Will be read by CSR staff member Provide essential information

The cover letter • Will be read by CSR staff member • Provide essential information

o Title of grant o Requested study section (with brief

justification)

The cover letter • Optional information oResponse to specific RFA oRequested institute(s) oKnown conflicts of interest oReviewers to exclude

The institute • Choose correct institute

o Does it fund this type of research? o What is the funding level? o What is duration of funding? o What type of grants does it fund?

• Can sometime request dual assignment

• When in doubt, contact program officer

The study section • Review roster and topics

(http://public.csr.nih.gov/StudySections/Standing/Pages/ default.aspx)

• Find out where grants on similar topics are reviewed

• When in doubt, contact SRO or program officer

• Wrong panel may o Lack appropriate expertise o Misinterpret proposal o Lack interest in your topic

Special emphasis panels • Convened to review grants

o For specific RFAs o When there is conflict of interest with a member

of the regular study section

• Advantage—often higher funding rate • Disadvantage—membership varies

from meeting to meeting

Excluding reviewers • Must have direct conflict of interest

o Collaborator o Author on same paper o Written a letter of support

• Being a direct competitor does not constitute a COI

The Rebuttal Letter

The Grief Cycle Do NOT write rebuttal letter

Write rebuttal letter

The Process • Contact program officer

o Telephone better than email oDo not shoot the messenger

• Read summary statement closely o Especially the Resume and Summary of

Discussion

• Look for common themes

Common Fixable Problems • Poor writing • Insufficient information, experimental

details, or preliminary data • Significance not convincingly stated • Approach not shown to be feasible,

but applicant can demonstrate feasibility

• Insufficient discussion of potential problems and alternatives approaches

Not Fixable or More Difficult Problems

• Philosophical issues (reviewers believe work is not significant)

• Hypothesis not sound or not supported by data presented

• Work has already been done • Proposed methods not suitable for

testing the hypothesis • Poor investigator or environment

score

The Rebuttal Section • Length: 1 page • Briefly summarize major criticisms • Frame criticisms in a positive light

The reviewers felt that we were unqualified to do the proposed work.

vs. The reviewers felt that additional expertise in statistical analysis would strengthen the project.

The Rebuttal Section

• Some of the same reviewers will likely read the revised version

• Reviewers will comment on responsiveness to previous critiques

• Make suggested changes, if reasonable • If suggested change is unreasonable,

respectfully state why

The Rebuttal Section • Be polite!

“The reviewer is just plain wrong.” “We respectfully disagree.”

• Remember the viewpoint of the

reviewer

Grant not funded

Grant may be funded

The Rebuttal Section • Keep tone positive • Try to convey commitment

and excitement oAdditional data oNew publications

• Have someone else read it

Final Thoughts • Make sure it is the best possible

o Maximize prelim data/publications o Have others read it

• Only one resubmission allowed of current grant

• After 2nd rejection, can resubmit grant as a new proposal (no rebuttal section)