Got the Score and Reviews: What Next? Celebrate

or Revise and Resubmit

K08 Review Criteria• Candidate

– Does the candidate have the potential to develop as an independent and productive researcher?

– Are the candidate's prior training and research experience appropriate for this award?

– Is the candidate’s academic, clinical (if relevant), and research record of high quality?

– Is there evidence of the candidate’s commitment to meeting the program objectives to become an independent investigator?

– Do the letters of reference address the above review criteria, and do they provide evidence that the candidate has a high potential for becoming an independent investigator?

K08 Review Criteria• Career Development Plan

– What is the likelihood that the plan will contribute substantially to the scientific development of the candidate and lead to scientific independence?

– Are the candidate's prior training and research experience appropriate for this award?

– Are the content, scope, phasing, and duration of the career development plan appropriate when considered in the context of prior training/research experience and the stated training and research objectives for achieving research independence?

– Are there adequate plans for monitoring and evaluating the candidate’s research and career development progress?

K08 Review Criteria• Research Plan

– Are the proposed research question, design, and methodology of significant scientific and technical merit?

– Is the research plan relevant to the candidate’s research career objectives?

– Is the research plan appropriate to the candidate’s stage of research development and as a vehicle for developing the research skills described in the career development plan?

K08 Review Criteria• Mentor(s), Co-mentor(s), Consultant(s), Collaborator(s)

– Are the mentor's research qualifications in the area of the proposed research appropriate?

– Do(es) the mentor(s) adequately address the candidate’s potential and his/her strengths and areas needing improvement? Is there adequate description of the quality and extent of the mentor’s proposed role in providing guidance and advice to the candidate?

– Is the mentor’s description of the elements of the research career development activities, including formal course work adequate?

– Is there evidence of the mentor’s, consultant’s and/or collaborator’s previous experience in fostering the development of independent investigators?

– Is there evidence of the mentor’s current research productivity and peer-reviewed support?

– Is active/pending support for the proposed research project appropriate and adequate?

– Are there adequate plans for monitoring and evaluating the career development awardee’s progress toward independence?

K08 Review Criteria• Environment and Institutional Commitment to the Candidate

– Is there clear commitment of the sponsoring institution to ensure that the required minimum of the candidate’s effort will be devoted directly to the research described in the application, with the remaining percent effort being devoted to an appropriate balance of research, teaching, administrative, and clinical responsibilities?

– Is the institutional commitment to the career development of the candidate appropriately strong?

– Are the research facilities, resources and training opportunities, including faculty capable of productive collaboration with the candidate, adequate and appropriate?

– Is the environment for scientific and professional development of the candidate of high quality?

– Is there assurance that the institution intends the candidate to be an integral part of its research program as an independent investigator?

Overall Impact Score and Criterion Score “Disconnect”

• Often the overall impact score does not appear to reflect the individual criterion scores

• No formula for calculating overall impact score from criterion scores

• Criterion scores are posted by each reviewer prior to the meeting, whereas the overall score is the result of scoring after discussion of the grant and reflects the mean of the entire review panel

Scores and Reviews• Scores posted on Commons usually 1-2 days• Summary statement posted no later than 30 days• Wait for your summary statement before calling NIH• For questions after you receive your summary statement, call

your assigned Program Officer (PO), usually initial e-mail to arrange a phone call– The likelihood of NIH funding the application– Further discussion of the reviewers’ comments (the PO may have been

present at the review)– What to address in your resubmission application, if this is your first

submission– The acceptable bases for appealing the peer review process– How to develop a new application, if your resubmission was not

successful

Award Paylines• K Award scores are ranked, and a cutoff score is

determined based on the number of applications that can be funded by a particular institute

• Percentiles are generally not used for K awards• Payline (impact score or percentile ranking at which

likelihood of funding goes from high to low) is not a guarantee of funding

• Some institute councils may skip or reach beyond applications within their payline to fund applications to maintain mission focus, balance portfolios or limit redundancy

K Award Success Rates• Success Rates 2016 2017 2018

– K01 32.1% 31.5% 31.0%– K08 37.8% 43.6% 39.7%– K12 45.0% 46.4% 55.4%– K23 36.0% 34.0% 37.7%– K99/R00 23.0% 23.4% 26.2%

• Success rate definition– Percentage of reviewed grant applications that

receive funding

• Complete data posted on K-RO Club website

K08 Success Rates2018 K08 NCI 125 46 36.8% $9,843,540

2018 K08 NHLBI 106 47 44.3% $7,808,400

2018 K08 NIDCR 12 7 58.3% $1,029,787

2018 K08 NIDDK 60 23 38.3% $3,712,192

2018 K08 NINDS 52 19 36.5% $3,589,359

2018 K08 NIAID 64 21 32.8% $3,824,893

2018 K08 NIGMS 14 8 57.1% $1,515,128

2018 K08 NICHD 13 4 30.8% $664,423

2018 K08 NEI 19 8 42.1% $1,457,399

2018 K08 NIEHS 2 1 50.0% $211,550

2018 K08 NIA 10 2 20.0% $336,324

2018 K08 NIAMS 15 7 46.7% $1,197,946

2018 K08 NIDCD 2 0 0.0% $0

2018 K08 NIMH 19 10 52.6% $1,944,961

2018 K08 NIDA 5 3 60.0% $546,841

2018 K08 NHGRI 4 2 50.0% $454,649

2018 K08 NIBIB 2 0 0.0% $0

2018 K08 Activity Total 524 208 39.7% $38,137,392

Fiscal Year Activity Code NIH Institute / Center Number of Applications Reviewed

Number of Applications Awarded Success Rate1 Total Funding2

K23 Success Rates2018 K23 NCI 9 1 11.1% $173,556

2018 K23 NHLBI 137 50 36.5% $8,957,091

2018 K23 NIDCR 4 2 50.0% $321,761

2018 K23 NIDDK 99 38 38.4% $7,020,682

2018 K23 NINDS 54 15 27.8% $2,809,952

2018 K23 NIAID 59 17 28.8% $3,249,004

2018 K23 NIGMS 8 6 75.0% $1,113,054

2018 K23 NICHD 50 20 40.0% $3,145,148

2018 K23 NEI 14 5 35.7% $1,056,045

2018 K23 NIEHS 2 0 0.0% $0

2018 K23 NIA 35 18 51.4% $3,249,084

2018 K23 NIAMS 18 8 44.4% $1,255,889

2018 K23 NIDCD 9 3 33.3% $515,654

2018 K23 NIMH 99 36 36.4% $6,773,762

2018 K23 NIDA 35 13 37.1% $2,413,749

2018 K23 NIAAA 13 6 46.2% $1,039,895

2018 K23 NINR 14 6 42.9% $860,997

2018 K23 NIBIB 3 2 66.7% $363,598

2018 K23 NCCIH**** 8 6 75.0% $935,191

2018 K23 NIMHD*** 1 1 100.0% $167,292

2018 K23 Activity Total 671 253 37.7% $45,421,404

Fiscal Year Activity Code NIH Institute / Center Number of Applications Reviewed

Number of Applications Awarded Success Rate1 Total Funding2

Just-in-Time (JIT) Request

• May be asked to submit IRB/IACUC approvals, updated other funding information, etc.

• Should not be construed as an indicator of a possible award

• Request is sent automatically if overall impact score is 40 or better

Notice of Award

• Sent to you on Commons and to your institution after your institute’s council meeting and final funding decisions are made

• Often a significant reduction from original amount requested (e.g., 15%)

• Celebrate when the “check is in the bank”

Resubmission Policy• One resubmission of an unfunded application• Following an unsuccessful resubmission (A1)

application, applicants may submit the same idea as a new (A0) application for the next appropriate new application due date

• Resubmissions (A1) must be submitted within 37 months of the new (A0) application

• NIH will not assess the similarity of the science in the new (A0) application to any previously reviewed submission when accepting an application for review

Revised Application Introduction Page

• Point-by-point summary of responses to reviews and revisions in the resubmission

• Emphasize responses to major concerns, but try to address all concerns

• Note the provision of new data and experiments where needed

• Keep tone appreciative of the feedback and respectful and not argumentative when there is disagreement

Responses to Reviewers

• “The reviewers, especially the secondary reviewer, clearly do not understand my area of research, but I will try to explain the rationale for the experiments in SA #1 more clearly.”

• “The thoughtful comments of the reviewers are much appreciated, and I have revised the rationale for SA #1 to reflect their concerns.”

Revised Applications• A “thick skin” is essential• Get help and advice from your mentor(s),

collaborators and pre-submission reviewers• Almost always better to wait another cycle

and submit a strong revised application that rush to make the next deadline

• An application can go from “not discussed” to an outstanding score and funding after careful revision and resubmission

Revised Application• Pay attention to submission deadlines for

revised applications as they are different from those of new applications

• Check the UTHSC NIH grant deadline schedule• CFRI is happy to help with all aspects of a

revised grant submission• Let us know ASAP of your plans for

resubmission• Allow time for pre-review and consultation

the same as for a new application

Good Luck!!!!