Grant Writing Articles- August 1, 2009
Grant Writing Articles:
Article 1: Advice for Faculty Meeting Program Directors at NSF
Article 2: Understanding the Review Process
Article 3: Review Procedures at NSF
Article 4: Review Procedures at NIH
Article 1
By Richard Nader
Advice for Faculty Meeting Directors at NSF
Richard (Rick) Nader is Director for Research Development in the Office of the Vice President for Research and Economic Development at the University of North Texas. Nader just completed a 3-year term as Program Manager at the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Office of International Science and Engineering. Prior to that Nader was at Texas A&M for about 16 years in various capacities, including as Director of the Institute for Pacific Asia, Co- Director of the TEES Center for Community Support at the Public Policy Research Institute, and as a lecturer, teaching a graduate level course on proposal writing for the TAMUS Health Science Center, School of Rural Public Health.
Setting up a meeting
Once you have determined that NSF is a good agency to target for your research, there are several fundamental considerations before planning a visit with a Program Director (PD). First, you should have 2-3 discrete ideas in mind to discuss. You should have examined your ideas in light of your own research strengths, and compare these to the funding priorities/requirements of the NSF program and/or division to which you plan to apply. Second, you should be prepared to visit multiple programs due to the likely possibility that your research ideas may be applicable to multiple programs. Third, keep in mind that NSF reflects different scientific disciplines and programmatic histories, and therefore processes might vary widely. Your task is submit your proposal to the program that “best fits” your research objectives, while learning the “priorities” of the multiple programs that may have an interest in your work.
Read the detailed descriptions about what each program funds to target your meetings appropriately. See the “About” side panel of most major programs within divisions you plan to visit (for an example see: http://www.nsf.gov/ehr/drl/about.jsp .
Early discussion with your department chair and Proposal Development staff http://research.unt.edu/admin03_researchdevelopment.htm can help you in this process. Support is available from the Office of the VPRED through “PEST” [See http://research.unt.edu/intramural/intramural.htm]. PEST are internal funds matched by your department or dean for you to travel to visit funding agencies.
Generally, a Program Director (PD), also referred to Program Officer or Program Manager, is available and welcomes [early] interaction with potential PIs. Once you are committed to travel, you should first approach PDs with an email containing the following information:
• State the nature of your research and specific interest (cite the RFP# or divisions by name). State that you wish to discuss your ideas with the PD ahead of submission.
• Propose your preferred date(s) to meet – generally say you have “blocked” the whole day, or morning or afternoon to meet with the PD. Prioritize your meetings so that you confirm the most important meetings first.
• Request a response by X date (normally within 3-5 days), after which you will call to follow up.
Generally, there are no particularly bad times during the year to request a meeting. However, you might avoid Fridays or Mondays on long holiday weekends, and avoid 2-3 weeks prior to and after the PDs deadlines, as the PDs are busy preparing for panels, processing incoming proposals, or assigning reviews. Other times to avoid include late summer (usually late July and August) as PDs are very busy processing award actions before the close of the fiscal year. Sometimes PDs (who finish early) go on vacation as well and will be out of the office at that time. The only other consideration is whether a PD is a rotator, that is, a faculty member on temporary assignment to NSF with an arrangement to be back at his or her home institution for independent research and development leave. If PDs are back at their institution, do not expect an immediate response, as they are tending to neglected research or graduate students. If you don’t get a reply within a week, give a call to ascertain the status of your inquiry. PDs get MANY inquiries as you might imagine. However, do not let that stop you. They are paid by your tax dollars to serve the NSF mission to fund basic research.
Once the meeting is set, get prepared.
Before the meeting
1. Understand NSF’s role and mission & the backgrounds and responsibilities of PDs you are meeting by looking at the organizational chart: http://www.nsf.gov/staff/orgchart.jsp and the academic and research backgrounds of the program directors (if available) (See for example: http://www.nsf.gov/staff/staff_bio.jsp?lan=cvanhart&org=DGE&from_org=DGE. Sometimes you need to look beyond the NSF website, for instance, in publication indices or at the PD’s home institution, since many PDs do not list extensive information on the NSF website.
Understand the PD’s perspective as that of a “manager of a process for recommending proposals to fund”. The PD has latitude at several points in the process. First, PDs may encourage/discourage particular research themes/topics. Second, PDs select reviewers to evaluate submitted proposals. Third, after the reviews are in, the PD can use the information provided by the reviews, plus add his or her own analysis, in recommending which proposals to fund. There are PDs who see themselves as catalysts and priority setters, and others who “wait and see what comes in” i.e., let the marketplace of ideas unfold. Yet, no matter how the PD sees him or herself, each is broadly accountable and decision-making processes are transparent and reviewed. In making decisions, PDs must often make fine distinctions between many excellent proposals. In fact, an internal study found that NSF could double the funding it currently offers without a drop in quality. Therefore, you should be prepared to maximize your chances of success under both NSF-wide review criteria: Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts. See the NSF website for more information about these two criteria. Many PDs are therefore cautious and will be careful what they say to you because there are many variables to overcome in successfully navigating the review process and PD’s statements may be misinterpreted (or twisted by optimistic PIs). Yet, don’t feel intimidated, PDs are public servants, have mortgages, maybe small children at home, and otherwise pay taxes just like the rest of us.
Plan your arrival by knowing NSF’s location and check-in procedure-- so you are not late! http://www.nsf.gov/about/. NSF is a government facility but luckily has minimal security procedures. For example, the Program Director hosting you needs to be sure you are logged in to the visitor system. Remember to bring picture ID.
2. Familiarize yourself with the RFP
a. KNOW (REALLY KNOW!) the RFP(s) to which you might submit (see for example the REESE program, read both the “synopsis” page and the “full RFP” http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=13667&org=DRL&from=home
b. Read over recently funded abstracts usually found at the bottom of the synopsis page, in order to get a clear sense of past funding history. Be aware that NSF divisions try to make their funding investments go as far as possible and will internally ask other programs in other divisions for co-funding, should your project’s focus overlap. Also pay attention the range and types of past funding awards in order to determine whether your project’s budgetary and time estimates seem to “fit with past awards”.
3. Inform the Program Directors about your research ideas before you show up
a. Email a ¼ page (<250 words) description ahead of your visit, unless the PD asks for more, or less. In crafting these short summaries, you might wish to follow the key elements of a Project Summary and/or include pertinent details listed in the NSF Proposal Preparation Guidelines “project description”- See: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf09_29/gpg_2.jsp#IIC2b . Remember:
i. Be flexible in approaching your research-If you are conceptualizing your project in multiple ways and meeting multiple PDs, prepare separate summaries accordingly
ii. If you are still unsure that your research fits within any specific area, leave it general enough to be re-worked after getting PD’s feedback
iii. Bring a couple extra copies of these summaries along with your business card and/or a flyer for your department/program.
b. Prepare short ppt presentation (in electronic and hard copy) that outlines the key points (as in 3a. above) of your research and offer to “show” this to the PD [Don’t forget to charge your laptop battery].
c. Jot down several specific questions about your project’s fit with the RFP and any talking points you wish to convey. Keep these at hand while taking notes of your meeting.
i. Questions you might include: 1. What were the funding rates from the last few calls? 2. How are proposals typically reviewed (ad hoc, panel or both)? 3. Who reviews (for example a mix of scientifically literate laypersons and subject experts, junior/senior faculty)? etc. You may wish to offer to be a reviewer if not planning to submit. PDs are often looking for new reviewers.
ii. Talking points you might include: 1. Notable research publications from your lab (sci citation index-impact factor); 2. Research accolades; make note of other unique features that distinguish your work or your research team, without seeming braggadocios. 3. If the demographics are favorable, offer a “picture” of the students in your labs, highlighting successful students from underrepresented groups, or institutional efforts at broadening participation. Many more RFPs are specifically asking for “Broadening Participation Plans” as part of proposal submission requirements. See: http://www.nsf.gov/od/broadeningparticipation/bp_workinggroup.jsp
During the meeting:
4. Inform AND LISTEN – You should expect no more than 30-minutes so use your time wisely. Do not assume that the PD had time to read your email closely. Even if s/he did, s/he may wish to hear it directly from you to confirm his/her understanding. In summarizing your project, stay away from details unless asked. Rather, focus on novelty, transformational aspects or significant benefits likely to derive from the work. It’s the ideas that intrigue. Save the methodological details for the proposal.
Be concise, cogent and build rapport & understanding— Although most PDs are very pleased to discuss project ideas, each PD has significant time pressures and a large volume of tasks in managing a proposal process “from A-Z”. Often the support staff for PDs is sparse or relatively ineffectual, and the work load on PDs is expanding. Be efficient, but don’t rush so that you lose the PD along the way. PDs exhibit the same various personalities one might find in universities, and often are faculty on rotation temporarily from a university. Therefore, be prepared to adjust your approach in order to communicate your messages effectively.
a. Your goals for a PD meeting are to:
i. Determine if your project(s) is a good fit for the RFP(s)
ii. Gather information to help steer your proposal to be competitive, and
iii. Receive “encouragement” to apply from the PD [HINT: the word encouraged is code for an invitation to submit, and if uttered, is probably an indication that your project has reached a minimum bar from the PDs perspective (i.e., that your proposal is appropriate).] Of course, this is NO guarantee of funding. If you cannot gauge the PD’s enthusiasm, and you’re still unsure, you could simply ask that question directly [i.e., “Would you encourage me to submit this proposal for the next deadline?”].
b. Suggested sequence of meeting
i. Spend 2-3 minutes discussing what you have in common. Say something about your pedigree and background so the PD can trace your path to this point in time (i.e., applying for NSF funding) and just to find friendly connections, highlighting the things you may have in common. For example, you share the same research interests, you have common acquaintances, or you are aware of other PIs funded through the program, you might mention that fact and how your work connects. Be careful not to sound like you are “name dropping”.
ii. Spend 5-6 minutes introducing your project. Ask if the PD would like to have a brief ppt about the project, and hand the PD the slides on paper and/or the abstract (as discussed above) while you present it on your laptop. Watch for looks of puzzlement, and allow ample opportunity for questions as the conversation naturally develops.
iii. Spend the next 15-20 minutes asking a few of your prepared questions/talking points, and most importantly, letting the PD react and ask you questions. If the PD is engaged and asks questions, let the conversation flow. If the PD asks a question you cannot answer, do not guess. Remember to exercise the caution of a serious investigator and also be willing to self-critique. A PD will be impressed if you have an understanding of the weaknesses, challenges or barriers of your own research. PDs may challenge you if they want the idea to be successful. In anticipation of the hard questions, think about potential flaws and how you might address them. Accepting valid criticism is the sign of a good researcher. Remember, you know your own work – but a PD is just learning about it.
Sometimes during conversations, PDs will recommend you talk with another PD about this topic. This could be good, be prepared to do so. The PD will often call the PD in the other division and walk you to his/her office. Accept the help. It is very tricky navigating the halls if it is your first time to visit.
iv. End the meeting with thanks. A good sign the meeting went well is if it turned into an hour.
After the meeting
5. Before going to sleep-Take a moment to reflect on the content of the day’s meetings. Think about what the PD actually said (pulled from your notes) as opposed to what you wanted to hear. Follow-through on any leads, advice and suggestions gleaned from the conversations and find ways to let the PD know you did so.
6. Integrate lessons learned and debrief with Research Development, your chair and other collaborators.
7. CAVEATS—DON’T Ask:
a. if the PD likes this idea/proposal
b. the PD to review your proposal before it is submitted
c. the PD for examples of funded proposals
d. the PD to recommend co-PIs
e. the PD to serve on your advisory board
DON’T invite the PD to campus at your (or the university’s) expense, or even to lunch! If you pay for it, this creates a conflict of interest and the PD is barred from funding you.
Article 2
By Mike Cronan & Lucy Deckard
Understanding the Review Process
The proposal review is the most important factor that influences whether your proposal will be funded. Typically, more than one person will review your proposal – these may be personnel at the agency or foundation, peer reviewers from academia, other people from outside the funding agency, or a combination. Reviewers will evaluate the proposal based on review criteria, both explicit (stated in the solicitation or other agency documents) and implicit (commonly held but unstated expectations held by the reviewers). Understanding how the reviewers will evaluate your proposal is critical to learning how to write a winning proposal.
Overview
Your ultimate goal should be to produce a proposal that not only convinces the reviewers that the proposed project should be funded but that also makes the reviewers want to fund the project. To do this, an author must accomplish two basic things: 1) intrigue and excite the reviewers, and 2) convince the reviewers that the researcher has the capacity to successfully perform the proposed project. Specific review criteria and review processes differ from agency to agency, as well as by program within an agency, but the core questions program officers and reviewers need answered can be simply stated:
• What do you propose to do?
• Why it is it important?
• Why are you able to do it?
• How will you do it?
• How does it contribute to the interests and objectives of the agency and program?
These simple questions may be expressed in various ways by different agencies and programs, and more specific details will often be requested in the solicitation or program announcement, but ultimately most review criteria can be distilled down to some equivalent version of these simple questions. The task of the grant writer is to answer these questions in a clear, convincing way that is accessible to the reviewers.
This, by the way, is not a simple task. It is a learned skill and a very valuable one once mastered. You must craft a persuasive argument presenting the merit, significance, rigor, and relevance of your project. You must also convince the reviewers that you have the capacity to perform and the institutional infrastructure to support your project. For research proposals, you must then extend your argument to discuss the likely impact your research will have in advancing the field and creating new knowledge, particularly in your research area but possibly in other research fields as well. For education proposals, you must discuss the project’s motivation, benefits to the target population, and how the agency’s mission will be advanced. You must discuss previous work that supports your approach, and you must discuss logistics and institutional support in convincing detail. For most people, developing a well-written narrative requires multiple drafts developed over a period of weeks or months before the proposal evolves to its final form.
Review Criteria
Each funding agency has review criteria and a review process that best serves the mission of the agency. The review criteria and review process are most often published on the agency web and are included within program solicitations. Two of the major funders of university research, NSF and NIH, have very elaborate and comprehensive information on their webs about the review criteria and process. Other agencies, particularly the defense agencies (e.g., DARPA, and the U.S Army, Navy and Air Force research offices) will often list application review information within a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA).
Typically, agencies have two general kinds of review criteria. First, criteria that are overarching across the agency and apply to every grant application; for example, intellectual merit and broader impacts at NSF; significance, approach, innovation, investigators, environment, and overall impact (new for applications submitted for FY2010 funding) at NIH; or, at defense research laboratories, scientific and technical merit and the contributions of the research to the agency mission. Other criteria typically include such factors as experience and past performance of personnel, facilities, and reasonableness of proposed costs.
Depending on the agency, not all overarching review criteria are weighted equally in terms of importance; for example, some agencies may list them in descending order of relative importance. The second type of review criteria are specific to the particular program and may be very detailed in terms of expected project objectives and outcomes. Typically, the overarching review criteria of any agency are clearly stated and well explicated over time. For example, the “broader impacts” criterion, one of two overarching review criteria at NSF, has been much written about and discussed with detailed examples on the NSF web site, as well as at various workshops.
Solicitation-specific review criteria, however, especially on new programs, may not be as fully vetted for possible ambiguities, and here it is important to discuss the criteria with a program officer. If you are uncertain about the meaning of one or more review criteria, it is important to clarify the agency’s intent with an agency program officer, or perhaps a colleague who is well funded by the agency. Therefore, it is important to identify these review criteria, understand exactly how the agency defines them, and determine the relative weight (if applicable) that the agency assigns to each criterion.
The Review Process
The review process itself can vary significantly from one agency to the next and from one program to the next. Reviewers may be other researchers and academics (a “peer review”); they may be only the program officer or a group of personnel from the funding agency (an “internal review”); or they may be a combination. Furthermore, reviews may be written independently and mailed in, or reviews may be conducted by a panel of reviewers who convene at the funding agency (often called a “panel review”). Reviewers may be experts in your field, they may be experts in related fields, or they may have little or no knowledge of your field. They may be a standing committee or they may change. Obviously, a writer who knows the backgrounds of the people who will review his or her proposal and crafts the proposal with those reviewers in mind will have a substantial advantage over a writer who blindly writes a proposal without knowing what kind of audience he or she is trying to convince.
The most comprehensive information on the agency review process will come from visiting the agency web site and talking with agency program officers as well as with colleagues who have served as reviewers for the agency, served as rotating program officers at the agency, or who have been well funded by the agency. In the below articles are descriptions of procedures that some of the largest research funding agencies use.
Article 3
By Lucy Deckard
Review Procedures at NSF
While NSF uses several different review procedures depending on the particular directorate and program, all reviews are conducted by external “peers” using merit-based criteria. Many reviews, particularly unsolicited proposals to disciplinary program, are ad hoc, meaning that reviewers are invited to review a particular proposal based on the match between the proposal subject and the expertise of the reviewer. Most ad hoc reviews are conducted remotely by mail (or now, by internet using NSF’s web-based Fastlane system). In the case of an ad hoc review, the Program Officer will send your proposal to three or more reviewers who are knowledgeable in the topic area of your proposal. This does not mean that they will be experts in your particular subfield, but they will most likely be experts in related fields.
For many proposals, NSF uses a panel review process, where a panel of science, engineers, and/or educators, depending on the particular program, are invited to NSF for two or three days to participate in a panel that reviews a large number of proposals for a particular program. In that case, you may have some reviewers who are experts in your field or a closely related field and some reviewers who are not. For example, if a solicitation specifies that proposed programs must meet interdisciplinary scientific research goals, education goals and outreach goals, then the panel might include scientists from each of the disciplines involved as well as educators who may not have disciplinary expertise in your particular field. NSF strives for diversity in review panels, so although the majority of reviewers will be well-established researchers, panels will typically also include some junior faculty. In addition, while many reviewers work at larger research-oriented universities, panels may also include reviewers from industry, 2-year colleges, and predominately undergraduate institutions.
Often NSF will combine the ad hoc and panel review processes, sending proposals first to ad hoc reviewers for evaluation of the scientific merit requiring discipline-specific knowledge, and then relying on a panel to evaluate other aspects of the proposal. This is particularly common for complex programs with many components, such as CAREER or Center-level projects.
In all cases, the identity of NSF reviewers is confidential, and reviewers will very likely be different for each funding cycle of a program. This can present a challenge when trying to respond to reviews of a declined proposal while revising and resubmitting the proposal in the next funding cycle. Reviewers in the next cycle may have different opinions than the previous reviewers, and you may find yourself changing your proposal in response to a criticism that the current reviewers don’t hold. However, as we discussed above, reviewers are generally looking for similar things in a proposal and are guided by the review criteria and the Program Officer, so reviews tend to be relatively consistent.
The specific agency-wide review criteria used by NSF are given at http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf09_29/gpg_3.jsp#IIIA and further helpful discussion can be found at http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/meritreview/facts.jsp .
Each reviewer gives the proposal a rating according to the following categories: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, or Poor. Generally, to be competitive for funding proposals need to receive “Excellent”s and “Very Good”s. In a panel review, each of the reviewers assigned to the proposal rates the proposal and writes an individual review before the panel meets. The panel as a whole then discusses the proposal. It sometimes happens that a reviewer’s mind may be changed by the discussion, and for that reason the written panel summary received by the PI may not be entirely consistent with an individual reviewer’s comments.
Based on the panel discussion, the panel then makes a recommendation regarding funding: Funding Highly Recommended; Fund if Possible; Do not Fund. However, it’s important to keep in mind that the role of the reviewers is simply to advise the Program Officer. The Program Officer makes the decision on which proposals to fund and will take into account not only the recommendations and reviews of the panel, but also the portfolio of projects in his or her program (so, for example, if the three highest ranked proposals all focus on the same narrow scientific topic, the Program Officer may often fund slightly lower-ranked proposals in order to balance the portfolio). The Program Officer will also look for a balance in types of institutions funded (Research Intensive, Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions, etc.) and may choose a particular proposal simply based on the topics that the Program Officer wishes to emphasize in his or her program.
Because NSF depends on the scientific community to provide reviewers for proposals and they try to recruit a diverse group of reviewers, you may get the opportunity to serve as a reviewer even if you haven’t been funded by NSF yet. Faculty universally say that serving as a reviewer was the most valuable experience they had in helping them learn how to write an effective proposal. Program officers select reviewers, but there are several ways to enhance your chances of being invited to review an NSF proposal: 1) Volunteer to be a reviewer. Some of the directorates have instructions on how to do this. If they don’t, e-mail the Program Officer and include a copy of your CV. 2) Ask a senior colleague who is well-funded in your area at NSF or has served as a reviewer to suggest your name to the Program Officer. 3) Submit good proposals to NSF. Even if you don’t get funded, the Program Officer will recognize your name and may recruit you to be a reviewer. 4) Maintain a good website on your current research program. Program Officers looking for reviewers with specific expertise will often use Google to find researchers in that area. An impressive website may result in an invitation to be an NSF reviewer.
Article 4
By Lucy Deckard and John Ivy
Review Procedures at NIH
Even though both NSF and NIH use peer review, NIH’s review process is quite different from the process used by NSF. Whereas proposal reviews and funding decisions at NSF are administered by Program Officers in charge of the particular program of interest, peer review and funding decisions are administered by two separate officials and processes at NIH.
Most peer review at NIH is administered by the Center for Scientific Review (CSR), regardless of the institute(s) funding the program. The CSR sets up review panels, called Study Sections, each administered by a Scientific Review Officer (SRO), to review proposals. For most programs, including all unsolicited R01s, the Study Sections are “standing,” meeting three times per year with each of the 20 or more members generally serving four years. These Standing Study Sections are organized around scientific subject rather than around a particular Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), so two PIs responding to the same FOA may very well see their proposals reviewed by different Study Sections if the scientific topics of their proposals are different. In contrast to NSF, where the identity of reviewers is anonymous, Study Section rosters are published by NIH and can be found at http://www.csr.nih.gov/committees/rosterindex.asp. PIs can request a particular Study Section in a Cover Letter to their proposal with a short explanation and rationale for the request. In addition to Standing Study Sections, there are Special Emphasis Panels for review of fellowships, SBIRs, and other programs; these panels may have no permanent members. Furthermore, review of proposals submitted in response to a FOA supported by a single participating Institute or Center (IC) often is administered by that Institute or Center, albeit with a process similar to that used by CSR.
The merit review scoring process at NIH is changing during 2009 for those proposals that are eligible to be funded in FY2010. This article describes the revised review criteria and scoring system. Each reviewer at NIH evaluates and scores a proposal from 1 (exceptional) to 9 (poor) on each of the five core review criteria (Significance, Investigator(s), Innovation, Approach, and Environment). Reviewers will also give proposals a “preliminary impact score,” also from 1 – 9, before the study section meets. These scores will be used to determine which proposals will be discussed by the Study Section (approximately the top half), and which will not be discussed nor considered for funding (commonly called “triaged”). While all PIs will receive the numeric scores for their proposals from the two or three reviewers who prepare a written critique, those whose proposals are triaged will not receive a panel discussion summary or overall score. (This stands in contrast to NSF, where every proposal is discussed and a summary of the discussion is provided in the reviews.)
Those proposals which are discussed by the Study Section are given an overall impact score, ranging from 1 – 9, by each of the Study Section members. These overall impact scores are averaged to one decimal place and multiplied by 10 to yield a priority score from 10 – 90. The priority score is then converted to a percentile ranking. (See http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer_review_process.htm#scoring for a more detailed discussion of the scoring system.)
In contrast to NSF, where the Program Officer makes the final funding decision, the SRO does not control the funding decision. Program Officers (not involved in the peer review) based in an Institute or Center (IC) make recommendations, based on the merit review priority score, the IC mission and priorities, and the current “payline,” to the IC Advisory Council, and the IC Director makes the ultimate funding decision. The payline is the minimum score, converted to a percentile (to account for score inflation), required in order to receive funding and is determined by each Institute or Center based on resources available. Paylines can differ markedly among the different funding mechanisms and among the Institutes and Centers; for example, the 2009 payline for the National Institute of Mental Health is 20, whereas the payline for the National Institute on Aging is 11.6. (For more information on paylines and how the percentiles are calculated, see http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/cycle/part10.htm#d.) Not all Institutes and Centers publish their paylines, and a few do not use paylines. A useful compendium of information on NIH paylines and success rates can be found at Yeshiva University’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine website at http://www.aecom.yu.edu/ogs/NIHInfo/paylines.htm. Data on success rates also may be found at the recently unveiled Research Online Report Tool (RePORT) at NIH (http://report.nih.gov/).
NIH has posted a lot of helpful information on the review process at NIH. Some of the most useful resources are:
• http://cms.csr.nih.gov/AboutCSR/OverviewofPeerReviewProcess.htm (an overview of the review process)
• http://cms.csr.nih.gov/ResourcesforApplicants/PolicyProcedureReview+Guidelines/OverviewofPeerReviewProcess/InsidetheNIHGrantReviewProcessVideo.htm (a video showing how a Study Section works)
• http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/cycle/part08.htm#f8 (a discussion of NIH review criteria)
For information about the review processes of other agencies and additional information on NSF and NIH, please see the OPD website at http://opd.tamu.edu/proposal-resources/understanding-the-proposal-review-process-by-agency.
