Ok, I brush myself off and rework the grant again. It goes to a Special Emphasis Panel (for the youngsters- a study section for PIs that are in conflict with standing study sections, usually because they’re a member). /21
Show this thread
-
Oh and show data from those mice. In other words, “finish the aim, then we’ll talk.”/30
Show this thread
BTW, this was the reviewer that said I didn’t address sex as a biological variable when there was an entire paragraph about it. FYI, I underlined that paragraph without explanation in the resubmission because... I’m the devil./31
-
-
Cool new data added. Even preliminary data for “where’s your 6 allele mouse model” reviewer. I should be confident, right? So why not? Because there’s only a negligible chance the A1 will see any of the same reviewers. /32
Show this thread -
Mo reviewers, mo problems. I know. I’ve been there. As a reviewer, I sweat bullets when I read the Intro and see they’ve been very responsive, but the advice was… just bad./33
Show this thread -
Then I read the grant and see fundamental mistakes that I can’t ignore. I totally forgive cases where I simply have a different opinion. If you’re responsive and there’s not fatal flaw, you’re golden with me. /34
Show this thread -
I hate to tell you this young ‘uns, but that’s really not the norm. And all it takes is one reviewer./35
Show this thread -
And therein lies the problem. With an 8% pay line, all it takes is one reviewer. One reviewer who doesn’t have the right knowledge base. One reviewer who simply isn’t excited about your proposal. One reviewer who says “it’s not translational enough”. /36
Show this thread -
One reviewer who had to comment on 10 other grants. One reviewer who was taking care of a sick kid and missed some major points./37
Show this thread -
A stressed reviewer in a room full of stressed reviewers. Panel members who feel like they don’t have the expertise to make an informed decision, so they vote down the middle, with boundaries set in part by that one reviewer. That’s all it takes./38
Show this thread -
By the time you’ve got your reviews, it will likely be the better part of a year before you can resubmit. And wait. And hope you won the reviewer lottery. At least this time. Did I say "lottery"?/39
Show this thread -
-
End rant. I'd say "Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk" but I'm pretty sure Ted Talks are shorter./end
Show this thread -
I failed to mention that I didn’t bother to resubmit. Waste of time. Went to a new A0, which got the 12%
Show this thread -
Ack, I didn’t resubmit the *ND*! All others are worth resubmitting
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Had that happen too. Asked to address something that was already in the proposal. Tricky, cos I didn't want to point out the reviewer just hadn't read the thing properly.
-
“We appreciate the we were not clear on this point in our previous application. This information can now be found on page x” and don’t change a thing
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Painful thread that many of us have been through. 12% would have been funded at any other NIH institute, indicating that it’s not largely the reviewers, but an institute that sets one up to fail at 8%?
-
Not NICHD (9th percentile)
-
Wow! Thought NCI was the only one
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.