# Presentation: 829584

## Should the NIH Grant Application be Shorter?Robert Finkelstein (NINDS) and Don Schneider (CSR)Co-Chairs, NIH Grant Application Committee

## The NIH Grant Application Committee

- Created by the Extramural Activities Working Group (EAWG)
- EAWG Co-Chairs: Story Landis (NINDS Director) and Norka Ruiz Bravo (Deputy Director for Extramural Research)

## Charge: to consider whether the length and format of the standard (R01) Research Plan section should be changed

## Members

**Bob Finkelstein (NINDS) Co-Chair**
**Don Schneider (CSR) Co-Chair**
**Mary Custer (CSR)**
**Ann Hagan (NIGMS)**
**Craig Jordan (NIDCD)**
**Sherry Mills (OD)**
**Philip Smith (NIDDK)**
**Barbara Spalholz (NCI)**
**Elizabeth Wilder (NIDDK)**
**Alan Willard (NINDS)**

## 		  Background 

- Many applicants and reviewers believe that the R01 application focuses too much on methodological detail and too little on scientific significance and impact
- NIH grant applications are comparatively long and time-consuming to prepare and to review
- Increasingly difficult to recruit sufficient numbers of quality reviewers

## Committee Activities

- Conducted preliminary discussions with extramural scientists
- 	- _Result_: majority supported shortening
- Developed / released RFI to solicit feedback from broad extramural community
- Prepared similar RFI for NIH Staff

## Committee Activities (continued)

- CSR analyzed a subset of the results of the RFI
- Committee members scanned all the responses and analyzed 500 randomly selected responses in detail
- Committee evaluated results of external and internal RFIs and developed recommendations

## Models proposed in RFI

**5 pages – **1 for specific aims, 1 for background and significance, and 3 for approach
**10 pages – **1 for specific aims, 1 for background and significance, 3 for preliminary data/progress, 5 for research design and methods
**15 pages - **1 for specific aims, 2 for background and significance, 4 for preliminary data/progress, 8 for research design and methods
**25 pages - **1 for specific aims, 2-3 for background and significance, 6-8 for preliminary data/progress, 13-16 for research design and methods

## Application Page LimitPreferences

| Pages | All | New PIs | Clinicians | NIH staff |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 5 | 5% | 8% | 5% | 1% |
| 10 | 22% | 22% | 20% | 13% |
| 15 | 43% | 45% | 36% | 41% |
| 25 | 27% | 23% | 36% | 45% |
| No resp | 3% | 2% | 3% | 0% |
| Total N | 5078 | 248 | 1217 | 226 |
|  |  |  |  |  |

## Would a shorter application affect ability to present scientific ideas?

## Would a shorter application take less time to prepare?

## Would a shorter application affect ability to judge scientific merit?

## Would an equivalent number of shorter applications affect willingness to review?

## If application shortened, should review criteria be changed to emphasize ideas/impact?

## If application shortened, would any groups be disadvantaged?

## Do clinical research plans require more application space?

## Additional Comments

- Shorter applications will be clearer and will emphasize critical points   93
- Will decrease burden for applicants and reviewers   57
- Shorter will lead to more applications   12
- Shorter will favor well-known applicants 11

## Committee Recommendations

- 1.  _The application should be shortened_
- Shorter applications will decrease burden on applicants and reviewers
- Shorter applications encourage more focus on critical issues and less on methodological detail
- Majority of committee members favored 15 page limit, minority wanted 10 pages or less

## Committee Recommendations

- 2.  _Instructions to applicants and reviewers should be modified_
**Emphasize impact, de-emphasize methodological detail**
- 3.  _Sections of the application should be modified_
**Align more closely with the review criteria**

## Additional Comments

- Shorter applications may not solve the problem of reviewer recruitment. Most committee members (and many RFI respondents) opposed assigning an increased number of (shorter) applications to each reviewer
- Changes to the application and to the peer review process should be made in a coordinated fashion!

## Acknowledgements

- OER staff, particularly Tom Turley, RFI
- Terri Kowalczyk and Don Luckett, CSR, analyses and graphics