One. More. Time.
Sep. 7th, 2007 03:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rivkaMy grant resubmission is in.
Well, actually, it's just out of my hands and with the Contracts and Grants Manager. It hasn't been uploaded to grants.gov yet. That's why I'm still hanging around my desk even though I am too worn out to accomplish anything and would dearly like to go home.
The resubmission proposal goes back to the same study section, and if the same three reviewers are available they'll be asked to evaluate it again. I was required to write a one-page introduction addressing each and every criticism in the summary statement and justifying any changes I chose not to make. I also had to mark off all the new text in the proposal, so that it's easy to see what has been added. The full summary statement will be made available to my reviewers, so they'll know exactly what people thought was wrong with it the first time around. NIH really goes out of their way to make sure that no one can just resubmit the same proposal hoping to draw friendlier reviewers. They want you to learn from the review process.
I think the new version is a lot better. But honestly? I thought the first version was pretty good, so obviously I'm not much of a judge. I did bend over backward to incorporate all the reviewers' comments - the resubmission proposal has five entirely new sections that weren't there in the original, plus various changes to the existing sections. They'll know I took them seriously, at least.
I don't know if it says more about me or my reviewers that I wound up thinking that almost everything they said was a good idea. On the one hand, that might imply that I'm making very basic and elementary mistakes. On the other hand, it might just mean that I expressed myself clearly enough that I didn't get a lot of off-base criticisms based on misunderstandings. I do feel genuinely grateful for the critiques, which were long, detailed, and specific. I think they made the proposal better.
NIAID has a lovely online grantsmanship tutorial which I found very helpful as I prepared my resubmission. There's something almost soothing about someone coming right out and saying, "Your unfunded application's review yielded one of three potential results: (1) Fixable problems. (2) Fatally flawed. (3) Lack of reviewer enthusiasm (dull topic)," and then telling you how to figure out which one applies to your situation.
In fact, my summary statement seems to have been pretty much a textbook example of a "fixable problems" critique. Or so NIAID assures me:
Part of the reason I'm feeling the NIAID Tutorial Love right now is because they're willing to come right out and use phrases like "doomed idea." The scariest part of rewriting a grant that you thought was good the first time around? Is that you feel like you can't trust your judgment, and you can't tell whether other people are just being nice when they say that your grant doesn't suck like a black hole. So it's very helpful to be able to check over lists of fixable and unfixable problems that were made by people who don't care if they make you cry.
If the only problems with the application are the ones the reviewers noted in their initial critiques, I should be in great shape for the resubmission. Unfortunately, there's no way to be sure of that: "Once reviewers find a "fatal flaw," they may stop discussing the application because time is short. Once the reviewers stop discussing the application, their feedback ends, and you have no way of knowing what else they may have found had they continued." Or I might've introduced new problems with the resubmission; I got dinged the first time for not providing enough information about recruitment, and I may get dinged the second time because they don't like some of the things I put in about recruitment. There's no way to know.
Gosh, research is fun.
Well, actually, it's just out of my hands and with the Contracts and Grants Manager. It hasn't been uploaded to grants.gov yet. That's why I'm still hanging around my desk even though I am too worn out to accomplish anything and would dearly like to go home.
The resubmission proposal goes back to the same study section, and if the same three reviewers are available they'll be asked to evaluate it again. I was required to write a one-page introduction addressing each and every criticism in the summary statement and justifying any changes I chose not to make. I also had to mark off all the new text in the proposal, so that it's easy to see what has been added. The full summary statement will be made available to my reviewers, so they'll know exactly what people thought was wrong with it the first time around. NIH really goes out of their way to make sure that no one can just resubmit the same proposal hoping to draw friendlier reviewers. They want you to learn from the review process.
I think the new version is a lot better. But honestly? I thought the first version was pretty good, so obviously I'm not much of a judge. I did bend over backward to incorporate all the reviewers' comments - the resubmission proposal has five entirely new sections that weren't there in the original, plus various changes to the existing sections. They'll know I took them seriously, at least.
I don't know if it says more about me or my reviewers that I wound up thinking that almost everything they said was a good idea. On the one hand, that might imply that I'm making very basic and elementary mistakes. On the other hand, it might just mean that I expressed myself clearly enough that I didn't get a lot of off-base criticisms based on misunderstandings. I do feel genuinely grateful for the critiques, which were long, detailed, and specific. I think they made the proposal better.
NIAID has a lovely online grantsmanship tutorial which I found very helpful as I prepared my resubmission. There's something almost soothing about someone coming right out and saying, "Your unfunded application's review yielded one of three potential results: (1) Fixable problems. (2) Fatally flawed. (3) Lack of reviewer enthusiasm (dull topic)," and then telling you how to figure out which one applies to your situation.
In fact, my summary statement seems to have been pretty much a textbook example of a "fixable problems" critique. Or so NIAID assures me:
You should be concerned if reviewers had no major criticisms of your application, but it got an unfundable score. Often this means reviewers were not enthusiastic about your idea. They may not state this explicitly, mostly out of politeness. If you do get this feedback, revising won't help. You need to start over with a new idea. Don't shoot the messenger. It's better to find out at this stage than to keep trying with a doomed idea.
Surprisingly, it may be a good sign if reviewers pointed to lots of fixable problems. It often shows they are interested in the idea and are indicating it's worth revising.
Part of the reason I'm feeling the NIAID Tutorial Love right now is because they're willing to come right out and use phrases like "doomed idea." The scariest part of rewriting a grant that you thought was good the first time around? Is that you feel like you can't trust your judgment, and you can't tell whether other people are just being nice when they say that your grant doesn't suck like a black hole. So it's very helpful to be able to check over lists of fixable and unfixable problems that were made by people who don't care if they make you cry.
If the only problems with the application are the ones the reviewers noted in their initial critiques, I should be in great shape for the resubmission. Unfortunately, there's no way to be sure of that: "Once reviewers find a "fatal flaw," they may stop discussing the application because time is short. Once the reviewers stop discussing the application, their feedback ends, and you have no way of knowing what else they may have found had they continued." Or I might've introduced new problems with the resubmission; I got dinged the first time for not providing enough information about recruitment, and I may get dinged the second time because they don't like some of the things I put in about recruitment. There's no way to know.
Gosh, research is fun.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-09-07 07:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-07 08:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-07 08:39 pm (UTC)-J
no subject
Date: 2007-09-07 08:45 pm (UTC)I hope the bullshit bits don't happen, the reviewers pay attention, and you end up with money.
And I hope you get to go home, take your shoes off, and have a glass of wine.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-07 08:51 pm (UTC)I hope you get friendly reviewers who have just had a good lunch and are amiably disposed to read your proposal.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-08 01:50 am (UTC)Related to grantsmanship or web design?
no subject
Date: 2007-09-08 01:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-07 09:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-07 09:58 pm (UTC)What's the timeline for the verdict?
no subject
Date: 2007-09-08 01:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-08 12:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-08 03:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-08 05:09 am (UTC)I don't know if it says more about me or my reviewers that I wound up thinking that almost everything they said was a good idea. On the one hand, that might imply that I'm making very basic and elementary mistakes. On the other hand, it might just mean that I expressed myself clearly enough that I didn't get a lot of off-base criticisms based on misunderstandings. I do feel genuinely grateful for the critiques, which were long, detailed, and specific. I think they made the proposal better.
I think if you were making sufficiently elementary mistakes, they wouldn't have had the energy or inclination to make good critiques... you'd probably have been a bit more blindsided by what they did say, as well.
May you have good luck, and not need it.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-08 06:29 am (UTC)