AM25-ST-07-L - Demystifying the Grant Review Process: A Mock Study Section

The AABB Foundation presents, Demystifying the Grant Review Process: A Mock Study Section. Most scientific grant applications are evaluated by panels of anonymous peer-reviewers. Investigators may use considerable resources generating preliminary data and certainly expend large efforts in preparing proposals containing their best ideas. Typically, months go by ….something somewhere occurs somehow…. then a response is received. At least at the N.I.H., approximately 50% of the time the grant receives a priority score and/or percentile. A summary statement contains a synopsis of the discussion by the panel as well as the specific comments from three reviewers indicating strengths and weaknesses. Hopefully, specific advice is given suggesting what changes may increase enthusiasm if the grant is resubmitted. Scores for individual criteria (e.g. significance, innovation, approach, etc.) are also provided, but the overall score is not a function of the individual scores…how exactly does that work? The other 50% of the time the grant receives no score and is labeled “not discussed”, yet the applicant still gets criteria scores and comments back from three reviewers. But if the grant was never discussed and never even got a priority score, then how could the reviewers even know it was in the lower 50%? How does the overall process work? By what criteria do reviewers evaluate grants? Does the entire study section read every grant or is it only the three reviewers. Do the same three reviewers read every grant, or is it a different three reviewers that read each grant – and, if the latter, how can scores possibly be compared to each other?

For investigators who have never served on a study section, which includes essentially every junior investigator, the review process may be a veritable “black box”, described by senior colleagues perhaps, but entirely foreign nevertheless. One can’t really appreciate how it all works until having served on several study sections. But, reviewers are not typically invited for study section until they have a grant, so how are junior people supposed to get an idea of the process?

PRE-READ: DOWNLOAD GRANT SUBMISSION STHAT WILL BE DISCUSSED

For the first 30 min. of this session, a “mock study section” will be carried out. Highly experienced reviewers will hold a live study section in front of the audience where they review an authentic NIH grant submission. The evaluation will include discussion, formal evaluation of strengths and weaknesses, and the scoring process. Audience members will be able to download a copy of the grant before the session. For the second 30 min, the study section members will serve as an expert panel to answer questions from the audience, regarding what happened in the mock study section or their experiences in real study sections. Panel members may also debate answers to questions where their experiences differ.