Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The cover letter • Will be read by CSR staff member • Provide essential information
o Title of grant o Requested study section (with brief
justification)
The cover letter • Optional information oResponse to specific RFA oRequested institute(s) oKnown conflicts of interest oReviewers to exclude
The institute • Choose correct institute
o Does it fund this type of research? o What is the funding level? o What is duration of funding? o What type of grants does it fund?
• Can sometime request dual assignment
• When in doubt, contact program officer
The study section • Review roster and topics
(http://public.csr.nih.gov/StudySections/Standing/Pages/ default.aspx)
• Find out where grants on similar topics are reviewed
• When in doubt, contact SRO or program officer
• Wrong panel may o Lack appropriate expertise o Misinterpret proposal o Lack interest in your topic
Special emphasis panels • Convened to review grants
o For specific RFAs o When there is conflict of interest with a member
of the regular study section
• Advantage—often higher funding rate • Disadvantage—membership varies
from meeting to meeting
Excluding reviewers • Must have direct conflict of interest
o Collaborator o Author on same paper o Written a letter of support
• Being a direct competitor does not constitute a COI
The Rebuttal Letter
The Grief Cycle Do NOT write rebuttal letter
Write rebuttal letter
The Process • Contact program officer
o Telephone better than email oDo not shoot the messenger
• Read summary statement closely o Especially the Resume and Summary of
Discussion
• Look for common themes
Common Fixable Problems • Poor writing • Insufficient information, experimental
details, or preliminary data • Significance not convincingly stated • Approach not shown to be feasible,
but applicant can demonstrate feasibility
• Insufficient discussion of potential problems and alternatives approaches
Not Fixable or More Difficult Problems
• Philosophical issues (reviewers believe work is not significant)
• Hypothesis not sound or not supported by data presented
• Work has already been done • Proposed methods not suitable for
testing the hypothesis • Poor investigator or environment
score
The Rebuttal Section • Length: 1 page • Briefly summarize major criticisms • Frame criticisms in a positive light
The reviewers felt that we were unqualified to do the proposed work.
vs. The reviewers felt that additional expertise in statistical analysis would strengthen the project.
The Rebuttal Section
• Some of the same reviewers will likely read the revised version
• Reviewers will comment on responsiveness to previous critiques
• Make suggested changes, if reasonable • If suggested change is unreasonable,
respectfully state why
The Rebuttal Section • Be polite!
“The reviewer is just plain wrong.” “We respectfully disagree.”
• Remember the viewpoint of the
reviewer
Grant not funded
Grant may be funded
The Rebuttal Section • Keep tone positive • Try to convey commitment
and excitement oAdditional data oNew publications
• Have someone else read it
Final Thoughts • Make sure it is the best possible
o Maximize prelim data/publications o Have others read it
• Only one resubmission allowed of current grant
• After 2nd rejection, can resubmit grant as a new proposal (no rebuttal section)