy • Get Grant If I don’t get grant: • Get Useful Criticisms • Fewer criticisms more likely to get grant • Make problems hard to find • Writing Clarity: Provide good conceptual model & overview, reviewers can’t confuse what you propose

  3. Grant Writing Style Mentors Ogden and Goldberg

  4. Think Like A Reviewer • Wants to Minimize Time Spent Reviewing • Professional Scientist • Does not know your work as well as you • Follows “Guidelines for Reviewers” • Will not mention all errors, only enough to justify score

  5. What to Do When you Get Summary Statement • Read • Wait until you are no longer angry • Highlight all Negative Criticisms • Order Criticisms by Importance • Identify Criticisms that Need More Data • Identify Criticisms that just need Rewording

  6. Critique 2: • Failure By Author • Fatal Flaw Elsewhere in Grant, no need to play close attention elsewhere • Is the grant in the right study section?

  7. Preparing Introduction • Quote Each Criticism • Respond with: • New Preliminary Data • Make Recommended Changes • Citations of Work by Others Supporting your Point • Do Not: • Say reviewer is wrong / didn’t read grant • Point out errors by reviewer • Make arguments without support from citations/prelim data

  8. Revision Scoring • NIH Study Sections Do Not Like to Give a Worse Score to a Responsive Resubmission • Does not mean your score will get good enough for funding • Common Reason For Small Score Improvement • Conceptual Model Limited • New Material is Flawed • Long-term Utility of Work is Limited

More Related