Argh.

[rivka]

On May 16th, I got an e-mail from NIH telling me that my grant application had been assigned to a study section, and that if I went to the NIH eRA Commons website I would be able to log in and see the details.

Two institutes at NIH were involved in the specific request for proposals I responded to: the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Nursing Research. When I logged onto eRA Commons, I discovered that my grant had been assigned to the NINR, which probably made the most sense. I downloaded the list of study section members (volunteer scientists who review proposals made to NIH). I looked the various members up to try to figure out who would be asked to review my proposal, and what the section members were likely to think of psychological research. (This is an utterly pointless exercise, because there's nothing you can do with the information. But all the researchers I know do it anyway.)

I also noticed with nervous excitement that the study section was scheduled to meet on June 14th. I marked it on our office calendar. And I waited for the 14th with slightly nauseated anticipation.

See, a couple of days after my study section meets, my priority score will be made available to me on the eRA Commons website. Actual funding decisions won't be made until the fall, but once I know my priority score I'll have a sense of whether funding is likely, possible, or out of the question.

It's a big deal.

I logged on today to see if maybe, perhaps, just by chance, they already had the priority scores up. And I saw: Review date 7/12/07. Because they moved me to a different study section. An HIV-specific one: "Behavioral and Social Consequences of HIV/AIDS." Which makes perfect sense, and everything, it's just that I had no idea that I'd been moved... and now I have to wait another month for my score.

Argh.

Comments

[janetmiles.livejournal.com]

Argh. Bureaucracy. I sheesh on your behalf.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Well heck. Would have been nice if someone had told you it was being reassigned.

[edschweppe.livejournal.com]

At least one can hope that the odds of getting a high priority are better when dealing with an HIV-specific study section.

And did you notice that the URL for the study section has an embedded "ARRGH"? (Well, it's an embedded "AARRIRG", but that's close enough for government work ... :-)

[papersky.livejournal.com]

This is so much better than what I thought you were going to say, which would have been that Mr, sorry, Dr I-Sold-Out-So-I-Totally-Deserve-Respect was on the evaluation panel.

Commiserations on the delay. But you won't really know anything until the autumn anyway.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

He doesn't have the expertise to review my grant, mercifully - that would never be allowed. (It's probably also considered a conflict of interest.)

Commiserations on the delay. But you won't really know anything until the autumn anyway.

Yes and no. If they love it or hate it, I will know right away from the priority score. I'll only be in limbo if they thought it was pretty good but not fantastic.

Also, a few weeks after I get the priority score, I will get "pink sheets" - full critiques from two or three reviewers. With that information, I can start preparing a *gasp, shudder* resubmission.

The worst possible outcome would be that it would be returned "unscored," meaning that all three of the initial reviewers agreed that it fell in the bottom half of the pile and there was no use presenting it to the others. No, wait, actually there's a lower level than that - being unscored and specifically requested not to revise and resubmit. That actually happens, too. NIH really knows how to be mean, when necessary.

[minnaleigh.livejournal.com]

Yuck! Having to wait a month longer than expected to hear anything really does suck.

[telerib.livejournal.com]

Blearg. How hard would it be for them to have an auto-email updater for that kind of thing? :p Having your expectations monkeyed with is tough.

Watched pots

[hazelchaz]

My sympathies for your frustration in waiting!