How to Be a Member of an

R01 NIH Study Section

Addendum to
Making the Right Moves:
A Practical Guide to Scientific Management
for Postdocs and New Faculty
second edition

Burroughs Wellcome Fund

Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Making the Right Moves: A Practical Guide to Scientific Management for Postdocs and
New Faculty, second edition
© 2006 by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Burroughs Wellcome Fund
All rights reserved.

“How to Be a Member of an R01 NIH Study Section”: Electronic addendum

published 2009
Writer: Laura Bonetta, Ph.D.
Production: Martine Bernard Design

Permission to use, copy, and distribute this publication or excerpts is granted provided
that (1) the copyright notice above appears in all reproductions; (2) use is for noncom-
mercial educational purposes only; and (3) the publication or excerpts are not modified
in any way (except when used for noncommercial educational purposes). Requests
beyond that scope should be directed to labmgmt@[Link].

The views expressed in this publication are those of its contributors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute or the Burroughs
Wellcome Fund.

This publication is available online at [Link]

Burroughs Wellcome Fund Howard Hughes Medical Institute

21 T.W. Alexander Drive 4000 Jones Bridge Road
P.O. Box 13901 Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815-6789
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina [Link]
27709-3901
[Link]
 HOW TO BE A MEMBER
OF AN R01 NIH STUDY SECTION

Peer review of grant applications is the cornerstone of the U.S. research enter-
prise. Scientists are routinely asked to serve as peer reviewers for several public
and private funding agencies in the United States and abroad. In the United
States, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is by far the largest funder of
academic research. That means that sooner or later you will be tapped to be a
reviewer for NIH.

Chances are you were not taught how to review grants during your graduate or
postdoctoral training. While nothing can replace hands-on experience, advice and
suggestions from seasoned reviewers can help prepare you to do a better job, right
from the start.

This chapter provides an overview of what to do if you are asked to serve on an

NIH study section and what your duties and responsibilities will be. There are
many kinds of NIH study sections, which review different types of grants (see
page 2 for a list of various types of NIH grants and fellowships). This chapter em-
phasizes the review of R01 grants, the investigator-initiated research grants that
are the bread and butter of NIH funding.

WHAT IS A STUDY SECTION?

The Center for Scientific Review (CSR) evaluates most grant applications
submitted to NIH. CSR assigns grant applications to study sections—groups
of 20–40 scientists focused on a particular research field who are charged with
reviewing applications. Each study section is managed by one of CSR’s Scientific
Review Officers (SROs).

The SRO makes the initial contacts with scientists, asking them to become
members of a study section. The SRO also assigns grant applications to specific
members of a study section and organizes review meetings, where applications are
discussed.

BWF ♦ HHMI 1
Making the Right Moves A Practical Guide to Scientific Management

CSR runs different kinds of study sections. They include:

♦ Regular standing study sections. These study sections meet three times
a year and are “chartered,” or formally established by the government
with slates of permanent members. (As a result, they are often referred
to as chartered study sections.) They review most of the investigator-
initiated (R awards) applications and career development (K awards)
applications, among others. These study sections vary in terms of sci-
entific focus, size, and typical workload. A list of CSR regular standing

NIH Investigator-Initiated Awards

The Research Project Grant (R01) is the original, oldest, and most frequently used grant mechanism. But
NIH also provides a number of non-R01 research awards to investigators. Some of the more common
ones include:

♦ Small Grant (R03)—provides limited funding for a short time to support a variety of types of
projects, including pilot or feasibility studies and collection of preliminary data.
♦ Exploratory/Development Grant (R21)—encourages new, exploratory, and developmental
research projects by providing support for the early stages of project development.
♦ Academic Research Enhancement Award (R15)—supports small research projects in the bio-
medical and behavioral sciences conducted by students and faculty in health professional schools
and other academic components that have not been major recipients of NIH research grant
funds.

NIH Career Development Awards

♦ Mentored Scientist Development Award (K01)—provides support and “protected time” (3–5
years) for an intensive, supervised career development experience in the biomedical, behavioral,
or clinical sciences leading to research independence.
♦ Independent Scientist Award (K02)—provides support for newly independent scientists who
can demonstrate the need for a period of intensive research focus as a means of enhancing their
research careers.
♦ Mentored Clinical Scientist Development Award (K08)—provides support and “protected time”
to individuals with a clinical doctoral degree for an intensive, supervised research career devel-
opment experience in the fields of biomedical and behavioral research, including translational
research.
♦ Career Transition Award (K22)—provides support to an individual postdoctoral fellow in transi-
tion to a faculty position.
♦ Pathway to Independence (PI) Award (K99/R00)—provides up to five years of support consisting
of two phases: 1) one to two years of mentored support for postdoctoral research scientists and
2) up to three years of independent support contingent on securing an independent research
position.
More information about the different types of grant funding provided by NIH can be found at
[Link]

2 BWF ♦ HHMI
 How to Be a Member of an R01 NIH Study Section

study sections, along with the names of the SRO and the study section
members, is available at [Link]

♦ Special emphasis panels. CSR runs a number of special emphasis panel

meetings for specific scientific areas and applications. These panels consist
of temporary reviewers only. Many special emphasis panels meet only
once, while others are reoccurring or “standing” panels. (Though standing
special emphasis panels do not have permanent or chartered members,
the “temporary” members of these study sections sometimes make com-
mitments to serve for a year or more as if they were chartered members
of a regular standing study section.)

♦ Fellowship study sections. These study sections review individual

fellowship grant applications, including F30, F31, F32, and F33
applications.

NIH Fellowship Awards

NIH provides several fellowships to graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. They include:

♦ Individual Predoctoral National Research Service Award for M.D./Ph.D. (F30)—provides a fellow-
ship for predoctoral training leading to a combined M.D./Ph.D.
♦ Predoctoral Individual National Research Service Award (F30)—supports predoctoral individuals
with supervised research training in specified health and health-related areas leading to a Ph.D.
♦ Postdoctoral Individual National Research Service Award (F32)—provides postdoctoral research
training to individuals to broaden their scientific background and extend their potential for re-
search in specified health-related areas.
♦ National Research Service Awards for Senior Fellows (F33)—provides opportunities for experi-
enced scientists to make major changes in the direction of research careers, to broaden scientific
background, to acquire new research capabilities, to enlarge command of an allied research field,
or to take time from regular professional responsibilities for the purpose of increasing capabili-
ties to engage in health-related research.

♦ SBIR/STTR study sections. These study sections review small business

innovation research and small business technology transfer grant applica-
tions. They do not have permanent members but rather are assembled on
an ad hoc basis. These panels typically include CEOs and presidents of
companies, along with basic scientists.

The rest of the chapter focuses on regular standing study sections.

BWF ♦ HHMI 3
Making the Right Moves A Practical Guide to Scientific Management

WHO MAKES UP A STUDY SECTION?

A regular standing R01 study section typically consists of 20–40 scientists
whose combined expertise covers a broad range of knowledge in a designated area
of study. At a given meeting of the study section, the expertise of the group is
commonly adjusted by supplementing the permanent membership with ad hoc
invitees to ensure adequate coverage of the science represented in the grant ap-
plications assigned to this round of study section review.

Permanent versus Temporary Members

Two kinds of reviewers participate in R01 study sections. They include:
♦ Permanent or standing members. These individuals typically serve a
four-year term and attend three meetings per year. CSR recently released
new guidelines to give reviewers more flexibility. Permanent members of
a regular or chartered study section can now choose to serve for a six-year
term and attend two study section meetings per year.

♦ Ad hoc or temporary members. These scientists are selected to participate

in one meeting of a study section—for example, to replace a permanent
member who is unable to attend or to provide additional expertise at the
review. They carry out all the responsibilities of permanent study section
members but without the commitment to serve again. Being an ad hoc
member can be a stepping stone toward becoming a permanent member.

The SRO is responsible for appointing study section members and temporary
reviewers.

How Are Study Section Members Selected?

SROs use a number of sources to identify potential study section members. For
example, an SRO might approach
♦ Authors of recent publications in the area covered by the study section

♦ Speakers at scientific meetings

♦ Scientists who have obtained NIH grants in the area of the study section

♦ Scientists recommended by present and former study section members

♦ Scientists recommended by NIH program staff

Recently, professional societies and university research deans have started to

nominate volunteer reviewers whose names are added to a CSR database. CSR
now has about 4,000 entries in that database, which is searchable by expertise.

4 BWF ♦ HHMI
 How to Be a Member of an R01 NIH Study Section

At a minimum, a scientist considered to be a

Question. I would like to be an ad hoc member in a member of a study section usually has
study section. How can I identify myself as wishing to
be considered?
♦ Broad and independent research
experience
Answer. Information about each study section,
including contact information, can be found at
♦ A strong publishing record
[Link] First,
identify which study section is most appropriate for
your [Link] can then contact the SRO and
♦ Major peer-reviewed grants (R01)
send him or her your curriculum vitae (CV), asking or the equivalent
to be considered for service. If you meet the mini-
mum qualifications to be a reviewer, the SRO will ♦ An understanding of the review
contact you directly. CSR, however, encourages you process
to contact your professional society or research dean
first, letting them know you are interested in being a An SRO will often “try out” a potential
reviewer. Ask them to add your name to the CSR list reviewer on an ad hoc basis before asking
of recommended reviewers. him or her to become a permanent member
of a study section. In such cases, the SRO
is looking for a reviewer who is committed
to high-quality, fair review; is reliable; has the ability to articulate his or her view
succinctly and to engage in productive discussions; and has the propensity to
work collegially in a group.

A YEAR IN THE LIFE OF

A STUDY SECTION MEMBER
If you have ever wondered what a member of a study section does, what follows
is a brief summary. For more detailed information, visit the CSR website at
[Link]

Responsibilities of Study Section Members

Permanent members participate in two or three study section meetings each year,
which are held in January–March, May–July, and September–November. As
many as 60–100 applications may be under review per meeting. At each meeting,
members need to be prepared to discuss the several grant applications assigned
to them.

Each application is assigned to at least three study section members: the primary
and secondary reviewers, and one discussant or reader. Together, these three re-
viewers lead the discussion of the application at the study section meeting.

BWF ♦ HHMI 5
Making the Right Moves A Practical Guide to Scientific Management

Timeline and Process of Review

About 6 weeks before a review meeting, the SRO assigns each member 7–10
grant applications for which he or she will be either primary or secondary review-
er or reader. (At this time, reviewers should communicate any conflicts of interest
or other concerns to the SRO so that he or she can make other assignments.) The
primary and secondary reviewers write detailed critiques and provide preliminary
scores for an application.

The reader provides a preliminary score. The reader does not usually have to give
a comprehensive critique of an application before the review meeting but rather
provides shorter, written comments.

Once the preliminary scores and critiques

are in, the SRO posts the written com-
Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest ments and scores on a confidential website
Remember, the grant applications are considered for all members of the study section to see.
confidential, so you should not discuss them outside This process usually occurs two to three
the review meeting. When the SRO provides the
days before the review meeting. The SRO
grant applications and assigns reviewers, you should
also compiles a list of applications that
notify him or her if you think additional expertise is
needed to review an application.
initially scored in the lower half and posts
them at this time. These applications are
You should also notify the SRO if you think there is not discussed at the meeting. (If a study
or may be a conflict of interest; the SRO will then section member does not agree with this
assign the application to another reviewer. Conflicts
decision, he or she can “rescue” an appli-
of interest include:
cation, or bring it up for discussion at the
♦ You have a personal, financial, or professional review meeting.)
relationship with any investigators listed on
the application (for example, a collaborator Review meetings can last up to two days,
or former postdoc). depending on the number of applications
♦ You will benefit directly from the decision to being discussed. (As a rule of thumb,
fund or not fund the application. if more than 45 applications are being
If you aren’t sure about a circumstance that poten- discussed, the meeting will last two days.)
tially could be a conflict of interest or that might be One member serves as chair and conducts
perceived as such, you should discuss your concerns the meeting with the SRO. Meetings of
with the SRO. It is better to err on the safe side. regular standing study sections are con-
ducted in person, although sometimes
members participate by phone.

After discussing each application, all study section members assign a final score
to it (see section on how scores are calculated). During or after the meeting, a
reviewer has a chance to amend some of his or her comments. Then the SRO
prepares a “summary statement” for the grant applicant. The summary statement
includes the overall score for the application and portions of the written critiques
provided by the primary and secondary reviewers, in the so-called pink sheet.

6 BWF ♦ HHMI
 How to Be a Member of an R01 NIH Study Section

(To see an example summary statement, go to [Link]

app/[Link]#sum.)

What Happens at the Review Meeting

At the review meeting, all study section members receive a list of applications in
the order in which they will be discussed. As each application comes up for dis-
cussion, each of its assigned reviewers gives a short presentation including a brief
summary of the research proposal, its strengths and weaknesses, and recommen-
dation for funding. Typically, these presentations should last about five minutes.

After the three presentations, all members

T i p : Strive to be concise and keep your presenta- of the study section discuss the grant ap-
tion within the recommended five-minute time frame. plication. Most other members will not
Your colleagues will appreciate it! have read the application (although review-
ers often read the abstracts of several other
applications and may read nonassigned
applications that interest them), but they might provide information about the
investigator or the research field. They will also typically ask questions and want
clarifications from the three reviewers. A discussion can last from five minutes to
half an hour. The chair is responsible for leading the discussion to make sure it is
focused and the comments are relevant. The chair is responsible for bringing the
discussion to an end.

Once the discussion is over, study section members score the application.

At a Glance—Study Section Timeline

Four to six weeks before the study section meeting: SRO sends all study section members a CD with all the
applications or makes them available on a secure website. The SRO includes a list of the applications for
which members are to serve as reviewers. (At this time, study section members should identify potential
conflicts of interest or other concerns to the SRO.)

One week before the study section meeting: The primary and secondary reviewers and the reader provide
written comments and preliminary scores.

Two to three days before the study section meeting: Comments and scores are available for viewing, along
with a proposed list of applications with the lower half of scores, which will not be discussed. (Now is the
time to tell the SRO that you want to rescue an application and include it for discussion—don’t wait until
the meeting to do this.)

Study section meeting: Applications are discussed and scored.

Up to two weeks after the study section meeting: Grant critiques are still available for viewing on the review
meeting website. Reviewers have an opportunity to change their written comments.

Two weeks after the study section meeting: The website is closed and the SRO starts to prepare summary
statements to the grant applicants.

BWF ♦ HHMI 7
Making the Right Moves A Practical Guide to Scientific Management

Time Commitment
Most scientists say that it takes about a day to read each grant application as-
signed to them, research the literature, write a critique, and prepare to discuss it
at the review meeting. Study section members spend time reading other review-
ers’ comments and preparing to defend their views if there are any differences of
opinion. Attending a meeting typically requires a couple of days plus travel time.

A permanent study section member will spend about two

solid weeks preparing for each meeting—about six weeks
a year. Adding in some ramp up and ramp down work
around the study section meeting and travel time—that
amounts to an investment of about 7 weeks a year.

—Keith Yamamoto, University of California,

San Francisco

WHY SERVE ON A STUDY SECTION?

The main reason to serve on a study section is that it’s one of your responsibili-
ties as a scientist. But there are many advantages to serving on a study section.
By participating in this process, you will

♦ Be exposed to the newest research. Many grant applications describe

results and ideas that have not been published.

♦ Broaden your scientific horizons. You will read about research that is not
strictly in your field and hear scientists discuss science from different
perspectives.

♦ Become more successful at obtaining grants. You will become intimately

familiar with the process of evaluating proposals and know exactly what
the reviewers are looking for in a competitive application.

♦ Advance your career. This type of service looks good on your CV and is
a good way to network with other scientists in your field.

♦ Become a better mentor. You will be able to tell your students and
postdocs what makes a good grant application.

8 BWF ♦ HHMI
 How to Be a Member of an R01 NIH Study Section

The main disadvantage of serving on a study section is that it is time-consuming.

Especially if you are just starting out in your career, the time required to review
grants and participate in study section meetings will take valuable time away
from your research, which should be your focus at this stage of your career.

I often hear that being a study section member is the best

way to learn how to write grants. But the job of a study
section is to provide fair and objective assessments of grant
applications. It is not to mentor scientists on how to write
a grant. That mentoring function is crucial but it is the
responsibility of senior scientists within each research
institution, not of the NIH peer review system.

—Keith Yamamoto, University of California,

San Francisco

But do think about the offer carefully. If you don’t think you have the time to
participate in a particular meeting, it is okay to turn down an SRO letting him or
her know when you might be available (for example, after you finished teaching a
course or once an important site visit is behind you). You could also offer to serve
as an ad hoc reviewer.

Question. I have been asked to be a permanent member of a study section, but I have not yet started the
process of applying for tenure. Should I agree?

Answer. Most established scientists caution against becoming a permanent member of a study section
before obtaining tenure. Until then, your top priority should be establishing your laboratory. Some scientists,
however, point out that serving on a study section as an ad hoc reviewer can be helpful to a career because
you will become more knowledgeable about how to write successful grant applications and you will have
the opportunity to network with other scientists (also see page 8, “Why Serve on a Study Section?”).

YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED TO SERVE:

NOW WHAT?
When an SRO asks you to become a member of a study section, there are some
things you might want to discuss and possibly negotiate.

♦ If you are being asked to be a permanent member, find out the size of the
study section and how many grant applications each member is asked to
review. The answers might help you choose whether you want to be

BWF ♦ HHMI 9
Making the Right Moves A Practical Guide to Scientific Management

appointed for a four-year term and attend three meetings per year or for a
six-year term and attend two meetings per year.

♦ If you accept the invitation to serve, you can sometimes negotiate

whether you need to attend all meetings in person. If a particular meet-
ing coincides with a family obligation, you may be able to participate in
the meeting by phone. You can also negotiate the start of your term of
service.

♦ If you are being asked to serve as an ad hoc member, ask how many
grants you will have to review for this particular meeting. If the SRO
would like you to review 10 grant applications but you don’t have the
time to do so, you can say, “I have too many other obligations right now
but I am happy to review 4.” This is not something that can be “officially”
negotiated but many people do it.

♦ Let the SRO know if there are certain scientific fields covered by the
study section that you are not willing to review or feel uncomfortable
reviewing because you are not sufficiently knowledgeable. Once the grant
applications have been assigned to you, you have a chance to turn cer-
tain ones down if you don’t feel qualified to review them, but that causes
problems for the SRO. It is better to discuss these things upfront.

THE JOB OF A STUDY SECTION MEMBER

What to Cover in Your Critique
After you have read the applications assigned to you, you will have to critique
them. If you have never written such a critique, NIH provides some guidelines
for what is expected at [Link]

For R01 applications, the critique consists of a discussion of the following five
criteria:

♦ Significance. Does this study address an important problem? If the aims

of the application are achieved, how will scientific or clinical practice be
advanced?

♦ Approach. Are the conceptual or clinical framework, design, methods,

and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, well reasoned, and
appropriate to the aims of the study? Here you might want to mention
preliminary results and how they will be enhanced by further work.

♦ Innovation. Is the project original and innovative?

10 B W F ♦ H H M I
 How to Be a Member of an R01 NIH Study Section

♦ Investigators. Are the investigators appropriately trained and well suited

to carry out this work?

♦ Environment. Does the scientific environment in which the work will be

done contribute to the probability of success?

In addition, if the application is for a re-

T i p : The summary statement prepared by the SRO newal grant, the reviewers should include an
will include unedited reviewer comments, so take care evaluation of progress over the past proj-
not to include personal identifiers. ect period. For amended applications, the
reviewers should address progress, changes,
and responses to the critiques in the summa-
ry statement from the previous submission.

Writing an Effective Critique

Current and former study section members offer the following advice for writing
critiques.

♦ Don’t get bogged down. There is general consensus among scientists

that the review process has become overly dependent on detailing routine
research methods, at the expense of considering the overall impact of
the application to science and health. Ask yourself, “Even if all the issues
regarding experimental methods and approaches are addressed, how big a
difference will this work make if it goes forward?”

♦ Be clear. Reviewers are often too subtle when providing negative feed-
back. If you think there is a fatal flaw in the proposal, say what it is.
Without this information the applicant will make only “cosmetic”
changes and resubmit the application without addressing the flaw.

♦ Give a balanced assessment. Don’t focus solely on the negatives. In ad-

dition to identifying weaknesses in the application, your review should
summarize its major strengths.

♦ Don’t rewrite the application. Your job is to assess the application. The
applicant should have a clear idea of where the application falls short, but
you should not suggest experiments or come up with better references.

(Some of these suggestions were adapted

T i p : Ask senior colleagues in your department from the “Insider Guide to Peer Review for
to give you copies of critiques they have received. New Reviewers” at [Link]
Reading several of these critiques will give you an idea PeerReviewMeetings/[Link].)
of the structure, length, and tone you should use.

B W F ♦ H H M I 11
Making the Right Moves A Practical Guide to Scientific Management

Discussing Grant Applications at the Study Section Meeting

It can be intimidating to participate in a study section meeting with established
and well-known scientists in your field, especially if it is your first time there.
Here are some suggestions on how to conduct yourself:

♦ Stand your ground. You were chosen to be a reviewer because you are
an accomplished scientist. Don’t be afraid to voice your opinion on the
merits of a proposal if you think another reviewer has missed them. (At
the same time, don’t be afraid to change your mind if another reviewer
points out something you missed.)

♦ Be prepared. Make sure you are prepared to discuss in detail the grants
you are presenting—including issues raised in the online comments—
especially if you feel strongly that they should be funded, along with any
applications you are rescuing. If you don’t present them well, the investi-
gator does not have a chance to get funded. If you are a primary reviewer,
prepare your opening statement carefully, so that you can keep your
discussion within a five-minute time frame.
♦ Focus your discussion. There is no need to talk about every aspect of a
study. Just focus on the main strengths and weaknesses of the proposal,
which will help other study section members arrive at a score.

♦ Be an advocate for the application. Make clear why you think it will
really make a difference.

♦ Avoid repetition. If you agree with everything the previous reviewer said,
just say that you agree and maybe add a couple of points. You don’t need
to give an identical presentation.

♦ Keep the focus on the application. You don’t need to show others how
smart you are! You are there to assess the merits of the applications.

♦ Provide a balanced discussion. There is no need to rip apart a grant ap-

plication. Stick to listing its strengths and weaknesses.

When you go to a study section meeting, make an effort to

network with everyone. Don’t just sit in your hotel room
reading grant applications. Make plans to go out for dinner
or a drink. Try to make it a collegial occasion and have fun.

—Laura Knoll, University of Wisconsin–Madison

12 B W F ♦ H H M I
 How to Be a Member of an R01 NIH Study Section

HOW SCORING WORKS

After discussing a grant application at the review meeting, each reviewer assigns
a confidential score from 1.0 to 5.0 (with 1.0 being the highest score) to two
significant figures (i.e., 2.2). The score reflects consideration of the five review
criteria: significance, approach, innovation, investigators, and environment.

It is okay to give a score that is different from your preliminary score. If the
discussion changed your mind about a particular application, your score should
reflect that.

Once all the scores are in, individual scores are averaged and then multiplied by
100 to yield a single overall priority score for each application (i.e., 253). Priority
scores are then converted to percentile rankings. This ranking is based on scores
assigned to applications reviewed during the current round of review, plus the
past two review rounds, for standing committees.

NIH IS RESTRUCTURING ITS

PEER REVIEW SYSTEM
Former NIH director Elias Zerhouni (2002–2008) charged an advisory commit-
tee—cochaired by Lawrence Tabak, director of the National Institute of Dental
and Craniofacial Research at NIH, and Keith Yamamoto at the University of
California, San Francisco—to provide recommendations on how to improve the
current system. NIH released its first set of proposed plans on September 12,
2008 ([Link] ), which will be implemented in 2009 and
2010.

NIH is examining ways to improve its system for reviewing R01 grant applica-
tions. The “renovation” plans, scheduled for implementation in 2009 and 2010,
include shortening grant applications—which are currently 25 pages or more.
NIH plans to reduce the description of the experimental approach and methods.
The intent is to make grant writers and reviewers focus more on why something
is worth doing rather than on the details of how to do it. In addition, shorter
grant applications will take less time for reviewers to read, making it possible for
more reviewers to be assigned to each grant application.

Other changes include providing integer “grades” to each of the five rating cri-
teria of grant applications to make more transparent the perceived strengths and
weaknesses of each application, permitting only one resubmission or “amend-
ment” of an application that is not funded (currently, two amended applications
are allowed), providing more incentives and guidance for reviewers, and awarding
more grants to early career investigators.

B W F ♦ H H M I 13
Making the Right Moves A Practical Guide to Scientific Management

Reviewing grant applications is one of the most important services you will be
asked to provide. It goes without saying that you should take this responsibility
seriously. Not only are you deciding on the science that is supported and car-
ried forward, but the way you conduct yourself in a study section will affect your
reputation and standing among your peers.

RESOURCES
Center for Scientific Review, NIH: [Link]

Office of Extramural Research, NIH, Peer Review Policies and Practices:

[Link]

“Getting Funded” (Chapter 9), Making the Right Moves: A Practical Guide to
Scientific Management for Postdocs and New Faculty: [Link]/labmanagement.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The following individuals provided information for this chapter:
Maryrose Franko, Ph.D., Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Laura Knoll, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin–Madison
Tom Misteli, PhD., National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health
Toni Scarpa, Ph.D., Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health
Keith R. Yamamoto, Ph.D., University of California, San Francisco

14 B W F ♦ H H M I