# Presentation: 135461

## Mock Study Section

**NIDDK Joint New Investigators **
**and **
**Network of Minority Research Investigators Workshop**

## Participants

**Dr. James Hyde (NIDDK)**
**Dr. Michele Barnard (NIDDK)**
**Dr. Carolyn Miles (NIDDK)**
**Dr. Mario Ascoli (University of Iowa)**
**Dr. Juanita Merchant (University of Michigan)**
**Dr. W. Allan Walker (Harvard Medical School)**

## “Grantsmanship 101”

## Life Cycle of a Grant

## What happens to my grant when I mail it in?

- Center for Scientific Review (CSR)
- 	- Receipt and Referral Branch
- 	- Assignment to Institute for potential
-       funding and to IRG for initial review
- 	- Scientific Review Administrator (SRA)
- 	- Study Section Chair and Reviewers

## Peer Review:  The Study Section

- Scientific Review Administrator (SRA)
- Experts with expertise in a given area
- One primary reviewer presents the grant
- One or two secondary reviewers also provide critiques
- A reader(s) provides further details
- All of the critiques are used to assemble a summary statement

## Scoring: Part I

- Grants are subjected to triage
- Lower half of pool = grants not deemed competitive are unscored
- Competitive pool = grants deemed in the top half of grants are scored
**1.0 - 1.5 = Outstanding**
**1.5- 2.0  = Excellent**
**2.0 - 2.5 = Very Good**

## What just happened?

- Scored, but not fundable
- What do I do?
- Read the summary statement
- Talk to Institute Program Staff
- Talk to Colleague/Mentor
- Consider options:
- 			Revise/resubmit
- 			Next deadline? Or later?

## Scoring: Part II

- All scored grants from a study section are percentile ranked
- 0.1% =	Best
- 50.0% = Worst
- Institutes use percentile rankings to help make funding decisions

## What happens after the initial review?

- Second level review at the Institute
- Program Director
- Grants Management
- Council Action
- Final administrative review
- Funding

## What do I do if I don’t make it on the first attempt?

- Carefully read the summary statement
- Talk with your Institute PD
- Seek help from experienced colleagues/mentors
- Don’t write a rebuttal, carefully address the critiques
- Don’t rush back with an incompletely revised application

## Do’s/Don’ts

- Stay focused
- Be succinct, but not terse
- Novel ideas, strongly supported by data
- Stay within your limits of time/amount
- Alternatives/pitfalls
- Significance

- Avoid overambitious aims
- Avoid jargon
- Do not leave out key details
- Do not be one-sided in analysis of literature
- Do not give ambiguous data

## Awards

- Pending availability of funds
- For 2-5 years
- Notice of Grant Award
- Grants Management Specialist
- Scientific Program Officer
- Yearly Progress Reports

## Endocrinology Research at the NIDDK

**Further information may be obtained through the Internet: **_[http://www.niddk.nih.gov](http://www.niddk.nih.gov/)_
**Or by contacting: **
- 			  **Ronald Margolis, Ph.D.**
**	****301-594-8819**
**	****E-mail:  **_[rm76f@nih.gov](mailto:rm76f@nih.gov)_
**	****James F. Hyde, Ph.D.**
**	****301-594-7692**
**	****E-mail: **_[jh486z@nih.gov](mailto:jh486z@nih.gov)_

## Where to get more information

- http://www.nih.gov/
- http://www.niddk.nih.gov/
- http://www.endo-society.org/

## Summary

- Always think and write clearly
- Strong data always helps
- Ask questions of colleagues/NIH staff
- Grants DO get funded, why not make it yours?

## Center for Scientific Review (CSR)

- General Information about Review and Referral of Grants by CSR:
- Suzanne Fisher, Ph.D.
- Chief, Referral Branch
- CSR
- 301-435-0715

## Questions???