**[MINUTES]{.underline}**![](media/image1.gif){width="0.9701388888888889in"
height="0.5625in"}

**NIH Commons Working Group (CWG) Meeting**

Date/Time: January 6, 2002, 1:00 p.m. -- 6:30 p.m.

Location: Omni Austin Hotel, Austin, Texas

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

Attendance

***CWG Members***

Lynette Arias---OHSU

Ellen Beck---UCLA

Denise Clark---Cornell

Steve Dowdy---MIT

Ken Forstmeier---Penn State

Jill Keezer---Cal Poly, SLO

Tolliver McKinney---St. Jude Children's Hospital

Jim Randolph---Univ. of Michigan

Sandi Robins---Univ. of Wisconsin

Mark Sweet---Univ. of Wisconsin

Pamela Webb---Northwestern

Tom Wilson---BCM

Nancy Wray---Dartmouth

David Wright---UTMB

***Others Institutional Representatives***

Bob Beattie---Univ. of Michigan

Faye Cook---St. Jude Children's Hospital

Dan Dwyer---Cornell

Graydon Kirk---Emory

Phil Martin---Dartmouth

Mac McConnell---UTMB

Tammy Custer Ordway---Cornell

***Vendors***

Chris Harker---Cayuse Software

Ben Priest---Cayuse Software

***NIH Staff***

Constance W. Atwell---NIH/NINDS

Wendy Baldwin---NIH/OD

Suzanne Fisher---NIH/CSR

Marcia Hahn---NIH/OPERA

Chris Lambert---NIH/OD

Rich McKay---NIH/CSR

Mike Sesma---NIH/NIGMS

Brent Stanfield---NIH/CSR

George Stone---NIH/OPERA

Jerry Stuck---NIH/eRA

Regina White---NIH/OD

***NIH Contractors***

Madeline Monheit---LTS

Mark Weiser---RN Solutions

# Action Items

The following are a summary list of action items identified as part of
the meeting, along with an indication of who will attend to each item.

(CWG) Review SNAP scope document by the end of January.

(CWG) Complete Commons V2 user interface survey by February 1.

(NIH) Determine if FSR is FOIable.

(NIH) Develop survey instrument for FSR module data entry, access and
reporting requirements.

(NIH) Develop algorithm for testing font size conformance of application
materials in PDF.

(NIH) Reconcile "Other Support" and "Research Support" instructions on
new 398 with samples.

(NIH) Consolidate all CWG recommendations for BPR of competitive
application; send to CWG for comments/approval.

***Note: Since the meetin,g several of the NIH action items have been
addressed. Follow-up is provided below:***

**(NIH) Determine if FSR is FOIable:**

Marcia Hahn has followed up with NIH FOIA officials on this issue. The
bottom line is that FSR-related information is not freely available to
the public. A formal request by a party through the NIH FOIA office
would be required for any release of information.

**(NIH) Reconcile "Other Support" and "Research Support" instructions on
new 398 with samples.**

Within a week of the CWG meeting, a new version of the PHS 398
instructions and form pages were released. In the new version, the
sample biosketch now aligns with the instructions. Also, the reference
to "Other Support" in the Table of Contents was removed.

**(NIH) Develop survey instrument for FSR module data entry, access and
reporting requirements.**

Marcia has completed an analysis of the planned FSR module. To help
clarify user requirements, several questions have been drafted. They are
provided below for reference and as a heads up. In addition, a formal
"Excel spreadsheet-based" survey instrument will be forthcoming to the
CWG members.

### FSR Survey Questions

1.  **Work-in-Progress (WIP):** The system will provide the
    functionality for a WIP to be started as much as 90 days **before**
    the budget end date. Will users actually start a WIP before the
    budget end date?

2.  **Datastream:** While data standards have not yet been established,
    to what extent will datastream submission of FSRs be
    necessary/desired. What percent of institutions are likely to use
    this type of functionality? Does the way this business process is
    conducted at institutions lend to a datastream approach?

3.  **Approval & Routing:** In many grantee institutions FSR data is
    submitted by an office different than that responsible for
    submitting application data. To what extent would you see it
    desirable for the capability for "routing and reviewing" and/or
    formal "approval" of FSR data prior to submission?

4.  **Reporting Needs:** Currently planned reports from the FSR module
    indicate 1) FRS status, i.e., the number of pending FSRs due within
    90 days or overdue; 2) Institutional data, i.e., the number of
    reports submitted on time, late, revised. Please comment on these
    reports as well as provide suggestions for other reports.

5.  **Notification:** The FSR module has current plans for passive
    notification. That is, notification will require the institutional
    user to "pull" the information by going to the Commons and logging
    on to view reminders, etc. This would include determining status
    such as "accepted by NIH" or even "Rejected." How desirable would it
    be to have notification via "push", i.e., via e-mail? Before this
    question is easily answered, it must be remembered that such an
    e-mail notification would not be able to include specific data,
    since e-mail is not a secure (i.e., confidential) means of
    transmission.

# Greeting and Introductions

# 

# 

# Virginia Van Brunt -- NIH/LTS Corp.

+----------+---------------+------------------------------------------+
| #####    | #####         | #####                                    |
+----------+---------------+------------------------------------------+
| #####    | #####         | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          | #####         | #####                                    |
+----------+---------------+------------------------------------------+
| #####    | #####         | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          |               | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          |               | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          |               | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          |               | #####                                    |
+----------+---------------+------------------------------------------+
| #####    | #####         | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          | #####         | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          | #####         | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          | #####         |                                          |
+----------+---------------+------------------------------------------+
| #####    | #####         | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          |               | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          |               | #####                                    |
+----------+---------------+------------------------------------------+

#####  

+----------+---------------+------------------------------------------+
| #####    | #####         | #####                                    |
| Science  |               |                                          |
| Reportin |               |                                          |
| g (cont) |               |                                          |
+----------+---------------+------------------------------------------+
| #####    | #####         | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          |               | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          |               | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          |               | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          |               | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          |               | #####                                    |
+----------+---------------+------------------------------------------+
| #####    | #####         | #####                                    |
+----------+---------------+------------------------------------------+
| #####    | #####         | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          |               | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          |               | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          |               | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          |               | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          |               | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          |               | #####                                    |
+----------+---------------+------------------------------------------+
| #####    | #####         | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          |               | #####                                    |
+----------+---------------+------------------------------------------+

#####  

+----------+---------------+------------------------------------------+
| #####    | #####         | #####                                    |
+----------+---------------+------------------------------------------+
| #####    | #####         | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          |               | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          |               | #####                                    |
+----------+---------------+------------------------------------------+
| #####    | #####         | #####                                    |
+----------+---------------+------------------------------------------+
| #####    | #####         | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          | #####         | #####                                    |
+----------+---------------+------------------------------------------+
| #####    | #####         | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          | #####         | #####                                    |
|          |               |                                          |
|          | #####         |                                          |
|          |               |                                          |
|          | #####         |                                          |
|          |               |                                          |
|          | #####         |                                          |
+----------+---------------+------------------------------------------+

The CWG meeting was held immediately preceding the Federal Demonstration
Partnership meetings on January 7-8. George Stone thanked CWG members
for participating and assured the group that their recommendations would
be taken very seriously. He then welcomed Wendy Baldwin, Deputy Director
for Extramural Research, NIH and Regina White, Director, Office of
Policy for Extramural Research. Regina replaces Carol Tippery, who
recently retired.

George asked CWG members to review the minutes of the previous meeting
and to email comments to <george.stone@nih.gov>. In response to Pamela
Webb's question, George invited members to share the minutes with
colleagues. The minutes are posted at
<http://era.nih.gov/Docs/cwg_20011114.htm>.

George next distributed copies of his presentation
(<http://era.nih.gov/Docs/CWG_Presentation_01-06-02.ppt>) and reviewed
high-level agenda items: 1) update on Commons V2.0 schedule; 2)
closeout/FSR requirements; and 3) discussion of the competitive
application.

# eRA Websites

George directed the CWG to two resources for project information.
Minutes and newsletters are currently available at
<http://era.nih.gov/>. This site is still under construction; eRA staff
is working to improve usability, add content and address accessibility
requirements. A separate site at <http://commons2.oer.od.nih.gov/> will
allow CWG members to view Commons Version 2 RUP artifacts. This is not a
full public site and therefore has not been tested for both Netscape and
Microsoft compatibility. The site has been designed to work with
Microsoft Internet Explorer (MSIE).

# Commons Version 2.0 Implementation Schedule

George reported that the J2EE infrastructure (Phase 1) for Commons V 2.0
would be ready as planned by February. Full deployment to the extramural
community (Phase 2) also is on target for release in June. Since the
last CWG meeting, the decision has been made to include Status V 2.0 in
the May/June deployment. This overtakes the previous deployment schedule
for Status V 2.0 of June 2003. The SNAP BPR was completed early; the
initiative currently is in the RUP elaboration phase with plans to
deploy an e-SNAP Version 1.0 pilot next fall. George asked CWG members
to review the draft SNAP scope document that he provided in hard copy at
the meeting (see [attachment
A](http://era.nih.gov/Docs/SNAP_Scope_Document.doc)). He asked that CWG
members forward comments by the end of January. This document also will
be posted to the listserv with requests for feedback. In response to Tom
Wilson's question, George encouraged each institution to adopt a
consistent method for submission (i.e., paper or electronic) once the
e-SNAP pilot begins.

Pamela raised an issue regarding pre-printed face pages for the PHS
2590. According to a recent NIH Guide notice, after September 2002, the
NIH will discontinue mailing a computer-generated face page;
notification of the progress report due date will become electronic.
Pamela was concerned about the possibility of a gap between the
termination of the mailing and the availability of e-SNAP. Marcia Hahn
explained that face page reminders are not limited to just the SNAP
grant process---they are used for all non-competing grants. The
discontinuation of conventional mailing is part of NIH's overall
transition to electronic forms and submission and is not linked
specifically to the e-SNAP initiative.

# Status of X-Train 1.5 Deployment

Twelve grantee organizations currently are participating in the X-Train
V 1.5 pilot; please inform Tim Twomey or Chris Lambert
(<commons@od.nih.gov>) if interested. Beginning in March, there will be
an interim fix to address the delegation issue. Since this is not an
appropriate time to define a new role in the Commons user types, the
existing AA role will be altered temporarily to allow X-Train
submission. Mark Weiser explained that the PI must delegate to the AA.
Since the workaround does not preclude allowing someone other than the
authorized institutional official from submitting the information, the
system will display a message prior to submission warning the submitter
of the consequences of submitting the information to the NIH without
proper authority.

Version 1.5 will go production in May/June 2002; NIH hopes to develop a
scope document for Version 2 by late spring and to deploy the new
version by mid-to-late 2003. Wally Schaeffer is concerned about getting
feedback. Only 35 trainee appointments have been processed since
October 1. Pamela said it was a matter of timing; the pilot deployment
missed the window.

# Other Commons Version 2.0 Functionality

*New Roles/Rights Model*---NIH has completed an initial analysis and has
taken a first cut at preparing use cases for customized rights within
roles. Feedback from the CWG will be requested prior to NIH's commitment
to any specific parameters for customized rights.

*Commons GUI Standards*---Within a day or so prior to the current
meeting, George was able to complete the Excel-based survey for the
Commons sample GUI interface and e-mail the survey to the CWG members.
He confirmed that the CWG received the survey, and asked members to
complete the Version 2 User Interface Survey by February 1 (see
[attachment B](http://era.nih.gov/Docs/Commons_V2.0_Survey.xls)). NIH
hopes to have the final standards document ready by the end of February.

*SBIR Initiative*---The RFA, which seeks partners to conduct research
around extramural institutions and their preference for electronic
research administration technology, as well as develop applications and
services to assist the research community with electronic grant
submission, is nearing completion. CWG comments have been incorporated,
and the draft has been vetted through EPMC. NIH intends to publish the
RFA by the end of January. George agreed to notify the CWG members and
interested parties as soon as the RFA was posted.

Steve Dowdy expressed concerns about the RFA. Since we are only in the
initial stages of reengineering the R01, how can vendors respond without
datastream requirements. George replied that NIH would provide enough
information for a phase 1 feasibility proposal. Bob Beattie interjected
that his colleagues do not believe that NIH plans to ***require***
e-applications, and so wondered if, as a result, there would be
sufficient interest in the RFA. George asked Bob to go back to his
institution with a clear message about NIH's objective: to support full
e-applications starting later this year with noncompeting awards and
competitive applications by end of 2003. Once NIH is able to receive
e-applications there will be growing pressure to do away with paper
applications. In the area of technology options, George added that the
Federal Commons plans to accept multiple transmission technologies,
including EDI. Jerry Stuck said the ultimate goal is to be
form-independent.

*Standardized Organizational Hierarchy*---Four standardized levels of
organizational hierarchy (institution, school, division and department)
will be incorporated in SNAP Version 2. This information will be stored
in the institutional profile. The system will support multiple
affiliations.

*Single Point of Ownership*---The objective of single point of ownership
for institutional (IPFs) and personal profiles (PPFs) is to improve data
quality. Implementation of this concept is planned to coincide with the
deployment of Commons V 2.0 in May/June 2002. NIH proposes ***Commons***
***registration for everyone***, regardless of each user's intended
method of submission. The creation of profiles for all PIs will enable
the synchronization of paper and electronic submissions with drastic
improvement of data quality.

Ken Forstmeier asked if NIH planned to use existing Commons accounts.
George answered yes and that QRC, Inc. (the NIH contractor involved in
data quality) was in the process of reconciling and cleaning the records
of the 2,000 PPFs that already exist for current Commons V 1.0 users.
The only additional data item that is likely to be added to the IPF
dataset will be a telephone number and email address for NIH to contact
a central resource person at the institution for questions related to
eRA and Commons administration, especially as it pertains to
institutional identity and organizational hierarchy. Ken asked how to
determine who is registered; George reminded him that the Admin module
includes report functionality that would allow for such a query.

# Planning the Closeout/Financial Status Report (FSR) Modules

Marcia Hahn discussed two new program modulesCloseout and FSRthat are in
the inception phase of development. Closeout will incorporate the FSR,
the Final Invention Report and the Final Progress Report; FSR will also
be a standalone interface for data entry, queries and reports on a
grant-by-grant basis, since the FSR is required annually in some cases.
Marcia said that the scope document has been completed for FSR (as
opposed to the Closeout module). While the current paper-based FSR
submission is based on the EIN as an identifier, the Commons version
will rely on standard Commons logon credentials using IPF number and
eventually DUNS. EIN will be retained as a data field in the electronic
implementation, but it will not be used for authentication purposes
(i.e., access requirement).

Marcia asked for CWG assistance in defining requirements. The NIH FSR
currently occurs on a form (SF-269). The data requirements for the form
are well-established and there would appear to be little chance for
reengineering. This fact notwithstanding, Marcia confirmed that NIH
would be soliciting the CWG relative to formatting and user
comments/preferences. One issue, for example, is if there is user
interest in FSR datastream submission capability? Marcia explained that
the Federal Commons has not established standard data requirements for
the FSR. The consensus provided by the CWG would allow for interaction
with other agencies relative to FSR or FSR equivalents at other
agencies.

Next, Marcia inquired about the benefits of a work-in-progress (WIP)
feature for FSRs. The group agreed that WIP would be nice to have,
especially for early closeouts for no-cost extensions. Regarding FSR
data access privileges, Pamela thought that the single point of
ownership concept should apply. Steve Dowdy asked if the FSR is FOIable;
Marcia will investigate. Mark Sweet commented that PIs could get the
information from their own financial office. Ken added that NIH data
might not be current; therefore, PIs should obtain ledger balances from
their institution, as opposed to relying on the NIH for "correct"
values.

Marcia then asked about reporting requirements for pending, current and
historical FSRs. Denise Clark said she is most concerned about FSRs
outside of NIH and asked if there were plans to develop HHS-wide
reporting capability. Jerry Stuck advised Denise to talk to the Federal
Commons Post-Award group. Marcia hopes that the NIH product will serve
as a model for other agencies. Mark Sweet said that accountants at his
school would best be able to speak to requirements. Marcia agreed to
create a survey mechanism for gathering CWG input on FSR data entry,
access and reporting requirements.

# Reengineering the NIH Competitive Application Receipt and Referral Process

George reported that NIH currently receives about 47,000 paper
applications per year; the procedures for managing these applications
from receipt through award have been developed and perfected over a
50+-year period. NIH staff would like to collaborate with the CWG to
identify ways to modify the paper process to derive maximum benefit from
electronic submission.

George introduced Dr. Suzanne E. Fisher, Director, Division of Receipt
and Referral (R&R), Center for Scientific Review (CSR) and Dr. Brent
Stanfield, eRA Advocate for RR. Suzanne gave a presentation (see
[attachment
C](http://era.nih.gov/Docs/NIH_Submission_and_Assignment_Process_1-6-02.ppt))
describing funding mechanisms and components (slides 5-7), explaining
the steps of the current paper-based process (slides 8-18), and
identifying the challenges and opportunities of electronic submission
(slides 19--25). Following is a summary of potential benefits.

### Stages in Processing of Applications

*Loading Dock*---In an electronic environment, this labor-intensive step
of unloading and unwrapping packages will be eliminated. NIH also will
benefit from reduced exposure to terrorist threats.

*Application Receipt*---Receipt of 47,000+ paper application packages
per year requires a very considerable extent of handling of paper
(copying, routing, etc.). George indicated that with electronic
datastream submission, manual activities such as counting, date stamping
and assigning accession numbers can be automated. The software can also
perform required sorting, separation and routing of digital applications
and their component parts. There may also be support for links to large
files such as appendices.

*Project Control Unit 1*---Suzanne pointed out that receipt and
assignment of paper applications is fraught with complexities and there
is considerable staff and resources that must be invested on an ongoing
basis to address errors made in the applications. George indicated that
the benefit of datastream formatted submissions mean that form page data
can be validated by the NIH Commons system. Business rules can check
eligibility requirements (e.g., budget and time limits). The software
can acknowledge special handling requests (e.g., ARAs). Bob Beattie
asked about cover letters. George replied that the 194 supports the
inclusion of cover letters within the electronic submission.

*Referral*---Business rules can be used to check for duplicates,
differentiate among new submissions, revisions and supplements, validate
format and compliance with other NIH policies. Even with electronic
receipt and business rule validation, NIH professional staff still will
make critical assessments and decisions regarding mechanisms and
assignments.

*Project Control Unit 2*---Final checks for data quality/compliance and
generation of application number can be automated.

*Scanning, Duplication and Delivery to Reviewers*---At the present time,
all paper applications are scanned (in black and white), OCR'd and
bookmarked; NIH has begun creating CDs for reviewers. The primary
reviewer still receives a paper version. According to Brent, the
response to the CDs has been extremely positive; paper copies are
available upon request. David Wright inquired if NIH intends to reduce
paper application submission requirements (original plus five copies).
Suzanne said no; NIH currently needs all the copies. When NIH receives
electronic applications, scanning and duplication will be unnecessary.
NIH can also use electronic means (CDs, links, the Grant Folder) for
distribution and administrative review by NIH staff at many levels
(referral, review, program, grants management).

*Review*---NIH, recognizing the importance of face-to-face discussion of
applications, plans to continue to convene face-to-face study section
meetings. Some form of electronic review is a possibility for the
future. Electronic review is currently being done in the NIAID for
contract review. The approach has been well-received.

### Other Considerations

*Correction of Non-Compliant Applications and Post-Submission
Interactions with Investigators*---Although the resolution of many
issues (e.g., assignment changes, deadlines) will continue to require
human dialogue, electronic submission may reduce the time that
applications are delayed for correction/clarification at various stages
of the processing. The software can correct some of the errors. It will
be easier to integrate missing materials, post-submission additions and
on-time information.

*Equity*---It is expected that NIH will process both paper and
electronic modes for some time. During this period, NIH needs to be sure
that neither mode is advantaged or disadvantaged.

With Suzanne Fisher's presentation and George's comments about the
receipt and referral process as a foundation, the CWG devoted the
remainder of the meeting to a discussion of the PHS 398, beginning with
the Research Plan on form page 3. This discussion represents a
continuation of the topic first introduced at the November CWG meeting.
In November, the effort focused on the possibilities for streamlining of
the PHS398 form pages. The current discussion targets the application
process itself: CWG recommendations concerning timetable for submission,
tasks included in the receipt and referral process, including
assignment. Further, the CWG will discuss the research plan and appendix
materials and the way that these critical elements should be
characterized electronically.

### Research Plan 

The Research Plan is seen as perhaps the most critical element of the
application, in that it is the portion wherein the P.I. provides in
their most compelling way, their research plans. The P.I. is able to
persuade the reviewers of the merit of their research plans in anyway
they can within a 25 page limit, including graphic and halftone
representations of preliminary findings. As the content of the research
plan is contemplated in an electronic format, many questions come to
mind.

One area of concern/discussion relates to the current page limit of 25
pages. In an electronic format, page length varies depending on
formatting and inclusion/exclusion of embedded graphics. For text, 2,000
bytes are considered the equivalent of a page, without any formatting.
Due to formatting and graphics, however, it would not be reasonable to
assume a page content of 50,000 bytes (25 X 2,000). One possible way to
resolve this complexity would be to separate the graphics from the text.
Mike Sesma argued against separating text and figures; figures are
meaningful only when presented in context, and P.I.'s would not take
kindly to this constraint relative to current paper-based practices.
George made reference to the fact that the NSF allows submission of
PDF-formatted files for the research plan. PDF continues to be the best
technological approach for preservation of original format and content
of complex (i.e., text and graphic) binary files because it preserves
formatting, fonts and graphics. An additional benefit relative to the
concern for page length is that PDF files render pages rather than
simply bytes. Therefore, as a PDF file is modified or changed, all
effects on page length relative to a 25 page limit can be accounted for
by the P.I. prior to submission.

The inclusion of a PDF-formatted file is also not at odds with the
configuration of the application as a datastream. The EDI and XML
versions of the 194 dataset allow for submission of complex binary file
types (like the PDF), as an associated 102 transaction set (for EDI).
For XML, the binary can be included in the parent transaction.

Though PDF files render graphics and page formatting close to original,
the final printed version of the files may be altered due to the way in
which the PDF file is rendered and viewed. That is, while the P.I. may
view the file as 25 pages, the submission once it is viewed may appear
as more than 25 pages. To be able to rule out such differences, a
service center for file rendering, such as NSF provides for FastLane,
i.e., converting user files from Word and WordPerfect to PDF with view
by the P.I. prior to final submission, would appear to meet NIH
requirements. The group discussed whether NIH should provide the same
service. Jill Keezer pointed out that although most large schools have
Adobe Distiller, small schools might not; therefore, NIH should do the
conversion. George concurred, indicating that he felt confident that NIH
would be able to provide the service similar to NSF.

Steve Dowdy then asked about the possibility of submitting the research
plan separately and later. The advantage would be fresher science.
Steve's question initiated a lengthy discussion. Mark Sweet asked if
researchers submitting in paper mode would also be given more time for
their research plan. Should NIH create incentives for e-submissions?
What about issues of equity?

The representatives from CSR then gave their perspective. Suzanne argued
that it would be difficult to make assignments without the research.
Mike Sesma said that reviewers expect the entire application when they
begin their evaluation. Only fresh data should be accepted later. Brent
Stanfield added that SRAs now forward updated science to reviewers;
however, there is no guarantee that it is read. George and Jerry both
expressed a strong preference that the application and research plan be
submitted in one package.

Next, there was an extensive discussion about the enforcement of page
limits. Suzanne said that CSR now conducts spot checks of paper
submissions. If applications are too long, NIH returns them and allows
researchers four days to resubmit. Will e-submitters have the same
privilege? Regina White stressed that rules need to be fair and
consistent.

Jerry proposed that NIH provide real-time conversion to PDF; PIs can
choose to submit their application materials in "test mode," check the
results through a web interface, and adjust length accordingly. Nancy
Wray believes that the NIH should reject applications that exceed stated
limits and not make exceptions. Pamela suggested that during the
transition, NIH should issue a warning rather than a rejection (as done
by FastLane).

Suzanne then raised the issue of fonts. NIH has type size minimums for
text, but not for legends and labels. To conform to page limits, many
PIs increase characters/inch. In response to Ken Forstmeier's question,
Suzanne estimated that 50 percent of applications have font
discrepancies. Sandi Robins inquired if fonts would remain true after
translation to PDF. Jerry said that at NSF, the converter could
recognize most fonts. George then asked if there were a way to examine
fonts in a PDF file. The consensus from technologists in the room was
that this was possible. If so, NIH could create an algorithm to
determine average font size and test for acceptability of font size
(exclusive of the figure and table legends).

### Summary of CWG Recommendations for Electronic Submission of Research Plan 

-   PDF as the standard for datastream submission of application
    materials

-   25-page limit for sections A-D to be submitted as one TS102 for EDI
    submissions; sections E-J to be submitted as a separate TS102. For
    XML, any similar formatting to allow for receipt of PDF would
    suffice.

-   NIH to provide conversion service to render PDF from either MS Word
    or WordPerfect. This service would include the ability for the P.I.
    to preview prior to final submission.

-   Warning message (rather than rejection) for length violation during
    transition period.

-   Algorithm to check font size conformance.

-   Submission of application and research plan in one package.

### Appendix Material

According to current practices for paper, the appendix is submitted
along with the application but is separated from the application upon
receipt by NIH. CSR does not consider the appendix for referral.
Appendices are not scanned.

Brent suggested that electronically submitted appendices be routed
directly to the SRA after referral. He then asked about the possibility
of linking to appendices. Marcia said that she wasn't sure, but seemed
to recall that NIH policy disallows URLs in the application, but the
rule does not apply to the appendix. Following the meeting, she
researched this issue to find NIH policy that states, "Unless otherwise
specified in NIH solicitations, Internet Web site addresses (URLs) may
not be used to provide information necessary to the review because
reviewers are under no obligation to view the Internet sites. Moreover,
reviewers are cautioned that they should not directly access an Internet
site as it could compromise their anonymity." So, to the extent that
appendix material is, "necessary to the review," then URLs wouldn't be
allowed.

Ken Forstmeier and Jerry Stuck argued against links for the following
reasons: 1) the destination website may be down; 2) there are equity
issues; 3) content on the website can be changed; 4) colors may print or
display differently on different machines.

The group then considered the advantages/disadvantages of accepting
appendices after assignment. Nancy Wray expressed concerns about
multiple deadlines. Marcia said it made sense to submit the appendix
after an accession/grant number had been assigned.

### CWG Recommendation for Appendices

-   Add check box (Y/N) on electronic application to indicate if
    appendix is included.

-   Appendices can be submitted electronically in PDF with the
    application **or** after assignment.

-   Paper appendices must be submitted to the SRA **after** assignment.

### Biographical Sketch

A question was posed as to whether the biosketch component of the
application couldn't be eliminated, since all biosketch information is
contained in the P.I.'s Professional Profile. To test this position, the
discussion focused on the various aspects of the biosketch. By the end
of the discussion, it seemed apparent that the biosketch offers
information that is particularly relevant to the current application.
Thus, while it is all part of the profile, the biosketch would allow for
the critical information to be emphasized.

*A. Positions and Honors*---Steve Dowdy questioned the requirement to
submit the same information over and again even though it is stored in
the profile. Mark Sweet suggested creating a "Build CV" tool. PIs would
be able to choose relevant items from their profile; the system would
then generate biosketch input in PDF within prescribed page limits.

*B. Selected Peer-Reviewed Publications*---NIH uses publications stored
in the profile to help locate qualified reviewers. It was suggested that
as part of the profile system, NIH provide a search utility to enable
applicants to select relevant publications from their profile for
inclusion in their biosketch. This would provide an incentive for
researchers to keep their profiles current. Currently the biosketch
limits number of relevant publications to two pages. In deference to the
electronic version not being constrained by page limits and therefore
debating whether the 2 page limit to biosketch shouldn't be expended,
NIH reminded the CWG that reviewers may not be willing to sift through
extremely long lists of publications to identify ones relevant to the
current applications. NIH was encouraged to conform to formatting of
publication references consistent with software such as Reference
Manager. This would allow the P.I. to maintain their own version of
their bibliography, with assurance that when uploaded into an NIH
submission, the formatting would be retained.

CWG also discussed ways to reengineer section G of the Research Plan
(Literature Cited). The CWG argued for no page limit for citations, with
submission via a separate TS102 if necessary.

### CWG Recommendations for Biosketch Items A and B

-   Applicants can use own format and then convert to PDF for submission
    **or**

-   Applicants can use NIH utility to extract information from profile.

*Research Support*---This section only should describe research within
the last three years that is relevant to the current proposal; it
differs from "Other Support," which is intended to be comprehensive
(active and pending). There does not appear to be a way to capitalize on
possible overlap between "Research Support" and 'Other Support." David
Wright believes there should be a consistent format for both support
sections.

There was considerable discussion, as at the November meeting regarding
the value of the Other Support section of the application. Steve Dowdy
continued to question particularly the relevance of percent effort,
since the values change on an unpredictable basis. He again posed the
challenge to the NIH to come up with justification as to what the
percent effort values are used for, else allow for their removal from
the application.

### Other Miscellaneous Suggestions

-   George said that FDP is exploring linking rules to funding
    mechanisms to screen for errors.

-   Mark suggested developing a funding opportunities wizard to assist
    researchers.

-   Pamela recommended a utility for obtaining an approval number for
    applications over \$500K.

-   Pamela would like to be able to upload just-in-time information
    (instead of faxing).

-   Marcia concurred with an earlier suggestion made by Pamela that we
    should consider changing IRB approval date to IRB expiration date.

-   Sandi observed that the instructions for Other Support on the new
    398 (Rev. 5/01) do not correspond to the examples. They should be
    consistent.

# Attachments

A.  [Draft Simplified Non-Competing Award Process Scope
    Document](http://era.nih.gov/Docs/SNAP_Scope_Document.doc)

B.  [NIH Commons V 2.0 GUI Survey and
    Demo](http://era.nih.gov/Docs/Commons_V2.0_Survey.xls)

C.  [Suzanne Fisher's Presentation on the NIH Submission and Assignment
    Process](http://era.nih.gov/Docs/NIH_Submission_and_Assignment_Process_1-6-02.ppt)

# Next Meeting

The next CWG meeting will be held on May 19 in conjunction with the FDP
meetings in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the meeting will be to
finalize recommendations for reengineering the competitive application
and to address issues related to the deployment of Commons Version 2 and
the reopening of Commons registration.