How to Ask Someone You Dont Know for Their Nih Application

The following guidance may help you in developing a potent application that allows reviewers to meliorate evaluate the scientific discipline and merit of your proposal. This page provides tips fordemonstrating to reviewers and NIH staff the loftier quality of the personnel involved in y'all project and documenting resources and institutional support of the project. We provide information for new investigators and strange applicants, besides.

Though the advice provided is relevant for all inquiry grants, it is general in nature and geared toward the NIH Enquiry Project (R01). The tips should non replace your organization's internal guidance, specific communication provided by NIH program or grants management staff, or instructions institute in the funding opportunity announcement or awarding guide.

• Where to Notice Instructions for Writing Your Application
• What Peer Reviewers Look For
• Research Resources, Institutional Support and Available Expertise  
• Embrace Letter & Assignment Request Grade
• Are Yous a New or Early Stage Investigator
• Foreign Involvement: Institution and/or Investigator
• Develop Your Budget
• Your Research Program
• Additional Elements Required in a Grant Application
• Important Writing Tips
• Beginning Level of Review - Scientific Review Groups

What to Know Before You Start Writing

Where to Find Instructions for Writing Your Awarding

Awarding forms are posted with each funding opportunity announcement.  Form-by-form, field-by-field instructions for completing your application may be constitute on the How to Apply - Application Guide page nether the bluish header for Form Instructions. Employ these instructions in conjunction with the guidance in the funding opportunity announcement (including the Related Notices section of the announcement) to develop your application. If instructions in the application guide and funding opportunity conflict,  the opportunity wins. If instructions in either the application guide or opportunity conflict with an NIH Guide notice (including a Detect of Special Involvement), the notice wins.

The How to Use - Application Guide page includes other valuable data including how to Format Attachments (fonts, margins, etc.).

What Peer Reviewers Look For

Careful preparation and an agreement of how your application will be reviewed can help you build a solid application. During NIH's peer review process, we convene a panel of non-Federal scientists to review your application. Although a number of factors contribute to whether your awarding will exist funded, nosotros place peachy emphasis on the review of scientific merit. The following sections describe the criteria reviewers utilize to evaluate applications. Read them advisedly for helpful hints on the information and content y'all should include in the application to garner a favorable evaluation.

Overall Impact

Reviewers volition provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria, and additional review criteria (as applicable for the projection proposed).

Scored Review Criteria

Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria beneath in the conclusion of scientific and technical merit, and give a carve up score for each. An application does not demand to exist strong in all categories to be judged probable to have major scientific impact. For instance, a project that past its nature is not innovative may be essential to accelerate a field.

Significance. Does the project address an important problem or a critical bulwark to progress in the field? Is in that location a potent scientific premise for the projection? If the aims of the project are achieved, how volition scientific noesis, technical capability, and/or clinical exercise be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?

Investigator(s). Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, or in the early on stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, take they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the projection is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, exercise the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational construction advisable for the project?

Innovation. Does the application challenge and seek to shift current enquiry or clinical practice paradigms past utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to i field of research or novel in a wide sense? Is a refinement, comeback, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

Approach. Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and advisable to reach the specific aims of the project? Take the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased arroyo, equally advisable for the work proposed? Are potential problems, culling strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and volition particularly risky aspects be managed? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects? If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for one) protection of human subjects from research risks, and two) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and inquiry strategy proposed?

Environment. Will the scientific environment in which the piece of work volition be washed contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources bachelor to the investigators acceptable for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?

Notation that an application does not need to be potent in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific bear on. For case, a project that past its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.

Acquire more most how applications are scored.

Additional Review Criteria

Equally applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the post-obit additional items while determining scientific and technical merit and in providing an overall bear on score, just volition not give dissever scores for these items.

• Protections for Human Subjects
• Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children
• Vertebrate Animals
• Biohazards
• Resubmission
• Renewal
• Revision

Be certain to address any of these boosted review criteria that apply to your application, as reviewers will consider them when assigning overall impact/priority scores.

		Note: These are general review criteria for evaluating unsolicited enquiry projection grant applications. NRSA fellowship award, career development award, and specific funding opportunity announcements (FOAs) may take different or boosted special review criteria. Applicants should await in the funding opportunity proclamation to which they are applying and familiarize themselves with the review criteria past which their application will be evaluated.

Boosted Review Considerations

As applicative for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, just will not give scores for these items and should not consider them in providing an overall affect score.

• Applications from Foreign Organizations
• Select Agent
• Resources Sharing Plans
• Authentication of Cardinal Biological and/or Chemical Resources
• Upkeep and Menstruation Support

Note: Certain funding opportunity announcements (FOAs) that are published in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts may list additional elements under each of the above criteria related to the specific requirement of the FOA.

Larn more than nearly how applications are reviewed and scored on our peer review process page.

Enquiry Resources, Institutional Support and Available Expertise

Sufficient data must be included to demonstrate to reviewers and NIH staff the high quality of the PD/PI, the co-investigators, available inquiry resources, and the applicant establishment and its support of the project.

Resource:

Applicants should clearly land that they have the advisable resource to conduct the enquiry, such as adequate equipment and laboratory space. When possible, include letters of delivery for these resources.

• Sympathize the level of resources needed to compete.
• Comport an organizational assessment.
• Make up one's mind what resource and back up your organization has and what boosted support you lot'll need.
• Consider whether the available equipment and facilities are adequate and whether the environment is conducive to the research.

Independence and Institutional Support:
This is important for all investigators, just peculiarly for new and early on phase investigators or those who are early in their contained careers:

• Provide reviewers evidence that you have the advisable feel and training to lead and manage the research projection.
• Letters of reference and institutional commitment are important.
• Mention any start-upwardly funds, support for a technician, etc. This is a positive indicator of institutional delivery to the peer reviewers.

Collaborators and Consultants:

Decide the expertise needed for your enquiry report squad (individuals, collaborating organizations, resources, etc.). Most scientific work requires collaboration among researchers, and NIH is dedicated to fostering such relationships.

• Include letters of commitment in your awarding that clearly spell out the roles of the collaborators. The grant application should contain a signed letter of the alphabet from each collaborator to the applicant that lists the contribution he or she intends to make and his or her delivery to the piece of work. These letters are often the primary assurance the reviewers have that this work will in fact be done.
• For consultants, letters should include rate/charge for consulting services.
• If you are planning to apply with multiple-master investigators, then take the following into consideration:
  • The format, peer review and assistants of applications submitted with multiple PIs do take some pregnant differences from the traditional single-PI application. Therefore, information technology is essential to consider all aspects of the funding mechanism earlier applying, regardless of the blazon of enquiry proposal to be submitted.
  • All applicants proposing team science efforts are strongly encouraged to contact their NIH plan officials at the earliest possible date to discuss the ceremoniousness submitting with multiple-PIs for the support of their research.
    

Comprehend Letter of the alphabet & PHS Assignment Request Form

Although optional in nigh cases, the Cover Letter of the alphabet attachment on the SF424 (R&R) form and the PHS Assignment Request Grade can be used to convey information to the Segmentation of Receipt and Referral (DRR) in the Center for Scientific Review.

• Apply the Cover Letter of the alphabet zipper to provide narrative information to DRR staff. The application form instructions on the How to Apply - Awarding Guide page include a listing of situations in which a encompass letter is required, including
  • Late applications
  • Required bureau approvals, if needed (e.g., blessing to submit application with upkeep period(southward) of $500k or more)
  • Explanation of subaward budgets non active in all budget periods
  • Intent to submit a video
  • Anticipation of big-calibration genomic data
  • Proposed apply of human fetal tissue from elective abortions
• Use the PHS Assignment Asking Form to suggest
  • Institute or Center assignment
  • Study department assignment
    • Review the rosters of the scientific review groups to suggest assignment to a study department with the appropriate expertise to review your projection
  • Reviewers that may accept a conflict of interest and why they should not be considered to review your application
• Only NIH staff with a need to know are provided admission to your assignment asking and cover letter. Reviewers to not access to them.

Are Y'all a New or Early Stage Investigator?

• Determine whether yous qualify as a new investigator based on the NIH definition of new investigator. NIH offers funding opportunities tailored to new investigators, such every bit the NIH Manager'southward New Innovator Award. More information on NIH programs designed for new investigators can be found on the New Investigators Program Web page.
• NIH staff is on the sentinel for new and early stage investigators. Cheque your eRA Commons account and ensure your funding history and the engagement of your residency or terminal degree are accurate to ensure that y'all are identified appropriately as a new or early phase investigator. The eRA system calculates eligibility based on the information associated with the bidder'south PD/PI profile and account.
  • It is to your advantage to identify yourself as a new investigator because reviewers are instructed to give special consideration to new investigators. Reviewers will give greater consideration to the proposed approach, rather than the track record.
  • First-time applicants may have less preliminary information and fewer publications than more seasoned investigators, and NIH reviewers empathise this. Reviewers instead place more than emphasis on how the investigator has demonstrated that he or she is truly independent of any former mentors, whether he or she has some of his or her ain resources and institutional support, and whether he or she is able to independently lead the enquiry.

Foreign Interest: Establishment and/or Investigator

• Foreign PD/PIs and those from foreign institutions should ensure their eligibility by checking the eligibility guidelines provided in every FOA.
• Foreign PD/PI'southward and those from foreign institutions are highly encouraged to contact a NIH plan officer equally shortly every bit possible in the planning and writing stages.
• Foreign applicants tin can learn more than at our Information for Strange Applicants and Grantees folio.

Develop Your Upkeep

This stride will be one of your nigh time-consuming in the writing process.

• Know what type of upkeep will be required to submit with your application (establish in your FOA).
• Sympathize the various components of the budget, working with your institution's central grants function and department ambassador.
• Contact NIH program officials regarding allowability and other budgetary questions.
• For more than information, come across Develop Your Budget.

Your Research Program

The research plan describes the proposed inquiry, stating its significance and how it volition exist conducted. Remember, your awarding has ii audiences: the majority of reviewers who volition probably not be familiar with your techniques or field and a smaller number who will be familiar.

• All reviewers are important to you because each reviewer gets one vote.
  • To succeed in peer review, yous must win over the assigned reviewers . They human action as your advocates in guiding the review console's discussion of your application.
  • Write and organize your application so the master reviewer tin can readily grasp and explain what you are proposing and advocate for your application.
  • Appeal to the reviewers and the funding ICs by using language that stresses the significance of your proposed work.

Additional Elements Required in a Grant Application

The following elements need to be included in the grant awarding as advisable. Unless stated, these elements exercise not influence the rating (priority score) of the application. Nevertheless, the reviewers are asked to comment on the adequacy of the information provided for each element. Any concerns the reviewers place may negatively affect and postpone the granting of an honour.

• Bibliography & References Cited
  Provide a bibliography of any references cited in the Enquiry Programme. Each reference must include the names of all authors (in the aforementioned sequence in which they announced in the publication; y'all can use "et al." convention in identify of listing all authors in a commendation), the article and journal title, book title, volume number, folio numbers, and twelvemonth of publication. Make sure that only bibliographic citations are included. Be especially careful to follow scholarly practices in providing citations for source materials relied upon when preparing any department of the awarding.
  
• Care and Use of Vertebrate Animals in Research
  If y'all are planning to use live vertebrate animals in the project, you lot must adhere to the requirements in the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Policy): HTML Version and PDF Version. For an overview of what is required in your application and detailed instructions, meet the Vertebrate Animals Section webpage. Additional information tin be found at:
  • Part of Laboratory Animal Welfare
  • PHS Policy Tutorial
  • What Investigators Need to Know About the Utilise of Animals (PDF)
  • Interactive training module: Vertebrate Animals Section (VAS) in Grant Applications
  • NIAID's tutorial: Requirement for Grantees Using Enquiry Animals
    
• Consortium/Contractual Arrangements
  Explain the programmatic, financial, and authoritative arrangements to be fabricated between the bidder arrangement and the consortium organization(s).
  
• Consultants and Collaborators
  Attach appropriate letters from all consultants and collaborators confirming their roles in the projection. For consultants, letters should include rate/charge for consulting services.
  
• Facilities & Other Resources
  This information is used to assess the capability of the organizational resources available to perform the try proposed. Place the facilities to be used (Laboratory, Animal, Estimator, Office, Clinical and Other). If appropriate, indicate their capacities, pertinent capabilities, relative proximity and extent of availability to the project. Describe only those resources that are directly applicable to the proposed work.
  
• Inclusion of Women, Minorities and Children in Research
  Peer reviewers will also assess the adequacy of plans to include subjects from both genders, all racial and ethnic groups (and subgroups), and children, equally appropriate, for the scientific goals of the research will exist assessed. Plans for the recruitment and retention of subjects will also exist evaluated.  Check out the NIH inclusion of women and minorities policy website which has resource such equally a decision tree to aid you decide which of your studies are subject field to NIH'southward inclusion policy.
  
• Multiple PD/PI
  For applications designating multiple PDs/PIs, you lot must include a leadership plan.

• Page Limits
  Follow the page limits specified for the attachments in your grant application, unless otherwise specified in the funding opportunity announcement (FOA).

• Protection of Human Subjects from Research Risk
  Applicants must assure NIH that all human being subjects are protected. Reviewers will assess the potential gamble to man subjects in proposed research and evaluate what protections are in place to guard against any inquiry-related risk. Awards cannot be made until assurances are on file with the Office for Human being Research Protections (OHRP). Decision charts are presented that are helpful in thinking through relevant human subject protections bug (see http://world wide web.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/checklists/decisioncharts.html).
  
• Resource Sharing Plan(southward)
  This section includes Data Sharing Plan, when applicative, and Sharing Model Organisms. For more information on data sharing, delight run into the NIH website at /grants/ policy/data_sharing/.
  
• Select Agents
  Identify whatever select agents to be used in the proposed research. Select agents are hazardous biological agents and toxins that HHS or USDA accept identified as having the potential to pose a severe threat to public health and safety, to animal and found health, or to animal and constitute products. CDC maintains a listing of HHS and USDA Select Agents and Toxins.
  
• Utilize of Internet Sites
  NIH instituted a policy that prohibits the use of Earth Wide Web addresses (URLs) in grant applications in the place of text describing the same material. This is because of the potential for providing a large amount of actress textile from a Web site beyond what would fit in the folio limit, and thereby giving an unfair advantage to some applicants and a large additional burden for reviewers.

Important Writing Tips

Yous've planned, you've researched, you empathise the application…now it's time to write.  A well-written, well formatted awarding is an important key to success.  Think the details when formatting attachments!

TIP #1:  Make Your Project'southward Goals Realistic Don't suggest more work than can be reasonably done during the proposed project period.

• Before you lot start writing the application, recollect well-nigh the budget and how it is related to your enquiry program. Remember that everything in the budget must be justified by the work you've proposed to do.

• Be realistic. Don't advise more work than can exist reasonably washed during the proposed project period. Make sure that the personnel have advisable scientific expertise and training. Brand certain that the budget is reasonable and well-justified.
  

TIP #two:  Be Organized and Logical Why? Reviewers are accustomed to finding data in specific sections of the application.  This creates an efficient evaluation procedure and saves reviewers from hunting for required information.

Start with an outline, following the suggested organisation of the awarding. The thought process of the application should be easy to follow.

Annotation:  Upon submission, NIH Systems will automatically add:  headers, footers (time stamping, tracking number, FOA number, and page numbers). Therefore, do not include headers or footers.

• Write clear headings.
• Apply sub-headings, curt paragraphs, and other techniques to make the application as like shooting fish in a barrel to navigate as possible. Be specific and informative, and avoid redundancies.
• Bookmark major sections.
• Use diagrams, figures and tables, and include appropriate legends, to help the reviewers to understand complex data. These should complement the text and exist accordingly inserted. Make sure the figures and labels are readable in the size they will appear in the awarding.
• Use bullets and numbered lists for constructive arrangement. Indents and assuming print add readability. Bolding highlights key concepts and allows reviewers to browse the pages and retrieve information quickly.
• Utilize white space effectively.

TIP #three:  Write in Articulate Concise Language Why? A reviewer must oft read 10-xv applications in great item and so your application has a ameliorate take chances of being successful if it is piece of cake-to-read and well-written.

• Write a clear topic sentence for each paragraph with one main signal or idea.  This is primal for readability.
• Make your points as direct equally possible. Avoid jargon or excessive language.
• Write uncomplicated and articulate sentences, keeping to almost 20 words or less in each.
• Be consistent with terms, references and writing style.
• Use the active, rather than passive, vocalisation. For example, write "We will develop an experiment, "not "An experiment will be developed."
• Spell out all acronyms on showtime reference.
• If writing is not your forte, seek help!

TIP #four:  Sell Your Idea on Paper Capture the reviewers' attention past making the instance for why NIH should fund your inquiry!

• Include enough background information to enable an intelligent reader to empathise your proposed work.
• Support your thought with collaborators who take expertise that benefits the project.

TIP #v: Edit Yourself, but also Enlist Assist Y'all've most probable been looking at the same words, sentences and paragraphs repeatedly!  Let someone with fresh eyes to read your content, check your punctuation, and give you feedback on whether the content flows.

• Have zero tolerance for typographical errors, misspellings, grammatical mistakes or sloppy formatting. A sloppy or disorganized awarding may lead the reviewers to conclude that your research may be conducted in the same mode.
• Remember the Details!   There are format requirements, such as font size, margins, and spacing.  Make sure you are familiar with them before submitting your awarding and label sections as directed.  Y'all don't want your application delayed considering any of these details are not incorporated.
• If more than one investigator is contributing to the writing, it would exist helpful to take one editor non only review for punctuation errors, just ensure that the awarding has a consistent writing mode.

TIP # 6:  Share for Comments You've most likely been looking at the same words over and over!  Allow someone with fresh eyes read your content, check your punctuation, and give you feedback on whether the content flows.

• Asking your colleagues or mentors review a first draft of your specific aims early in the process. This pace can save lots of valuable time.
• Allow time for an internal review by collaborators, colleagues, mentors and make revisions/edits from that review. If possible, accept both experts in your field and those who are less familiar with your science provide feedback.
• Ask those who are providing a review to utilise a disquisitional eye and evaluate the awarding using the peer review criteria
• Let sufficient time to put the completed application aside, and then read information technology from a fresh vantage point yourself. Also, try proofreading past reading the application aloud.
• Conduct your own review based on the NIH's v peer review criteria.  How would you rate your ain application?
• Prior to submission, look over the entire grant application one last fourth dimension. Recollect, you lot want a disarming proposal that is also formatted co-ordinate to the application guidelines, punctuation error-free, clear to read, and is to the bespeak!

barnhartdide1956.blogspot.com

Source: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide/format-and-write/write-your-application.htm

Share this post