E**********y
发帖数: 991 | 1 写的我都要哭了，再加上巨难用的Word插图排版功能。 | z*******6
发帖数: 679 | | H*****e
发帖数: 120 | 3 It is a good sign to see that you feel it is hard.
I see people having no problem. But, in the end, I had problem to read it.
Put you at the reviewer's position. Can you bvelieve that I finished
reviewing 3 during the weekend? Just read the whole package took 4 hours
and sometime I even did not get what is the whole story. The worst is that
I have to get into the details for writing the comments. So it tunrs out
that I have to rondomly pick up flaw to attack them.
So my tip to you and others is "to write for reviewers". This is the lesson
that I learnt from the grant writing training a few years ago at HMS.
Helping reviewer is helping yourself. So find the way to make their life
easy. The proposal does not need to be complicated but in plain language.
If you have problem go through it, do not believe that reviewer is smarter
than you.
Do not lose the figure resolution when you change its size. There is one
grant shrinking figure to very tiny for saving space. I understand it
because I do the same thing. I have to use computer to enlarge it and then
foud that the figure label is not readable. This is a reason that some
proposal did not get bad comments but very bad score. Because it is hard to
say it out, I choose to give them lower score within the range.
Good luck! | l***s
发帖数: 841 | 4 Heard the rumor that 3/4 of all proposals are unscored these days. Is it
true?
.
that
lesson
【在 H*****e 的大作中提到】
: It is a good sign to see that you feel it is hard.
: I see people having no problem. But, in the end, I had problem to read it.
: Put you at the reviewer's position. Can you bvelieve that I finished
: reviewing 3 during the weekend? Just read the whole package took 4 hours
: and sometime I even did not get what is the whole story. The worst is that
: I have to get into the details for writing the comments. So it tunrs out
: that I have to rondomly pick up flaw to attack them.
: So my tip to you and others is "to write for reviewers". This is the lesson
: that I learnt from the grant writing training a few years ago at HMS.
: Helping reviewer is helping yourself. So find the way to make their life
| H*****e
发帖数: 120 | 5 3/4 is a rumor! 1/3 are discussed for sure and are scored. This is the
released data. But the challenge is only a few in top 1/3 can get funded.
Because of the current score system, similar grant can get different score
depending on 1 or 2 member. Even the difference is small, one may get fund
and the other may not. In my experience,for the ones that can get for sur,
they are very good grant, at least on paper.
【在 l***s 的大作中提到】
: Heard the rumor that 3/4 of all proposals are unscored these days. Is it
: true?
:
: .
: that
: lesson
| Z**S
发帖数: 1211 | 6 Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts!
fund
,
【在 H*****e 的大作中提到】
: 3/4 is a rumor! 1/3 are discussed for sure and are scored. This is the
: released data. But the challenge is only a few in top 1/3 can get funded.
: Because of the current score system, similar grant can get different score
: depending on 1 or 2 member. Even the difference is small, one may get fund
: and the other may not. In my experience,for the ones that can get for sur,
: they are very good grant, at least on paper.
| E**********y
发帖数: 991 | 7 Thanks for your comments! They are very helpful.
Another question I have is regarding the INNOVATION section. This is a new
section, yet I don't know how much I should discuss, sometimes I feel
certain points in this section are overlapping with those in the
SIGNIFICANCE section. What's your rule of thumb regarding the length and
contents of the INNOVATION section?
Thanks!
.
that
lesson
【在 H*****e 的大作中提到】
: It is a good sign to see that you feel it is hard.
: I see people having no problem. But, in the end, I had problem to read it.
: Put you at the reviewer's position. Can you bvelieve that I finished
: reviewing 3 during the weekend? Just read the whole package took 4 hours
: and sometime I even did not get what is the whole story. The worst is that
: I have to get into the details for writing the comments. So it tunrs out
: that I have to rondomly pick up flaw to attack them.
: So my tip to you and others is "to write for reviewers". This is the lesson
: that I learnt from the grant writing training a few years ago at HMS.
: Helping reviewer is helping yourself. So find the way to make their life
| H*****e
发帖数: 120 | 8 This is the hard part that I have all the time.
However, I often found that this is my English language problem. So I wrote
almost the same thing unless I have clear cut about innovation. Then
change them again and agin, then ask colleague's help. They often can find
different description for the same thing that I stated.
I do not really know what is a good Significance and Innivation sections.
But I do see a lot of bad ones and my suggestion is Do not fool study
section because there are 30-40 members there and some one may find a flaw (
So we often say that today's review and funding situation make review
process a problem identification rather then to identify the real good
research. So only the one who had least problem can get high score.)
Significance: You can say as much and big as you wish but stick on your own
ground. Do not over state its connection to medical need if there is no or
not so clear one. I read a few like this: our study is expected to reveal.
.., which is a key .. to understand ...cancer and develop therapeutical
apprach. My review comment had been "there is no strong evidence ..." Then I
score it between 3 to 4 on this section. Then every one will score in this
range, resulting a score of 30 on this section. What is the chance for
them to get funding with this score?!
Innovation: Basically, I want to see what is new (or novel) and what is
different or unique. I believe that, if you have novel or unqiue, this is
not a hard one to make up. In most cases of mine, everything are standard
or rational. Really, nothing new! But I have to say something. I choose
what is new in the outcome, which makes it like Significance (Here a
language help is very helpful). If you have new method, model, approach...,
say it is new but do not trash the old ones. I had experience doing that (
becaue it is true) but got score for 3-4 for my attitude. So my suggestion
is that, as long as you say something but not over state it for trouble,
reviewer will only need "bullet" or copy and paster it for saying how
inovative your proposal is. Then I may score you around 2. At least, it is
not a bad score.
Hope this is helpful. Every section is hard to write grant. I never find
it easy!
new
【在 E**********y 的大作中提到】
: Thanks for your comments! They are very helpful.
: Another question I have is regarding the INNOVATION section. This is a new
: section, yet I don't know how much I should discuss, sometimes I feel
: certain points in this section are overlapping with those in the
: SIGNIFICANCE section. What's your rule of thumb regarding the length and
: contents of the INNOVATION section?
: Thanks!
:
: .
: that
| l***s
发帖数: 841 | 9 挺有帮助的，多谢了。最近RESUBMIT了两个R01都没拿到分。第一轮还有分。看来写作
水平越来越退步了。。。第一个R01拿得很顺利。但现在越来越难，还不知道怎么办。
不停的递，不停的据，实在是太伤自信心。
wrote
find
(
【在 H*****e 的大作中提到】
: This is the hard part that I have all the time.
: However, I often found that this is my English language problem. So I wrote
: almost the same thing unless I have clear cut about innovation. Then
: change them again and agin, then ask colleague's help. They often can find
: different description for the same thing that I stated.
: I do not really know what is a good Significance and Innivation sections.
: But I do see a lot of bad ones and my suggestion is Do not fool study
: section because there are 30-40 members there and some one may find a flaw (
: So we often say that today's review and funding situation make review
: process a problem identification rather then to identify the real good
| H*****e
发帖数: 120 | 10 My current R01 end next year. For last 3 years, I am tyring to get another
R01 or R21. Socres were not bad; but never enough to get funded. Under
current situation, it is hard for everyone. My chairman always has 4 R01.
But this year, he is no longer so confident anymore because he had 2
applications without score. Another reason is that one cannot predict which
study section it will go under current system. I had a obesity proposal
went to the DNA variantion study section. No matter how I explain to
administrator, it still ended there. The major weakness that I see for
myself is on the PI section, my average is 2. But a few time I got 3-4,
which means I need other section to be 1 to average to 2. As we know, out
of 2, there is almost no chance. If there is a few proposals got 1 for PI,
how could I compete with them? So conncetion is more important now!
I guess that we cannot stop trying. This is part of life.
【在 l***s 的大作中提到】
: 挺有帮助的，多谢了。最近RESUBMIT了两个R01都没拿到分。第一轮还有分。看来写作
: 水平越来越退步了。。。第一个R01拿得很顺利。但现在越来越难，还不知道怎么办。
: 不停的递，不停的据，实在是太伤自信心。
:
: wrote
: find
: (
| | | A******y
发帖数: 2041 | 11 It is also depended on your study section. There are several study sections
start at 3! As for significant and innovation, if you find repeating items
, you have them confused. Personally I think, significance is linked to the
outcome of the grant, and innovation is mostly focus on the approach of the
grant. Significance and innovation should be no more than 1.5 pages.
wrote
find
(
【在 H*****e 的大作中提到】
: This is the hard part that I have all the time.
: However, I often found that this is my English language problem. So I wrote
: almost the same thing unless I have clear cut about innovation. Then
: change them again and agin, then ask colleague's help. They often can find
: different description for the same thing that I stated.
: I do not really know what is a good Significance and Innivation sections.
: But I do see a lot of bad ones and my suggestion is Do not fool study
: section because there are 30-40 members there and some one may find a flaw (
: So we often say that today's review and funding situation make review
: process a problem identification rather then to identify the real good
| l***s
发帖数: 841 | 12 Do you think joining a study section would help to make connections? I was
a mail-in reviewer for a few cycles, but never joined any study section
discussion. I understand that would take a lot of time, but it is probably
well worth the efforts. I have to have two concurrent R01 grants for my
tenure review. But these days, this goal is becoming more and more difficult
to reach.
another
which
【在 H*****e 的大作中提到】
: My current R01 end next year. For last 3 years, I am tyring to get another
: R01 or R21. Socres were not bad; but never enough to get funded. Under
: current situation, it is hard for everyone. My chairman always has 4 R01.
: But this year, he is no longer so confident anymore because he had 2
: applications without score. Another reason is that one cannot predict which
: study section it will go under current system. I had a obesity proposal
: went to the DNA variantion study section. No matter how I explain to
: administrator, it still ended there. The major weakness that I see for
: myself is on the PI section, my average is 2. But a few time I got 3-4,
: which means I need other section to be 1 to average to 2. As we know, out
| P*******e
发帖数: 27 | 13 Connection is indeed crucial. Recently I heard one grant was funded because
someone on the council meeting insisted it be awarded even though it didn't
make it in the study section. With NCI payline of 7% and NIAID 6% and
similar paylines at other institutes, i guess it really helps to have some
friendly reviewers.
another
which
【在 H*****e 的大作中提到】
: My current R01 end next year. For last 3 years, I am tyring to get another
: R01 or R21. Socres were not bad; but never enough to get funded. Under
: current situation, it is hard for everyone. My chairman always has 4 R01.
: But this year, he is no longer so confident anymore because he had 2
: applications without score. Another reason is that one cannot predict which
: study section it will go under current system. I had a obesity proposal
: went to the DNA variantion study section. No matter how I explain to
: administrator, it still ended there. The major weakness that I see for
: myself is on the PI section, my average is 2. But a few time I got 3-4,
: which means I need other section to be 1 to average to 2. As we know, out
| H*****e
发帖数: 120 | 14 I started as the backup for my chair when he was on other business. Then I
got an invitation from another section. I guess that after the first time,
I am in the database and they found me. It does take a lot of effort. 3
rounds a year plus reviewing papers. Taking days to read them. Half of my
effort are gone. But I did not feel it help my connection. As for grant
writing, I see more clear about how it is reviewed rather than make my own
guess.
For score starting from 3 mentioned in above, I am not sure how you get that
information. Under current system, three initial reviewers score you first
. Top 1/3 is discussed for sure and, if there is no major disagreement,
everyone score in the range of initial score. Middle 1/3 is discussed if
there is time (this is very political, depending how program direction want
to help you). Though, I like to start 2 and stay on 2 for best. When I
find hole, it goes to 3, not only one major holes goes to 4, boring one to 3
. I only gave a 1 recently. But I do not recall I gave 5 becuase I was
hurt when I got 5. 3 that can stop them getting fund is enough. However, my
3 may not help you to 2 or 1 in resubmit. I call it bad enough; I may
still give you 3. On the other hand, I saw reviewer gave 1 to 5 very
emotionally: one got 4-5 for 1st submit and 1-2 for resubmit and funded.
NIH homepage has guidlines for scoring and review process. No need to hear
from some one.
was
difficult
【在 l***s 的大作中提到】
: Do you think joining a study section would help to make connections? I was
: a mail-in reviewer for a few cycles, but never joined any study section
: discussion. I understand that would take a lot of time, but it is probably
: well worth the efforts. I have to have two concurrent R01 grants for my
: tenure review. But these days, this goal is becoming more and more difficult
: to reach.
:
: another
:
: which
| A******y
发帖数: 2041 | 15 Because my grant end up in one of them. Even with 4 and 6, your grant is
still likely to be discussed because no one in that study section is given
1s and hardly 2 (yes, the reviewers follow the NIH instructions loosely). I
also saw another study section that if you have one or two 3s, your grant
won't be discussed at all. My department has faculty development meeting
and I get to look at several summary statements from different study
sections; the range of score could be very different. Btw, it won't hurt
your percentile because the percentile is based on the historic average of
the particular study section.
I
,
my
that
first
【在 H*****e 的大作中提到】
: I started as the backup for my chair when he was on other business. Then I
: got an invitation from another section. I guess that after the first time,
: I am in the database and they found me. It does take a lot of effort. 3
: rounds a year plus reviewing papers. Taking days to read them. Half of my
: effort are gone. But I did not feel it help my connection. As for grant
: writing, I see more clear about how it is reviewed rather than make my own
: guess.
: For score starting from 3 mentioned in above, I am not sure how you get that
: information. Under current system, three initial reviewers score you first
: . Top 1/3 is discussed for sure and, if there is no major disagreement,
| b****r
发帖数: 17995 | 16 我本来是个很喜欢科研想在美国做科研的，现在却越来越觉得不想往这条路上走了
即使排除万难拿到了PI位置，follow无数规矩做无数paper work（都不是和科研内容直
接相关的，但我还算能理解），更重要的是要花无数时间精力脑细胞写grant，但是PI
作为科研真正的领路先锋们，花这么多时间做了这些东西，结果最后可以说绝大部分等
于是直接进了trash bin，这个我真心接受不了，我觉得这是个很糟糕的系统
写过国内的自科啥的，觉得那个写起来容易太多了中的机会也大得多。当然自科档次是
低点，国内更大的grant我还没机会接触 | v******d
发帖数: 1939 | 17 It is not a simple average.
another
which
【在 H*****e 的大作中提到】
: My current R01 end next year. For last 3 years, I am tyring to get another
: R01 or R21. Socres were not bad; but never enough to get funded. Under
: current situation, it is hard for everyone. My chairman always has 4 R01.
: But this year, he is no longer so confident anymore because he had 2
: applications without score. Another reason is that one cannot predict which
: study section it will go under current system. I had a obesity proposal
: went to the DNA variantion study section. No matter how I explain to
: administrator, it still ended there. The major weakness that I see for
: myself is on the PI section, my average is 2. But a few time I got 3-4,
: which means I need other section to be 1 to average to 2. As we know, out
| v******d
发帖数: 1939 | 18 Some SRAs ask you not to give scores lower than 2 or 3 to prevent inflation.
I
,
my
that
first
【在 H*****e 的大作中提到】
: I started as the backup for my chair when he was on other business. Then I
: got an invitation from another section. I guess that after the first time,
: I am in the database and they found me. It does take a lot of effort. 3
: rounds a year plus reviewing papers. Taking days to read them. Half of my
: effort are gone. But I did not feel it help my connection. As for grant
: writing, I see more clear about how it is reviewed rather than make my own
: guess.
: For score starting from 3 mentioned in above, I am not sure how you get that
: information. Under current system, three initial reviewers score you first
: . Top 1/3 is discussed for sure and, if there is no major disagreement,
| v******d
发帖数: 1939 | 19 说得有道理，我老人家一向认为funding应该基于你已经做了什么而不是吹嘘要做什么。
PI
【在 b****r 的大作中提到】
: 我本来是个很喜欢科研想在美国做科研的，现在却越来越觉得不想往这条路上走了
: 即使排除万难拿到了PI位置，follow无数规矩做无数paper work（都不是和科研内容直
: 接相关的，但我还算能理解），更重要的是要花无数时间精力脑细胞写grant，但是PI
: 作为科研真正的领路先锋们，花这么多时间做了这些东西，结果最后可以说绝大部分等
: 于是直接进了trash bin，这个我真心接受不了，我觉得这是个很糟糕的系统
: 写过国内的自科啥的，觉得那个写起来容易太多了中的机会也大得多。当然自科档次是
: 低点，国内更大的grant我还没机会接触
| Z**S
发帖数: 1211 | 20 Thanks again for sharing. Just curious, how does an average score of 2
convert to percentile in your study section? I'd like to have a conversion
to my situation.
another
which
【在 H*****e 的大作中提到】
: My current R01 end next year. For last 3 years, I am tyring to get another
: R01 or R21. Socres were not bad; but never enough to get funded. Under
: current situation, it is hard for everyone. My chairman always has 4 R01.
: But this year, he is no longer so confident anymore because he had 2
: applications without score. Another reason is that one cannot predict which
: study section it will go under current system. I had a obesity proposal
: went to the DNA variantion study section. No matter how I explain to
: administrator, it still ended there. The major weakness that I see for
: myself is on the PI section, my average is 2. But a few time I got 3-4,
: which means I need other section to be 1 to average to 2. As we know, out
| | | Z**S
发帖数: 1211 | 21 When the pie stops growing, the PIs in China will suffer the same
as we do here.
PI
【在 b****r 的大作中提到】
: 我本来是个很喜欢科研想在美国做科研的，现在却越来越觉得不想往这条路上走了
: 即使排除万难拿到了PI位置，follow无数规矩做无数paper work（都不是和科研内容直
: 接相关的，但我还算能理解），更重要的是要花无数时间精力脑细胞写grant，但是PI
: 作为科研真正的领路先锋们，花这么多时间做了这些东西，结果最后可以说绝大部分等
: 于是直接进了trash bin，这个我真心接受不了，我觉得这是个很糟糕的系统
: 写过国内的自科啥的，觉得那个写起来容易太多了中的机会也大得多。当然自科档次是
: 低点，国内更大的grant我还没机会接触
| l***s
发帖数: 841 | 22 The research enterprise is just getting too big given the fixed amount of
federal funding and limited commercial applications. Perhaps most labs (
including my lab) should be eliminated.
PI
【在 b****r 的大作中提到】
: 我本来是个很喜欢科研想在美国做科研的，现在却越来越觉得不想往这条路上走了
: 即使排除万难拿到了PI位置，follow无数规矩做无数paper work（都不是和科研内容直
: 接相关的，但我还算能理解），更重要的是要花无数时间精力脑细胞写grant，但是PI
: 作为科研真正的领路先锋们，花这么多时间做了这些东西，结果最后可以说绝大部分等
: 于是直接进了trash bin，这个我真心接受不了，我觉得这是个很糟糕的系统
: 写过国内的自科啥的，觉得那个写起来容易太多了中的机会也大得多。当然自科档次是
: 低点，国内更大的grant我还没机会接触
| A******y
发帖数: 2041 | 23 It is not a simple average, and the percentile depends on the study section.
If you look at my average based on the 5 scores, it is greater than 20,
but I have an impact score of 20. In my study section, it is 3%. Some
study section an impact score of 20 could be 10-20%. I actually have a
discussion with other PIs on that a harder study section is better or worse
in this funding environment since the harder the review section (with
historically higher average scores) will give you lower percentile based on
impact score.
【在 Z**S 的大作中提到】
: Thanks again for sharing. Just curious, how does an average score of 2
: convert to percentile in your study section? I'd like to have a conversion
: to my situation.
:
: another
:
: which
| l***s
发帖数: 841 | 24 Looks like your proposal was talked up at the discussion, since all three
reviewers reached a consensus and gave you a 2. Then everybody had to follow
the range, which was 2. Commonly, the impact score is almost the same as
the approach score. At least that is how I score the applications.
section.
worse
on
【在 A******y 的大作中提到】
: It is not a simple average, and the percentile depends on the study section.
: If you look at my average based on the 5 scores, it is greater than 20,
: but I have an impact score of 20. In my study section, it is 3%. Some
: study section an impact score of 20 could be 10-20%. I actually have a
: discussion with other PIs on that a harder study section is better or worse
: in this funding environment since the harder the review section (with
: historically higher average scores) will give you lower percentile based on
: impact score.
|
|
