If you are or will be resubmitting an NIH grant…

…go read DrugMonkey’s latest post on how to structure the introduction. There’s a lot of great stuff in there, some of which differs from how I dealt with my last (and first) resubmission. Good information to have in your back pocket, IMVHO.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “If you are or will be resubmitting an NIH grant…

  1. I actually went through the process of very quickly polishing the apple (love the phrase, btw), which in hindsight was probably not necessary. The understanding that the summary statement, which had the glowing comments front and center for each reviewer, was right there has made me reconsider whether I’ll actually do this the next time around. I certainly would like to hear what others with more experience than myself think, though.

  2. It was pretty common to see in the old days. I never liked it. As I said on that original post about it, we stand in proxy for the population of subfield scientists. To the extent review is objective (yes, I know) our own particular contribution is nothing unique.

  3. I have never been a fan of stroking the reviewers’ egos. I sort of liked the idea of highlighting the positive comments about ME, but that self-flattery also sacrificed space for the actual science. I did both because that’s what I’d seen others do – not a terribly great reason, especially when space and time is becoming ever more precious.

    I know a lot of folks out there have griped out the new(ish) NIH space restrictions. As someone who worked and reworked a single grant under the old and new systems, I think the leaner apps are cleaner, easier to read (when done well), and much more fun to write. Same can be said for the intro, if you’re willing to let go of all that extra *polishing* crap.

  4. I’ve had previous advice TO polish the apple, and had success when doing that, but with the shortness and availability of the summary statement I agree it seems unnecessary. I’ll also note that as a reviewer, I ignored those apple-polishing parts and only focused on what they changed or didn’t change about stuff that the previous reviewers had reviewed negatively.

What say you...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s