Select a 'tag' to view all related articles:
- Three (Grant) Peeves in a Pod: Check Yourself
Reviewers review. We will notice. These fresh mistakes straight from study section:
1.) Please agree with yourself.
If the abstract says n = 110, the aims say 100, the statistical section says 110, and the budget justification says 100, it makes me cranky.
2.) Please explain...
- Finally! Data on What Study Section Really Cares About
In 2009, NIH revamped their scoring system asking reviewers to provide numbers ranging from 1 (best) to 9 (worst) assessing applications Environment, Investigator, Innovation, Approach, and Significance.
NIH has emphasized Innovation (insert jazz hands), leaving many a weary gra...
- Three (Grant) Peeves in a Pod: Formatting
Ever since the holy trinity important things have come in threes—listen up. Every study section I have been in for years includes the complaint that certain grant authors:
1.) Cheat the font sizes in their tables and figures.
Don’t make me adjust my bifocals. It makes me cran...
- Diversifying Your Research Portfolio
Today the Newman Society held a panel discussion with three independent investigators who recently received their first large non-NIH grants. Their tips for diversifying your research portfolio are:
Finding Opportunities and Repurposing Ideas
Dr. Natasha Halasa
CDC Funding
...
