h*****w
发帖数: 8561 | 1 今年大概最后一个消息了,明年又得重新开始了.
最近不是NOT DISCUSSED就是40几这种分,主要都是新方向在试水,没有DATA就是不照啊. |
l*******l
发帖数: 385 | 2 Comfort..
一个“不照"露馅出LZ是科大的？ |
Z**S
发帖数: 1211 | 3 没有DATA就不要浪费reviewer的时间了。
啊.
【在 h*****w 的大作中提到】
: 今年大概最后一个消息了,明年又得重新开始了.
: 最近不是NOT DISCUSSED就是40几这种分,主要都是新方向在试水,没有DATA就是不照啊.
|
h*****w
发帖数: 8561 | 4 Data当然多少有一些的,但是按以前中的那么准备要至少两年的周期才能做完,做完了还
不知道符合不符合REVIEWER的意见,只有先投了试水看看,有分的就接着做然后修改,没
分的这个方向就不做了.
【在 Z**S 的大作中提到】
: 没有DATA就不要浪费reviewer的时间了。
:
: 啊.
|
e**********m
发帖数: 397 | 5 是percentile 还是priority score? |
d***y
发帖数: 8536 | |
s******y
发帖数: 28562 | 7 Not discussed 就是被 triage 了。但是应该还是会收到三个主要的reviewer 的
comments。好好的读一读，注意一定要读至少三次，第一次读的时候你的心中会充满仇
恨，一定会觉得他们都是故意来乱挑刺。 第二次第三次再读的时候，心里就会稍微平
静一点，就能读出他们到底在哪里不满意了。然后针对他们最不满意的地方必须要大幅
度的改进，才能再投。一般至少要等一年才能再投，否则肯定改得不够让他们满意。
啊.
【在 h*****w 的大作中提到】
: 今年大概最后一个消息了,明年又得重新开始了.
: 最近不是NOT DISCUSSED就是40几这种分,主要都是新方向在试水,没有DATA就是不照啊.
|
f*******h
发帖数: 1269 | 8 精辟。第一次读，就是仇恨和怀才不遇。
【在 s******y 的大作中提到】
: Not discussed 就是被 triage 了。但是应该还是会收到三个主要的reviewer 的
: comments。好好的读一读，注意一定要读至少三次，第一次读的时候你的心中会充满仇
: 恨，一定会觉得他们都是故意来乱挑刺。 第二次第三次再读的时候，心里就会稍微平
: 静一点，就能读出他们到底在哪里不满意了。然后针对他们最不满意的地方必须要大幅
: 度的改进，才能再投。一般至少要等一年才能再投，否则肯定改得不够让他们满意。
:
: 啊.
|
A******y
发帖数: 2041 | 9 My personal opinion is not to submit unless you have solid data for all
three aims of your R01. You can submit with two aims with data but you are
chancing on not getting discussed. With the one resubmission only, you
should always go in when you are ready. The discussed summary statement is
a lot more detail and the PO is usually also willing to share what's been
said in the study section. |
h*****w
发帖数: 8561 | 10 我不是交RO1, 是R21或者R41
新方向我不敢弄RO1,我也知道要数据做出来才行,不过按照目前的进度至少要2年以上才
比较有把握(手下还是没得力的人).
are
is
【在 A******y 的大作中提到】
: My personal opinion is not to submit unless you have solid data for all
: three aims of your R01. You can submit with two aims with data but you are
: chancing on not getting discussed. With the one resubmission only, you
: should always go in when you are ready. The discussed summary statement is
: a lot more detail and the PO is usually also willing to share what's been
: said in the study section.
|
|
|
s******y
发帖数: 28562 | 11 R21 其实比R01 更难。关键是针对的群体应该是不一样的。
而且R21对新人没有优惠。你投R21来拿到审批意见可以。指望由那个拿到钱是不现实的。
【在 h*****w 的大作中提到】
: 我不是交RO1, 是R21或者R41
: 新方向我不敢弄RO1,我也知道要数据做出来才行,不过按照目前的进度至少要2年以上才
: 比较有把握(手下还是没得力的人).
:
: are
: is
|
p*l
发帖数: 1359 | 12 一般的说法是，R21是大牛弄零花钱的地方，新人应该主攻R01。可是这个说法的前提是
，新人从背景还有研究方向上比较被study section认可，因为R01毕竟是个大项目。很
多人由于各种因素，不被study section认可，难以拿到R01这样的大钱，只能在R21上
挣扎。做交叉方向往NIH上靠的人，尤其经常有这样的苦恼，偶尔能拿个R21，但是R01
总是没头绪。 |
A******y
发帖数: 2041 | 13 I agree with above. Don't apply for R21 (unless is an RFA specific for new
investigators)!!! I was in the SFN national meeting NIH question and answer
section, all NIH POs told the new investigators not to apply for R21. You
know what's funny, a junior PI said his seniors told him to try R21 and said
NIH POs are wrong during the Q&A section. I guess that PI is in the wrong
business and the greatest mistakes is listening to wrong advises.
I told you the reason why a new PI should not apply for R21:
1. In R21 study section, your grant is not reviewed with other new PIs, all
R21s are reviewed together. In R01, NIH breaks into two groups: senior PIs
and new PIs even before the study section read the grants.
2. R21 payline is a lot lower than R01.
3. R21 is only two years and non-renewable.
But but, I don't need preliminary data for R21...that's a lie...because
everyone applied for R21 have preliminary data. If you ever going to get
funded, you need preliminary data...a lot of preliminary data. Because of
these reasons, if you R21 got funded as a new PI...your grant is probably
good enough for R01 except you should kick yourself for getting a two year
grant instead of 5 year one.
【在 h*****w 的大作中提到】
: 我不是交RO1, 是R21或者R41
: 新方向我不敢弄RO1,我也知道要数据做出来才行,不过按照目前的进度至少要2年以上才
: 比较有把握(手下还是没得力的人).
:
: are
: is
|
l********n
发帖数: 804 | 14 是的，我是early career and new investigator
我r21申请过两次都是not discussed
r01两次都至少有分数
再也不弄r21了
new
answer
You
said
wrong
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 8.1
【在 A******y 的大作中提到】
: I agree with above. Don't apply for R21 (unless is an RFA specific for new
: investigators)!!! I was in the SFN national meeting NIH question and answer
: section, all NIH POs told the new investigators not to apply for R21. You
: know what's funny, a junior PI said his seniors told him to try R21 and said
: NIH POs are wrong during the Q&A section. I guess that PI is in the wrong
: business and the greatest mistakes is listening to wrong advises.
: I told you the reason why a new PI should not apply for R21:
: 1. In R21 study section, your grant is not reviewed with other new PIs, all
: R21s are reviewed together. In R01, NIH breaks into two groups: senior PIs
: and new PIs even before the study section read the grants.
|
d***y
发帖数: 8536 | 15 云老师做啥方向？ 感觉和我做一样方向。上次听你说投了CBET的career.
【在 h*****w 的大作中提到】
: 我不是交RO1, 是R21或者R41
: 新方向我不敢弄RO1,我也知道要数据做出来才行,不过按照目前的进度至少要2年以上才
: 比较有把握(手下还是没得力的人).
:
: are
: is
|
l**********1
发帖数: 5204 | 16 Why not try EUHorizon 2014-2020 one collaborative funding launching ?
deadline of 2014 Upper half year,
pls check,
>http://www.amires.eu/_ftp/H2020callsAMIRES.pdf
if hopeusw is still TT AP, you can
pls check EU ERC Policy:
>In 2012, an agreement was launched with the US National Science Foundation
(NSF) to allow early-career NSF researchers in the US to join the teams of
ERC grantees in Europe.
Web link:
>http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/press/fact_sheet_on_international_participation_in_horizon_2020.pdf
【在 h*****w 的大作中提到】
: 我不是交RO1, 是R21或者R41
: 新方向我不敢弄RO1,我也知道要数据做出来才行,不过按照目前的进度至少要2年以上才
: 比较有把握(手下还是没得力的人).
:
: are
: is
|
l**z
发帖数: 204 | |
P******3
发帖数: 244 | 18 success rate for new U01 in 2012 is 22.8%; R01 is 14.9%, R21 is 14.1%, R03
is 19.9%.
【在 l**z 的大作中提到】
: How about U01?
|
l**z
发帖数: 204 | 19 Thanks. So all are better than NSF.
【在 P******3 的大作中提到】
: success rate for new U01 in 2012 is 22.8%; R01 is 14.9%, R21 is 14.1%, R03
: is 19.9%.
|
l***s
发帖数: 841 | 20 并没有看起来的那么高，因为resubmission没算进去。大体上是10%成功率。
【在 l**z 的大作中提到】
: Thanks. So all are better than NSF.
|
