The Review Process: What do Reviewers Want?

1. The Review Process: What do Reviewers Want? Anita H. Corbett, PhD. Associate Professor of Biochemistry Chair, F05 Cell Biology Study Section

2. The Peer Review System • Proposal assigned to three Reviewers • Primary • Secondary • Discussant • Primary and Secondary read and provide detailed critiques • Proposal discussed at study section • Preliminary scores • Discussion • Revised scores

3. Scoring • Range from 1.0-5.0 • 1.0 is perfect (I’ve never seen it) • 5.0 is pretty dismal (I’ve seen it) • Typically scores range from1.2-4.0 • Funding level • Not determined and not discussed by Reviewers

4. Review Criteria • Candidate • Sponsor and Environment • Research Proposal • Training Potential

5. Review Criteria • Candidate • Sponsor and Environment • Research Proposal • Training Potential

6. Candidate • Record of Accomplishment • Publication record • Previous research • Letters of Recommendation • Previous funding or awards • Grades

7. Candidate • Publication Record is KEY! • Get your work published!!! • Must have at least one 1st author • Distinguish research articles and reviews or book chapter • A word on the ‘in preparation’ manuscript

8. Candidate • Letters are also VERY important • Cultivate relationships with scientists who can evaluate you as a scientist • A collaborator (from a different institute) is better than a committee member • If papers are ‘in preparation’ make sure that letter writers are aware and discuss their status- particularly PhD advisor • Provide referees with detailed CV and Specific Aims page/CV of sponsor

9. Review Criteria • Candidate • Sponsor and Environment • Research Proposal • Training Potential

10. Sponsor/Environment • Largely determined when you select your laboratory • PI record of accomplishment • Publication • Funding • Placement of previous trainees • Institute • Make sure you or your sponsor provide info about the Institute- Emory ranked #2 Academic Institute in USA for post-docs

11. Review Criteria • Candidate • Sponsor and Environment • Research Proposal • Training Potential

12. Research Plan • Ten page proposal • Specific Aims Page • Background and Significance • Preliminary Data • Experimental Design • Be clear and concise! • Sell your work- how will the information you will gain contribute to human health

13. Research Plan • Specific Aims Page • Provide context • State long-term goal • State Hypothesis • 2-3 Specific Aims • Sell your proposal

14. Research Plan • Background and Significance • Provide context • Big picture concepts • What are the key questions and how will you address them • NOT an exhaustive review of the field • Provide a platform for your Specific Aims

15. Research Plan • Preliminary Data • You don’t need much • You do need to demonstrate that the experiments can be done • Established expertise of the sponsor’s laboratory • Fine to use data from the lab but make it clear if the experiments are not yours

16. Research Plan • Experimental Design/Methods • Focus on Experimental Design • Restate Specific Aim • Rationale • Experimental Approach • Data Analysis • Possible Outcome/Potential Implications • Possible Pitfalls/Alternative Approaches • Methods at the end (if at all)

17. Review Criteria • Candidate • Sponsor and Environment • Research Proposal • Training Potential

18. Training Potential • Inherent in lab/project but can be tailored • Project/Laboratory/Institute • Training plan from sponsor matters!!! • Should be tailored to the individual and how the sponsor will help the individual reach their stated career goal • A generic training plan will NOT cut it • Timing of submission

19. A Final Word: Timing • When do I submit? • Sooner rather than later • Training potential starts to disappear the day you start in a lab • You don’t need Preliminary Data! • Reviewers notice if the application is written before or soon after starting • It might be worth waiting for papers to be in press