Friday, March 12, 2010

NSF revisions

I just had an extremely informative discussion with a PO at NSF about revising my proposal. One of the most useful tidbits was that it is actually BAD with NSF to do the whole "introduction to resubmission" thing with all your point-by-point revised items. With NSF, that can call attention to the negatives and keep reviewers (who are frequently different people than reviewed your grant first time around) from recognizing the awesomeness of your revised proposal. The advice was just to revise according to the overall comments and let the better proposal speak for itself.

5 comments:

Dr. O said...

Makes sense to me...I've been wondering about this with the reviews on my K grant (hopefully will be able to talk to my PO on Monday). But I worry that many of the negatives in my summary statement may not even be valid with the new NIH formats, and I see how bringing them up could hurt a clean re-submission. Glad your PO was able to give you some good advice!

Arlenna said...

Keep in mind this was for NSF though--with NIH there is an explicit expectation that you have to respond in some way to the critiques. Sometimes that's just by saying "To address reviewer 1's concern that (blah blah), Aim 2 has been considerably shortened." or whatever.

I just don't want you to get yourself in trouble on your K resubmission! Let me know if you want any help checking it over, I might be able to offer my experiences.

Dr. O said...

Thanks for the offer, and I very well might take you up on it! I'm meeting with my boss sometime next week to go over a battle plan, as well as a former labmate of mine who was awarded the same K22 when she was applying for jobs. The more eyes the better is my motto with these things!

Comrade PhysioProf said...

For an NIH resubmission, you absolutely are required to address the previous round of review in an Introduction, and reviewers will be provided the Summary Statement from the prior round of review. If you fail to substantially respond to the previous reviews, you will get *slaughtered* by reviewers. Note that "substantially respond" doesn't have to equal "roll over".

Anonymous said...

Don't forget that at NSF you can suggest reviewers (and suggest excluding reviewers) - take advantage of that if you know people who view your work with excitement. Also, if your PO thinks favorably of you (and remembers you) s/he is more likely to reassign your new grant to favorable previous reviewers and not reassign it to the unfavorable ones.