![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Summary statement II.
I got the summary statement back for my grant re-submission. This time, in addition to two long reviewers' critiques, I got a "resume and summary of discussion" which addresses what was said about my project at the study section meeting.
Here's the money quote: "This is an innovative application junior investigator with a promising research track record. The applicant has been moderately responsive to the converns raised in the prior review of this application and the present study is much improved. [...] However, this continues to be an ambitious project and the committee was concerned about the feasibility of the project. This concern and other concerns reflected in the individual critiques served to limit the committee's enthusiasm for the proposed study."
So that's that.
Reviewer 2 liked me a lot more than Reviewer 1 did. Here's my favorite part of Critique 2: "The investigator appears well-qualified to conduct this project; the size and scope of the proposed study is commensurate with her experience to date. She has developed a very solid early career publication record and is very definitely a rising investigator. This study would represent an important next step for her career development." And Reviewer 2's overall evaluation: "This is a very strong exploratory/developmental project proposed by a junior investigator with a strong research track record. Some concerns are raised about feasibility and practical implications, but these do not detract substantively from what is viewed as a very strong re-submission."
Reviewer 2's biggest concern: "It would be unfortunate if a project of this import collapsed due to it not being truly feasible."
Reviewer 1 wants even yet still more theoretical conceptualization and integration. He or she also has some problems with my data analysis plan and suggests that I consult with a statistician. Reviewer 1 does say: "This research is highly significant and has clear public health relevance." So that's nice. Reviewer 1's overall evaluation: "This is an application for an interesting and potentially important study [...] Lack of a clear specification of core schemas hypothesized to exist in the study population and an explication of how those core schemas influence irrational beliefs contribute to difficulties in evaluating the likely outcome of the study."
I'm pretty much positive that I won't be funded this go-round. And it's going to take some serious thought, and a consultation with the Program Officer, to figure out what I should do with the next resubmission. Addressing "concerns about feasibility" usually means making the study smaller and less ambitious, but that is likely to compromise the scientific quality. (For example, enrolling fewer subjects results in less statistical power to detect effects.) It's going to be touchy.
Here's the money quote: "This is an innovative application junior investigator with a promising research track record. The applicant has been moderately responsive to the converns raised in the prior review of this application and the present study is much improved. [...] However, this continues to be an ambitious project and the committee was concerned about the feasibility of the project. This concern and other concerns reflected in the individual critiques served to limit the committee's enthusiasm for the proposed study."
So that's that.
Reviewer 2 liked me a lot more than Reviewer 1 did. Here's my favorite part of Critique 2: "The investigator appears well-qualified to conduct this project; the size and scope of the proposed study is commensurate with her experience to date. She has developed a very solid early career publication record and is very definitely a rising investigator. This study would represent an important next step for her career development." And Reviewer 2's overall evaluation: "This is a very strong exploratory/developmental project proposed by a junior investigator with a strong research track record. Some concerns are raised about feasibility and practical implications, but these do not detract substantively from what is viewed as a very strong re-submission."
Reviewer 2's biggest concern: "It would be unfortunate if a project of this import collapsed due to it not being truly feasible."
Reviewer 1 wants even yet still more theoretical conceptualization and integration. He or she also has some problems with my data analysis plan and suggests that I consult with a statistician. Reviewer 1 does say: "This research is highly significant and has clear public health relevance." So that's nice. Reviewer 1's overall evaluation: "This is an application for an interesting and potentially important study [...] Lack of a clear specification of core schemas hypothesized to exist in the study population and an explication of how those core schemas influence irrational beliefs contribute to difficulties in evaluating the likely outcome of the study."
I'm pretty much positive that I won't be funded this go-round. And it's going to take some serious thought, and a consultation with the Program Officer, to figure out what I should do with the next resubmission. Addressing "concerns about feasibility" usually means making the study smaller and less ambitious, but that is likely to compromise the scientific quality. (For example, enrolling fewer subjects results in less statistical power to detect effects.) It's going to be touchy.
no subject
What I've learned over the years is that the best way to avoid the kinds of errors that mask other errors is to show successive drafts of your grant proposal to everybody and their brother. Scholars in your field, scholars not in your field, your dog, your mom...stop at nothing. And beg them to be BRUTAL, or at least to point out anything they have even the slightest concerns about. I'm utterly convinced that this is the only way my last grant application got funded on the first try. I no longer have any shame about this!
I'm amused that you think my career has been "so successful." I'd personally rate myself as a decent, but unspectacular academic. What I truly excel at, though, is balancing work with...well, life. And I'd much rather be successful in that way than in the conventional one. :-)
-J