Melody Montgomery

Today’s Session

• Selecting the appropriate agency• Selecting the appropriate agency

• Tools to overcome common reasons for application failure

• Developing your idea

• Creating a writing scheduleCreating a writing schedule

• Preparing your grant’s content

• Preparing revisions

Selecting AppropriateSelecting Appropriate Agency & Type ofAgency & Type of

Proposal

Funding Opportunities

1. Be aware of funding opportunities and announcements

• NIH, DOD, NSF, AHA, HRSA

• SciVal Funding (Demo)g ( )

2. Read the solicitation instructions

3 Avoid applying to multiple agencies (i e cannot submit the3. Avoid applying to multiple agencies (i.e., cannot submit the same proposal to both NIH and NSF. Will be rejected)

4 Be aware of types of grants and deadlines4. Be aware of types of grants and deadlines

1. Communicate with Program Director prior to submission

• Contact agency

D it fit i ?• Does it fit in?

• Identify the best study section

• Ex. NSF: Send 1 page draft of Specific Aims

• Targeting correct program• Targeting correct program

• Provides framework for reviewer

• Outlines Specific Objectives, Potential Impact

Tools to overcome common reasons forcommon reasons for

application failureapplication failure it d b icited by review

Common problems cited by reviewers

• Studies based on a shaky hypothesis or data.

• Alternative hypotheses not considered.

• Importance of problem not important not conveyedconveyed.

• Lack of original or new ideas.

DevelopingDeveloping Your Idea

Developing Your Hypothesis

• Observation• Observation

• Formulate multiple/several (six) hypotheses

• Focus hypotheses specific to area of interest – study’s aim y

» At risk individualsGap in kno ledge» Gap in knowledge

P d C f H thPros and Cons for Hypotheses

• Write out pros and cons of eachWrite out pros and cons of each hypothesis

» Preliminary data» Skill sets» Fundability

Narrowing Down Your Hypothesis

• Narrow down to three hypotheses from• Narrow down to three hypotheses from pros and cons

• Write three Specific Aims for each of the three hypothesesthe three hypotheses » Keep aims independent of one

another» Describe phenomenap

• Select the strongest hypothesis

Believe In & Agree With Your HypothesisBelieve In & Agree With Your Hypothesis» Well-defined problem & well

articulated hypothesis» Thorough review of literatureg» Do not write the proposal if the

hypothesis could be wronghypothesis could be wrong

OBSERVATION/SIX HYPOTHESES

HYPOTHESIS

HYPOTHESIS 3

HYPOTHESIS 4

HYPOTHESIS

THREE HYPOTHESES

HYPOTHESIS 1

HYPOTHESIS 2 5

HYPOTHESIS 6

HYPOTHESIS 1 HYPOTHESES 2 HYPOTHESES 3

SPECIFIC AIM 1

SPECIFIC AIM 2

SPECIFIC AIM 1

SPECIFIC AIM 2

SPECIFIC AIM 1

SPECIFIC AIM 2

SPECIFIC AIM 3 SPECIFIC AIM 3 SPECIFIC AIM 3

Illustrations

• Create as part of the planning process

• Create prior to writing

• Make it easy on reviewery

• Black, white and grey

• Multiple Illustrations Describing• Multiple Illustrations Describing,,,, » Hypothesis » Each Aim» Each Aim » Timeline » Research Plan» Preliminary Data

Creating a WritingCreating a Writing S h d lSchedule

Writing Schedule

» Work on daily Discipline» Work on daily ~ Discipline» Plan for 4-6 months of writing» Review throughout » Edit and proofread in several short p

blocks of time» Plan for editing and submission time» Plan for editing and submission time

Preparing YourPreparing Your Grant’s ContentGrant’s Content

Common problems cited b re ie ers 1Common problems cited by reviewers ~ 1• Methods unsuited to the objective.• Lack of focus in Hypotheses, Specific Aims, or

Research Plan.• Direction or sense of priority not clearly defined,

i.e., experiments do not follow one another and lack a clear starting or finishing point.

• Proposed model system not appropriate to yaddress the proposed questions.

• Problem more complex than investigator appears p g ppto realize.

Common problems cited b re ie ers 2Common problems cited by reviewers ~ 2• Experiments too dependent on success of an initial

d i tproposed experiment.• Lack of alternative methods in case the primary

approach does not work outapproach does not work out.• Too little detail in the Research Plan to convince

reviewers the PI knows what he or she is doing i ereviewers the PI knows what he or she is doing, i.e., no recognition of potential problems and pitfalls.

• Over ambitious Research Plan with an unrealistically• Over-ambitious Research Plan with an unrealistically large amount of work.

• Proposal driven by technology i e a method in• Proposal driven by technology, i.e., a method in search of a problem.

C 3Common problems cited by reviewers ~ 3• Rationale for experiments not provided, i.e.,Rationale for experiments not provided, i.e.,

why they are important or how they are relevant t th h th ito the hypothesis.

• Proposal lacking enough preliminary data, or g g ypreliminary data do not support project's feasibilityfeasibility.

• Not clear which data were obtained by the investigator and which were reported by others.

Specific Aims Page» IntroductionIntroduction» Statement of problem» Statement of Impact and Summary» Statement of Impact and Summary» One Central Hypothesis (restate verbatim)

S ifi Ai (3 4) D t it t» Specific Aims (3-4). Do not write too many.» List – precise descriptions, action verbs» Provide details in the strategy section

Research Strategy ~ ThreeResearch Strategy Three Componentsp

»Significance g» Innovation »Approach

Research Strategy ~Research Strategy Significanceg

»Critical analysis of the yliterature (Scopus)St t t f i ifi»Statement of significance

»Research Design»Research Design

Research Strategy ~ InnovationN id di d»New idea or discussed but not studiedbut not studied

» New approach» New technology

R h St tResearch Strategy» Questions leading to aims – questions» Questions leading to aims – questions

to address» Short paragraph summary/introduction

for each specific aimp» Provide rationale

D t dd d t il lik th» Do not add details like the concentration or amounts

» Techniques rather than details

Research Strategy CondResearch Strategy Cond.» Statistical considerations» Statistical considerations

(CCORDA)» Animal considerations

(CCORDA and UNMC’s Center for Collaboration on Research)

» Alternative outcomes» Alternative outcomes

Additional Expertise and pCollaboration

Collaboration and Resources» Contact experts (SciVal

Experts Demo)p )» Letter of support» Collaboration - bring someone

in if there is limited expertisep» Multi-Investigator section» Management Plan» Management Plan» How communication will take place

Revising and Resubmitting» Response» Response » Communicate with program director» One page to address comments» One page to address comments

» Address everything» Agree and expand briefly/direct» Agree and expand briefly/direct

» New Info.» Highlight new info based on» Highlight new info based on

Instructions» Note: If information was missed

in the review, can restate as if it is new

Resources & ReferencesGrant Writing Tips and Sample Applications:Grant Writing Tips and Sample Applications:

http://grants.nih.gov/grant_tips.htm

R PORTER R h P tf li O li R tiRePORTER Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool Expenditures & Results –

http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm

SciVal & SciVal ExpertsSciVal & SciVal Experts

Scopus

CCORDA

Melody Montgomery, B.S.Editorial Grants SpecialistEditorial Grants SpecialistOffice of the Vice Chancellor for Research

Research Editorial OfficeResearch Editorial Office

University of Nebraska Medical Center DRC I 4010

985875 Nebraska Medical Center

Omaha, NE 68198-5875

Office Hours: 9 a m 5 p m M FOffice Hours: 9 a.m. – 5 p.m. M-F

E-address: m.montgomery@unmc.edu

Phone: 402 559 4132Phone: 402.559.4132

http://www.unmc.edu/research_editorial.htm