NIH Paylines & Resources – Grant Q&A & advice
I update this page as ICs revise their funding strategies and answer questions submitted as comments as I am able (usually within 1-5 days) – others monitoring the blog often chime in as well with their knowledge and experience, which is fabulous and will provide more value than I ever could on my own.
For FY26, ICs have been instructed not to issue paylines, so I am removing past payline details. I’ve kept links to “cleared concepts” (i.e., potential funding initiatives approved by the IC’s Advisory Council for future development into PAs or RFAs) and to IC program contacts (program officers). You can find details on the scoring procedure and interpretation as well as reviewer guidelines by mechanism.
Last updated: 5 December 2025
NIH Institutes & Centers
(descending order of budget)
NCI cleared concepts
NCI program contacts
NIAID cleared concepts
NIAID program contacts
NIAID Paylines (historic data by year and mechanism)
NHLBI
Translating NIH Peer Review Changes into Funding Policies
NHLBI cleared concepts (click on most recent Council minutes, see proposed initiatives)
NHLBI program contacts
NIA program contacts and priorities (click through most relevant division)
NIGMS: explanation of how funding decisions are made by Program Staff and Council
NIGMS cleared concepts (click on most recent Council minutes)
NIGMS program contacts
NINDS
NINDS cleared concepts (click on most recent Council minutes)
NINDS program contacts
NIDDK
NIDDK cleared concepts (click on most recent Council minutes)
NIDDK program contacts
NIMH
NIMH cleared concepts
NIMH program contacts
NICHD research priorities (search for “concept clearances” to find information in Council minutes about future funding opportunities)
NICHD program contacts
NIDA
NIDA program contacts (click on relevant Division)
NIDA cleared concepts (click on latest Council minutes)
Funding priorities & policies
NCATS cleared concepts (click on latest Council minutes)
NCATS program contacts
NEI
NEI cleared concepts (click on latest Council minutes)
NEI program contacts
NIEHS
NIEHS cleared concepts (click on latest Council minutes)
NIEHS program contacts
NIAMS cleared concepts (click on latest Council minutes)
NIAMS program contacts (click on relevant scientific area)
NHGRI
NHGRI cleared concepts (click on most recent meeting agenda & documents)
NHGRI program contacts (click on relevant program)
NIAAA
NIAAA cleared concepts (click on most recent Council minutes)
Training & Career Development Contacts
Division Contacts (check organizational chart as well)
NIDCD
NIDCD cleared concepts
NIDCD program contacts
NIDCR
NIDCR cleared concepts
NIDCR program contacts
NLM
NLM cleared concepts
NLM program contacts
NIBIB cleared concepts (click on most recent minutes)
NIBIB program contacts
FIC: Fiscal policy but no paylines
FIC program contacts
Other Resources
NIH Advisory Council Meeting Dates (all ICs)
NIH Funding Strategies
NIH Success Rates (including R01s scored/funded for NIH & individual ICs by FY)
IC Strategic Plans (priorities)
Please note that because this page attracts so many comments (and becomes very slow to load/refresh as a result), I move comments by calendar year onto archived pages, which has the added benefit of making them searchable. I am also pulling out timelines and posting them on their own searchable page at NIH Grant Application-Award Timelines.
Medical Writing, Editing & Grantsmanship 
katie said
Dear Writedit,
As you know the NCI interim pay line is 8th but my R01 received 10th (A1). I have found out the PO is the Branch Chief. I sent email twice without any response. Should I contact PO/Branch Chief again? Do you think I am still have an opportunity to be considered for funding given current situation? I am wondering if the final payline always goes up for 1-2 point compared to interim payline? Given the increase increased budget for NIH, how likely the final payline will go up.
Thank you so much.
writedit said
At NCI, the payline has typically not gone up from interim levels (as occurs at other ICs), because NCI has preferred to reserve a large portion (over 40%) of their budget for special and select pay awards (programmatically important applications scoring above the payline selected on a case-by-case basis). However, a recent blog post suggests they will be moving toward a higher hard payline in FY21 (15th percentile), but there is no indication whether FY20 will set a slightly higher payline in FY20 or jump straight from 8 to 15 in one year (or perhaps even rethink the 15th percentile – it is a blog post about an “aspirational goal”, not a commitment). https://www.cancer.gov/grants-training/nci-bottom-line-blog/2019/fy2021-annual-plan-and-budget-proposal
KP Singh said
My R15 just got score of 23 with NIDDK as primary and NHLBI and NIEHS as secondary. Council is in January. Any idea whether this will be funded?
writedit said
That seems like a reasonable score, but, although the NIH should maintain or slightly increase its appropriation, no one can comment on funding likelihood until the federal budget is signed into law (which could happen in December but probably won’t occur until after inauguration). When you get your summary statement, you can communicate with your PO about whether you should prepare a resubmission and, if so, advice for your revisions.
April Liu said
Dear Writedit, Happy New Year! I wonder if the JIT budget has to be identical to the one used in a grant application, or Ok to increase the total budget with a justification, such as recent salary raise? Thanks!
SaG said
You cant up your requested budget, But, you can re-budget money from other places to cover your increased salary.
katie said
Thank you Dr. Writedit.
I just received the response from PO and learned that there is a possibility the NCI may change the interim payline for R01s in the next one or two weeks.
thanks
writedit said
Fantastic – thank you for sharing this information!
>
April Liu said
Grant officer notified me that my grant will be awarded and I will likely need to submit JIT information. However, I have not received automatic JIT request Email. Shall I submit JIT information ASAP, or hold off until the automatic JIT request email arrives?
Thanks!
writedit said
You can submit the JIT at your convenience. Your grants officer probably wanted to be sure you had enough time to get any approvals or training/certification done.
>
GPJ said
hi
I have following query from NIAID PO regarding my R21 (scored 34 pay line 31)
During processing the EOY award considerations, your application R21 is temporally on hold due to a Foreign Component Dr. ____,_____. Administrative rules do not accept the EOY applications with any foreign component. We need to act fast to obtain Foreign Clearance from the Department of State. Please provide information and answer questions below:
1. The contact information of Dr.______ including title, address, email, and phone number.
2. Please describe the collaboration with Dr. ______and experiments and studies that will be performed in this foreign site.
3. Please describe Dr. _____ function and role in the project.
4. Does this collaboration include animal work?
5. Will the NIH funds go to this site?
6. Is the project viable without this foreign component (in case the Foreign Clearance can’t be obtained)?
I have answered all questions, the amount going to the foreign institute is less than 10%
I then had a reply from PO that he has initiated a foreign Clarence on 1 June 2020. Since then no communication.
I am puzzled as to what is going on?
Can anyone elaborate more on this?
Thank you in advance
GJ
writedit said
This is standard for any grant application with involvement of a foreign institution (in any country) – you weren’t singled out, if that was your concern. It will probably take a while before your PO hears back from the State Department, which is why your PO wanted the information so urgently.
GPJ said
Thank you for reply.
But I understand that EOY Council meeting is in the month of June if they have to decide on this. Will they discuss again if he receives Clarence after 4-8 weeks (standard time reported on the website)?
Sorry, very new to NIH -my first grant so not aware of many things.
writedit said
Council just gives approval for the application to be considered for funding, and they do review applications with foreign involvement individually (ie, no approval en bloc). I believe your answers to the PO’s questions will be used as part of Council consideration of your application. If Council approves, an actual award would depend on receipt of State Department approval (no approval, no award – similar to getting IRB or IACUC approval, except completely out of your control), and then the final decision is up to the IC Director (Fauci).
GP said
Just received a reply from PO, that they have got Foreign component clearance approved.
What will be the next step? Any idea?
writedit said
I assume your eRA Commons status is Pending. Since they went through the trouble of getting foreign component clearance, I assume they will now begin the regular administrative review and move forward from there. Your GMS would be the better contact, but if your status is Pending, you can just sit tight. The GMS will contact you if they need any information (and is incredibly busy, so I wouldn’t recommend sending a query just for a status update). If your status is Council review completed and does not change in the next week or so, you could check with your PO to confirm whether they intend to process your application for an award (and if not, which, again, would seem rather odd after all this, advice on next steps).
GP said
Thank you for your input. My Status is still Council review completed. As you suggested, I shall wait for a week to see if any changes in the status.
GP said
Now I have received email from my PO that they will be funding my R21. Immediately after his email, I had email to submit JIT which I submitted 2 weeks before. My status changed to pending, since then I am m yet to receive any feedback, on what is next or the time frame they will get back to me, on what I need to do next.
writedit said
You don’t need to do anything else. If they have any questions, they will contact you, but it is more likely that you will not hear anything else from them. Eventually, the Pending eRA Commons status will change to Award prepared and then to Notice of Award sent – everything will go to your institution. This will happen later in August or September – definitely before September 30.
GP said
Finally, I received an Award letter for R21. Thank you for your inputs. learned lot
writedit said
Congratulations! A lot of waiting, but at least you could wait hopefully. Best wishes for success with your project.
Bob The Second said
Hello, thank you for maintaining this important resource. Can you offer your opinion on what the final NIAID R01 paylines will be for FY20? With the 5% boost and not-withstanding special initiatives, they theoretically should be more than capable of meeting the FY19 paylines of 14/18. I’m a new investigator sitting at an 18th percentile ranking right now for January council. I’m hoping they adjust upward before or shortly after council or my only hope is to resubmit and hope for a better percentile…
Of course my PO claims to know nothing…
Can you forsee a scenario in which paylines drop compared to FY19 even with the budget increase?
Any educated guesses are welcome! Anything to sooth the neurotic wreck I am right now!
Best,
Dr. B0b
writedit said
Your PO truly does not know anything with certainty right now. NIAID won’t have its final appropriation for a few more weeks at least, and ICs don’t know how much money will be skimmed off at each stop along the way (HHS, NIH) for evaluation and other bureaucratic requirements. Either way, though, the appropriation will go up, so paylines should not go down unless there is a major shift in the number of applications at lower percentiles. The leadership is the same, so I would not anticipate any change in funding policy (e.g., away from their generous hard payline to a lower hard payline with more money for a larger number of select pay applications, as has been the case at NCI). If your PO has not advised you to submit again, you should feel pretty good, though I would not be surprised if there were some equivocation there, too, since POs are so conservative.
Bob The Second said
Thank you so much for the insight. Indeed, my PO advised a resubmission “just to be safe” as they said even if it performed more poorly (say, my IS goes down but my percentile increases due to much higher quality of submissions) the better of the two scores would be considered for funding.
Similar to an earlier comment, my status states that council review is complete even though the meeting is set for Jan. 27th. I noticed that similar to the other commentor, we are both 2 percentile points shy of the interim paylines but in line with last year. Thoughts?
Again, I can’t thank you enough for your insight and of course your time!
writedit said
Your application was included on the paylist sent to Council for en bloc electronic approval in advance of the actual meeting. ICs do this with applications that require no discussion or separate consideration (e.g, involvement of foreign sites, well-funded PIs, etc.). Their approval gives the IC Director permission to make awards to any applications on the list (that have no administrative issues upon review), but it does not mean every application on the list will receive an award. A positive sign, though.
R01hopeful said
All depend on ICs and how they process the fundable proposals. we have a ❤ percentile R01 and the council is in Feb but nothing has changed so far in the Commons. PO didn't want to say anything for sure, so we just need to be patient.
R01hopeful said
don’t know why < 3 becomes a <3.
Bob The Second said
I thought a ❤ was good but a < 3 is even better. 😀
Wow, congratulations on that amazing percentile and presumably near perfect impact score! If you haven't heard anything yet and your PO won't flat out tell you an award is in the works, then I suppose we are all just in for a bit of a wait. Thank you for the advice.
DS said
Dear Writedit, my R01 application (established investigator; A1 resubmission) submitted to NICHD last summer was scored slightly above the payline. The PO mentioned that he will nominate my application for “select pay”. Any thoughts on the likelihood of funding? What percentage of R01s nominated for select pay are actually funded? Thanks!
writedit said
More than the ones that aren’t … but seriously, your PO’s advocacy is great. Not a guarantee of funding, since there are more nominated than the IC can fund. If you haven’t already, I would recommend asking your PO if you should submit a new A0 in the meantime, since you may not have a decision on your A1 until the end of the FY (ie, summer). Submitting a new A0 would provide insurance and can be withdrawn if the A1 is funded.
>
Oj Richie said
NICHD has a payline now? My R01 was scored in the 17th percentile, and there have been zero response from the NICHD.
writedit said
NICHD does not have a fixed published payline for R01s, but they internal thresholds for planning purposes. Your PO probably won’t be able to provide informed feedback for a couple of weeks, but if you have had no response to any queries, then you might want to check the Branch personnel for either the Chief or another qualified PO who can answer your basic questions (eg, do you need to submit again, advice for revising if so, etc.).
>>
katie said
Dear Dr. Writedit,
I would like to share this good news with you. NCI has extended the payline for R01s to 10th. My R01 will be funded.
Thank you so much for all your suggestion and advice during this process
Thank you
writedit said
Wonderful news – congratulations! Thanks for the heads up, too, on the payline bump, which I see on their website (R21 at 9th percentile). Best wishes for success on your research!
>
Mil said
Can anyone explain the SRG naming system? For example, in RPHB-Z (12), what do the Z and the (12) signify specifically?
writedit said
The Z refers to a special emphasis panel, the 12 refers to a specialized small business panel of the Risk, Prevention & Health Behavior IRG (each number has a different focus in the same general field). You’ll see other numbered RPHB SRGs as well, each with their own SROs and rosters.
>
Tuhina Banerjee said
Hi writedit, I have submitted an R15 ( as an Co-I) application at NIGMS that scored 34. Are there any chances to get funded since NIGMS doesn’t have any ipayline. We were asked to submit JIT by the program officer for council in January.
writedit said
If the PO requested JIT information, NIGMS is considering your application for an award (but no guarantees). If you haven’t communicated with the PO, you could ask about next steps, including whether to sit tight or plan to submit again.
SaG said
If you are the Co-I (not PI or mPI) then the PO won’t be able to tell you anything about the application. They can only communicate with PIs/mPIs and school signing officials.
JC said
Hello,
Thank you for maintaining this very helpful resource. I have an R01 (A1) for the NIBIB with percentile ranking of 14 and I am a new + early stage investigator. PO previously responded that nothing was known back in November when there was no 2020 budget. I am a little nervous about the payline this year, since nothing has been reported yet. Now that the budget has passed, any thoughts on whether the 2019 payline of 19 might hold?
Thanks!
writedit said
I cannot imagine why the FY19 payline wouldn’t be continued, but your PO might not know anything definitive for a couple weeks still (takes a while for the final appropriation to trickle down to ICs). However, an ESI 14th percentile should be in good shape for funding (especially since the ESI payline was 24th percentile in FY19), so hopefully your PO will have a positive update soon.
>
VS said
Dear Writedit.
Thank you so much for this wonderful resource. We completed a Phase II SBIR project funded by NICHD. We are now hoping to apply for a Phase IIB project but the gap between our Phase II completion and potential future Phase IIB application now exceeds the maximum allowed duration (first six due dates). Do you know any chance if this requirement can be waived by the PO?
Unfortunately, I am not sure what is going on but I get simply no response from NICHD.
We are now starting to explore the CRP program but it seems NICHD does not support CRP.
JPEG said
Hmph. I am waiting to hear from anyone here that NICHD has responded to. I will avoid this institute in the future!!
writedit said
I am not familiar with what ICs can do to accommodate SBIR applicant situations. You could try contacting the general NICHD SBIR email ([email protected] – & copy your PO) and/or query the main NIH SBIR office ([email protected]), where you could also ask for a recommendation for a possible contact for the pilot CRP opportunity. The Matchmaker tool at Project RePORTER might also link you up with another potential IC (and PO) for your work, though if you’ve been funded by NICHD, then that is probably where your project belongs.
katie said
Dear Writedit,
One of my R01 applications (A0) received a score near the payline (10th). Please let me know if POs more favorably consider the select pay to the A0 R01 applications over A1 applications.
Thank you
writedit said
There is no preference for A0 vs A1 in making select pay decisions (these are based on programmatic priority), but I would hope with a 10th percentile, you are within payline (even NCI is now at the 10th percentile for R01s).
science student said
When did NCI improve the R01 payline (is it based on the recent funding increase)? Will this affect grants that were evaluated under the interim payline or will it only apply to newer submissions?
writedit said
Yes, payline increases are retroactive (within the same FY) and will cover applications scored for FY20 before this announcement.
SaG said
It should include R01s submitted this fiscal year. (https://www.cancer.gov/grants-training/nci-bottom-line-blog/2020/fy-2020-budget-boost-for-nci)
R15 grantee said
Hello- I currently have an R15 from NIA and we proposed using a transformed cell line (BV2 cells) for our work that it currently in year 1. We want to extend our findings by using a zebra fish model system keeping the relative experiments the same but having them done in an in vivo model system. We have requested a change in scope from my NIA grants specialist. My question is should I be worried they will not except it? We have been waiting for an answer for a couple of months and I am getting anxious. Thank you.
writedit said
That shouldn’t be a problem – you received a grant, not a contract, which gives you the flexibility to pursue your aims in the best manner (scientifically). You can contact your PO if you have concerns.
IcyR01 said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you so much for this blog!
I am planning to submit my R01 application at the June cycle and have a question regarding my ESI status of this R01 application. I obtained my degree at the year of 2010, officially in May. Would it still be eligible for an application of ESI?
Thanks!
SaG said
Probably not. Your ESI status would end May 30, 2020. It should say your end date in your ERA commons acct. You could apply for an extension (new baby, significant time off for an illness , etc.)(https://grants.nih.gov/policy/early-investigators/esi_extension_add.htm) also, https://grants.nih.gov/policy/early-investigators/faqs.htm
IcyR01 said
Thanks for the information. Much appreciated!
ESI succes said
I disagree with SaG. I was in this situation (May graduation). After reading the rules carefully, I submitted the R01 a week early (by May 31 instead of June 5) and it definitely got ESI consideration. The date of submission matters, not the deadline. Also, if you graduated any time in May 2010, your ESI ends at the end of May 2020, not on the anniversary of your graduation date.
SaG said
That is true. But be careful that the app is successfully submitted to grants.gov. Assuming your grants office doesn’t work on Saturdays, that means they need to be finished with the submission in grants.gov by May 29. Many grants offices request 1-2 weeks for processing. If you manage to beat the deadline you have 13 months to resubmit an A1 as an ESI. https://grants.nih.gov/policy/early-investigators/faqs.htm#5406
Good luck!
IcyR01 said
Thanks for both of you, ESI success and SaG! It’s time to talk to our grant officers.
FirstRO1?!? said
Hello Writedit,
I would like to ask when we should expect to see fy 2020 paylines, particularly for NINDS. There is a council meeting 01/2020 (no date provided), then the advisory council meeting on 02/05/2020. My percentile would have been funded last year (fy 2019). What percentile should we expect this year or at least when should we find out?
Thanks for this helpful blog!
SaG said
FYI, https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Funding/About-Funding/NINDS-Funding-Strategy/NINDS-Funding-Strategy-FY-2020
FirstRO1?!? said
This information was published prior to the approved appropriations, so this is not likely the actual payline for fy 2020. Correct?
writedit said
Correct – but the funding strategy is not likely to become more conservative since their budget will be increased again in FY20. You should be in good shape, but you could ask your PO if you need to resubmit (easier question for them to answer until appropriation is known, which won’t be until February probably).
Varun Kumar said
Hello Writedit, I recently applied (AO) K99 application (June 12, 2019 deadline) and got the impact score of 31. What is the chance of funding?
Varun kumar said
The application is at NEI.
writedit said
NEI seems to fund about 20 K99s a year (37-47% success rate). That should put your score at least in the bubble, but you can just ask your PO if you should resubmit in March (and withdraw it if the A0 is funded). If your PO thinks you have a reasonable likelihood of funding, they will suggest that you wait – but I suspect they will recommend submitting an A1 for insurance.
Varun Kumar said
Thank you very for the reply. I am preparing for the re-submission in the march 2020 as suggested by PO.
CR said
Hello writeit,
I applied for an F31 in the April 2019 cycle and got a very good score. After waiting for the appropriations cycle to get done, I received an email from my PO today asking me to “address the concerns in the Summary Statement” so that they can move forward with the review of my application for award consideration, and the status on ERAcommons has changed from SRG review completed to pending.
By concerns, is the PO likely referring to the few weaknesses listed in the summary statement, or a specific concern that a reviewer listed under the “Vertebrate Animals” sections in the statement?
SaG said
Play it safe and assume both. They can’t award the fellowship if there are outstanding VA concerns. And/or the PO wants ammo in case they have to argue to fund your app.
RNA_21 said
Is it rude to call my PO without an appointment? Or, is it better to email the Grants Management Specialist?. I need a direction about a grant that was reviewed last summer and scored in the 17th percentile (council meeting took place in September). Neither my PO nor his secretary is responding to my emails.
writedit said
You could call the PO (GMS can’t help at this stage), though you would likely be leaving a voicemail, and/or email the Branch Chief where your PO works to say you would like some guidance on whether to resubmit in March and have not been able to reach your assigned PO (with whom I assume you had not communicated before applying). If this is NCI and some other ICs, reapplying will probably be advised (since you may need to wait until the end of the FY for final decision).
>
SaG said
I agree. Start emailing folks up the chain of command. Someone will respond eventually.
SaG said
and if they don’t public shaming on twitter usually gets a response. Or even have you local Congressman’s office send a letter. That will definitely get a response.
adeade said
Hi, PO says he/she has signed off the checklist and my proposal is now with grants management specialist for processing. How long will I have to wait to hear the final NOA? It has been 4 weeks seen we submitted the JIT. I am a nervous wreck waiting.
writedit said
The ICs are catching up on a huge backlog of Cycle I awards (& Cycle II awards will be in line soon, too), so the delay isn’t surprising (& the Pending status can last months – but you don’t need to worry about that happening). You don’t need to contact them to make sure everything is okay – they’ll contact you if they have questions. If you need to start work now, your grant administrator should be able to set up an account for pre-award spending (allowed up to 90 days before the NOA).
>
adeade said
Thank you for the response. This is very helpful
adeade said
OK, I am still waiting for an NOA – now three weeks since the PO told me he signed off on the JIT. Might the delay be due to the president’s budget proposal that indicates cuts to NIH? It has been hard for me to not email the GMS as I do not want to annoy anyone, but my project is now on pause (a student graduated) as I cannot hire not knowing when the funds will come through. I have an email written out to the GMS, but not sure if I should send it.
writedit said
SaG has the right idea. 🙂 The FY21 proposal from the White House has no bearing on the FY20 budget, nor the FY21 budget for that matter (Congress will ignore and give NIH the same or more funding). You can be patient (start dates for this cycle are in April), and you can ask your home institution about the pre-award spending account (GMS doesn’t have a role, though your fiscal person will probably contact to confirm you are within 90 days of award).
SaG said
Ask yourself…”how long does it take to order a large piece of equipment at my school?” Then apply that to getting a few hundred $K spent through the Federal Bureaucracy.
adeade said
Thank for the reply – writedit. Actually, the PO says my application is on the October 2019 council pay list – not the February 2020 one. We are still waiting for NOA :(. Also at what point would we know if the budget is cut/by how much the budget is cut?
writedit said
The October 2019 Council meeting is for the first funding cycle of FY20 – so your NOA should be issued soon (ICs only received their appropriations in late January/early February, so this delay is not meaningful beyond usual bureaucracy catching up) … and that is when you will know how much your budget has been cut.
abu said
I’m on the funding border. PO was reasonably positive and optimistic. How long after council meeting is appropriate to wait until I follow up? I’ve been getting the resubmission together just in case, but waiting to start asking people for updated letters of support. Council meets 1/31, resub deadline is March 5.
writedit said
Your PO should be able to provide feedback on whether to resubmit by later next week. ICs now have their appropriation and two rounds of applications, so your PO will know better where your application sits in the rankings, including whether a funding decision will be made this cycle or not until the end of the FY (in which case you should submit in March for insurance).
>
Vosky said
My R01 status has been “award prepared” for about 17 days. One of the research fellows that will work on this project resumes in a couple of days. I check era commons almost every 30 min during the day. I emailed the GMS and received no reply. What could be the reason for this delay?
writedit said
It is unusual for the Award prepared status to linger so long. Your grant administrator (at your institution) should be able to set up an account for pre-award spending, so ask about that now. You can also check with the PO about the delay, but it could be a book-keeping issue on their end out of the control of the PO/GMS (eg, IC appropriation not yet dispersed to Divisions/Branches).
>
Lorena said
Good evening,
We applied for SBIR Phase I from NINDS and received a good score (25). The council review just concluded today. What are the next steps? How long will it take them to let us know the decision? Will there be a change of status online?
Thank you for your time and help!
writedit said
You can contact your PO about next steps – whether you are likely to receive an award and, if there is any question about an award, whether you should resubmit (and suggested strategies for doing so). If you are content to wait, your eRA status will change to Pending (or something similar) if they are considering your application for an award, and you will receive a request for JIT information.
R01_frustrated said
Hello, I have an A1 R01 that received a 7 percentile and was submitted in response to a PAR that listed NIMHD and a long list of other institutes, one of which was NIDA, the primary IC. Our PO on the application emailed to say he is retiring (last day was last week) and that his Branch decided not to fund it at council and that he requested a transfer to another Branch. We have now correponded with that Branch chief who scheduled a call with us for this Wednesday. I am very concerned at this point that NIDA just doesn’t want to fund this grant. Other ICs (NIMHD are likely very interested in it but we can’t pursue that unless NIDA releases it). How long do we wait on NIDA to come around or should we push to have it switched to another IC? We have already been pushed to the next cycle. Thanks for the advice …
writedit said
When you talk with the new NIDA Branch chief, if there is any question about NIDA’s making an award, let him/her know that NIMHD is interested in funding your award (& the name of the PO who is interested). You should absolutely be able to get an award for this application.
>
R01_frustrated said
Thank you for the advice! I hope our story has a good ending. If I learn anything that may help someone else, I will update you! This is a great site!
Elemental PI said
Hello – this is a great site. Does anyone know what the NCI R43 and R44 payline will be for 2020?>
writedit said
If no one chimes in, you can ask your PO if you should plan on resubmitting as a way of gauging your funding likelihood and soliciting input on strategies for resubmission (based on panel discussion).
>
Information-less said
NIH Should be paying you. I’ve called and emailed my PO throughout the whole process (NIGMS), with ZERO response back. This is my first time submitting an SBIR and my score isn’t great, but I don’t have a %ile, and I know it went to council. My status says “Council review complete”. What does that mean? Thanks for all the info.
SaG said
You could find out who the PO’s boss (Branch Chief) is and cc: them on the email. (https://ned.nih.gov/search/)
writedit said
Council review completed is the status of every application (scored or not) after the IC Council meeting. It doesn’t mean anything specific. Agreed with SaG about copying the appropriate Branch Chief on your next contact, which should be to seek advice on whether to resubmit/strategy for revising the application.
>
abu said
This document (https://era.nih.gov/docs/era_status_codes.pdf) makes it sound a bit more positive than that. Like the status for a grant that isn’t competitive would say: “Council review completed: Application not recommended for further consideration. Refer any questions to Program Official.”
Am I reading this wrong?
SaG said
Yes, you are reading it wrong. NRFC grants are those that are so bad that review panels are telling PIs to never come back again ever. Council is forbidden from recommending it for funding. It is worse than a Not Discussed. Applies to apps that seek to prove that HIV does not cause AIDs for instance.
mc991220py said
Dear Writedit,
I am following up with this R01. The PO just said she doesn’t have any news on my A0 as to whether it will be picked up for funding in its regular cycle. The PO said that the complication of course is with a follow-up A1 which did not do well. She mentioned that for now I will just have to hang tight until they complete the last cycle round.
My question is mainly on the logistics:
1. What is usually the timeline for regular cycle and selected pay?
2. When is a good time to contact a NIBIB PO as NIBIB is the secondary IC? I noticed that NIBIB had a council meeting on Jan31. Did I miss this cycle?
3. Will I lose the chance to get funded by NIDCR if NIBIB eventually doesn’t pick it up for funding?
4. NIBIB usually requires 4 year budget while my R01 has a 5-year budget. Is that a problem?
Thank you very much.
writedit said
The start date for each cycle gives you an idea of when funding decisions are made (except cycle 1, which is rarely completed in time for Dec 1 start dates due to federal budget delays). Cycle 2 decisions (for April 1 start date) are being made now in February and will continue into March and April as ICs see how much $ they have after processing successive awards. Select pay awards are typically funded at the end of the FY (ie, late summer) when ICs know how much discretionary money they have left (and then they’re in a hurry to spend it before Sept 30). You can contact the NIBIB PO any time – again, an application can be funded any time during the FY in which it was submitted, so you haven’t missed any deadlines. The only hard deadline for making awards is the Sept 30 cut off. If the NIBIB PO is interested, which is not a given (especially if you haven’t communicated with them before), since they have lots of their own primary assignment applications that they need to fund, you can ask your NIDCR PO about transferring the application – but they will no longer consider it for funding (so you need to be sure about NIBIB). Also, if NIDCR thinks they might fund it, they probably won’t release it until late in the FY when they’re sure they won’t fund it.
mc991220py said
Got a call from the PO saying the renewal R01 will be funded. However, there is a question on the funding disposition. The existing R01 ends in December 2020 while the proposed start date for the renewal R01 is from April 2020. Had no experiences at the time of submission. Can I request that we can terminate the existing R01 in September (the end of FY 2020), and then start the renewal on Sept, 2020? Thank you so much
writedit said
You can ask your own grant/fiscal administrator how this is typically negotiated, but usually, they just reduce the first year of the renewal award by the amount carried over from the prior award period (and you have a new project period start date, not December, based on when the competing renewal starts). You might be able to delay the renewal until September to avoid losing less money. Again, your fiscal person should be familiar with how the IC likes to handle these renewal situations, or you can ask the GMS, too.
mc991220py said
Dear Writedit,
This R01 renewal was submitted to NICHD in June 2019, received 12% in Oct 2019. I received an automatic email and then submitted the JIT. PO said in Jan21 2020 that this application will go to Jan Council this week and then will be available in the funding plan depending on the availability of funds. The on-going R01 ends in Dec 2020. Got a call from the PO in Feb 2020 asking my selection on the fund deposition: 1. terminate the current R01 early and start the renewal, or 2. wait for FY 2021. I selected option #1 and requested to terminate the current R01 and start the R01 renewal in FY 2020. However, I sent a few emails but haven’t heard back anything from the PO since the last phone call with him in early Feb 2020. GMS replied once in May 2020 saying that she has not yet received a pay authorization. I emailed them both again at the end of July but got no response. In eRA Commons, it remains to be: Council meeting completed. I understand NIH is going through a difficult situation. I am really nervous as there is just a month left for FY2020. My question is what if my application is not funded in FY2020? The PAR has expired in May 2020 and I can’t submit the A1. Will it still be considered for funding in Fy 2021? Thanks
writedit said
You definitely want to reach out again and this time copy someone higher up in the hierarchy. I would suggest replying to your most recent reply to the PO and GMS (reply all) so the email chain and your most recent attempt to reach out are documented and add the acting director and/or associate director of DER (Hayunga and/or Hazra), since I do not see an org chart that breaks out branch chiefs. Unless your award is currently being prepared for FY20, they should be able to issue the renewal in FY21 – especially if your email exchanges document the fact that you were anticipating this award (and so did not submit an A1). Now, I see that 4 of the 7 NICHD leadership positions are “acting”, which suggests a lot of flux, but the silence in advising you on your application is unacceptable, and so it’s time to bring in some higher ups to ensure you get direction and reassurance about your application status.
mc991220py said
Dear Writedit,
The NICHD leadership finally decided not to fund this R01 renewal because it has a cancer focus. They recommended me to submit the resubmission or new submission to NCI. While this is very sad news, I am thinking about what are my options. The PAR has expired in May 2020. Can I still submit an A1 but to a different funding opportunity, e.g. Parent R01 and to a different IC? Or I have to submit as a new R01? In the latter case, the reviewers won’t be able to see the positive comments from the summary statement. Thank you very much for your advice.
writedit said
Wow. This is not sad. This is unconscionable. You first asked in January 2019 about this first ESI R01 renewal, for which you had to select a new FOA for renewal submission, and you were in touch with your PO about this way back then. Your PO reviews your R01 RPPRs and perhaps even discussed your renewal aims with you (they should have offered anyway), so they should be aware of any possible creep away from the NICHD mission. Your A0 scored 12th percentile in October 2019, and in February 2020, your PO called (not emailed) to say the renewal would be funded, with the only question being how to handle the end of the ESI R01(due to end Dec 2020) and the start of the renewal (scheduled for July 2020) in terms of budget and start date. No mention of the science itself being inappropriate. At the very least, your NICHD PO should start communicating with the appropriate NCI PO about this application, introduce you, and explain why NICHD cannot financially support the renewal of this work (but does support your scientific progress made to date). However, I really feel as though you could take this long ongoing conversation (18+ months) to the NICHD Director of Extramural Research to inquire why in January 2019 (when you asked about renewal FOA) or in June 2019 (when you submitted the Type 2 A0) they did not flag your application as inappropriate for NICHD … and why they in fact told you in February 2020 that they were planning to fund your ESI A0 renewal. By the time you resubmit, you will have lost more than 2 years (you did not prepare an A1 based on NICHD advice) and will have a long break in funding, depending on your carryover situation. Your situation is especially egregious since this is the first renewal of your ESI R01, which is a priority funding scenario for the NIH and should have been factored in – especially way back when some advice from NICHD for you as an ESI awardee to switch to NCI would have helped you keep on track (vs completely derailing your lab and research). I would hope that the NIH OER does not want to see ICs hindering rather than helping the biomedical research careers of ESI awardees in this careless manner.
I hate to ask, but what happened with your 15th percentile R01 at NIDCR (secondary IC NIBIB, which has 18th percentile payline)?
SaG said
What is a head scratcher is why NICHD didn’t send this app to NCI day 1 or just have it withdrawn as not fitting their mission months ago. To say at this late point that it has too much of a Cancer focus suggests that someone didn’t look closely at the app months ago. You will have to submit a new grant. Hopefully the next group of reviewers will identify the same positives and you fix any negatives.
mc991220py said
Thanks, writedit and SaG! I have been quite upset recently. You make me feel better. I really appreciate your kind words and advice. My other R01 (A0) was eventually funded by NIDCR. My NIDCR PO has been very responsive. I would like to follow your suggestions to take this long ongoing conversation to the NICHD Director of Extramural Research to inquire. Half of my team is working on this project. I really don’t want anyone to leave. However, I may not be able to argue for the ESI R01 renewal at this point. What is my better strategy?
writedit said
Congrats on the NIDCR award! Even with this second R01, your NICHD application remains the renewal of your ESI R01 (and was being considered/recommended for funding before the NIDCR award) – but the ESI first renewal is just an added consideration, not the main argument. ICs do not like to see labs laid off due to a gap in funding, and this situation in which you were directly told many months ago to expect an award, the gap will not be your fault. I would still recommend sending the NICHD DER a documented timeline of submission, review, and post-submission communications with a brief note explaining that half your lab is supported by this award and was counting on the renewal (ie, you had no idea that you needed to be looking elsewhere for funding). If the shift to a cancer focus occurred between the original and renewal applications, you could also note any communication with your PO and/or reporting on your RPPR that would demonstrate that the NICHD was aware of this shift even before your Type 2 application. Since it took NICHD 18 months to realize your science wasn’t appropriate for them, I feel as though the least they could do is provide a year of R56 funding while you prepare a submission for NCI (and I would still like to see your NICHD PO make a personal referral to the appropriate NCI PO, including background on your situation). This would keep the lab going and give you time to rework your application for a direct cancer focus. Alternatively, if the application has NCI as a secondary IC (given NICHD’s concern about the cancer focus), you could see if an R56 could be negotiated there, again to provide time to transition the work to an NCI-oriented project. The latter is probably a bit late, though, whereas NICHD has already done the administrative processing (and currently holds your award), so could more easily issue R56 bridge funding. In an ideal world, NICHD would ask NCI about co-funding the renewal application (in full) and allow you to shift administrative (and possibly funding) ICs during the second project period, so you transition to NCI without a break in funding or needing to resubmit again.
mc991220py said
Hi Writedit,
I re-submitted this renewal R01 application to NIBIB and the revised submission scored within the payline in March. The Council Meeting has completed in May17, and the status changed to “Pending”. The PO has not responded to me emails lately. I haven’t hear anything for the GMS either. NIBIB typically funds competing R01s for four years while this renewal R01 application has a 5-year budget. Any ideas on How ICs usually handles this?
Thank you
New applicant said
Hi Writedit,
I submitted my JIT around mid December when requested by PO and have not heard anything since then. PO has been out of contact since late January. Is this something common? If not, what should I do to push things forward? Thanks for this blog!
writedit said
You do not need to do anything (and should not try to push things forward). All ICs are dealing with a backlog of applications to process all at the same time, so you need to be patient. They will contact you if they need information. Otherwise, you should sit tight. If you need to start ordering things now, you can as your institution’s grant/fiscal administrator about setting up an account for pre-award spending, since you should be within 90 days of award.
mika said
Dear Writedit,
MY RO1 scored 3 percentile (Oct 7, 2019 study section meeting). we submitted JIT, era system shows Advisory Council 02/11/2020. question: when I should receive NIH official letter —-funded
writedit said
You shouldn’t expect your award before April (the typical start date for Cycle 2 awards is around April 1). After Council meets and after the IC holds internal meetings to finalize a paylist, they need to conduct an administrative review of your application and the JIT you sent and then negotiate the terms of the award (any cuts to your budget etc.). There is nothing you can do to speed this up, but if you need to start purchasing items, you can ask the grant/fiscal administrator at your university about setting up an account for pre-award spending since you should be within 90 days of award.
R01 said
In the same boat here, a 2% R01 with uncertainty about funding. Even don’t know if it is in the paylist or not.
SaG said
You probably wont know until you get a Notice of Award. Some NIH ICs will let POs email PIs once a paylist is signed but that is optional. It is risky telling the PI anything certain until the official letter is out. I am sure no PO wants to get a call from an angry PI saying, “but, you told me it was funded and I already hired a post-doc!”
Limbo Rock said
My council met on 1/31. I am waiting to hear about a grant that I knew was outside the payline, but the PO was clearly going to push for. In December they told me it was likely but not guaranteed and I should consider resubmitting. We wrote again yesterday (2/7) and received basically the same answer. I thought that council decides what grants to fund, so I’m surprised to be in the same limbo. Worth noting that a colleague who was within the payline has already heard positive news. At this point, I just want to understand the process, which feels perfectly opaque.
Limbo Rock said
I’m confused about the council process. I scored just outside the auto payline at an institute that often funds a bunch outside the line. PO had me write response letter, and told me it was likely but not guaranteed in December. Council met 1/31. We wrote yesterday (2/7) and I got the same answer (likely but not guaranteed). I thought that council actually decides so I am just confused about the process. Can you shed light on this?
writedit said
The IC Advisory Council/Board role is to review the quality of peer review and to confirm the science proposed is within the IC’s mission, not to make funding decisions. They discuss very few applications at their meetings but rather approve en bloc (either at the meeting or electronically in advance of the meeting, which sometimes leads to Council review completed status changes before Council actually meets) a very long list of applications that the IC Director, who does make all final funding decisions, is considering for awards. The Council must approve this list of applications as eligible and appropriate to be considered for awards before the IC Director can act on any funding decisions. Depending on the IC, internal meetings after (or sometimes before) Council meets create an ordered paylist for awards, and the IC processes these applications in order. Those at the end are the ones that the IC would like to pick up if funding is available – but all the applications on the list will not receive awards. Any that do not are held until the end of the FY, when the IC assesses both how much money is left to be spent by Sept 30 and the highest priority applications left over from all 3 cycles. Right now, your IC is still paying Cycle 1 awards due to the delay in the federal budget appropriation, and colleagues whose applications are in the definite pay zone of the paylist can be given positive news (assuming no administrative issues uncovered). Yours must be at or just within the likely pay portion of the larger list for Cycle 2, so it will depend on how far the money goes after they get through the within-payline applications (all the negotiations, budget cuts, administratively dropped applications, etc. affect how far an IC can reach, and this cannot be projected at the outset of the process). With regard to Council in general, you can read a nice overview at NIGMS: https://www.nigms.nih.gov/about/council/Pages/Councils-Role-in-the-Funding-Process.aspx
Limbo Rock said
So amazingly helpful — thanks so much!
brg said
My app was reviewed about five days ago, and the current status is still ‘Scientific Review Group review pending’ without showing impact score nor percentile. Is it literally pending or not discussed? Will even the status of ND apps be changing to be completed? Thanks.
SaG said
The SRO has 3 working days to input scores and release the meeting. You should get your score very soon.
brg said
Thanks Sag. I wondered if my app was not discussed, so no score is released yet.
writedit said
Thanks, SaG! And yes, brg, ND is posted, so everyone whose applications were at your SRG are waiting to hear.
brg said
Thanks much, writedit!
Fei Cheng said
https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/grants-funding/nia-funding-line-policy-fy-2020
I submitted a R01 application to NIA (PAR17-032) as an ESI and I received an impact score within ESI payline (less than 45). However, after the Council meeting in the last month, my PO told me my application was reviewed by the NIA special study section and my payline should be the same with the established PI payline (40). It means that I lost the ESI payline due to reviewed by NIA special study section. However, I didn’t require to be reviewed by this NIA special study section during submission. What should I communicate with PO to ask for ESI payline for my scored R01. Thanks
SaG said
Several strange things here. First, what you said the PO told you is wrong. If you are an ESI you should get the ESI payline. Second, you don’t get to pick your study section. If you applied for an ADRD RFA you will get reviewed at a special study section. Third, the NIA website specifically mentions an ESI payline for ADRD apps as 45. (https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/grants-funding/nia-funding-line-policy-fy-2020) . Seems to me that either the PO misspoke or you misheard. Contact him/her again and point to the payline website above.
writedit said
I agree with SaG that some miscommunication probably happened here. There is nothing in the PAR that specifically indicates ESI status will not be considered, and NIH ESI policy applies to all R01 equivalents, including this Program Announcement. If your Summary Statement documents your ESI status, you should be able to communicate with the PO or extramural office at NIA about the use of the correct payline.
Jay said
I submitted the R01 to NCI before and got scored 14 percentile in ESI payline. My PO said the same thing. I think they just don’t want to fund from my experience. It really does not matter what said on your statement.
writedit said
Well, NCI is different from NIA, which does have special paylines for ESI and AD/ADRC applications. In the past, a 14th percentile at NCI was a crap shoot no matter your status.
>
Cheng said
Thank you very much. My PO from NIA has told me he made a mistake and my ESI R01 is going to be funded. Bests
SaG said
Congratulations!
Richard said
My RO1 application received a score in the grey zone. Council completed last week. When I wrote to my PO for update and asked whether I should prepare JIT, she replied “You will receive an email from GMS if/when a JIT will be needed”. Positive, negative or nothing?
writedit said
Neutral, so you’ll either wait a few weeks (if funded in Cycle 2) or a few months (if funded at end of FY) to know the outcome. If you haven’t asked your PO for advice about whether to submit again and strategies for doing so if this is advised, then I would suggest you check in on whether to plan for a March or July (or June, if the grey zone app was A1) submission.
Richard said
Thanks, writedit! I plan to submit A1 next month.
New Investigator said
I am a new investigator (not ESI), and my R01 application received 31% at NIGMS in cycle 2. The PO said that any decision will be made after the council meeting. I submitted the JIT in Nov after a request from the PO, and the council meeting happened recently in Jan. The online status says “council review completed.” I am quite nervous about the outcome and whether to start planning for the resubmission in March. Thanks for any input or advice.
writedit said
If you haven’t asked your PO for advice on whether to submit again (& strategies for doing so if recommended), then start there. Your PO probably has a clearer idea now whether this would be recommended, too.
>
New Investigator said
The PO recommended checking with him by the end of Feb, which will be only 1 week before the resubmission.
writedit said
Aha – then that is when he’ll know the final playlist. Your best bet is to prepare the A1 and decide whether to submit at the end of the month. It’s better to do some extra work now (which will help you think through the science again – always a good thing) than risk missing a cycle.
>
New Investigator said
Thanks a lot for your advice. I appreciate you maintaining this important resource that is especially valuable for new applicants.
SaG said
My guess is that a decision won’t be made on a 31% until later this year. I suggest playing it safe and start preparing a resubmission. Assuming that you can address the major weaknesses without a lot more bench work. Otherwise wait til July.
New Investigator said
Thanks, SaG. Yes, I am preparing A1 renewal as we have been working towards addressing the major weaknesses since the summary was released.
pneumosepsis said
My R01 application (submitted on Feb 05) has been assigned to a study section different from what I requested. Who should I contact to find out why it was and whether it can be reassigned to the requested study section. No SRO has been assigned yet.
Thank you.
SaG said
If it is a standing Study Section you can search CSR’s website for the SRO or the SRO’s boss and contact them. You have to have a strong scientific reason why it should go to a different study section. The final decision is up to CSR though.
ESI MIRA said
Hello Writedit,
My NIGMS R35 MIRA for ESI application scored 37. No percentile was released and I’m wondering whether there’s a chance to be funded. Thank you for your input.
writedit said
Scores higher than yours have been funded, while scores lower than yours have not received funding (at least in the early years) – but you’re definitely in the zone of funding possibility, especially looking at 2019. This spreadsheet created by Serdar Bozdag (announced last year on Twitter) has tracked scores and award outcome (you could add yours for 2020): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10f1MDXXW57r5pYxwqTnAKM_NRY_SmvC0s0b3joyO_Zo/edit#gid=0
ESI MIRA said
Thanks for the quick response! According to the spreadsheet, my application (with a score of 38, not 37, sorry I mistyped above) appears to be in sort of the funding zone. I’ll definitely add my score to the sheet. Thanks!
Curious said
K99 recipient here. I have a tenure-track offer in hand. But start date will depend on when my visa at the new university is approved. I will be filing a no-cost extension on my K99 to bridge the gap in time but postdoc contract may not be extended due to lack of funds for salary/delay in current visa extension. Does anyone know what happens if you’ve filed a no-cost extension for K99 but soon after you’re not employed as a postdoc at the university? And in the meantime, your new university submits an R00 app which is under review but not approved.
SaG said
This is a classic “contact your PO/GMS moment.” Let them know what is happening before someone pushes the wrong button and terminates your award…
Curious said
Yep. Already emailed them! Just want to know if anyone else has experienced a similar situation and how they approached it.
DoS said
Does appearance of a Grant Management Specialist mean the application is on the fund list? My PO hasn’t given me much information about funding possibility yet, but last week I noticed that a Grant Management Specialist appears on my eCommons. The current eCommons status is still “council review completed” though.
writedit said
The addition of the GMS alone does not mean a lot, but if the GMS (or PO) requests JIT information, that would be a positive sign, as would any change in status.
>
DoS said
Thanks for the reply, writedit! The PO hasn’t requested JIT information yet, but I will keep my fingers crossed.
DoS said
My ecommons status changed to “pending” today, but I still haven’t heard anything from my PO yet. Is this status change a good sign?
DoS said
My PO just called me today and told me that I got the award! No JIT was ever requested for my case, although I submitted a JIT myself earlier to revise one of the application document.
writedit said
Woohoo! Congratulations and best wishes for success with your research. They could just use your earlier JIT, which is why they didn’t request it again. You have a great PO, so keep in touch with them about meetings you might attend, especially to present research funded by this award (POs can sometimes attend scientific meetings and are happy to meet with awardees), and manuscripts accepted for publication.
Laulau said
Hello Writedit,
My R01 submission June 2019 as an ESI got a 25 percentile at NIGMS. After talking to the PO and senior colleagues, I did a quick resubmission A1 at November 5th 2019. The PO asked for JIT for A0 December 2019. The PO then sent promising comments after Council meeting early 2020 for A0 (after I asked for updates). But the A0 status is “Council review completed” for a couple of weeks since then. However, I just got a very bad score which is 45 percentile for the resubmission version (A1). This is a bummer to me now. Maybe some reviewers were changed. I wonder if you know what will happen. Will the bad score of A1 affect the outcome of A0? Very worried now… Thanks!
SaG said
Once the 45% Summary statement comes out contact your PO again. My guess is that it won’t negatively affect the A0 funding unless the second set of reviewers identified a major feasibility problem that the first set didn’t.
writedit said
SaG is correct that NIGMS can ignore the 45th percentile A0 application and fund the 25th percentile A1, especially if the summary statement did not find genuine scientific flaws. Don’t forget, too, that the A0 is a new application, not officially related to the A1. The start date for funding in this cycle begins at April 1, so the delay in status change is not necessarily a bad sign. They work on the applications at the top of the paylist first, so yours is toward the end of a long line.
FS said
I got my A1 with a 23 percentile and got a JIT request. The PO had asked me to submit a R35 (MIRA) grant as well which was reviewed after the above mentioned A1. However, the MIRA grant went to not discussed pile. The PO seem to get less enthusiastic after that. The PO told me they are going to be meeting in early March and he can then update me. However, he did say that I should keep all my plans intact for now.
Also when I asked about resubmitting he told me to wait (or something to that effect).
Is this a good thing? bad thing? should I be worried?
writedit said
I assume this is NIGMS, in which case your 23rd percentile is in a competitive (but not guaranteed) zone. If your PO did not encourage you to resubmit, that is a positive sign, since POs are always conservative and never want to risk giving advice that might result in a PI missing a funding cycle.
>
FS said
Yes this is NIGMS. Thank you.
And my MIRA no discussed application does not have any bearing on the decisions? Does it come up in the discussions? since the R01 and MIRA are mutually exclusive.
I do not understand your comment though: “since POs are always conservative and never want to risk giving advice that might result in a PI missing a funding cycle”
writedit said
POs want to ensure PIs have the greatest opportunity of funding, so if they have any doubts about a scored application receiving an award, they err on the side of caution and recommend that the PI submit again while awaiting a decision on the scored application. POs know that PIs can have tenure, job offers, lab personnel, trainees, etc. hanging in the balance, so they never risk telling a PI to wait if funding is unclear. Since you are ESI, the 23rd percentile is even more likely to be funded, and clearly your PO feels the same. As to your other concern, the MIRA outcome has no bearing on the 23rd percentile R01.
FS said
Thank you. Fingers crossed.
FS said
Hi –
I got in touch with the PO and he told me that he made a case for me and it went well and that he got a “yes” nod from his superiors. This was around Feb 25th.
My status changed to “Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.” – on March 3rd 2020.
The start date of my grant is April 1st.
I contacted the GMS yesterday that if there is something I can do to expedite the process since it takes around 2 weeks for my institute to give me the account from which we can spend.
She replied back with “We are not able to indicate a start date at this time. I will contact you once we have an update. Thank you for your patience. ”
Is this normal? Should I still be optimistic that the award will go through? What do you think they are doing right now? Are they just getting each award one by one and I am in the queue?
Thanks,
writedit said
You don’t need to worry about anything, and you don’t need to contact your PO or GMS again. They do indeed process awards in a queue by hand (not an automated process), and your GMS cannot say yet when yours will be next in line. Once the GMS is done with the administrative review and drafting the Notice of Award, you will need to wait for the Institute Director to sign off on your award, which neither the GMS nor PO have any control over. Your application will soon be processed for an award – the April 1 date is not an expiration date, the start date can be after April 1. Now, because the NIH allows pre-award spending, your institution should be able to set up your account now for you to begin spending against, since your GMS and PO have confirmed that your application will receive an award. If they decline to do this, there is nothing your PO or GMS can do to change their minds. Please remember, too, that the NIH is dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic as well and that efficiency will be affected as staff have to deal with changing routines due to school closures, social distancing, etc. You should be grateful that you are receiving an award – I hope you thanked your PO for his support! – and be patient for the final NoA.
FS said
Thank you. And yes I did profusely !
NKM said
Is this a EI or ESI R35 application?
FS said
This was ESI R35 😦
MC_Max said
Hi, we got our score for an A0 R21 with NIDDK. The score is 44. Do you know what is the Payline for R21 with NIDDK? I assume this will not get funded now but would like to get an idea of the target for resubmission.
Thank you
writedit said
NIDDK does not fund a lot of R21s, so my guess would be below 30 (and probably lower), but your PO should be willing to give you some advice on resubmission strategy, both in terms of addressing reviewer concerns (especially if your PO attended the discussion) and NIDDK priorities for the R21 mechanism and your science.
Gothope said
Does anyone have any insight regarding the zone of fundable scores for NHLBI single-site and multisite clinical trials separately?
writedit said
Hopefully someone will chime in, but you should check in with your PO (& also whether you should resubmit).
>
Woman In Science said
My A0 R01 grant was reviewed last Thursday and Friday. I have been waiting anxiously for the results. Nerve-racking! I cannot do anything but checking eRA common every 3-5 minutes …
writedit said
Hope you’re out of your misery (with good news) soon – SROs can take a few days to get all the scores up, depending on the number of applications reviewed, so don’t assume the worst.
>
Anxious Woman In Science said
Thank you so very much Writedit. I will keep you posted if the news is good.
usom said
Im another woman in science with the same worry!! if the application was ND, would that at least be posted by now? By my limited experience, my applications that were ND were posted the same day as the SRG meeting. maybe the delay at least suggests it was at least discussed??
Brian said
There’s really no relation between the delay in score posting and actual score. Generally, all the scores for one study section (including ND) tend to go up at nearly the same time. I’ve had very well-scored applications take a long time, but also had them go up the same day as the meeting. I’ve also have ND applications go up quickly, and other times a week later. I know it’s hard, and we’ve all been there, but try not to read too much into small things!
writedit said
Thank you for sharing your experience, Brian! SROs wait until all scores are ready to post, and the time to posting depends on workload rather than score ranking.
>
Reteplase said
First of all, many thanks to Writedit for contributing this excellent site. Here is the timeline for my first NCI-R01/R37:
A0 submission:
June 2018: Submission
October 2018: Review score 18th (Not funded; ESI payline 14th)
A1 submission:
March 2019: Resubmission
June 2019: Review score 1st
September 2019: Council meeting
November 2019: JIT requested
November 2019: PO notified a conversion from R01 to R37
January 2020: Notice of Award
writedit said
Thank you so much for posting your timeline, Reteplase! Congrats on the exceptional 1st percentile score, and best wishes for success with your research!
AHRQ Newbie said
Does anyone have experience with AHRQ R01s and funding ranges? I know that they do not fund solely on payline but take into account programmatic priorities. I’m an ESI, which, while they do not formally take into account, they factor into their decisions. Thanks in advance.
writedit said
AHRQ is small and personable. If you have a good relationship with your PO, that will go a long way toward getting you on the paylist, if your score is within range. Your PO should be able to give you a sense of whether your proposed work is of high programmatic priority.
Wondering said
Hi, We applied for an R01 to an RFA put out by NIA (RFA-AG-20-022, Aging, Driving and Early Detection of Dementia ). It was reviewed and scored yesterday by a special emphasis panel. I’m assuming since it’s an NIA RFA it was scored by NIA rather than CSR. In looking at the NIA Payline page ( https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/grants-funding/nia-funding-line-policy-fy-2020 ) however, I only see PAR’s listed under the “Applications Responding to Alzheimer’s-related program announcements”, no RFAs. This RFA, and our proposal, are definitely AD-related. Will it still be paid according to the payline for AD-related proposals? Many thanks
writedit said
Yes, the NIA-reviewed research payline of 40 should apply here if you have a score; if you have a percentile (which I doubt), the appropriate R01 AD-ADRD payline would apply (depending on budget size and PI status). The PO can confirm, too (if there is any question, wait until you have your summary statement to inquire).
Catherine Roe said
Thank you, Writedit. You are always there when we need you.
Susan2020 said
I submitted my 2nd R01 application as an ESI in October 2019, and it will be reviewed this week. In February 2020, my first R01 was just awarded. My question is: is my second R01 application still treated as an ESI? In the eRA system, the status for the 2nd R01 is still marked as ESI. Thanks.
Ruthie said
Congrats! I was in the same situation a little over a year ago and I was ESI on both. I was told that it was dependent on your status at the time the application was submitted and didn’t matter if your status changed after submission. Mine were both to NIA – not sure if that matters.
Susan2020 said
Thanks for your feedback. However, I see this in NIH website (https://grants.nih.gov/policy/early-investigators/faqs.htm#5895). It seems the 2nd one is at least taking advantage of the ESI payline.
#19: If I have two different applications under consideration as an ESI and one is awarded, will ESI consideration be given for the other?
No. Only one substantial NIH independent research application can be awarded as an ESI. When an ESI-eligible application is pending and the PD/PI has been awarded another R01 or R01-equivalent application, the ESI status of the pending application will be updated after release of the summary statement to indicate the application is no longer ESI-eligible.
writedit said
Yes, this is updated NIH-wide policy (ICs formerly used their own discretion). ESI status is based on status at the time of submission, and that carries through to the review process. Now, when it comes time for the IC to make funding decisions, the status is updated to determine the applicable payline (ie, if a PI was ESI at time of application but subsequently received an award, the ESI status is not considered for funding decisions on the second R01). Now, NIA is so generous with AD-ADRD applications that the paylines are even more generous than other IC ESI paylines, but it could be that Ruthie applied before the new policy was implemented. Of course, this policy does not preclude the IC from giving Susan a second R01, including by select pay if the score is above the established PI but below the ESI payline.
Jennie said
Hi writedit, I submitted my K99 application late last year, and the score is in the grey zone. I cannot resubmit again as I passed the eligibility window. My PO has told me that she will advocate for me, but there is no guarantee. In the meanwhile, my primary mentor of the K99 wants me to help write an R01 application which is a direct overlap of my K99 award. I understand that he wants to increase the chance to get funded and sustain the team. However, I did come up with the K99 ideas independently and tried hard to distinguish from his previous work. Thus, I am worried that if his R01 gets funded, will that further jeopardize my chances of K99 and future independence? If so, how can I deal with this? Thank you.
Forbes said
May be you can negotiate with your mentor to put you as the PI on the R01?
Forever writing said
I agree with Forbes. You definitely should not “give the grant away” without at a minimum, be the MPI on the grant. Also, just in case if your K99 came through, make sure your new R01 application is worded differently so that they don’t have a reason to reject your CDA. The 5 years extra time on a K99/R01 is very valuable. If you do not have greencard or citizenship then definitely keep communicating with your PO about your situation.
SaG said
Sounds like your mentor is being a bit selfish. Sacrificing you for the “team/him”. At a minimum you should be a PI but as a Post-doc you probably cant. And yes it will make it harder for you to become independent. This sounds like your “mentor” does not care about your future career aspirations.
Jennie said
Thank you all for the advice. I surely need to have a tough conversation with my mentor. I am thinking if it would be helpful to consult the PO. On the one side, if the message that my mentor’s planned R01 will jeopardize my K coming from the PO, that’s more convincing. On the other side, I am worried that the news will make NIH less likely to give me the award.
writedit said
Your PO will be on your side – talk with them first – and soon, given the grey zone status (discussions underway now). Your PO can use this concern in advocating for your award, which you will need to get a position (via R00) at a better institution that promotes mentoring excellence and career development. If the PO communicates that they are advocating for your award, hopefully that will get your “mentor” to back off on the R01 until the K99/R00 outcome is more clear.
Jennie said
Thanks for the advice. I have contacted the PO. Hope my PI will change his mind…
k99 pending said
I am sort of in the same boat now. If my K99 is funded, does it affect my K99/R00 if my primary mentor decides to submit a R01 when my grant is pending administrative reviews?
writedit said
If your mentor is just submitting their R01 and your application has gone to Council (hard to tell the timing here), it won’t affect your K99/R00 at all. If/when your K99/R00 is awarded, and if your mentor’s R01 application is considered for an award next year, they will have to explain how they will adjust their work (and budget), if needed, to avoid overlap with your project so the NIH is not paying for the same work twice.
k99 pending said
Thanks writedit for the great insight!! This is a big relief. My situation is a bit complicated so I would like to confirm this to be sure. My first submission has a fundable impact score (29, ADRD, updated interim payline is 35) and the council meeting was in January. However, I resubmitted it in March when the interim payline was tight (payline was 28 until last week). Therefore, I am looking at the potentially fundable first submission now and a potential resubmission that is reviewed in July (council in September). My mentor is planning to submit his R01 in June, and I would like to help him as much as I can if it doesn’t affect my K99 and conversion into R00.
I am wondering if I should ask him to wait until October in case my first submission is somehow not funded? I am a bit worried to get into trouble since we need to submit the “Other support page” from the mentor during JIT. Many thanks again for this wonderful resource!
writedit said
Your application should be processed by June, unless they are really behind due to the lengthy CR, but again, having your PO list the pending R01 on JIT won’t affect your K99 and will not affect your R00 activation, since that was peer reviewed before your mentor’s R01 was submitted. Your mentor should want to avoid overlap with your R00 so no issue with his budget is identified during the administrative review. You’ll each need to secure future funding in this area, so you will want to sort out which piece of the research you take for your independent program (which should be what you proposed in the R00), and what your mentor will continue to pursue in his lab.
k99 pending said
Thank you so much writedit! This is incredibly helpful! We will make sure his R01 does not overlap with my R00. That should be feasible.
reordered1 said
I got an impact score of 27 in GMS for my R15, anyone have experience on the success rate I may have?
writedit said
That seems like a possibly fundable score. When you have your summary statement, you can discuss next steps with your PO (rebuttal, resubmission).
hdacs said
My R15 was funded with an impact score of 27 with NIGMS. Good luck!
Continuing Resolution said
Writedit – do you know why the NCI paylines have not yet been published for STTR / SBIR awards? Do you know when they will publish?
writedit said
NCI does not post individual paylines for each activity code, and SBIR/STTR applications are among those without a published payline (you can look at an archived funding strategy file to see what they typically cover). When you have your summary statement, you can check with your PO about next steps (rebuttal, resubmission).
NM2020 said
Dear writedit:
I am a new faculty with the current K01 funding which will end in 2 years. I plan to apply for R01 later this year. Another senior PI wants me to be the co-PI in her Multi-PI application, which she is filing now. I have a question in this regard and will very much appreciate your advice: Will being the co-PI consume my new investigator incentive from NIH if this multi-PI grant gets funded and will it affect my individual application R01 application negatively? Thank you very much in advance.
SaG said
If you are listed as a PI on an mPI app and it gets funded, then you lose your ESI status. All PIs on an mPI grant are..well…PIs..You now have an R01 and your ESI status is lost. ALL of the PIs on an mPI app must be ESIs to get any ESI break. You can be any other kind of key personnel on her app (Co-I, collaborator, extra special friend) and not lose your mPI status. The question is would you be a co-equal PI on the mPI grant and if not why is it even being suggested? To help you or to help her?
NM2020 said
Thank you so much for your reply. Do I understand it right that if I’m not a Co-PI but a Co-I or collaborator on someone else’s application, then I will not lose my NEW Investigator (not ESI ) status when I apply to my own R01? Thanks again!
SaG said
NIH doesn’t recognize the name Co-PI. You are either a PI, key personnel or collaborator. If you are key personnel you can be called anything you want..including Co-PI. But, this isnt the same as being a PI on an mPI grant. So, let her call you whatever she wants but DO NOT get listed as a PI on an mPI grant. If funded you will lose your ESI status. My suggestion is to be added as key personnel, call you a co-investigator and avoid any confusion.
writedit said
Just to reiterate what SaG said (all good advice!), please tell your senior colleague that you can only be on her grant if you are listed as key personnel (co-investigator) and not part of a multiple PI submission. Your colleague does not benefit from making you a PI (in terms of being considered under a better payline), so if she wants you involved based on your scientific, she should be willing to list you simply as a co-investigator. You definitely should not participate as a PI on a multiple PI application while you still have ESI status.
NM2020 said
Thank you very much for your advice!
iloiktoitals said
Hi Writedit,
iloiktoitals here back with a question on the NIA K99.
Here’s a quick summary of where I stand:
-A0 K99 at the NIA, Submitted June 2019,
-sort of ADRD related (Dementia with Lewy Bodies),
-Summary Score:20- Received Summary Statement in Oct 2019.
I was asked to submit a response to reviewer’s comments and proof of valid visa status in Jan in anticipation of NIA internal meetings, but my status on eRA Commons is still “Pending Council Review” for some reason.
My 4 year eligibility runs out with the March 2020 cycle, and my PO is unresponsive to emails. I should resubmit the K to be safe, right?
Thanks again!
writedit said
Yes, submitting in March is a good strategy for insurance, but the dementia with Lewy bodies falls well within the ADRD payline (regardless, you are within the regular K award payline of 21 as well), and your PO should have been able to respond to a direct question (though I see NIA seems to have only one K-specific PO). You might email them again and copy the Director of the Division of Extramural Activities specifically to inquire whether you need to submit in March (so as not to miss your last opportunity) or if your K99 with a score of 20 will receive an award.
iloiktoitals said
Hi Writedit!
Thanks for your advice! I did as you suggested, and wrote to another PO (and Director of the Division of Extramural Activities) who wrote back saying that I didn’t need to resubmit for the March cycle, and that I’d be contacted by my PO or someone from the grant management office about my application status in following weeks.
I guess I can cease resubmission activities with my fingers crossed?
writedit said
Yes – nothing is guaranteed, but their intent is to award your K99 (assuming no administrative issues), so you can stand down on the resubmission.
NIAk992020 said
Hi @writedit, thanks for the great resource. I have a common question for NIA K-grants. How NIA decide that grant fall in the AD category? I resubmitted K99 in the October 2019 cycle, received 29 impact score, my grant is directly on AD (AD is in the grant title). On May 22, 2020, NIA posted a revised payline for K grants, now it is 35 for AD-related K grants. What could be the possibility for my K99 grant?
Thanks in advance.
writedit said
It sounds like you should be in good shape – you can confirm with your PO that you’ll receive an award under the ADRD payline.
mika said
NIDDK payline 2020, confused me, could you please let me know the percentile for Established PI ?
Thanks
writedit said
For most R01s with direct costs below $500K from established PIs, the payline is the 16th percentile. New applications from ESI applicants will be considered up to the 25th percentile, and the first renewal of the first R01 award will be considered up to the 19th percentile (ie, ESI’s first renewal as an “established” PI). Applications for therapeutic clinical trials (no matter the costs) will have a slightly higher (but unspecified) payline. Applications submitted in response to NIDDK solicitations (RFA, PAR, PAS) will be not be funded based on score/percentile alone (ie, lower scores may not get funded, higher scores may be funded). All funding decisions include programmatic discretion based on priorities.
Richard said
Hi writedit, one of the key persons (Co-I) listed on my RO1 application does not request a salary support from this grant. Do I need to include his other supports in the JIT? Thanks for your advice.
SaG said
If he is receiving any money from the grant then yes, report his OS in the JIT. He might get no salary but $100k of supplies. NIH staff need to know if he has support to do work that overlaps with what he is doing for you.
Richard said
Thanks, SaG for your input!
writedit said
Also, the NIH will want to confirm that he has the percent effort available that is committed to the project. If he didn’t request salary because he is already 100% (or more) committed to other funded projects, then they will want to know how he will be able to do whatever you proposed that he would do.
Richard said
Thanks, writedit!
K08Commenter said
Hi Writedit, thanks for maintaining this incredibly useful resource. I’m posting my full timeline in case it is helpful for other applicants (this was K08 at NIDDK):
04/27/2018 Initial phone conversation with PO about Specific Aims.
06/12/2018 Status: Application entered into system.
06/20/2018 Status: Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
10/23/2018 Status: Scientific Review Group review completed (impact score 34): Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
11/29/2018 Summary Statement available.
12/10/2018 Post-review conversation with PO; rebuttal letter requested in advance of January council meeting.
01/13/2019 Rebuttal letter submitted.
01/17/2019 Status: Council review completed.
01/23/2019 Email from PO recommending resubmission.
03/12/2019 Status: Application (A1) entered into system.
03/20/2019 Status: Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
06/24/2019 Status: Scientific Review Group review completed (impact score 26): Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
07/08/2019 Automated JIT request.
07/22/2019 Summary Statement available.
07/26/2019 Post-review conversation with PO; expressed optimism re: funding potential, requested rebuttal letter in advance of September council meeting.
08/30/2019 Rebuttal letter submitted.
09/12/2019 Status: Council review completed.
10/04/2019 Email from PO expressing continued optimism but noting there would be no definitive information until FY2020 budget signed.
01/31/2020 Email from PO stating that they are moving forward with award and tailored JIT request would be forthcoming.
02/07/2020 Received personalized JIT request from GMS.
02/11/2020 Status: Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
02/19/2020 JIT materials submitted.
03/02/2020 Status: Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
03/03/2020 Status: Application awarded.
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you for posting this very detailed and helpful timeline of your perseverance! I especially like that you start with a phone call discussing your specific aims with the PO. Awesome. Best wishes for success with your career in biomedical research.
Susan2020 said
Hi Writedit, I had a post discussing with you about the ESI eligibility last week. In 2019, I submitted 2 ESI R01s to NCI in February and October. The Feb 2019 one was just awarded and the Oct 2019 one was scored this week. The score is between the ESI (15th) and established payline (10th). According to the NIH policy, after the summary statement is released, my 2nd application will become ESI-ineligible. Do you have any advice on this situation? Is it okay that I contact the PO to request a select pay after the summary statement is available? What do I need to emphasize for such a request? We are indeed in urgent need of funding support for the 2nd project given that two related manuscripts are under revision. Thanks a lot!
writedit said
As you note, you will need to wait for your summary statement before contacting your PO. When you contact the PO, include both brief bullet points in response to the summary statement concerns (in the Resume & Summary of Discussion only) and any new data and/or an update on a manuscript that bolsters the work proposed (of course, not if it is actually reporting completion of work proposed in any of the R01 aims … only if providing preliminary data in support of pursuing the R01 aims). If possible/appropriate, you’ll want to note, too, how this second R01 is complementary to the first R01 funded and that pursuing both in parallel will benefit both projects.
Susan2020 said
I really appreciate your excellent suggestions! Will keep posted for this grant status.
Fly2023 said
Susan2020, Did you have any update about this? I might have the situation in NICHD. Thanks!
CHC said
Hi Writedit, Thanks for this fantastic blog. I recently received a score (good, but not fundable) on my new (A0) R01 grant application. I would like to move to another institution and resubmit from the new institute. Can I resubmit (addressing all comments) the application as A1 from the new institute or do I have to start all over again and submit a brand new application?
Thanks
writedit said
Yes – though you’ll need to address (in Facilities if no room elsewhere) any changes to space, equipment, research subjects, etc. that might affect the work (emphasizing what is better and how you’ll work around any new challenges). Now, I am assuming you mean to change universities (institutions) from which you will submit your application, not the NIH Institute to which you will submit your application. If you mean the latter (new NIH Institute), then you would need to find a PO in the new target IC and submit a new application (with primary assignment to the new IC).
CHC said
Thanks so much. I appreciate it. Yes, I meant changing research university, not the NIH institute. I plan to resubmit it to the same study section as A1 from the new university.
CHC said
Writedit,
Thanks for your reply. Yes, I meant changing the University.
Oldpostdoc said
Hi All, I submitted a K99 in June 2019 and received a fundable score. My eraCommons status has been “pending administrative review” for more than 2 weeks. Is this common? Any idea when I might receive a final decision ($ is due to start April 1)? Second, I was never asked for proof of visa status (I’m Canadian). Could this be a reason for the delay? Should I be proactive and send this info to my PO without being asked? Thanks for your advice.
writedit said
The Pending status can last for weeks – even months – so don’t worry about that. They will contact you if you need additional information, but you could check with the GMS (vs PO) to be sure there is nothing else they need. You will be able to start by or soon after April 1 – it’s an estimated start date, not an expiration date, so all is good.
R35 MIRA ESI said
Hi All, I got a score of 38 for my NIGMS MIRA ESI application. After the summary statement was released, I contacted my PO and he said we could talk over the phone next week. He also said for now I should submit JIT information. I feel the score is around or slightly out of the lower edge of the funding zone, but do you think this is a positive development? Does NIGMS simply request JIT for all scored applications? Thanks.
SaG said
They request JIT for anything they MIGHT want to fund. But, not every PI who sends in JIT gest funded. Good luck! check out this google Doc for more info…https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10f1MDXXW57r5pYxwqTnAKM_NRY_SmvC0s0b3joyO_Zo/edit#gid=0
R35 MIRA ESI said
Thanks, SaG!
Phil said
I just got my R21 re-submission to NIMHD scored: 19th percentile, 30 impact score. Any ideas on the chance to be awarded?
writedit said
Several variables in play … how much the score dropped (if it did), whether this is a PAR (I assume not an RFA since a resubmission), how supportive your PO is about your project. When you have your summary statement, you’ll want to think through how you would address the concerns and contact your PO for advice on next steps (which will likely include submitting again, for insurance, if you are on the bubble).
Phil said
Yes, it’s a PAR and scores dropped from 27th percentile to 19 and from 34 impact score to 30. I am waiting for summary sheets to come!
writedit said
Ah – great. The drop in score and PAR solicitation weigh in your favor as the delta is another positive and there is more weight on programmatic priority involved in funding decisions.
newinvest said
I recently received an automated JIT request for 13% score on R21. However, my IACUC and IRB protocols are not yet ready ( I did not expect a good score and did not submit them yet). The JIT request email says pending or out-of-date approvals are not accepted. I am going to submit my IACUC and IRB protocols soon to my university and request them to do expedited review. However, I am wondering whether NIH considers extending the time to submit these approvals, as it may take 30
to 45 days for getting these approvals? or they think I am not yet ready to conduct this study, and pass this money to others who have everything in place, as my score is on the border line. Please suggest?
Thank you for maintaining this great resourceful blog, that helps new investigators.
writedit said
Are you sure this is an automated request? It seems late for a Cycle 2 application – unless this in fact a Cycle 3 application that was just scored. If this was Cycle 2 (ie, June/July submission), and you can get the approvals turned around in 30-45 days, you should be fine, since that would still give them time to process your award before they need to start calculating for Cycle III awards (they need to pay out Cycle II awards so they know how much $ they have left moving forward). Be sure to let your PO know what is happening, and get the protocols in ASAP. If this is for a Cycle 3 award (ie, application submitted October/November and just reviewed recently), then this probably is an automated request, but you should still ask your PO if you should start preparing your JIT, reminding the PO that you need to get both IRB and IACUC approvals (a lot for an R21!). If you are not advised to submit your protocols for regulatory approval, you can ask for advice on next steps. As an FYI, during the regular funding cycles, the ICs have some leeway in time allotted to obtain approvals for JIT. At the end of an FY, applications needing regulatory approvals or other certifications are often skipped, since the IC doesn’t have time to wait (all awards must be issued by Sept 30).
newinvest said
Thank you for your response. Very helpful. Yes I submitted for Cycle 3 and it is a R21/R33 grant. The R21 part deals with the IACUC protocol and R33 deals with IRB. The automated message I received is for the R21 phase, as R33 phase kicks in after two years. In this case, can I email my PO and check if submitting only IACUC approval is sufficient for now to receive the grant? Thank you!
writedit said
Aha – yes, you should only need to submit IACUC (you’ll need to submit the IRB later if you meet the milestones to move on to the R33). When you get your summary statement, you can ask the PO if you should submit now in anticipation of a real JIT request later (and whether the PO needs a brief rebuttal to the concerns raised). If the PO is not optimistic, then you can ask for advice on the next submission.
DShin said
Dear writedit,
Three weeks ago I have received a request from my PO at NLM stating that the NLM is at the latest stages of making funding decisions and that my application is under consideration for an award and asked to send him some clarification of reviewers concerns (which were minor). It is in regard to my application that I submitted on July 31, 2019 with the project start date of 04.01.2020. Since I didn’t receive any word from from him yet, does that mean that my application most likely won’t be funded? Or the PO would inform me of that? Is NIH ICs still processing cycle 2 applications or they have moved on to Cycle 3?
Thank you!
DShin
writedit said
Nothing to worry about – the time frame is fine. Your start date is not an expiration date. You should get a JIT request (if PO did not request with the response to review), and your status will change to pending if/when the processing of an award begins. I suspect your PO will update you if your application is not picked for an award so you can start working on your next submission. In the meantime, no news is not bad news.
>
DShin said
Thank you!!!
DShin said
Dear wriedit,
Thanks again for sharing your invaluable expertise!
Today the status of my NLM R01 proposal changed from “Council review completed” to “Pending”. Since it doesn’t say pending what, I am wondering what it could mean.
I have a tenure appeal meeting the day after tomorrow and I am wondering if I can present this as an evidence that there is a good chance that I will get this grant.
Do you know what this status is about?
Thank you!
D Shin
writedit said
Yes – this means pending administrative review. If a note from your PO might help, let them know what’s up and ask if they could comment on your funding likelihood (assuming no issues on review). I think they would be happy to help if they could. If not, the P&T committee will understand that pending (administrative review) means an award is highly likely to follow.
>
DShin said
Thank you!
K-app said
Dear Writedit,
This is an excellent resource. I recently applied for a K99 w/NINDS (cycle 3). I know NINDS doesn’t publish a payline for traditional K99/R00 mechanism and I have checked the archived posts as well to see if there was any info on this, but din’t see any K99 applicants from NINDS. I wanted to ask if you know what the lower end of the impact scores NINDS usually funds?
Thanks
writedit said
I’m pretty sure the lower end would be 10, and while I don’t know their upper end, though I imagine they fund applications into the 20s. When you have your summary statement, you will want to contact your PO for advice on next steps (rebuttal, resubmission & strategy for responding to reviewers).
IKGF said
Dear Writedit,
This is an excellent resource and thank you for helping to better understand NIH funding process. I got a 29 percentile(NIGMS, ESI, Cyl-1) and got a JIT request. What are the chances of funding?
SaG said
The magic eight ball says………looks promising but prepare to resubmit.
IKGF said
Thanks
writedit said
Love it – perfect response!
SaG said
Magic eight ball follow up….also prepare to submit an ESI MIRA before 10/02/2020…https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-20-117.html
IKGF said
Thanks to magic eight ball too for the promise….
IKGF said
I will not have ESI status at that time. But thank you for the suggestion SaG.
FK said
Dear Writedit,
My colleague received a percentile score of 16 (impact score of 30) for her R21 with NICHD. They do not publish paylines, and hence we are wondering about her chances of funding. This was an A0 submission.
Thanks.
writedit said
Probably too high, but as always, she should contact the PO once she has her summary statement for advice on next steps (rebuttal, resubmission).
Shenzu said
I have an “award prepared” status for an NIAID R01 as ESI that will be fully funded according to NIAID GMS. My work has reaching implications so I submitted an NIGMS R35 MIRA as well with about 30% conceptual and research/overlap as stated on R01 JIT. I scored a 35 on the MIRA and NIGMS PO says will be seriously considered for funding.
If MIRA is funded, will I lose the ability to accept MIRA once I get NOA for R01 and technically lose ESI status? Overlap is less concerning as a budget cut is much better than losing out all together.
Many thanks,
Shenzu
SaG said
You will receive either the R01 or MIRA. NIGMS prefers to award ESI MIRAs over ESI R01s. If NIGMS plans on awarding the MIRA they will not award the R01. Overlap doesn’t matter.
SaG said
Oops. My mistake. I missed that it was an AI R01. Jill is correct. If the AI R01 is funded first it is unlikely that the ESI MIRA would be too.
jill said
You will loose your ESI status once NIAID R01 is awarded, so will not be eligible to receive MIRA award from NIGMS.
Congrats on your first R01 !!
Shenzu said
That is very disappointing to hear. Especially considering that the MIRA was submitted before my R01. A lot of people are misinformed on this topic as I was told by my mentors and everyone around me that your status upon submission was what mattered not the award data. This makes the most sense since the issuance of awards is largely contingent upon budget factors and a number of other issues. It really does not make sense to have it based on awarded date when my status upon submission was as an ESI.
So, hypothetically, if my R01 were one cycle ahead and I got the MIRA first, then I would be able to keep both. That seems absurd as it is literally a matter of only 3 months.
writedit said
For many years, ICs were inconsistent on how they handled ESI applicants having more than one application score within the ESI payline (or rather, they were consistent internally, but some allowed multiple ESI payline breaks while others stopped considering applications as ESI after the first award). The NIH instituted the trans-IC policy of having an ESI award cancel out ESI status for all other pending applications to ensure everyone was treated the same. The policy has been in place since last February: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-19-072.html ESI status is determined at the time of submission and carries through the review of the application – this remains true. The change as of February 2019 comes in the status considered for funding decisions. It is always best to check the most current NIH policy and to ask a PO directly – in this case, probably the MIRA PO (before submitting the R01), since the MIRA PO would have known that the R35 decisions take longer than regular cycle R01s.
Shenzu said
One more hypothetical question.
Suppose one were 6 months from losing ESI status (supposing with an R01 at an IC where it mattered for payline) upon R01 submission and through the normal bureaucratic process 7 months elapse before a funding decision is made. Let’s suppose that the R01 received a score fundable for an ESI but not for established PI. Since the PI is no longer considered an ESI does the award get denied? I assume the answer is yes.
I am just trying to understand the logic of using award granting dates over submission dates. It seems that this would result in large year-to-year inequities. Any years in which the NIH is under continuing resolution (as it usually is) these timings are going to be way off.
So in my position, some years I could get the NIGMS ESI MIRA if NIAID happens to not have some delay in sending notices of award?
This just seems fundamentally flawed in multiple ways especially considering that NIGMS only accepts ESI MIRA applications once a year.
Sorry, don’t mean to shoot the messenger here, but I have gained priceless insight from this blog and I am sure others have this or similar experience and require the expert advice available here.
writedit said
The policy was implemented last February to prevent this sort of frustration, since some ICs did fund more than one application under ESI paylines while others did not. The policy has been on the books and is quite clear (also in the ESI FAQ). For your hypothetical, the ESI status at submission still counts for funding purposes. It is not the time lapse – it is the status at the time of funding decision. Always, always get the advice of a PO when making grant submission decisions to avoid this type of frustration. At least you know the R35 science is good and could be reworked into a traditional R01.
seetheworld said
Hello,
I have some questions on the special consideration for ESI (early stage investigator) and NI (new investigator).
0. Are these special consideration pan-NIH or IC-specific?
1. Both cases are for special consideration for the first time R01 equivalents, right?
2. My understanding is that ESI must be NI (haven’t been previously funded via R01 equivalents) AND within 10 years of their terminal degree or the end of their postgraduate training. The last part is a little confusing. For PhD, do the post-doc years count towards the 10-year limit?
3. If the PI was a co-PI (not the submitting/corresponding PI) on a R01 equivalents, would that disqualifies the PI from the ESI or NI special consideration when the PI submits his/her first own R01 equivalents?
Many thanks!
writedit said
0. Definitions are NIH-wide, but some ICs do not recognize New Investigator status (only ESI).1. The status only applies to the review and payline criteria for first-time R01 applications.2. Correct – all NI are also ESI. ESI clock starts when PhD awarded (post-graduate training refers to medical residency, not non-clinical postdoc positions). For information on ESI, check out https://grants.nih.gov/policy/early-investigators/index.htm and https://grants.nih.gov/faqs#/early-investigators.htm (and ask your PO about specific individual situations)3. An NI or ESI as part of a MPI (multiple PI) application will lose special status – it does not matter who is the contact PI. NI or ESI as co-investigator (not in a PI role) is fine.
seetheworld said
Thank you so much, writedit! I guess you mean all ESI are also NI, right?
Also, for 3 – the MPI application, are all co-PIs required to have ESI/NI status to be eligible for the corresponding special consideration?
writedit said
Yes, all PIs on a MPI application would need to be ESI … but that is still a waste of ESI status for all of them, unless they will only be submitting MPI applications due to the nature of their science (ie, complex and collaborative).
seetheworld said
Dear writedit,
Really appreciate your reply. This is very helpful!
UKresearcher said
I received a 22 from NIDA for a K99. I cannot find information about the payline from previous years. Does this seem like a score that is likely to get funded?
writedit said
I know NIDA is pretty tight in terms of what they fund, but when you have your summary statement, definitely check in with your PO. Anywhere else, I would say to be hopeful – and I hope this will be the case at NIDA, too.
JN said
Hi Writedit,
My RO1 grant was funded only for 4 years and then I got 12 more months with a no-cost extension. Can I apply for one more year of no-cost extension and request for some financial support? Please let me know.
Thanks.
writedit said
If you still have money left, you can request a second NCE (will take a little more effort than the first), but you cannot ask for more money – at least not from the NIH. Your Department or institution might have some bridge funding to help until you can renew, if you are close in terms of score (assuming you submitted a renewal application) and progress on the current project.
JN said
Thanks, Writedit.
Is there any COVID-19 NIH support? I see that it is available for the grants with human subjects. But my grant does not have human subjects.
writedit said
All acute COVID-19 funding will be distributed as administrative supplements, so ask your PO. They will know what funding is available and how it can be used – and whether your idea would be appropriate for a supplement, which will be reviewed internally by IC staff.
R03 said
Writedit: do you know if all scored proposals or only the fundable ones go to council for discussion? PO said she has no information of likelihood of funding at this time but our proposal will go to council for discussion. Because this is a special RFA and there is no re-submission, PO basically just asked us to wait and be patient. Any thoughts?
writedit said
There won’t be a discussion about your application at Council, but the fact that it is on the list is good news, because Council needs to approve all applications being considered for an award (but not all applications approved by Council will receive awards – they are eligible, pending funding availability and the IC Director’s decisions). If your application were not on the list going to Council, you would have had no chance at an award (at least this cycle). RFA awards are discussed internally at the IC, after Council approves the list. Your PO asked you to be patient because they will have no information until the RFA applications to receive awards are selected by senior leaders at the IC. If your PO needs anything, they will be in touch, but otherwise, patient waiting is the appropriate advice.
R03 said
thank you. So, not all scored proposals will go to council although it always says “pending council review” in the Commons?
writedit said
Until Council meets, the eRA status for all non-fellowship applications (even ND) says “Pending Council review”, though this does not mean all applications actually go to Council, and some applications will switch to “Council review complete” before Council meets if they are approved en bloc electronically in advance of the meeting.
>
SaG said
All scored apps will go to Council. But very few are discussed by Council unless there is an issue. For example, appeals, problem with review..etc..
Lale said
Hello,
Thanks for this amazing website! I submitted an R01 that has a start date of 04/01/2020. A month ago, I received a letter from NIH saying that they plan to fund my R01. I emailed my JIT documents to my PO and Grants Management Specialist almost 3 weeks ago but I haven’t received the NOA yet. I also sent two follow-up emails to both of them and still no answer. Given the current situation with Covid-19, do you think NIH decides not to fund some grants? I am sorry if I sound selfish but this grant is important for my lab/career as a junior PI.
Many thanks in advance!
writedit said
Not to worry – your start date is not an expiration date, and in fact 3 weeks is not long at all (can often take much longer between JIT and NoA). Please just sit tight and let your GMS catch up on a big backlog of work – everything will take longer (due both to working remotely and scrambling to make funds available for COVID-19 research), but awards should not be canceled due to COVID-19. There might be fewer end-of-FY select pay awards, perhaps – all those decisions deferred from the first two cycles – but there may be additional funds for the coronavirus work in any case. You don’t need to keep reaching out in the meantime, though.
Woman in Science said
Dear writedit and all PIs,
I have a quick question. If your lab is closed due to COVID-19, how do you handle staff members in your lab (e.g. technicians, research nurses, post-docs)? Do you allow them to work from home? If so, how do your track their time and productivity? Thanks!
Hulo said
I have a 90% computational lab, and our hr has created a work_from_home document which all my lab members including myself have had to fill-up. Although my time is defined via state line. I am tracking all my lab members’ progress via two weekly meetings. Of course wet lab works are shut down and nothing can be done. Hope the agencies will understand. I am not sure how this can be handled for folks who are 100% experimental Good luck to all of us in this interesting situation.
writedit said
As Hulo mentioned, most universities have sent out policies and tools for managing suspended research and supervised employees working from home (among everything else that needs to be done remotely). You should check there first, since you won’t be the only PI looking to track your team’s activities for accounting purposes. If your lab is closed, I assume the study has been suspended, and data collection paused. Certainly your team could work on things that anyone could be doing at home (prepping for future manuscripts, cleaning data (unless blinded), etc.) – but it depends on the nature of the study and what other responsibilities you and your team might have.
Woman in Science said
Very helpful. Thank you both very much!
Other Support Questions said
I have several questions on the preparation of JIT when it is requested by GMS for consideration of potential award.
First, I am confused about “the current budget period” for calculating “Person Months”. The guideline says “the level of supported as approved for the current budget period”. Does “the current budget period” mean the first budge period/first year of the grant being considered by NIH? For example, I am on an NIH grant on 25% effort, but it will expire within 3 months of the first budge period/first year of the grant being considered by NIH. For this particular grant, would it be 0.25*12*3/12= 0.75 Person Months?
Second, should I include startup package from my University in the Other support document? Should I include the total amount left? How should I deal with it in terms of “Person Months”.
Third, if I have a grant in NCE, do I include it in Other Support. Do I have to include $$ and “Person Months”?
Thank you very much ahead of time.
writedit said
Post-award support is not my forte, but your university should still have grant/sponsored program personnel available to help via email (or a fiscal administrator in your department). Those folks do this for a living and know exactly how to handle everything. But yes, the “current budget period” would be the first year of the pending award.
Tianhong said
Dear Writedit,
NIAID just released a “Notice of Special Interest (NOSI): Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)” (NOT-AI-20-031). It is said in this notice that “NIAID is encouraging the submission of applications for Competitive Revisions to active grants”. Does this mean one will have to have an active grant to apply for a NOT-AI-20-031 award? Please advise.
Thanks!
writedit said
No, this is not an administrative supplement to an existing award per se. You apply to one of the parent FOAs listed in the Notice – which does include the parent award for administrative supplements – the and cite the Notice number to get special consideration for your application (see Notice for full instructions). Everything else about the application (R03, R21, R01, SBIR, STTR, admin supplement) submitted is unchanged.
Tianhong said
Thanks a lot Writedit!
SaG said
Yes, you do need an active grant to apply. Likely an active NIAID grant. A competitive revision gives you more money (and in this case possibly time) to expand the scope of your currently funded research. It is like an admin supp but out of scope. These are reviewed by NIAID staff and can be awarded very fast. Or at least faster than a regular R01.
writedit said
These are not Type 3 competitive revisions – they are new applications to the parent announcement that will receive special funding consideration (read: better payline). Interested investigators apply for new research grants (R01, R03, R21, SBIR, administrative supplements) and mark the application as responding to this notice to receive special consideration. There is no parent application required – but all submissions will need to be for NIAID, not any other IC. I assume this was NIAID’s quick workaround to avoid the time needed to develop and issue RFAs.
SaG said
My mistake, I saw this line in the comment above. ‘NIAID is encouraging the submission of applications for Competitive Revisions to active grants”” I thought they were talking about this NOSI…https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-AI-20-034.html
LiqN2 said
I am planning to submit a revision in response to NOT-20-034 for an active NIAID R21. What I’m not quite certain is whether all the documents are needed as in a regular application, or only the items relevant to the competitive revision? The application packet highlights introduction and research strategy, and budget of course. Thanks!
SaG said
It should say in the application packet you download. But I think most of the same docs are needed. A competitive revision is like a regular application in that way. You are expanding the scope of your research like you would with a brand new application.
Tianhong said
Thanks a lot Writedit!
Tianhong said
Thanks Sag. The information of NOT-AI-20-034 is also very useful.
Tianhong Dai said
Thanks SaG. The information of NOT-AI-20-034 is also very useful.
Mohammad said
Dear Writedit,
I am an establish investigator. One of my RO1 was scored 12%ile in 1st submission (proposal receipt date by NIH, 12/17/2018, cycle 3). It was reviewed on Feb, 2019). By the suggestion of PO, I resubmitted the grant on 07/03/2019 and it was reviewed on October 2019 (cycle 3) and score remain same (12%ile). The council Meeting was completed on: 02/11/2020. At the end of Feb, I received an email from PO and he requested me to call him. By telephone, the PO told me that they are going to put my grant for special consideration although he is not sure whether it will be funded or not and due to budget constrain, they may only give me the amount equivalent to modular budget (250K per year). I told him that I can decrease some efforts of key personnel including me and will be able to complete the works by modular budget. Finally, PO told me that I may hear something by the end of March 2020. I my eRA common I am seeing JIT request (date: 02/13/2020), council meeting completed on 02/11/2020). Would you kindly help me by providing answer of following query?
(1) Is there a chance that this resubmitted proposal will be funded? I am running out of support by the middle of next year.
(2) Is the JIT request is automatic as it was updated before I received and talk with PO.
(3) Should I prepare my JIT documents now?
(4) Till when, the division consider my proposal for funding if I have not seen any update in my eRA common by the end of next week (April 3, 2020)? One other word, when I will consider that this grant is not going to be funded by NCI by this score.
writedit said
With two 12th percentile scores, I’m glad your PO is advocating for your proposal. Please be sure to tell your PO your situation (running out of money), though I assume he knows. The JIT request was probably automated. Since it’s almost the end of March, you can probably wait a little longer on the JIT, though if any regulatory approvals are needed, you might start getting those protocols/forms ready. When your PO contacts you later this week, you will know about funding. If your PO is unable to secure select pay or an R56 bridge award for your application, be sure to talk with him about strategy for resubmission. Your PO will have likely attended the study section meetings and have advice beyond what is in the summary statement – but hopefully this won’t be needed. Don’t wait for a change in your eRA Commons status before deciding whether to submit again, though, as this will not reflect an unfunded status until well after the next submission date in June/July (the unfunded application notice is not sent out until14 months after Council).
Mohammad said
Thank you for your kind and prompt response. Can the PO try to fund it anytime within next 14 months or it will dead if he fails this time. As I submitted it twice (A0 and A1), I have not an option for resubmission. Will it be too much to send email to PO again? If PO want to fund it, who else will be involve to decide for final funding? Is there any chance that other members in the division can veto it and finally it will not go to council? Regards, Mohammad
writedit said
You can submit it in June as a new R01 (A0). It will get a new grant number, and you won’t respond at all to the prior review (or even mention it). Your PO will likely know later this week if he can get funding for your award in FY20. If not, he can give you advice on preparing the new A0 version.
NCI Diversity said
Update: My A0 got pulled up for funding earlier this month, just days before my A1 was going to be discussed.
writedit said
Woohoo – congratulations! Sorry you had to go through an extra submission, but it’s always worth having the insurance. Best wishes for success with your project and career in biomedical research.
Richard said
The status of my RO1 has been “pending for administrative review” for almost one month. However, I still did not receive a JIT request from my GMS. I am wondering whether most grants in “pending” will be eventually funded. I am getting anxious now.
writedit said
Pending can definitely last more than a month – it can last many months. You should definitely feel hopeful and not too impatient – remember the federal government is operating even more slowly than usual with all the pandemic-related disruptions. If you need any regulatory approvals, though, you shouldn’t wait for a JIT request … and you can send the JIT any time, but it will just sit there until your application comes up in the queue though (ie, nothing will be sped up by your sending it now).
Richard said
Thanks, writedit! Just receive a JIT request this morning.
John said
My ESI status is slated to expire in July 2020. I planned to submit a new R01 in the June 2020 cycle. With most of the research shut down at my university, completing all of the prelim data and grant preparation will be impossible. Has anyone hear about the NIH allowing ESI extensions due to COVID-19? Thanks in advance for any assistance.
writedit said
Currently, the NIH has only extended deadlines from March 9 through April to May 1, so your June R01 would not be affected. However, the COVID-19 FAQ indicates that the research shutdown is valid grounds for ESI extension: https://grants.nih.gov/faqs#/covid-19.htm?anchor=question55857
RS said
Hi,
Just rec’d a score of 40 for an R44 NIAID SBIR. Any thoughts when I contact my PO (after I get SS) as to making a case for funding? The funded R43 was assigned to both NIAID and NICHD, but only shows NICHD for R44 submission even though I requested both…
Thanks for a fantastic website.
writedit said
Only one IC can be the primary IC. If NIAID is not listed, they did not want to continue involvement, though I am not sure what you mean by an R44 NIAID SBIR. The score of 40 is high for either IC, though as you recognize, your PO can help with next steps after you receive your summary statement.
RS said
My mistake, I meant NIAID is listed for the R44 not NICHD.
writedit said
Aha – well, same advice essentially. Either NICHD declined to be assigned or NICHD does not participate in this FOA (you can check the FOA for the ICs involved … if NIAID issued it, though, I suspect they are the only participating IC, especially for an SBIR).
GG said
Dear WriteIt,
My RO1 A1 submission went from triage to a 28 score, 9% in the February review. My institute has a fy2020 payline of 16%. I’ve submitted my JIT weeks ago. Given the Covid situation though I remain nervous, so I emailed my PO two weeks ago to find out what the chances were and he hasn’t written back. My council meets in early May. What are my options here? Just hope for good news some time in May or continue to pester my PO? My current grant expires at the end of this month so this is a crucial moment. Thank you for your insights!
SaG said
The good news is that you got a great score! The bad news is that you probably wont hear anything until late June or July about funding. After Council meets it can take weeks for final decisions to be made and grants awarded. You could let your PO know your situation and maybe they can expedite their decisions and your award. But, it will still take weeks after Council.
GG said
Thank you SaG. Your timeline sounds very plausible, so I will breathe deeply and focus on other issues! I am very jealous of people who regularly communicate with their PO. Even after funding my PO responds to perhaps 20% of my emails (20% of a small number of attempts!)
writedit said
Very sorry that you have a relatively unresponsive PO – especially as an awardee. You might look around the branch or division in which your science fits in case there is another potentially appropriate PO in whose portfolio your work might fit (check the IC website and RePORTER Matchmaker). If you have a question that truly must be addressed in a timely fashion yet receive no response, you can copy the PO’s branch chief or division head on the next attempt to contact.
GG said
Thank you WriteIt for the response. I have always been very hesitant to escalate as I don’t want to alienate the PO (who has been an advocate as far as I can tell…just not a very responsive one 🙂 Good luck to us all!
Confused_Researcher said
How exactly are applications triaged to the ‘Not Discussed’ category? For example, I had an R44 application that was ‘Not Discussed’, but the average of the actual reviewer scores was 2.6, which seems pretty decent to me. I’m sure they’re not all weighted equally, but what process determines what gets discussed?
SaG said
Being triaged /ND means your application was not in the top 40%-50% of apps at that study section. Half of the apps had a better preliminary score than you. If your subscores were all 2-3s and then there must have been a lot of apps with 1-2s at that study section. That does seem high but if there were a modest number of apps not impossible. This will be a good question to ask your program officer. They probably have more experience with this study section and how they score.
writedit said
SaG is correct on the fact that applications are ranked by initial scores and a threshold applied, and your application was in the half not destined to be discussed. Marasi is referring to the fact that any reviewer can ask for an application on the triaged list to be discussed, time permitting, but apparently no one spoke up on behalf of your application.
Marasi said
It depends if you have a friend on the study section 😀
NCIR01 said
Dear writedit and SaG, sorry for the Institute-specific question but the agenda for NCI NCAB for May does not include grant review whereas the June NCAB agenda does. However, eRA Commons states AC in May 2020. Any ideas? Also, does the Covid situation threaten the published pay lines for FY2020? Any projections on how the pandemic could affect pay lines in FY2021?
writedit said
The June meeting will still be in time for July start date/Cycle III awards. Unlike most ICs, NCAB meets more than 3 times per year, and eRA is often just a rough estimate of meeting timing (many other IC Councils will meet in May). FY20 funding will not be affected by the pandemic. Although medical research should be the last thing affected by future budget constraints, the US and global economic situation will determine what the next federal budget looks like, and the election will likely push any work on appropriation bills off until early in 2021, which will likely leave the federal government operating on a continuing resolution for quite some time. In other words, no idea what FY21 paylines will look like.
blessedPS said
Dear writeedit.
I have an application that is on the bubble which was reviewed in Oct 2019 and council meeting was in Feb 2020. It was recommended for funding but it has been pending admin review since first week in March . Start date on my application is April 1 . The last time i reached out to PO he was not happy. Any suggestion on how I can find out what is going on with the application?
Marasi said
I am in the same boat. Oct 2019 and has been in the “Pending Administrative blah blah” since then. Incidentally, my start date was also April 11th. My PO told me that GMS would not be able to be done by April 1st.
NIGMS?
Marasi said
I meant April 1st 😀
writedit said
If your application is Pending administrative review, your PO is not involved at all and can offer no insight into timing or what is happening, so you don’t want to contact him again. The Pending status can last months, so there is no need to worry. Mostly, it’s sitting there waiting for a GMS (meaning Grants Management Specialist, not General Medical Sciences (Institute)) to work on it, and I suspect all the ICs are a bit behind on all activities due to the COVID-19 pandemic – plus the emergency rush to fund COVID-19 supplemental funding applications. You could ask the GMS, but I definitely recommend just sitting tight – they will be in touch with you if they need anything (and are working as fast as they can). Best not to stress anyone with unnecessary email. Your start date is not an expiration date, so don’t worry about the timing, whatever it ends up being (you either, Marasi).
Marasi said
Thank you Writedit. You are so kind and generous with your time and expertise. I really appreciate it.
COVID supplement said
Hello Writedit,
Thank you for maintaining this extremely useful site. We are working on an Administrative Supplement related to the COVID-19 pandemic and was hoping you could give us some advise as to what to include/format. Should the Research Strategy section essentially be the same as an R21 application? Thank you for your input.
writedit said
Yes, depending on the specific instructions for the Notice to which you will respond, you should write a 6-page Research Strategy that ties the proposed work into the parent award. Most important, though, you want to communicate with your PO first, as these administrative supplements are discussed internally by program staff, so your PO can tell you whether your idea will be of interest and how best to frame it if so.
BlessedPS said
Thanks for your response. So does this mean the application will be funded then ?
writedit said
No, it’s still not guaranteed, but you could save time and effort, since you will know what not to submit, and if your PO is enthusiastic about your idea, your odds should be good.
Marasi said
But @Writedit barring any administrative problem the NoA must be forth coming for @BlessedPS yes?
writedit said
Oh wait – yes, the COVID-19 administrative supplement question got mixed in the middle of the original query. Yes, the @BlessedPS’s pending application should receive an award assuming the administrative review does not turn up any problems. It’s still not guaranteed, especially in these strange times, but on a positive trajectory and likely to be awarded.
BlessedPS said
Thanks again writedit for all your hard work. Is there a way one can direct message on this platform . Marasi, it may be worth connecting -if for nothing to allay the anxiety ..lol . This has been stressful
writedit said
I can connect you offline, if both agree.
Marasi said
@BlessedPS is your institute NIGMS?
vinash85 said
Dear Writedit,
My K99 (A0) was submitted to NCI on June 12, 2019 was and got 24 an impact score. PO informed me that this is within NCI payline and sent me JIT, asking me if Feb 2020 as a starting date is acceptable. I submitted JIT on January 20 that included current-supports of my mentors and mine. Following the JIT submission, my GMS informed that NIH had placed the funding on administrative hold, due to unknown reason. PO told me that he would not worry about that in my current situation, so I didn’t resubmit in March. It has been 3 months since the application is on hold. Just last week, the GMS told me that NCI is still making final decisions, and he doesn’t know if my K99 will be paid yet. I am quite anxious now. Further, my four-year eligibility runs out on May 16. Should I write to the PO request, if my eligibility could be extended till June, in case the NCI decides not to fund A0?
writedit said
I assume the GMS meant NCI hasn’t started making awards yet, but definitely contact the PO about your situation to confirm your award status and, if an award cannot be confirmed, what your next steps should be.
PI said
Vinash85- what does the status say on your grant – pending administrative review?
vinash85 said
@writedit — thank you for the suggestion. Accordingly I followed-up with the PO and he informed me that there is nothing I need to do (I think he meant for re the submission), and GMS is the best point of contact now.
@PI — the status is: Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
writedit said
Ah – then it is almost time for congratulations. : )
PI said
Any updates?@vanish85
Avinash Sahu said
@PI no changes till now. The pending status in ERA commons has not changed since Dec 18, which is frustrating. I reach out to GMS once every month regarding the status.
writedit said
I assume the GMS has not suggested anything negative is happening (just no action as yet). You should also check in with your PO what to do, especially with your status ending soon (you may be able to get an extension if an award is not going to be made).
Avinash Sahu said
Hi @writeedit/@PI,
My GMO and PO are still giving me the same replies to any question regarding the next step.
GMO: “NCI is still making final funding decisions, and we don’t know if this one will be paid yet.”
PO: “Only GMO could tell the current status of your application.”
Back in Jan, the PO was positive and asked us if we would like to start in Feb. Since then, the process has been entirely opaque when my application was put on administrative hold in Jan. I am completely confused re status and my chances.
writedit said
The PO is correct that only the GMO knows the award processing status. It’s a little worrisome that your PO was positive (including telling you not to resubmit while you were still eligible), your status remains Pending administrative review, but your GMO is not sure the application will be paid. It could be that the GMO is just being cautious or using the language recommended by the Chief GMO, since they have been using the same line since April (“not sure if K99 will be paid”). NCI has made 32 new K99 awards so far in FY20, most recently it seems as of May 1. In FY19, they made 22 new awards; in FY18, they made 36 new awards, and 29 new awards in FY17. My guess is that they juggle the number to carry a consistent funding obligation and might be getting near the end of their award making (though it seems as though, looking at the trends, it seems as though they should have room still in FY20). If your application is not paid, then you absolutely need to contact the PO about both whether your K99 could be paid in FY21 and getting an eligibility extension to apply again in July or November (whichever would allow you to submit the stronger application). Of course, you may even be better off seeking a different activity code or mechanism at this poitn, depending on your citizenship/residency status – but that conversation would wait until the outcome of your K99 situation is decided.
avi said
thank you Writedit for the clarification.
Shu said
Any update on your k99?
MND81 said
Hi WriteEdit – I applied for a DP2 Award and received an Impact Score of 20. I wrote to the PO and they said I was in gray area and that I should prepare a one-page rebuttal to the major critiques. Do you have any suggestions for the rebuttal? Should I feel positively, neutral or negatively at this point? Thanks so much.
SaG said
That depends on your personal outlook on life. I think you should be cautiously optimistic but it will be several months before you get a NOA. I think most are awarded in July or later.
STAT said
Would you also recommend cautious optimism for an impact score of 25? Separately, it’s been over 30 days since the scientific review, but no summary statement yet. When is it appropriate to reach out to the PO about this?
SaG said
A 25 is on the edge. Could get paid by an Institute if NIH Common fund doesn’t. You should contact the SRO about the summary statement. Should be out by now.
writedit said
I agree with SaG that you can feel positive. For the rebuttal, you’ll want to focus on any concerns raised in the Resume and Summary of Discussion. These were discussed by the group, and the SRO felt they were worth writing up however he/she did. The individual reviewer critiques were written before the meeting and are not reliably updated after (so you might address a written weakness that was never considered by the entire panel to be a concern). The PO was (likely) at the review meeting, so you can ask if your one-pager addresses the discussion points appropriately.
Grumpy said
Has anyone received a JIT request (from a human) or been assigned to an IC for the Director’s New Innovator DP2?
I submitted a 2-page rebuttal back in April, but I have not received any communication from anyone since then. My era commons status recently changed to “Council review completed”, but no assignment to specific IC or PO.
I got a 26 and was told I may be on the wrong side of the grey area. The waiting game is killing me!
writedit said
If you go back through last year’s comments at this time, you’ll find others who endured very long waits about their DP2. There is a spreadsheet still kicking around with scores for MIRA and DP2 applications (and outcomes, where available). Most scores are older, but I see the DP2 tab has revived for 2020, so add your score and see what develops here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10f1MDXXW57r5pYxwqTnAKM_NRY_SmvC0s0b3joyO_Zo/edit#gid=0
DP2Q said
I noticed that several 2020 DP2 applications in this spreadsheet (DP2 and Discussion tabs) were recently assigned to an IC, all NIGMS (5/29), with scores of 23, 25, and 26. No other IC assignments are noted (yet). Do different ICs tend to process assignments at different times, leading to variability in era commons status updates?
writedit said
I’d suggest you also search this page and the archived pages for the timing of IC assignments, but as I recall, the administering DP2 ICs are usually assigned later – July-August. I think the NIH tries to do everything all at once since they make a single big announcement and hold all the news embargoed until this date (which is tough with so many awardees across multiple Common Fund programs). I would say any activity on an application is a good sign (even if IC doesn’t change) – but inactivity is probably not a cause for alarm yet either.
pluto said
Hi writedit,
Thank you for all you do for this site and the community.
Quick question:
I have a mentee who submitted his first R01(he is an ESI) and received a 27th percentile score. The current NHLBI payline for ESIs is…wait for it…26th percentile.
What is the precedent (if any) that NHLBI moves their paylines at the end of the fiscal year–do they tend to do this, or usually do they stick to the posted paylines?
Thank you!
Magic 8-ball said
Signs point to yes.
DP2Q said
Thanks, writedit. My score is between the ones mentioned above (and is within the range of others who have posted on this site with seemingly positive outcomes), so I’m trying to stay cautiously positive.
DTron said
Hi WriteEdit,
Last month I got an impact score of 26 for NIAIDs New Innovator DP2 award for postdoctoral fellows. It is a new program for postdocs, but is essentially a pre-job search DP2.
My summary statements were glowing with lots of adjectives like “extremely innovative” etc. The driving minor concern was lack of collaborators. I have spoken with my POs and while they cannot guarantee an award, they said that I am favorable positioned for funding. They also accepted a 1 page rebuttal, which was only for their own reference.
How likely is it that I’ll get an award given that POs are generally very conservative about these things?
writedit said
This is all positive – the rebuttals are always for the PO’s use in advocating for your application at meetings where competitive applications will be discussed and ranked (vs submitting it to NIAID leadership for consideration). You are correct that they wouldn’t have shared the opinion that you were favorably positioned without feeling reasonably confident.
rap82 said
Hi! I got my impact score of 28 for this year’s NIAID DP2 award. I have not received the summary statement yet and the advisory council meeting is on May. New to NIH grants so I have no clue where my impact score stands, but I’m not very hopeful. So I had been thinking about turning my aims into an RO1 application already and submit in June this year. I don’t have a tenure-track assistant professor yet but my current position allows me to be PI’s for RO1s. Is this a good idea? Did you finally get the award with your impact score and rebuttal?
DTron said
Yes it was awarded, and I’m negotiating a TT position right now. You should contact your PO. I think you have a good chance of getting it.
writedit said
Thanks for the update, and congratulations on your award – good luck with your faculty position and career in biomedical research!
rap82 said
Congratulations @DTron!
My PO told me that my proposal was well received by the panel. However, he also told me that it is a little too soon to state whether they can support me (this was 2 weeks ago when I received my score). Also told me that if I want to I can talk to him about my summary statement, which I am planning to do. I’m hoping for the best.
Best of luck on your TT negotiation and congratulations again!
writedit said
You have a great PO, rap82 – hopefully he can help advocate for an award this cycle, especially since DTron was awarded at just a couple of points higher, but sounds like he will give you good advice on all of your options.
rap82 said
yeah my PO is great!
A little update – I received my summary statement today. It says budget is recommended as requested in all years. I don’t want to celebrate as this is not a notice of award. But what is the likelihood that it will go south?
Former F31 said
I don’t want to be that guy… but budget recommended as requested has nothing to do with funding probabilities. Not discussed applications get this same statement.
SaG said
I am usually “that guy”. Former F31 stealing my job. Your score/percentile is the important data. Along with the Resume.
rap82 said
Got it, that’s why not celebrating or anything.
writedit said
Love the update and exchange. Glad I don’t always have to be “that guy”! Although it is not the case for NIAID this year (so you don’t need to worry, rap82), I’ll note that “budget as recommended” is not necessarily the “budget as awarded”, since ICs sometimes need to cut everyone a little to spread the wealth a little further.
K_APP said
Dear Writedit and SaG,
Many thanks for this wonderful resource. My K99 received an impact score of 30 and I am not sure if its within the funding range. I got my summary statement and the resume & discussion section indicates that the proposal was considered excellent and the only concerns that the panel raised were some missing details on the statistical analysis, which only slightly reduced the enthusiasm.
I can definitely address this issue with a rebuttal. I haven’t heard back from my PO yet (emailed a week ago), I want to know if its okay to call and ask for suggestions on the next steps and/or submit a rebuttal? Or should I wait for the PO to get back to me? I know things are moving slow with the COVID-19 situation. But I read somewhere here that the training office internally discusses the K applications a month or so before the advisory council meeting. And so I want to get the rebuttal to my PO in time if there is even an outside chance of funding. Thanks.
SaG said
I would suggest sending another email first. Most POs wont answer cold calls and if they do they might not get their desk phone calls forwarded to wherever they are teleworking. NIH is closed until at least May 1. POs and such are all teleworking. (https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-shifts-non-mission-critical-laboratory-operations-minimal-maintenance-phase). After another week, send your rebuttal via email. If you don’t hear back from your PO find a supervisor and cc: them. This wouldn’t happen to be NICHD?
K_APP said
Thanks SaG, this is NINDS. Also, would it be okay/appropriate to contact the training office just to find what the funding range might be for this mechanism?
SaG said
My view is that it is always appropriate to contact someone at an NIH Institute. It is their job to respond to your questions. So, ask away!
writedit said
Thanks to SaG for jumping in! I hope K_APP has had a response of some kind by now. Things are slowed down due to COVID, but the PO should have been able to respond, at least with an acknowledgment of your query.
K_APP said
Thanks, SaG and Writedit. I heard back from my PO and spoke to him after submitting a rebuttal. I asked if I should prepare a resubmission but my PO suggested I can wait until after the council meeting. Does it mean may be there is still a chance this cycle?
writedit said
If your PO suggested to wait, you can wait hopefully, because no PO would risk an applicant missing a submission cycle if there were serious doubts about an award (POs understand how much is on the line, which is why they are conservative in their advice and err on the side of caution). Nothing is guaranteed, but you should take this as a positive sign.
toulouse said
I have an Admin Supplement that is in review. The status changed to “Accepted for Consideration” in the Admin Supplement tab of eRA Commons but has no detail at all in the Status tab. Any ideas?
Biophysicist said
Accepted for consideration does not mean that your administrative supplement is considered for funding, but simply indicates that your request has been successfully passed along to your institute for review. Good luck with your request, though!
SaG said
Depends on the Institutes grants processes. Some Institutes accept the supplement then decide if they want to fund it. Others only accept it once they decide to fund it. It can also vary within an institute depending on what kind of supp request it is. E.g., Diversity v. Equipment.
Ruthie said
I also had the same question as Toulouse regarding the Admin Supplement “accepted for consideration” on 4/16/2020 in response to a COVID-related notice NOT-AG-20-022. Any idea if “accepted for consideration” means likely to be awarded and/or the time frame I should expect to hear back?
SaG said
I don’t know how likely it is to be awarded (see above) but if it is an Urgent competitive revision for COVID work I expect it to take just a few weeks for a decision. For an admin supp it depends on what you asked for and how relevant it is to the COVID pandemic. It should all happen on a much faster schedule than a regular grant submission (9 months) or admin supp (2-6 months). It looks like some Institutes have made awards already. https://projectreporter.nih.gov/Reporter_Viewsh.cfm?sl=15E0CF024B84C3DF7598B8961CAA4A01A2FFCEB861BF
Toulouse said
NIAID Admin Supplement related to SARS-CoV-2
SaG said
NIAID has made some awards already (see link above). One was April 9. I cant tell when it was submitted but it probably took less than 4 weeks from receipt to award.
BiomedScientist said
Dear writedit
I would appreciate your suggestion/advice on the following situation. I submitted a new R01 grant last October and it was reviewed a couple of months ago. The grant was scored well on other categories (e.g. 1-2) except the approach (e.g. 4-5), but the final score was ND. I have substantially revised the approach. Should I submit the grant as a new (A0) application or a re-submission (A1)? Thanks so much!
SaG said
I suggest going with an A1. That way you will get an extra intro page to explain the changes you made in response to the reviewers comments. Doing a good job gets you lots of brownie points with the reviewers.
BiomedScientist said
Very helpful. Thank you so much SaG!
writedit said
I agree with SaG, especially if your Significance scores were also 1-2. If so, this suggests the science is solid, but the execution could be improved (and you no doubt got good advice on how to do this in the critiques, which you can point out in the Introduction). If any Significance scores were 3-4 or higher, then you might want to talk with the PO about your ideas. The Approach can be fixed, but the Significance is more difficult to turn around, unless the writing or presentation was confusing or the preliminary data and literature cited not rigorous or compelling. I assume, too, you have confirmed with the PO that you are at the best study section – if not, a new application to the optimal study section might be an alternative plan.
BiomedScientist said
Thanks so much for the suggestion Writedit.
R34 query said
Dear Writedit, I submitted an R34 (NINR) and got a score of 33. Council will meet in mid-May. PO said that there are many applicants who got scores higher than mine and asks for resubmission. As preparing for the resubmission, is there any slight chance after the council meeting, the decision will be changed? Thanks for any insights.
writedit said
Possible but not probable if your PO said there were several better-scoring applications. NINR will only invest in R34 applications that it would like to see progress to full multisite clinical trials. It is a good sign that your PO would like you to resubmit (ie, your idea is of interest), but you might want to discuss how you could improve your next application to make it more appealing to NINR as well as reviewers.
wtc said
Just want to ask a follow-up question. The resubmission scored 35, which the PO is saying that dependent on how much funds were left (before Sept. 2020). As the new budget is not approved till Feb. 2021, and the R34 has been discontinued (which should be expired in 2023 but called off by NINR), what should I do at this point? Only wait? Can I still bug the PO when the budget approve next year?
writedit said
At this point, you will not receive an award (FY20 is over – your application won’t be considered in FY21), so you can stop waiting for any activity on your application. Since the NINR has ended the R34 program announcement and does not plan to reissue it, you will need to talk with your PO about next steps. If you are still planning a clinical trial, you may need to apply directly for an R01 (and complete the planning tasks in advance of the R01 application), but your PO can tell you how NINR prefers to handle this.
iloiktoitals said
It’s ya boy iloiktoitals back with a rundown of my full timeline for a K99 at the National Institute on Aging-
Pre-Application Timeline:
08/20/2018 Cold emailed POs about K99 grant idea- POs not particularly impressed, suggested elaboration on the aging component of the grant, etc.
09/05/2018: 45 min phone-call with a (different) PO who pointed out more inadequacies in my research strategy and proposed coursework
Application Timeline
06/11/2019 Status: Application entered into system.
06/19/2019 Status: Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
09/27/2019 Status: Scientific Review Group review completed (Impact Score 20): Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
10/11/2019: Automated JIT notification/request (To be ignored)
10/22/2019 Summary Statement available
12/11/2019 Email on behalf of PO: Request for 1-2 page response to reviewer’s concerns
12/19/2019 2 page response submitted.
01/16/2020 Email on behalf of PO: Request for Institutional Support Letter with proof of visa support throughout the K99 period of the grant (Originally submitted Institutional Letter did not mention visa support)
01/21/2020 Council review (allegedly) completed, but no change in eRA Commons Status; Status still read “Council review pending”
03/09/2020 Received personalized JIT request from GMS- Current and Pending Support for all personnel, IACUC documents by 03/13/2020
03/09/2020 Status: Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
03/12/2020 JIT materials submitted.
03/19/2020: Additional questions on JIT materials, Request for Institutional Support Letter with proof of visa support throughout the K99 period of the grant (again)
04/21/2020 Status: Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
04/30/2020 Status: Application awarded.
writedit said
Woohoo – congratulations on your award (finally!) and thank you so much for sharing such a detailed and helpful timeline! Best wishes for success with your continued training and launch of your independent career in biomedical research.
iloiktoitals said
Thank *you* for this resource, and I hope the information I provided is helpful to others.
Chris said
Dear Writedit,
I submitted an R61/R33 to NIAID and got an impact score of 25. I check NIAID website and find it does not provide paylines for R61/R33. How likely is it that I’ll get an award? Thanks a lot!
writedit said
ICs do not usually provide paylines for special mechanisms like this, especially where two activity codes are involved (R61/R33). When you receive your summary statement, you’ll want to get in touch with your PO. I suspect awards will be made on the basis of more than just impact score, but yours seems like it should be in or close to the range of consideration. It really depends on the number of applications and the spread of scores, though, which only the PO knows – and also NIAID’s preference for what type of science to fund.
GG said
Dear Writedit,
I had written previously:
RO1, A1, prior triage, now 28 impact, 9th percentile, institute payline 16
Reviewed in February, Counsel meets in mid may
For months the status was “Pending Counsel Review”
As of today the status is just “Pending”
I think Pending is a good sign after the counsel review, but what does it mean here before the counsel review?
Thank you!
R01 said
“Pending” is a good sign.
Writedit, we have a 3 percentile R01 that is still “Council review completed” since February. Frustrated. Anyone heard a 3 percentile R01 didn’t get funded?
writedit said
Even 1st percentile applications can get skipped (for awards) if the PI is well-funded, if the IC has decided not to fund any more work in that particular area due to saturation of their portfolio, or if this is a RFA or PAR application competing against competitively scored applications with more interesting (to the IC) science. If you don’t have more than $750K in direct costs awarded to you right now, you should talk with your PO about what else might be going on and what your next steps should be.
writedit said
The Pending in advance of the Counsel meeting means that your application was approved electronically en bloc in advance of the meeting (and actually, all the meetings are electronic, now, but this means in advance of discussion of specific applications). You should receive a JIT request, if you haven’t already, from your PO or GMS. The Pending status may last a long time, since everything is taking longer while everyone at the NIH is working remotely. Your July 1 start date isn’t an expiration date, though, so even if your Pending status lasts well into June, you don’t need to panic.
writedit said
And congrats on jumping from triage to award (assuming no issues at administrative review) – great job on the A1, GG!
GG said
Thank you very much writedit for the explanation and the kudos. The only JIT I have received was a couple months ago in an automated request. But this all sounds very promising and I will wait for further communication from the program officer. And frankly I can’t quite believe it at times. I will never be so jaded that I will feel anything but deep gratitude for an NIH award. Thank you again for all you do for the community.
writedit said
If you haven’t checked in with your PO, you can ask if you should send JIT and whether they need anything else from you.
GG said
Thank you. I had already uploaded my “Other Support” and IACUC certification but had held off on any budget info in case they had guidance there (ie cut a %, cut a year) etc. If I dare to dream, perhaps I will get the whole budget as requested.
R03 said
Hi,
I have an R03 (responding to NCATS special RFA) scored in a gray zone in this October. However, it was recently reassigned from NCATS to another IC before the council meeting next week. I didn’t ask for the reassignment…I am wondering if the reassignment, happened a week before the council meeting, means the new IC wants to fund it.. The New IC now has only the GMS contact, but not PO’s, in my Commons, so don’t know if I can contact GMS for this reassignment. Could you please give some inputs on this situation?
R03 said
sorry, the R03 was reviewed and scored in this March. The council meeting is in next week.
writedit said
You can ask your originally assigned PO at NCATS what is going on and whom to contact at the new IC. I assume other ICs participated in the RFA, which NCATS administered, and awarding IC assignments are being made based on IC interest in specific applications. I assume this is good news and that any applications that had no interest from other ICs would just stay at NCATS (as RFA administering IC). The NCATS PO should be able to offer some guidance. If you need any regulatory approvals (IRB, IACUC), definitely ask if you should be pursuing those, if you haven’t yet, so an award can be processed in a timely manner.
R03 said
Writedit,
Thank you so much for the thoughtful inputs. Your are right that the RFA was administered by NCATS but announced by Office of Strategic Coordination (Common Fund), so it seems all NIH ICs participate. I checked last year’s awards, most were funded by NCATS with TR#, but many also funded by other ICs. I don’t know if all the money came from the Common Fund, or if the Common Fund cannot fund it, it has to be funded by a specific IC’s budget. any thoughts?
writedit said
The Common Fund can provide money but cannot administer awards – only individual ICs can do this. Sometimes they add money so it is not always all Common Fund funding. Again, your initially assigned NCATS PO should be able to point you in the right direction for information at the newly assigned IC. If there is a GMS assigned at the new IC, they should be able to tell you who the PO is, too, and provide an update on what is happening with your award.
mika said
PA-18-484 – Research Project Grant (Parent R01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed). NIDDK allows for a five-year proposal?
writedit said
New Parent R01 FOAs were released this week, so you would apply to PA-20-185. The FOA allows a project period up to 5 years. Some ICs only fund 5-year awards for ESI applicants (ie, 4 or fewer years for established PIs, in most cases), so you should check with your PO about the appropriate project period length to target. It would be better to know that you should only plan for 4 years (if that is what the PO advises) in advance than to have a year cut off when the award is made. If the PO says 5 years is fine, then you’re good to lay out 5 years of work.
MND81 said
Dear WriteEdit – This is a bit of a ridiculous question, but I was hoping to get your thoughts. Have you ever heard of anyone having two active DP2 Awards?
Briefly, I applied for the new NIAID New Innovators Post-Doc DP2 Award and also the NIDA Avenir DP2 Award. I received a 33 and 20 respectively. The projects are completely non-overlapping. With the score of 33, I wrote off the NIAID award, but I did receive reasonably good feedback from the NIDA PO, who asked me to write a rebuttal (referenced above). So I was waiting for the decision from NIDA Council, which is due to come next week, when amazingly I found out today that I my NIAID DP2 will be funded. I know this may be premature, but is there a way that one can receive both? Thanks for your thoughts.
writedit said
Unfortunately, no. Once you have a NoA naming you as PI, you become ineligible for any subsequent awards that require ESI status, such as the NIH or NIDA DP2 programs.
Postdoc said
Any idea of how long it usually takes for post-submission material to get uploaded to eRA commons? My AOR sent the email over a week ago, but there has been no response yet from the SRO and the document is not in eRA commons. This is for news of an accepted publication related to my K99 proposal. My publication record is okay, but not stellar, so would like it to be part of my application. The study section meets early June, so I’m starting to get concerned about reviewers completing their reviewers without seeing it .
writedit said
This is probably most important for the panel discussion, and as long as your assigned reviewers know of it in advance of submitting their scores (ie, it is nothing that will require in-depth or lengthy review – just something to think about, if they had been concerned about our publication record), you should be okay. Everything is taking a bit longer with the NIH staff working from home, and I’m sure SROs in particular are incredibly busy getting ready for a hectic online review cycle. If you haven’t heard anything by the end of the week or early next, you or your sponsored programs office could contact the SRO to confirm receipt. I think it’s just all taking longer than usual, though – especially with the scramble to handle emergency COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 applications and awards.
Postdoc said
Thanks! Entries into PubMed are moving slowly too (was hoping reviewers could also see it from my bibliography, but no dice yet).
GCR said
Dear Writedit,
Thanks for maintaining this resourceful blog. I am an ESI and recently submitted R01 application to NIAID. It scored above payline. I heard from PO- “working towards a select pay for your award, but haven’t gotten approval for it yet. Will let you know if that changes”
PO didn’t suggest me to plan for a resubmission, nor asked me for any rebuttal.
What is the chance that it will get funded when a PO works towards a select pay?
GCR said
” Working towards a select pay for your *application*
writedit said
Hard to say in general, but your PO seems generally positive about it, which is a good sign. Your PO would not risk your missing a submission cycle, so if they can’t get select pay, I am sure you will hear promptly – but I also feel as though if there were reasonable doubt, you would have been advised to resubmit. There is no specific timing for these decisions – they are made through August (NoAs for the current FY must be issued before September 30).
GCR said
Thanks for your suggestions!
F32Q said
I submitted an F32 to nigms and got a borderline score. PO said still in the running and asked for a rebuttal a month ago. Now I got an email with a variety of questions about other funding and would I accept the award if given, but highlighted at the top that they haven’t decided yet. It seems like good news, but do they send it to a much larger pool than they fund or does these mean I’m almost certain to get it? Thanks in advance! My first nih experience!
writedit said
This is still very positive news. They would check with all applicants they are considering funding in case one of their candidates received fellowship or other grant support from another source, got a faculty position, or experienced any other career change that could have occurred in the meantime (since many postdocs are actively searching for jobs, applying for multiple funding opportunities, etc.). Send your information quickly – hopefully good news will follow soon.
F32Q said
thanks! fellowships don’t go to council, if I understand correctly. do you know when they make decisions? for NIGMS
writedit said
You are correct that fellowships do not go to Council. I do not know the exact timing for internal discussions, but I assume it would be somewhere in the same time frame, since the award processing is based on cycle.
NRC said
Dear Writedit,
I am a new investigator who plans to move to another university. I have submitted a R01 application that was reviewed in Feb, which will likely be funded. But I am moving (June end) before the NOA is sent (likely in July/Aug as per PO). My question is- would there be any issues in transferring this grant application to the new institute as NOA will likely be issued to the old university after I move? Is there any way to navigate this?
Thanks for your inputs!
writedit said
If the research can be completed at the new university (ie, they have the proper facility, equipment, and other essential resources), then you should be able to do this before your current university activates the award (most universities are willing to relinquish awards when a PI moves) – or even better have it issued to the new university (since it has not been issued to your current university yet). You want to talk with your PO ASAP no matter what – telling them you are moving will not endanger the award, and they need to know as early as possible when a PI is moving to get the process of moving an award in motion quickly to prevent delays in funding after a PI moves (process can take months).
NRC said
I appreciate your suggestions. Thank you!
MNC said
Hi Writedit, I have a question about my budget information that needs to be submitted for JIT. My IC recently updated salary for the K awards and I am wondering if should change my budget request accordingly? Also, would the budget info and other JIT material need final approval from the grants management at my institution? Thank you.
writedit said
Your institution actually submits the JIT, so you will need to work with your grants management staff (you can upload, but they must submit). Your award will be based on your submitted (and approved by peer review) budget. Salary change notices usually coincide with the start of a new fiscal year or with applications submitted in a certain cycle moving forward (so applicants can plan budgets accordingly). You can ask your grants management office and/or GMS for guidance.
NIAID Fan said
For those of you interested in knowing and waiting, the final NIAID paylines for all mechanisms for 2020 were posted on May 11, 2020. Please visit to see their official announcement at:
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/grants-contracts/niaid-paylines. Thanks.
writedit said
Thanks for the heads-up on the final NIAID paylines!
MOH said
Dear Writedit,
Are RO1 proposal selected by special consideration by the NCI Division need to approve by Council meeting before it goes to grant management specialist for issuing NoA? Actually, I do not know the step in funding decision for grants considered beyond the payline. Would you kindly clear it?
Best Regards,
MOH
SaG said
First, Council needs to approve the possibility of funding. Next NCI has to decide that they really want to fund it and have the money to fund it. Next it has to go on a paylist. Then a NoA can be released. Absent this being a COVID-related emergency app, you can expect several more weeks of waiting. And there are many sub steps between each of the ones above.
writedit said
Thanks, SaG, for laying out the many steps that remain. MOH, if your PO said your application might be considered for select pay (PO is not involved – scientific program leadership makes these decisions), they should have an update sometime after the NCAB meets in June, so you could check in either just before or after the July 4 holiday, if you haven’t heard anything. If you think your application is in the range of select pay but have not communicated with your PO, you should do that now to get guidance on next steps (rebuttal, resubmission, timeframes).
Sarah K Fineberg said
Hi All,
Thanks for this website. I’ve found it helpful and encouraging over the past several years. I’d like to contribute my K23 application timeline as encouragement to others to persist:
6/2017: new application submitted
fall 2017: not discussed
6/2018: new application submitted
10/2018: score 33,
11/2018: discussed w PO, above payline so won’t be funded, encouraged resubmission
2/2019: A1 application with significant efforts to be responsive to summary statement
6/2019: not discussed
10/2019: new application entered into system, revised version of previous submitted after discussion with mentors and other experienced grant-writers and K-mentors
2/2020 Scientific Review Group completed, score 22
3/2020 JIT request from a human being
4/22/2020 pending administrative review
5/13/2020 award prepared
5/21/2020 NOA
writedit said
Thank you for sharing your detailed and inspiring timeline! Three years of persistence and hard work have finally paid off. Congratulations and best wishes for success on your career in biomedical research (and clinical care)!
NeedAnotherR01 said
Hi, Writedit, your blog has helped me so much over the years from getting my very first 2nd R01 to now when I have a more senior problem, which is that I have had an R01 at NCI, under FY2020 payline, recommended for funding per PO and GMS working on it. Pending since early January. Two sets of institutional emails to GMS updating various administrative and budget items (after initial JIT). Last update two weeks ago with GMS saying it would just take a few minutes for them to process. Now still no status change (eg to Award Prepared) and no return of emails from GMS. I guess they’re all busy these days, but I’m paranoid about Covid and end of fiscal year approaching for this award, which is a Cycle 1 FY2020.
My lab is well-funded but under $750K direct that I’m PI on. We are doing fine, but I have budgeted personnel based on this award being a done deal. Is there any particular hold-up or slow-down? How worried should I be? Should I try to call at some point, track down a supervisor?
writedit said
NCI seems to be way behind on processing awards based on comments here (on the blog). Your GMS sounds responsive and helpful generally, so I don’t think this is a situation in which going to the next level up will help, and I don’t think you need to worry about losing your funding to a COVID application, especially since you are below the FY20 payline. Hopefully your GMS did not get sick. Although your PO is not involved at all with the award processing and likely won’t know the status of your materials, you could make contact just for a sanity check – to confirm that the delays are due to current circumstances (ie, all of NCI is backed up) versus a problem with your application. Still, this is extraordinarily late for a Cycle 1 award, even with the federal budget delays earlier in the year and the ongoing global pandemic.
NeedAnotherR01 said
Thanks. I wasn’t worried about specifically losing to a Covid grant, just that the government would rescind allocations or something, and payline would go down 3 points! But I’m sure I’m being paranoid. It’s just this is about 3 months longer than I’ve usually spent in “pending”, and we’ve gone through 2 cycles of slight modifications to JIT/budget stuff.
writedit said
I understand – I meant the appropriation for competing (and noncompeting) applications would not change – at least for this year. I don’t want to think about FY21 though (and have wondered if some ICs are concerned about big long-term commitments in the context of trillions of dollars in COVID-19 relief spending).
NeedAnotherR01 said
Just to update that the NoA came through today. The GMS had unfortunate family crisis plus there were glitches with an internal audit. All’s well! Thanks for your reassurance.
writedit said
Congratulations (at last) and best wishes for success with this work. Thanks for sharing the contributors to your delay – everyone needs to remember that NIH personnel are no less impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and life events (and often do not have someone to step in and take over when life happens).
Richard said
My RO1 is also pending since early March and it is still pending now. JIT was requested late March and submitted in early April.
IDeA nominee said
Hello, I was wondering if you might have any insight or information about success rates for proposals that are nominated for IDeA co-funding. I have an R01 that scored well, but missed my institute’s payline. My PO nominated it for IDeA co-funding. I cannot seem to find any information about the review process for those nominations and what the potential chances are for funding through such a mechanism. Thank you very much for your time.
SaG said
There are many variables. It depends on how many the Institute that might fund your app submitted, how many are submitted by other institutes, your score, etc….Also, they look for geographic diversity in awards. So if a bunch are submitted from your state your odds go down. If yours is the only one your odds go up. Most institutes submit 2-4 but only 1-2 get funded. So, 50%? If this is the only one submitted by your funding institute it could be close to 100%. Bonne chance!
writedit said
Thanks, SaG – this is great insight for me, too!
pluto said
Hi–thank you for all you are doing to help us!
I have a mentee who submitted his first R01 as an EST to NHLBI. He got a 27th percentile score. The payline for NHLBI ESI is 26th percentile and my experience is that they stick quite closely to the payline. My question is: is there precedent for the payline moving over the course of the year with NHLBI, or does this tend to be it? Thank you!
writedit said
SaG gave a great response – though I think what SaG meant to advise is that you as the mentor touch base with your PO (assuming you are funded at NHLBI and/or have contacts there) about your mentee’s application. NHLBI would take into consideration the fact that this ESI applicant has a mentor who is genuinely supportive of their success and still working on their behalf (ie, good investment for NHLBI to make). I also wanted to thank you for looking out for your R01-ready mentee (and helping this researcher get to the point).!
SaG said
pluto, The payline wont move at this point in the fiscal year. But, NHLBI could still pay the grant if they need to fund a few more ESIs to make their numerical ESI goal. If you are located in an IDEA state (https://www.nigms.nih.gov/Research/DRCB/IDeA/Pages/default.aspx) NHLBI might try and get IDeA co-funding too. Hopefully your mentor is in contact with their NHLBI PO.
IDeA nominee said
Thank you very much! As an update, this turned out positive for me and my PO emailed a couple of weeks ago stating that my grant will be funded in this manner (through the IDeA co-funding). I got a direct email JIT request and submitted the documents one week ago. Of course, now I am going crazy waiting. How long does typical award processing take at this stage?…is there a time estimate to when notice of award will be reached? Thanks again. When all this is complete, I will post my overall timeline. It has now been 1 year 10 months since the very first submission of this particular proposal.
writedit said
Congratulations on the IDeA co-funding! The administrative processing can take anywhere from days to months, but probably a few weeks. The NIH is less efficient working under COVID-19 restrictions than it normally would be, and you need a real person to sign off on your application (in fact, all the processing involves real people – none of this is automated). At least you can now wait hopefully – a well-deserved reward after more than 22 months of persevering.
Diana said
I have returned to provide my timeline as it may be helpful for others. It was a lot of “hurry up and wait” for this to finally come through. So thankful for this to have ultimately been funded this current fiscal year.
Oct 2018–First submission of R01 proposal
Feb 2019–SRG completed, not discussed
June 2019–A1 submission
Oct 2019–SRG completed, scored borderline, told to wait and see
Feb 2020–Council meeting completed, not included in pay list
Feb 2020–Submission of “new” A0 to different study session
April 2020–previous A1 nominated for IDeA co-funding
June 2020–SRG completed for new A0, scored within payline
June 2, 2020–previous A1 changed status to “pending administrative review”
June 18, 2020 (AM)–PO emailed to indicate the previous A1 will be funded via the IDeA co-funding mechanism (Current A0 will be withdrawn)
June 18, 2020 (PM)–JIT request from GMS, deadline 5 business days to submit (submitted as requested)
July 15, 2020–Award prepared
July 22, 2020–Notice of Grant Award
Aug 1, 2020–Project start date
Phew!
writedit said
Woohoo – congratulations on your award (finally), and thank you for sharing this detailed and informative timeline! I am very glad they were able to fund you sooner than later (especially since an FY21 award could be significantly delayed due to the election). Best wishes for success with your research!
SaG said
Diana, I think Tom Petty had an NIH app pending when he wrote this song. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMyCa35_mOg
writedit said
If he did, that big box of hand-typed (probably on IBM Selectric), unlimited-page application (multiple copies) would have been flown in and driven from National Airport to the NIH for hand-delivery by 5 pm (in response to a solicitation in the mimeographed and mailed NIH Guide). 🙂
TrialandError said
Hello, I wanted to get thoughts on Covid-19 admin supplements on SBIR. Had discussed the application with the NIAID P.O. before the submission. The supplement request status changed from “Submit” to “Accepted for Consideration” four days after submission.
Still no response yet. Does NIAID typically accept supplementary requests before deciding to reject? Or do they review first before accepting requests? As always, thankd for the reply
writedit said
ICs do not accept all admin supplements (mostly from POs who do not communicate with their POs first, which is how they should get the thumb up/down on submission), so all supplements must be accepted before they can be considered for funding. Of course, this is true for all grant applications submitted to grants.gov – the application must be accepted for referral, which is not always a given. Your supplement proposal will be considered but is not guaranteed. If your PO was enthusiastic, then you can be more optimistic – though I suspect with so many PIs having so much time on their hands, ICs will receive a lot of supplements (and grant applications in June/July), so your ultimate chances will depend on what else is on the table for consideration and how much money they have available.
TrialandError said
Thanks writeedit for the response.
Four weeks have passed since our supplement submission. I noticed that only one SBIR has been awarded a covid supplement in the last six weeks. The rest all are research grants or fellowships. Do you think it’s worth checking with the P.O.?
writedit said
Sure – you can ask about general timelines, at least (when to anticipate a decision).
john c said
Hi – I have received email from my PO about a grant that could get funded. Although this is a NSF grant, I think the question is relevant to folks writing NIH awards as well, therefore I thought I’d ask here.
In my pending support, there is a grant listed to a foundation that the PO wants to know about potential overlap. This grant was submitted recently and is pending review.
There is a substantial overlap between the two grants. Should I withdraw the one that is pending or say that if both awards come in then the scope of the latter one will be revised.
The risk in withdrawing the foundation grant is that until the NOA is issued, the NSF grant is not really funded. Something could go wrong and NSF NOA may never arrive…
Another option is to say that is the NSF NOA is issued, then I would withdraw the foundation grant. Not sure if this will work.
What would the folks here suggest?
Thanks,
John.
writedit said
The NSF application cannot be changed because it has undergone peer review, but NSF PDs work with their investigators to get funding. You can tell your NSF PD that if the NSF application is funded, you will try to alter the foundation project scope to eliminate duplication or, if that is not possible, withdraw the application. If you know someone at the Foundation, you can ask about this. Usually a foundation has more flexibility to allow you to adjust your aims and scope to eliminate the overlap. You can talk with your NSF PD about it, but I assume the elimination of overlap or the application will be a condition of the NSF award notice (which your institution would enforce), so you don’t need to withdraw the foundation application preemptively and risk missing out on both awards.
john c said
Thank you, this sounds reasonable.
Shinny Purple Eagle said
Hi Writedit, I submitted a K99 in Nov 2019 and received a fundable score. The council meeting was held on May 21st, but now the eraCommons status has been “pending council review” for a week. According to some timeline shown in Writedit, it takes a week to have the status changing to “pending …”. I am really anxious about my results as this is my last chance to submit K99. Do you consider it is suitable to write a letter PO asking for updating the status (results) and suggestions for the next move (e.g., still waiting)? Thank you so much for your advice.
Bene Gesserit said
I’m in a very similar situation at the moment and have the same question!
St. Alia-of-the-Knife said
Moving from Pending Council review to Council complete is a technical change. it should happen soon. A week is a bit long though. You should contact the PO about chances of funding your app given the score.
writedit said
Which IC is this? Not all May meetings include discussion of grant applications (e.g., NCI). Even if this was your the grant review Council meeting for your IC’s advisory board, everything has been taking longer at the NIH due to working remotely, COVID-19, and the increasing busy-ness of having Council meetings, Cycle II deadlines, and the final months of the FY. If you haven’t contacted your PO yet at all, you could certainly check in about the status of this application and whether you should be preparing a resubmission (if you are still eligible). Your PO will not have funding news at this time – but should be able to give you a better idea of the time frame and whether you need to do anything in the meantime.
Shinny Purple Eagle said
Thank you so much for your reply. I sent an email to PO for the status updating. Like you guessed, he told me the Council did not discuss the funding and asked me to check it up again for July. I did not ask for the chance or the advice of what is the move next, should I ask or keep waiting?
writedit said
If he did not say anything about resubmitting, then I assume he is optimistic that you should receive an award (otherwise, he likely would have mentioned resubmitting or considering other funding options) – but none of this is guaranteed. It sounds like he’ll have a better idea of timing in a few weeks (after the July 4 holiday) – which means more hurry up and wait in the meantime.
Shinny Purple Eagle said
Dear Writedit, thank you for all the answering and suggestions. The now system status change to ‘Council Review Completed’, I read some people said it implies ‘NOT founded’. Should I worry about it or send an email to PO for checking? or just waiting for July as PO told me two weeks ago?
writedit said
All applications have the status “Council review completed” before switching to “Pending administrative review” or other status indicative of award processing. You shouldn’t assume this is your terminal status. If you don’t hear anything before the July 4th holiday, check in with your PO afterward (and don’t assume the worst if your status stays the same all this while).
iloiktoitals said
Hi there! I was in the same boat as you a few months back.I applied for a K99 at the NIA. My Council meeting occurred in January 2020, but my eRA Commons Status *never* changed to “Council Review Completed”.
I eventually received a individualized JIT request and the “Council Review Completed” step was just skipped, changing to “Pending administrative review”. My K99 was funded in May.
Good luck!
writedit said
Thanks for jumping in with your experience, iloiktoitals – and congrats again.
Neuronerd said
Dear Writedit,
My grant was selected for funding by my IC’s leadership and I received JIT request from PO/GMS, and was told that the it was undergoing administrative processing prior to the council meeting. The council meeting (May) is now completed and the status on my eRA commons reflects the same. I wanted to know when the status could change to pending or administrative review. I understand the delays caused by COVID-19 but I am trying to get a sense of whether or not the my application is on top of the pile given that the JIT request and admin. processing have already begun. Also, I am curious too (as previously asked by many), is the status change from council review completed to pending a manual change or an automated one?
Many thanks.
writedit said
Congratulations on being tapped for an award. The change in eRA status is a manual one – someone is processing your application. However, the timing of the change of Council review completed to Pending varies widely, and the pending status itself can last weeks or months (as others here have noted). What you can feel confident about, assuming there are no administrative issues, is that you will have an award before September 30 – but more likely in July.
FormerlyNewPI said
Thanks for this great blog. I have a question about A1 resubmission and whether it is okay to go from a single PI to an MPI on a resubmission.
FormerlyANewPI said
Sorry, the question is whether it is okay to go from a single PI to an MPI between an A0 and A1.
SaG said
Sure. My question is why? The other PI can get just as much money and participate just as much as a key personnel. Will the new be PI really be taking on an equal leadership role as you? Why do you want to give half of your research program to someone else? And, just because you are adding a PI doesn’t mean you can request more money. Most NH Institutes limit the budget increase you can expect to get for a renewal. 3%-20% for instance. If you are doing it to be nice or help a colleague these are not great reasons. A final point, some Institutes (like NIGMS) look carefully at the other support of All PIs. If the new PI has a lot of other funding they might not award the grant even if you get a great score.
writedit said
As SaG notes, the rationale for switching to an MPI application must be driven by the science rather than any attempt to add a big name to improve the score. If the reviewers specifically noted that you lacked expertise in a critical domain of the work and the new additional PI clearly fills the gap cited previously, then this would be a good change to make. If you are submitting a Type 2 renewal, then SaG’s concern about the budget applies (you might not have enough room from the prior award to accommodate another major salary line). If this is for a Type 1 (new) application, then you can adjust the budget as much as you need to (though you might need to switch from modular to detailed, and if the budget jumps above $500K in any year, you’ll need a letter from the PO agreeing to this).
ESI MIRA said
Hi Writedit,
My R35 MIRA application was selected for funding. Your advice and information on this forum helped me a lot. Thank you! I have a pending R01 application (submitted in Feb, assigned to another institute, and will be reviewed at the end of this month) with significant scientific overlap, and PO asked me to withdraw it at my earliest convenience. Is it ok to wait until the score of the pending R01 is released? I feel MIRA is a better program in terms of future funding stability, but I also feel the other institute may be more supportive in the future renewal based on the nature of my research program. Thank you for your advice.
SaG said
The bottom line is you cant have both grants if there is scientific overlap. You should ask the PO if this is OK. Otherwise they might fund the MIRA in the interim then the score of the R01 is irrelevant. A bigger risk is if the R01 gets a great score and both grants are funded. Your institution will get its hands slapped and asked to return the ALL of the money (even if some was already spent) from one of the grants. Or if you turn down the MIRA after the NoA is released.
writedit said
Thanks, SaG, for your very informative answer. I would add that if you have been asked to withdraw the R01, then you should. You don’t want to create extra (unnecessary) work for a study section you will likely go back to with future applications. You don’t want to put the R01 PO in a bad position, for the same reason (you will likely want to work with this person on future R01s). With the government spending trillions of dollars it doesn’t have, the economy on shaky ground, and research sponsors focusing immediate attention on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, you definitely want to take the sure thing with long-term stability. And congratulations on the MIRA! Once this work is underway, you will no doubt generate other ideas for exceptional R01s that can go to the non-MIRA institute (and SRG).
ESI MIRA said
SaG, writedit,
Thank you for the detailed advice and kind word. Taking into account the opinions from you (and my colleagues and supervisor), I decided to withdraw the pending R01 immediately and receive MIRA. I understood I couldn’t receive both grants, but I completely forgot that the NoA of this R01, even if it turned out to be within the funding zone, would be released way beyond Sep/Oct. There’s no way to have the MIRA up in the air in the meantime. More importantly, as you pointed out, I shouldn’t make a study section and PO waste their time. I really appreciate the invaluable inputs!
writedit said
Good decision – and I am sure your MIRA work will generate new ideas and avenues of research that you will be able to pursue in parallel with separate funding streams (always a sound plan to maintain two or more projects with different goals and sponsors).
MOH said
Hi Writedit, Usually at which date of June SPL meeting scheduled at NCI? Specifically, do you know the date of SPL meeting in June 2020? Is June SPL meeting consider extracted grants funding approval?
writedit said
I do not have any inside information on SPL meetings, and the meeting date won’t necessarily translate to an immediately clear answer on whether/when you might receive an award. If you need to make career or lab management decisions, you can let your PO know about your situation and ask whether you should be submitting again (if you haven’t asked yet) and ask them to let you know if/when you can begin pre-award spending (if you can’t wait until late July-Aug-Sept for NoA due to the need to pay lab personnel, maintain animal colony, etc.). My guess is that award decisions will not be clear until late June or (more likely) July.
MOH said
I am not sure!! Is NCAB meeting and SPL meeting are different? NCAB meeting members include both external and internal NCI members. However, SPL members only from internal NCI. If council meeting is completed for a grant, will it go to ncab again or it will only go to SPL if a division select a grant for funding?
writedit said
The SPL – Scientific Program Leadership (all internal NCI staff) – meet after the NCAB, which are external to NCI. The NCAB approves a large list of applications for consideration for funding – more applications than NCI can fund (this occurs in all ICs). Once the NCAB has approved applications on the larger list for consideration (not a rubber stamp, especially with well-funded PIs, for example, or applications Council feels are outside the IC scope), the NCI Director then meets with the SPL to prioritize awards based on score/percentile and programmatic priority to create a paylist in descending order of priority. The grants management staff begins processing applications in the order on the paylist – not all of these will receive awards due to subsequent duplicate or disqualifying funding (eg, ESI or other eligibility-specific award), administrative concerns (regulatory issues), PI or institution cannot obtain necessary approvals in time (at the end of the FY), etc., and not all of these (well, none of these) will receive the requested budget. All this explains why a PO or GMS cannot say for sure if your application will be funded – it depends on how much money is still available by the time they get to your application.
MJ said
Hi, MOH. The NCAB meeting has been scheduled June 15th (2nd Virtual Joint BSA/NCAB).
See below link.
https://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/ncab/ncabmeetings.htm
tetra said
This is pure speculation, but what is the likelihood that NCI paylines for R21 (currently at 9th percentile for FY2020) stay similar (or at least, don’t decrease) in FY2021? Or more specifically, what are the chances of an 8th percentile application (scored in the Summer) to get funded?
writedit said
Without a global pandemic, the odds would have been very good. Between trillions of dollars in federal spending (plus huge drop in revenues) and a tumultuous election this fall, neither the amount nor the timing of the FY21 NIH appropriation can be predicted – other than to say we probably won’t have clarity until next year (after January 2021). The NIH budget is likely to be protected to the greatest extent possible, but it is difficult to imagine any federal agency not experiencing a budget cut (or at best, no change, which still means a reduction in new awards). All this said, NCI specifically is trying to move toward higher paylines and fewer discretionary awards, but that is an aspiration rather than a formal policy.
Richard said
Hi writedit, I recently contacted my GMS by email to inquire the status of a “pending” grant, the GMS replied that all communication should be through my AOR according to the NIH policy. While I know that it is ok for the PI to contact PO directly, I am not sure whether the PI can directly contact GMS. Thanks,
writedit said
Hmm. Usually GMS folks are willing to communicate what they can (which often isn’t much information though). It could be the SOP at your IC (new or existing). Having the AOR contact the GMS could allow for the option of the AOR officially learning that you are within 90 days of award, for the purpose of setting up a pre-award spending account.
Richard said
Thanks, writedit!
Alessa Yin said
Question on subcontract budget for a R01 application. The PI’s institute said that for subcontract, NIH does not increase the budget annually in the direct cost categories. They suggest to assume and build in 10% increase before the project begin date and keep it flat for future years. However, my institute (I serve as a collaborator) recommended to have budget increases for future years for inflation. Which way is correct?
SaG said
You should point out to your institute that NIH hasn’t allowed inflationary increases in grants for the last 8 years or so. If they force you to add it it will be automatically cut. Not a good strategy. https://grants.nih.gov/policy/nih-funding-strategies.htm
writedit said
As SaG (& the PI) said, you definitely want to go with building in a 10% cushion (flat across the years) since this will almost certainly be cut (and inflationary increases are definitely cut, leaving you having to rebudget in future years to accommodate any increased costs).
Things to consider before applying for a K99/R00 | Not Positive Definite said
[…] position already or (b) has a “strong letter of commitment” from their institution that includes assurances of being promoted to such a […]
R01 said
Does anyone have a recent NIAAA proposal status changing from “council meeting completed” to “pending administrative review” after May council? Thanks.
K99 said
Mine (K99) is changed to “council meeting completed” after May council. I got JIT request from GMS and submitted last week. My status is still “council meeting completed”.
R01 said
Thanks. We have a 2 percentile R01 finished council meeting since February. PO indicated it will be funded before the fiscal year ends but no personal JIT request so far and status is still “council meeting completed”. I know they are slow but waiting without news is no fun.
writedit said
All ICs are behind in processing awards. Don’t forget that they did not get their appropriation until late winter-early spring (so had a backlog of applications to process from Cycle 1), and then coronavirus both added to work loads and made award discussions and application processing (from home) less efficient, and of course lots of NIH staff had their own personal/family health and other issues to address. Most ICs don’t have such a deep bench that anyone can work on any application – you often need to wait for the right person to be available. That said, they will get all awards issued by September 30th – and no start date is an expiration date, so there is no need to panic about July 1 (or April 1, from Cycle 2). If you absolutely need to start spending to keep your research going, you can get confirmation that an award is planned within 90 days so your grant administrator can set up a pre-award spending account.
R01 said
I know typically they start to process them in the mid. June for the last round funds before the fiscal year ends.
OrdinaryResearcher said
Hi Writedit,
I have a question about the startup package negotiation when there is no competing offer in hand. I am in my second year of K99 grant and I am in the process of internal promotion to Assistant Professor. Given the hiring freeze everywhere at many institutions, it is hard to get a competing offer. In addition, since this is an internal promotion based on the fact that I expressed my intent to stay, it is also a bit risky (in my opinion) to reach out department chairs for faculty positions as the news could quickly circle back to my institute.
So, is there anything that I can leverage to negotiate salary, space, etc. Otherwise, my institute likely gives me a pretty standard package.
Can the K99 program official chime in to help when converting to R00? I also have pending R grant applications. If I get one of them in the next a few months, can it help?
Thank you so much for your help.
writedit said
This is a tough situation right now. If you have not actively looked into the possibility of a position at another institution (because you assume no hiring), you should certainly check, especially anywhere you already have contacts and/or know of an opening (or at least one before the pandemic) – and anywhere you would like to move, especially if you would prefer to change institutions. Your pending R application should give you additional leverage in reaching out to other universities. Also, your mentor should be interested in helping your career, including getting the best independent position and start-up package (no matter where you end up) to ensure success. Your PO won’t be able to help you negotiate a start up package (anywhere), but you could ask if they know of any positions that are open (& still seeking applicants, even with the pandemic). Now, if you would genuinely prefer to stay where you are but just want other offers to help get a better offer, I would suggest instead you get help from someone who can advise you on negotiating your first position – if not your mentor, perhaps a career development or faculty affairs office at your institution … or the CTSA, if your university has an award. Most major universities have career development resources to teach skills and expectations in negotiating faculty positions. For example, what your current university offers will become part of your first R01 application facilities and will help convince reviewers that the institution is invested in your success – so it is in your institution’s best interest to make a solid offer that puts you on the path to successful independent grant funding.
OrdinaryResearcher said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you so much for your detailed opinions. Very very helpful. Indeed, I genuinely would like to stay at my current institute, but wish to get a better-than-average startup package. The reason is that I already build a strong collaboration network here and have a couple of R grant applications in good shape as well as the department and university are highly ranked and I get along well with my mentor (so it is not like I can’t wait to leave the big boss).
I will talk to my mentor and see what advices he has for me.
Since I have been sort of inclined to stay where I am and I know the department is also interested in keeping me around, I did not search jobs extensively. Last year, I did try to reach several department chairs for potential jobs, but it did not work out though they expressed interests.
Thank you very much again for your valuable opinions 🙂
SaG said
Though your PO can’t negotiate your start up package they do get to see it s part of the transition from K99 to R00. If they think it is not reasonable they can say so and let the Institution know. Depending on the NIH Institute the PO will have seen a lot of start up packages and should have a good idea of what is reasonable. They look especially close at the packages offered to women v. men…..So, the PO can provide advice about whether the package is above average.
AHRQ R01 said
RE: AHRQ. Does anyone have an idea what their R01 pay line is? I just received a 16th percentile and am wondering if this could be enough. Thank you.
writedit said
AHRQ POs are great, so when you have your summary statement, you can check with them, since programmatic priority (& PO advocacy) is important there. Now, this is for FY21, and I have no idea what that appropriation will look like, and it probably won’t be clear until after the election. Funding for biomedical and health research doesn’t usually run into opposition, but we’ve been spending trillions of dollars on the pandemic response, and the party(s) that control Congress in 2021 will probably determine the FY21 federal budget.
anon said
This post on twitter from April is hopefully not relevant for FY21 paylines: “We submitted an R01 to AHRQ in February, and were pleased to get a potentially-fundable 13th percentile score. Just heard that AHRQ has DROPPED it’s payline to the 5th percentile, presumably (per the PO) as funds move towards COVID-19 research. It’s not a zero-sum-game, folks.”
writedit said
February submissions are usually for the next FY (FY21), so AHRQ could be anticipating a budget cut as a result of the federal pandemic spending of trillions of dollars to shore up the economy (which could also apply to funding decisions about larger long-term awards in FY20 that they don’t want to be carrying in the next few potentially lean years). The AHRQ website talks about making $7.5M available for COVID-19-related projects, which indicates rebudgeting of their existing appropriation for FY20 (out of a total budget of $445M) – though I thought AHRQ received some of the supplemental funding distributed to federal agencies for just this purpose (COVID-19-related awards). AHRQ POs are great, so certainly anyone seeking funding from this agency should check in with theirs about the funding outlook.
AHRQ R01 said
Fifth percentile is correct for the cut off for AHRQ R01s this cycle.
I do not think POs actually have any input on who gets funded – and honestly, I don’t think they should. After all, the merit of an application is determined by the study section and should not based on if applicant and PO are “tight”. I have always struggled with this idea. Imagine you are the PO and have hundreds of people on the phone/email who want their grants funded and be your friend – as a PO, I would find that a bit nauseating, no? They should (hopefully) be out of that equation.
Hopefully the new congress will appreciate the need to fund biomedical research in order to solve biomedical problems.
Writedit, thank you for this awesome resource.
R15-NIGMS said
Hi writedit, this has been a very useful forum to me as it helped me a lot to better understand NIH funding.
My R15 proposal (NIGMS) got an impact score of 34. Could you and/or anyone else on this forum please share your thoughts on chances of funding?
Thanks a lot for maintaining this forum!
writedit said
This is probably a little on the high side but not unreasonable, and your PO will be able to weigh in more once you have your summary statement. Also, because this is for FY21, any insight into future paylines probably won’t be possible until after the election, since the party(s) that control Congress will determine the FY21 federal budget and how to maintain/accelerate the economic recovery (amidst trillions in spending). However, with your summary statement, your PO will be able to advise you about whether to resubmit and, if so, how to address the concerns raised.
R15-NIGMS said
Thanks very much for the quick reply.
Magic 8-Ball says, said
“Outlook good”….”Talk to your PO”
R15-NIGMS said
Thanks for your input. Yes, I will talk to my PO; waiting for my summary statement.
writedit said
Great advice from SaG – thank you! That is good news that you are happy where you are at and have a good collaborative network. You should feel free to seek advice from any senior collaborators, too, on what they feel would be an appropriate package to launch your independent career. Again, no institution should want to hire a new faculty member without giving them the means to be successful (win-win), and your mentor and colleagues can let you know what is appropriate and what you should request that you might not immediately consider or recognize as important (because it has been invisible to you or provided through your advisor/mentor).
Toulouse said
Hello, I received an R15 score of 28 from NLM. I know this would be for FY 2021 but any thoughts on how it might fare? Last year they didn’t fund any and only 2 the year before. So not much data to go on. Thanks!
writedit said
Your PO won’t have any idea about FY21, but once you have your summary statement, they should be able to comment on where that score would fall in a typical year and whether you should resubmit (with advice on revision strategy as well). Looking at the RePORT data, it looks as though they typically make one competing award each year – but this is one award out of anywhere from 1-6 applications submitted.
WRG said
Hi! I applied for an Alzheimer’s Disease related supplement to my NIGMS back in March. I haven’t heard anything yet and the status in era commons hasn’t changes since I submitted it. Do you know if any of these have been awarded yet? Would I be notified if a decision has been made not to award a supplement? Thanks as always for the advice!!!
SaG said
Usually you are not told that you are not getting a supplement. Send an email to your PO and ask. It is their job to know and let you know if you ask. And no it wont change whether you get the award or not.
Smith said
Writedit, Thank you for maintaining this valuable site. I have a question about making a minor change to a pending project. Two weeks ago, we received a notice of probable funding from NIGMS for a fast-track (R43/44) proposal and have recently (2 days ago) received a JIT request. Our project will design, develop, and test educational software to help K-12 students understand science. The approach will be the same, but we would like to change the focal topic from one K-12 content area to another area. The reason for the change is that our educational partners have been affected by covid-19. We have recruited new educational partners who teach different areas of K-12 science. How do we approach making this change?
SaG said
It depends on the topics. If it is from Cell bio to Microbio probably not a problem. If it is from Cell Bio to Cosmology could be a problem. You can always ask your PO. NIH is likely being extra flexible during the pandemic when deciding about these situations.
Smith said
Thank you!
Mika said
I am going to re-submit R01 on NIH cycle 07-05-2020. One of comments “an overall timeline for the proposed effort would have been helpful” what are start and end of the five-year period
SaG said
I think they are looking for, in Year 1 we will do X/Year 2 we will do Y…etc..Not specific dates.
Mika said
Thanks
writedit said
Yes – usually they are looking for a visual grid timeline broken down into 4- or 6-month segments showing when each aim will be worked on (start & finish). Columns would be by time segment (quarter, half year), rows by Aim and sub aim, with boxes shaded to signify activity on each aim/subaim. This shows you can do some work in parallel (ie, aims are not conditional) for more efficiency and options in case you run into a roadblock with one set of experiments or aspects of the work (eg, slow recruitment, reagent not available, animal model not working out, etc.). This also shows whether you are alloting a feasible amount of time for each component of the work. You start hypothetically on your start date – but as SaG notes, you don’t need to give actual month/year designations – just the quarter in which you anticipate starting and continue on for 4-5 years, depending on the length of your project period.
R01 ESI said
Dear writedit,
NIH indicates that summary statements for new R01 applications submitted by new investigators are posted within 10 days of the study section meeting (https://public.csr.nih.gov/ForApplicants/InitialReviewResultsAndAppeals/applicationduringafterreview). Is this calendar days or business days? How strictly do SROs adhere to this policy? Apologies if this is answered elsewhere on your site. Thanks!
SaG said
I am not sure that page is current. They released a Notice early this year that updated those policies. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-19-053.html
Summary statements for all NI R01 applications will be prioritized: to the extent possible, they will be released before summary statements for other applications reviewed in the same meeting.
In general, summary statements will be available no later than 30 days before council.
writedit said
Thanks, SaG! It would be business days, and it would vary by SRO, depending on what else they had going on (especially in times like this). SROs don’t want to delay getting the summary statements out – they know how important they are to investigators – so there is no reason to remind them or inquire about your summary statement unless you have a time-sensitive reason (eg, tenure or job decision) and have waited a reasonable amount of time (eg, 4-5 weeks after study section). As with so much else in the NIH process, it’s a lot of hurry up and wait.
R01 ESI said
Thank you, writedit and SaG. Very helpful.
psyance said
Is there a NIH policy on investigators with active funding that are mobilized and deployed for military service? I’ve been searching, but so far all I’ve found is info for current NIH employees. Would this be justification for a no-cost extension? If it happened at the very beginning of a grant (or perhaps just as an award was being issued), could the funding be revoked? I have a grant that I am cautiously optimistic about, but I also have a potential deployment looming. Any thoughts or recommendations are appreciated.
SaG said
Keep in mind that an NIH grant goes to an Institution. So, if you are deployed your Institution could select another PI to run the grant until you return. Assuming there is someone at the school who is qualified; NIH has to agree to the change. How long will you be deployed? Six months to year is probably not an issue. PIs go on sabbaticals all of the time. My guess is that your PO will work with you to find an acceptable solution. But, think about who could sub for you while you are away.
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-18-172.html
writedit said
Is this an application for which you are anticipating an award in FY20 (ie, July-Sept)? If this is for FY21, the start date could probably be delayed until you returned, but if this is an FY20 award, they need to get it on the books before Sept 30. SaG shared great information. What might also be possible is for your university/institution to not activate the award by drawing on funds, but I don’t know if this is required within a certain time frame (ie, can an institution accept an award but not draw any funds for a certain number of months). Now, you don’t mention how long your deployment will be, which is probably key to the solution. As SaG said, if you have a co-investigator who could serve as PI in your absence, this could be negotiated as part of JIT. You might ask the sponsored programs office at your institution how this has been handled previously there, and your PO should be willing to work with you on the NIH side.
NCI R01 said
Dear writedit,
Have you seen the cases of application with ‘pending administrative review’ status not being funded? I’m a established investigator and have 11 percentile NCI R01. Early this month, the PO recommended me to resubmit. after the council date, however, the status has been changed to ‘pending administrative review’. I wanted to check if I should resubmit the application for July deadline but the PO and GMS are not responsive to my emails phone calls at all.
writedit said
Wow. I don’t know what’s going on at NCI. I can only assume their staff ranks have been struggling with COVID-19 (they don’t have back-ups). You can look at the org chart for the Office of Grant Administration and contact the team leader and/or branch chief responsible for your application, explaining you were anticipating a July A1 submission until the status changed and haven’t been able to reach your GMS for clarification. If you have the A1 application ready and do not hear back from anyone at NCI before your institution needs to submit, I would advise you to submit. You can withdraw it if needed. The Pending status is not a guarantee, especially in the last few months before the FY ends. ICs want as many award-ready applications as possible (ie, JIT submitted and reviewed) – especially with the pandemic, when PIs/institutions might not be able to turn around regulatory review or other concerns on tight deadlines – but you still might be a ways down the paylist (so if everyone ahead of you gets awarded, there is no guarantee $ will be available for your application). You didn’t mention if they requested JIT, but I assume you have it ready if not.
NCI R01 said
Thanks for your response. They did requested JIT with updated starting date (from July 1st to June 1st) and I submitted it in May. I contacted their GMS team lead but he directed my email to the PO, who is not responding to my email… Anyway, I agree with your suggestion to resubmit. I just wanted to save my time and others’. I will keep it posted.
writedit said
Aha. This sounds more positive, though still not guaranteed. If you don’t hear before July 5, then you probably will shortly after, so while it would be extra effort for you and your institution, I suspect you won’t be burdening reviewers. Hopefully you’ll get a response by the end of the week or early next.
Juhun Lee said
Just want to update the status. The status of my A0 submission has been changed to ‘Council review completed’ on July 14. I believe it is the last stage for not being funded… Anyway, thank you for your advice! I’m glad that I resubmitted my application already.
writedit said
Sorry to hear this, but glad you submitted the A1. Did you ever hear back from the PO? The status could still change again (back to Pending), but your PO may have recommended resubmission back in June based on the number and higher priority of other applications in line. Of course, you want to be sure your PO is interested in your science (ie, will go to bat for you when select pay decisions are being made). If they aren’t super enthusiastic, you could come close but not get an award again. Since you are an established PI, if you have another PO at NCI, you might talk with them where this application fits in the NCI portfolio (ie, filling gap or competing with similar proposals). If this is your usual PO, hopefully you’ll get more insight into how close your application came to an award and the level of enthusiasm for your science.
LNS said
I received a 3rd percentile on an A1 R01 (Cycle I, NCI). We had to request permission to submit an excess budget for this proposal. At the time, the PO stated that they have the option not to fund because of the large budget even if we get a fundable score. It is my understanding Cycle I proposals will be considered for funding in FY21 so we won’t know anything about NIH budget until much later. Do you think they are likely to hold on deciding on our proposal until they have a budget? Also, we requested two secondary institutes. Should I engage them to see if they might want to jointly fund with NCI? (I’ve heard of that happening but don’t know how that works). Thanks for any advice!
writedit said
You are correct that your application submitted in March will be considered for an FY21 award. The PO agreed to accept the application, which is not always the case, and had to make the disclaimer about award decisions. However, if you are already well funded, this might make it more likely for NCI to skip your application, even at the 3rd percentile. NCI will not make any awards, definitely no large awards, until after they have their appropriation in hand, which almost certainly will not be until spring 2021 (so you have a long wait). The PO is the one who would communicate with other ICs about sharing the award (this does happen but is rare). If you talked with POs at each of the secondary ICs who expressed interest in your project, you might tell your NCI PO, if you hadn’t already. However, none of these discussions will be held until after the federal budget (and NIH/NCI appropriation) is clear. Although biomedical research is always a top priority in Congress (especially now), the trillions spent to shore up the economy may force tough decisions.
LNS said
Thank you. This is extremely helpful info–as always!
NotReviewer2 said
I received a R44 score below the FY 2020 payline for NIAID, but how do I know if the application is considered for fiscal year 2020 or 2021? The proposal was submitted for the April 5th deadline (cycle III), but the next advisory council is Sept 17 for NIAID. Thx.
writedit said
You can check with your PO, but I think that will go in Cycle I of FY21. However, talk with your PO. They may get electronic approval in advance of the Council meeting to make some awards in September, especially if they have SBIR money to spend before the end of the FY (and especially if there are projects they don’t want to delay – which would be the case for FY21 awards, given the certain delay in any appropriation, likely until 2021).
k01stress said
I recently received a K01 from NHLBI…am I still eligible to apply for a R21 grant this same year?
writedit said
This depends on how much effort you have available. I believe that if you have 75% effort on the K01, have no other responsibilities (clinical, teaching, administrative), and can devote 25% effort to the R21, then it should be okay – but you would definitely want to check with your K01 PO first. If you do not have enough uncommitted effort available to serve as PI, then you won’t be able to reduce your K01 effort to accommodate another award until the final 2 years of the K01 (and in that case, you should be going after an R01, which has more $ and can be renewed). You probably want to talk with your mentor and PO about whether the R21 will be a good complement to your K01, too.
Kquestion said
Hi Writedit and SaG,
I am expecting a K99 award soon. My mentor recently suggested a promotion plan for me to become an adjunct Asst. Prof. This is in part due to me receiving the grant and also my university policy that doesn’t allow postdoc status beyond the 5th year (I’ll soon start my 4th year and will be receiving a new contract). Other than the title and my ability to apply for some other NIH grants, nothing changes (in terms of trainee status, lab, etc) with this promotion. As I understand, its always good to reach out to PO (or GMS?) to confirm if this is okay or since this is an official university policy is it okay if I go ahead with the promotion and let my PO/GMS know once everything is finalized?
Thanks.
writedit said
Evidence for lack of eligibility for the K99 (listed in the FOA) specifically includes: “The candidate is eligible to apply for independent research funding as the PD/PI of an NIH research grant”. The NIH feels that anyone who feels ready to apply for independent funding does not need additional mentored training under the K99. Since you have time to complete a year of the K99 as a postdoc (within the 5 years allotted by university policy), you can (and probably should) remain a postdoc for the K99 year and then obtain a tenure track appointment for your R00 (which is when you should apply for independent funding). If you decide to consider the promotion, you should talk with the PO first to confirm whether this would change your eligibility, since this would come out as part of JIT anyway, and NIH policy, not awardee university policy, governs NIH awards. (I do appreciate your university’s preventing perpetual postdoc status, though.)
Kquestion said
Thanks, Writedit. I should have made my question a bit more clear. While the promotion will allow me to submit independent grants, I don’t plan on submitting one during the K99 period and this is also officially reflected in the JIT information we submitted; level of effort for my K99 is 100% (12 Cal months). The major reason for the promotion as I mentioned before was to extend my contract for two years (K99 period). If I remain on the postdoc status, I will have to renew my contract twice, for the 5th year and file for a 6th year exception separately. Given that COVID-19 has disrupted the academic job market, and I also have things to wrap up, it might be highly possible that I’ll remain in my current position for the whole two years of K99 phase and so don’t want to go through the contract extension process twice. Given that this move will still be to a non-independent, mentored training position and that we won’t be requesting any additional salary, is it reasonable to check with the PO/GMS about this? Also, should the university official be communicating about this with the PO/GMS? Thanks again.
writedit said
If the University position *allows* you to submit grants, then the position itself makes you ineligible for the K99, whether or not you ever submit an application (get a raise, remain mentored, etc. – none of that matters). Please talk with the PO about this first (not the GMS). You do not want to sour this relationship from the very outset by avoiding asking about something you absolutely need to. If you want 2 years of K99 funding, then you’ll need to deal with the separate contracts for the 5th and 6th year (or ask for an exception now to allow 2-year contract). You might also consider just 1 year on the K99, since it sounds like you don’t need a lot more mentored training (the point of the K99 – to cover actual training in postdoc period, not extend it), and it sounds like you weren’t really planning on 2 years of K99 support (per your wording). Your R00 will make you an attractive candidate for an independent position.
SaG said
The Title “Adjunct Asst. prof” and ability to “apply for grants” worries me. It can sound like you already have an R00 eligible faculty job. Listen to Writedit….You should really discuss this with your PO.
ESI R01 applicant said
Thank you so much for this resource. I am an ESI and just received scores for an R01 A0 to NIDCR as primary institute, (secondary institute is NCCIH). Impact score 47, percentile 34. I will wait for the summary statement before contacting my PO, and I plan to resubmit. But I was just wondering if anyone knows paylines for ESI in NCCIH and whether it is worthwhile contacting a PO from this institute as well, once I receive my summary statement? My research fits funding priorities for both institutes. Thank you.
writedit said
Your score and percentile, even as ESI, are almost certainly too high for either IC, especially since they have no idea what their budget will be for FY21 (and probably won’t until next year – you don’t want to wait that long). You will definitely want to submit an A1, so when you get your summary statement, you should talk with your NIDCR PO about strategies for addressing the reviewer concerns, especially if they can add any insight from the actual meeting. You are not the one to decide if a secondary IC can consider your application (your NIDCR PO must contact the NCCIH PO and relinquish the application), but secondary ICs rarely pick up competitively scored applications for funding, and certainly not an above-payline application. However, if your work might be of interest to NCCIH, you should identify an appropriate PO there (you can use the RePORTER Matchmaker tool plus review the NCCIH program director bios) and discuss your science with them. You might even consider developing a second project in parallel with your NIDCR R01 application that targets NCCIH priorities. It’s always good to line up multiple projects that target different ICs (and different agencies/organizations) and can be sent to different reviewers.
ESI R01 applicant said
Thanks a lot Writedit for the sound advice!
R21 Curious said
Hello there! My colleague recently received an impact score of 20 on an R21 that was submitted in response to an RFA (and reviewed by a special emphasis panel specific to the RFA). Any idea why we would not get a percentile ranking?
writedit said
No percentile because this was reviewed in a SEP, which does not meet each cycle (generally does not meet more than once period) and therefore cannot calculate percentiles (based on scores from past 3 cycles). That score should definitely be considered for funding, but award decisions for RFAs are as much about programmatic interest and priority as the impact score. When you get your summary statement, you can check in with the PO about next steps, though if this is for FY21, the PO won’t be able to say much about when funding decisions will be made (federal budget won’t be signed into law until next year).
R21 Curious said
Thanks so much!
SM said
Hi Writedit, Is there a specific timeframe one can expect the NOA after the status changes to “Award Prepared”? It’s been a 8 days since my status changed to “award prepared” but still haven’t gotten the final notice. Based on the previous award timelines for most institutes this around 3-6 days. I know it’ll come but just wanted to see if this is an automated process or will there be a manual signing off on the final award that might be getting delayed.
writedit said
A live human being needs to sign off on the prepared award before it is issued, so the time frame depends on this person’s availability and backlog of NoAs awaiting review. The delay is not bad news, just more hurry up and wait time.
ESI gator said
Dear Writedit, Thank you so much for your advice. This is one of the greatest help I have been getting. I am an ESI and applied my first R01 in June 2019 to NIA. I received percentile 24. I am still in the status of “pending council review”. Does it mean I still have a chance to be awarded depending on changes in payline in the future? Thank you for your help in advance!
writedit said
If you applied for an R01 in June 2019 (reviewed fall 2019) and still have a Pending Council review status, then you need to contact your PO to see what is going on. No matter what, your application should not be still pending Council review. If your application falls in the ADRD category (ESI ADRD payline, 33rd percentile), then you should be considered for funding. If your application is not considered ADRD (ESI payline, 16th percentile), then talk with your PO both about the delay and strategic advice for an A1 submission in November.
ESI gator said
Thank you very much for your advice! I am contacting the PO regarding this. As NIS used to increase payline at the end of the year, I was thinking (or hoping) the applications under pending status will be reconsidered.
writedit said
Just to clarify – your status says “Pending Council review”, correct? If it just says “Pending” or “Pending administrative review”, then your application is being processed for an award (and you should receive a JIT request, if you haven’t already). “Pending Council review” means someone needs to take a look at what is going on with your application.
DC said
Dear Writedit,
I got my first R01 last year and was really excited about being able to finally working on my ideas. Then the second NOA is delayed – today was supposedly the starting date. I am wondering what could this be and can’t help feeling anxious. I already wrote to the PO and GMS, although I did not directly ask about it 1 week ago. It’s “pending administrative review”. Your site has been tremendously resourceful and helpful, I’d appreciate if would let me know what is your thought about this. Thanks! DC
writedit said
Your start date is not an expiration date, so no need to feel anxious at all. The NIH staff is struggling with the same restrictions and challenges as everyone else under COVID-19, so everything is less efficient. If someone in your application chain is ill or has a family member who is ill, there is no one to fill the gap. Even in the best of times, “Pending administrative review” can last weeks to months. Your PO is out of the loop at this point, and your GMS will let you know if anything is needed. If you have all your approvals and there is no overlapping funding or any other issues, you can be confident and hopeful for an award in the next month or two – definitely before September 30.
DC said
Hi Writedit, thank you very much! I get new perspective every time I visit here. I hope (very sincerely) that things could move forward soon. Thanks again for your insight.
Ruthie said
My NoA for my 3rd year of my R01 (NIA) was also delayed, which made me anxious. It finally came almost 3 weeks after the start date. Everything was as expected on the NoA. I think they are just really backlogged and/or short staffed right now.
DC said
Hi Ruthie, thanks for sharing your experience. It certainly make sense. It also kind feels like dominos, delays lead to delays…. Good luck with your research!
Domino Lovers said
Dear Writedit,
My first submission of an R21 received a score of 45 (reviewed in November, 2019). I resubmitted in March this year and ironically it was even not discussed. I believe we have addressed all the comments/suggestion adequately. This made me wonder in future submissions whether I should consider resubmission if the first submission score is higher than 40. It seems resubmission is a waste of time.
writedit said
I have seen scores go from fundable (on the bubble) to ND, so while not typical, it’s not unusual. You could have different reviewers, reviewers who found different problems with the resubmission (not flagged in the A0 review), or reviewers who just weren’t excited about the science. Usually with high scores and ND, it’s better to try again with an A0, but a 45 could go either way. If you have a helpful PO, often they can give some guidance based on their familiarity with the SRG and their take of the summary statement. If the Significance has consistently high scores, then you probably have reviewers who are not excited about the science, so you might want to look into reframing your question and/or changing SRGs (to a panel that would be more enthusiastic about your work). Again, this is where a helpful PO can help.
Domino Lovers said
Dear Writedit, Thank you so much for your response and suggestions. I feel a lot better. I have not received the summary report for the resubmission (for the first submission, the scores for significance ranged from 2 to 3). It will be interesting to see how high the scores are this time. Thank you for your suggestion regarding next steps. It is very helpful.
Also, what you noted brought up a question that I have been thinking to ask and would like to have your advice/input. For SRG, is it correct that we are not able to choose a review panel but follow CSR’s assignment? If I appeal against an assigned review panel, will this impact the review of my submitted proposal? Thank you for your help as always.
writedit said
You can and should pick your SRG. You can list your choice on the PHS Assignment Request Form, which allows you to communicate your preferred SRG(s) as well as IC and reviewers who should be assigned to read your application (with rationale). The reviewers themselves never see this form – just CSR and the SRO. Your PO can give great advice on picking an SRG, and you can use the CSR Assisted Referral Tool, in which you paste in your abstract to get a ranked list of the most appropriate study sections. CSR generally accepts assignment requests, but your application may not be assigned to your top choice for a number of reasons: the SRG was broken into two panels or merged with another panel, the assignment is not appropriate based on the application science (some PIs choose SRGs that are kind to their colleagues), the membership and hence type of expertise/interest is in transition (so SRO feels another SRG is more appropriate), the application could go to 2 or more SRGs & was redirected for a better balance of numbers in each possible SRG, etc. You can inquire as to why your requested assignment was not honored, but if CSR does not agree with moving your application to your preferred SRG, their decision is final (you do have the option of withdrawing the application).
DP5 Applicant said
Hi writedit, is there a way to check when NIH staff will meet to discuss funding for DP awards? My DP5 application received an impact score of 30 and a positive summary statement. My PO asked me to submit a 2-page response and then mentioned it would be radio silence until funding decisions come out in ~July (or even as late as September). Now that it’s July, I’m wondering if I should reach out to my PO to get another update? Trying to plan for re-submission (due in September) if my application won’t be funded…
Vanessa said
I also applied for the DP5 this year. I reached out in late June and she didn’t have an update for me, other than to say that decisions are still underway and that they hope to make final decisions this month. My plan was to check in again in another week or two. This year was a resubmission for me and compared to other POs I’ve had for other types of grants, I find this PO to be very responsive and understanding. I don’t think it hurts to check in with her from time-to-time. Good luck with your application!
writedit said
Thanks for sharing your experience, Vanessa – great intel. COVID-19 has slowed down all NIH processes, so you might want to wait until late July to check in again (especially since this PO will likely reach out with updates when there is news to share), unless you need more time and input to work on your resubmission, DP5 Applicant. In that case, seeking her advice on your resubmission strategy would be useful.
DP5 Applicant said
Thanks for the info Vanessa and writedit. I agree this PO is great, but is it typical for POs to follow up if you do NOT receive an award?
I feel pretty confident in my resubmission strategy and got feedback from my PO early on should I need to resubmit. I’m just trying to figure out how long until funding decisions will be made because I don’t want to spend a bunch of time writing the A1 if my A0 gets funded.
I’ll plan to reach out to my PO towards the end of July as writedit suggested. Vanessa, please pass along any info if you hear back sooner – hopefully we both hear back with good news soon!
writedit said
I understand completely about not wanting to work on an A1 that isn’t necessary. I think this PO would let you know the outcome either way since she requested extra information and gave you fair warning about the radio silence (ie, sounds like she’s saying she’ll break it with news, one way or another). If you have any concerns about getting the A1 ready in time, you could ask her sooner about whether you should be working on resubmission, but if she’s still not sure due to lack of updates, she might well tell you to start working on it for insurance, since she won’t want you to risk missing the September submission date.
Vanessa said
My application (obviously) wasn’t funded last year and I didn’t receive any notification. My era commons status remained as “council review complete” and I didn’t receive any emails. I also knew my probability of funding was likely very low, so didn’t bother to reach out. I operated under the assumption that I wasn’t going to be funded and so moved forward with putting together a new application in June. Plus I remember previous applicants not hearing back until late July or early August, so thought it best to at least start the process of putting together a new submission if that was the earliest I’d hear back. Will certainly post if I hear anything!
Vanessa said
Hi DP5 applicant – notifications went out last week for those who received an award from the common fund, just FYI.
DP5 Applicant said
Dang, no email here. 😦
Any luck from your end?
Vanessa said
Unfortunately not! Looks like I will be re-applying one last time. She did say that the ICs haven’t made decisions yet and have the next three weeks to do so. The emails that went out are for those who were selected by the common fund, but there’s usually another (smaller) group that gets funded by the individual ICs.
DP5 Applicant said
Hi writedit. Three follow-up questions: 1) my application was recently transferred to another institute, does this mean select funding is likely? 2) I heard decisions will be made this coming week, but I haven’t heard about my application yet. Does NIH typically fund close to, or even the day of the deadline? 3) If my application does move forward, how quickly does JIT need to be submitted?
writedit said
This is good news, since an IC would not take an application unless they were considering funding it. Awards can be made any time up to September 30, and often the Director’s awards are made in August or later, so this is not unusual. You will need to submit JIT as soon as requested since there is so little time for processing. If you need regulatory approval (IACUC, IRB, etc.), please start working on that ASAP. If your JIT is not ready when requested, your application may be skipped due to the time crunch. You can contact the DP5 PO at the IC to which your application was assigned for additional advice.
DP5 Applicant said
Another update: I recently submitted JIT and was told informally that my A0 is very likely to receive funding. But the 9/30 award timeline makes for a difficult situation as my A1 would be due 9/4. I’ve been delaying working on my A1 until I heard a more concrete answer, but now it’s getting very close to the A1 deadline. Should I wait a bit longer? Or start on the A1?
writedit said
If you did not ask your PO this question explicitly, you should do so. They will only tell you to hold off if you are relatively certain (assuming no black swan event) to receive an award. If there’s any doubt, they’ll tell you to submit.
Chong Wu said
Dear Writedit,
We submitted an R03 this Feb. and got Impact Score 28, Percentile 6%. We received an automatic Just in Time request on July 1, which said we need to submit JIT 60 days before the starting date (Sept. 1). It seems we missed the deadline. Does this really matter? I am very worried about it.
We contacted PO today. I wonder if we need to submit the JIT directly or we need to discuss it with PO first. Thank you so much. We find this source is extremely helpful.
Thanks,
Chong
writedit said
Unless the FOA lists a start date in September, a February application is usually for the next FY (FY21). If your application falls in the FY21 timeline, even if you listed a September 1 start date, the NIH is not held to that (and start dates are not expiration dates, either – there is nothing binding about them at all, except the one on the NOA, which dictates the timing of RPPRs). Even if your application is for FY20, you don’t need to worry about the 60 days before the start date instruction (automated line). The award can be issued up until September 30, and in the final months of the FY, applications are processed with much less than 60 days lead time.
Chong said
Got it. Thank you so much. I learned a lot form many conversations in this blog. Thank you!
SB2010 said
Hi Writedit,
I recently got a K99 award and the salary in my NOA was lower than my current salary that we requested, which is also well with in my IC’s allowed salary limit for K99. We sent an email asking if this can be changed but have not heard back from the GMS. Do you think it’s an error and will be changed to the requested amount? As a part of JIT we had to provide a letter stating that I would not be receiving any salary support from another early career development award I hold, which we did. I also checked if this was due to % effort but its still lower than that. I’ll wait for the GMS to respond but just wanted to see if you have any idea as to why this may have happened.
Thanks.
writedit said
Sorry – hard to say without details, but they can amend the NoA if there was a mistake (vs an intentional change). Your grants administrator should be able to work it out with the GMS, who is no doubt busy with a long list of applications in need of processing and may be waiting to hear back from the chief GMO (if your query was sent higher up the hierarchy).
K99 applicant said
For K99, are we allowed to request the salary higher than the current one we have? When I prepared my budget with my admin, they told me to just request the maximal amount allowed by the IC (which for sure is much higher than my current salary provided by the non-federal postdoc fellowship).
writedit said
Aha. This is the problem. You cannot use the upper K99 limit to get a raise. ICs set higher limits to accommodate applicants from areas with high cost of living, such as San Francisco, New York, Boston, etc. The IC will base your salary support on what your institution currently pays you and others with your number of postdoctoral years. From the FOA: “The requested salary must be consistent both with the established salary structure at the institution and with salaries actually provided by the institution from its own funds to other staff members with equivalent qualifications, rank, and responsibilities in the department concerned.”
SB2010 said
You can request the maximum allowed salary but its not guaranteed. As writedit said IC’s determine the cap and they apply it. Although in my case we only requested my current salary which is well within my IC’s max. allowed salary limit, I still din’t get it. I am in a high cost of living city and on top of it I was asked for assurance that I wont get salary support from other career development grant and still ended up with a salary budget in NOA that was lower than my current/requested salary.
K99 applicant said
Oh okay. 😦 I live in a city with high cost of living. Unfortunately my current salary is whatever my postdoc fellowship pays me (which is slightly lower than NIH F32…) and my PI does not provide any supplement. I know this is common in academia. But I feel I’m underpaid and want to quit and go for industry. Anyways…Thank you writedit and SB2010 for your reply!
SMO said
I submitted a R21 proposal for a specific RFA (no published R21 paylines or guidance from the institute). It was scored 41, percentile N/A. I’ve submitted other NIH grant proposals, but nothing funded yet. Initial conversation after summary statement received – PO thought the review was really positive but it wouldn’t be funded and to plan for resubmission. Most recently it moved from council review completed to pending administrative review. Which often corresponds to something at least being considered for an award. I sent an inquiry to the PO and GMS about status. PO indicated GMS would respond to inquiry. GMS response was that ‘we have not yet received approval for funding at this time’ and then the status changed from pending administrative to council review completed in eRA. I don’t want to keep with inquiries as it seems the vagueness is deliberate, but it would be helpful to have some insight on what all this might mean.
SaG said
I’d go with what the PO told you. Though they could be considering reaching to pay it the odds might not be high. Sounds like the pending admin review was a mistake. The vagueness is on purpose. No PO wants to suggest that an app will be funded then have their boss (or their boss’ boss) say no.
writedit said
Yep, what SaG said. The GMS keeps track of application processing (PO not in that loop), so the GMS is the correct contact in this case, and someone could have opened your application to by accident or to change something quickly but left it pending (and you caught the status due to personal vigilance). If you have been struggling to get a fundable score, ask your PO for advice on your Introduction and revised aims and ask your mentor and colleagues to review this as well (and the Research Strategy – 6 pages should not be too much of a burden). If you are at an institution with a CTSA, this center or institute might be able to help you develop your applications, too.
Jason said
Can you help me understand if and how SBIR awards can move from one year to another? Currently, we have two SBIR Fast-track awards: one is in Phase I (6/20-11/20, $225k) and another in Phase II (1/20-12/20, $750k) — both with NIGMS and the same program officer. What happens if we don’t spend all of the money in 2020? Can we request for some of it to move to 2021? If so, how and when would we do that?
Brian said
I have a lot of experience with SBIRs, so I’ll try to help. First, the money is tied to the grant period defined in the NOA and not the calendar or fiscal year. Also, the Phase I portion of the Fast Track is an entirely separate grant from the Phase II portion. The Phase II portion itself is divided into two years, but will carry the same grant number for both years.
I do not believe you can carryover Phase I money into the Phase II portion for a Fast Track. I suggest either using the money or requesting a no-cost extension if you need time to complete the objectives. This would delay onset of your Phase II award, but should have minimal impact on the chance of Phase II funding (which is not 100% either way). I suggest talking to the PO if you want to explore this option. Also note that you cannot extend the timeline of the Phase I just because you have funds left over that you want to spend.
The Phase II is different. Generally, first year Phase II funds that have not been spent will carry over into the second year. I believe this will happen automatically, but someone will correct me if I am wrong. If the first year’s spending is less than 75% of the first year budget from the NOA, you will need to justify the under-spending in your RPPR report. There is a chance your funding could be cut, but I feel this is unlikely.
writedit said
Thank you for your very helpful reply, Brian! With the COVID-19 pause, POs should have more latitude with no-cost extensions and milestones, depending on the extent to which your work might have been affected (eg, access to lab suspended, supplies delayed, illness, shelter at home orders, etc.). I would recommend that you check in with your PO now so you can plan accordingly (everyone has been affected by the pandemic, including your PO, so you won’t be alone).
f32supplement said
What is the latest ballpark turn-around time for the NCI OGA to process extensions (in the form of admin supplements, which is with costs) that were reviewed by the NCI PO and leadership for about 1 month, then sent to OGA and obviously accepted for consideration 2 weeks ago?
Thanks,
Mike
writedit said
I truly have no idea. I know from other posts here that NCI has been very slow in award processing in general, probably due to the reduction in efficiency and workforce and other impacts of COVID-19. The only guarantee I can make is that you’ll have it before September 30. Hopefully much, much sooner, but it’s impossible to say when. I would definitely recommend that you not contact the GMS or PO about this. It sounds like you will receive the funding, and they will get to it as soon as they can – you’re asking won’t make anything happen any faster, so my only advice is to hurry up and wait.
NM2020 said
Dear writedit:
My first R01 application has been submitted today to NIH and I wonder if I need to do anything to qualify as a New investigator. I don’t qualify anymore as ESI, since I completed my PhD back in 2003, but do I still qualify as a New Investigator since this is my first R01 application? Is there any way that I can have this indicated in Era Commons or should I contact the program officer in this regard? Thank you very much in advance!
SaG said
It should automatically be noted in your Commons acct. when you sign up for it.
R01 said
Your PO will notice that you are a new investigator. You can also discuss with him once you get a good score/summary statement.
f32supplement said
Does anyone know how long it takes to have an NoA revised and reissued?
Thanks
writedit said
Waiting is tough, but it will take as long as it takes, especially with COVID-19 and the end of the FY scramble. The length of time depends on the workload of the GMS, what needs to be adjusted, and who needs to sign off on it.
f32supplement said
Writedit,
I appreciate the prompt responses and thorough feedback. COVID has thrown a wrench into everything.
SB2010 said
I recently got my NOA revised in 3 days. It took a week to hear back from GMS. As writedit mentioned, all the staff seem to be occupied with Cycle 3 grants and also those that are being considered for FY ending on top of delays caused by COVID-19.
Pjparker said
Is an R43/44 with a score of 28 fundable by NCI
writedit said
Possibly, but only your PO will be able to comment on this (after you have your summary statement). The question would be whether you need to prepare a resubmission, as no PO will be able to say if a score is “fundable” in FY21 (budget does not exist yet, though it does look promising for the NIH). If the PO advises preparing an A1 application, the next request would be for advice on strategy based on the summary statement and panel discussion (if PO “attended”).
PJParker said
Thank you. If the grant is going to September council, doesn’t it still fall under the 2020 budget, though?
writedit said
Aug-Sept-Oct Councils mainly approve applications for consideration for funding in Cycle 1 of the next FY (Dec 1 start date), though there are exceptions. For Cycle 3 SBIR applications, the start date can be in September (FY20) or December (FY21). I suspect the decision about whether to fund in FY20 or FY21 depends on the amount of money left in the SBIR program and the number of higher priority applications waiting for awards, but your PO can let you know for sure how your application will be handled and whether you should work on resubmission (likely yes if you won’t know until December or later).
Brian said
Typically, R43/R44 scores around 30 are borderline for most agencies. NCI can be tough, but I think you’re in decent shape. You’ll have to talk to the PO, as Writedit suggests. Unless s/he can give you a definite answer (which is not likely), I would prepare an A1 application.
f32supplementViper_78015 said
Though appearing obvious at face value, what does “Pending Administrative Review. Please contact your PO or GMS…..” actually translate into? Essentially, what is involved with a “pending administrative review”?
(This is for an admin supplement)
writedit said
It means they are processing the application for possible funding. Not a guarantee, but an award would only be in doubt (or delayed) if the administrative review turned up any duplicate funding for the same work, regulatory approval concerns, ineligibility, etc. Your PO or GMS will contact you if they need any information. In the meantime, you can sit tight and wait for an award update. Supplements are faster to process than full applications, but everything is a bit slower with COVID-19 and the end of the FY scramble, so the timing is hard to predict.
dp2 said
I submitted a DP2 application that received a score of 22. In late May/early June it looks like it was assigned to the Common Fund/NIGMS. I then received a JIT request about a month ago, which I responded to. Since then it has been sitting as “Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.” From reading replies above, I gather this means funding is being considered but is not guaranteed? We are inching closer to this year’s due date and I am trying to assess whether I should be preparing to resubmit, as it seems like the decisions for IC-funded grants come out too late to know in time…
writedit said
With that score, funding should be likely (though still not guaranteed, since decisions are made programatically, too). If your science is better suited for an IC other than NIGMS, it could be that the future administering IC is taking a while to process the transfer from GM and to process the award itself, though this is conjecture. COVID-19 and the end of the FY is making everything slower than usual. Your currently assigned PO (in NIGMS, I assume) might be able to say whether your application is being reviewed at GM or another IC, but they won’t know about funding certainty (the pending means you are being considered – potential reasons for not funding are out of the PO’s hands) or timing (POs are not in the application processing/approval loop even in their own IC).
dp2 said
Thank you for your insight. This blog is a great resource for the community. Apparently the world sensed my unease and the status of my application changed today to “Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.” To be helpful to future readers, the timeline was
5/29: Assigned Common Fund + NIGMS in eRA Commons
6/19: JIT request
7/16: Award prepared
writedit said
Congratulations and thanks for sharing this timeline of application processing milestones. You may still have a bit of a delay in the NoA (your application award now waits in line for final approval & sign off). Best wishes for success with your research.
DNAhappiness said
My grants managements specialist has been emailing my grants office this week asking for fine-grain financial details on a pending award for which I do not yet have an NoA. I know that this is a good sign of forward progress, but wonder if this sort of work takes place after all the sign-offs or if there will need to be a sign-off after this point. Any insights? Thank you.
writedit said
Good news, yes. Once any adjustments to this NoA have been made (depending on if there is any budgetary overlap and/or question of your available % effort), the GMS will put your award in line for review and approval by the Director (this is the delay between Award prepared and Notice of Award issued). The final final sign off comes at the very end.
DNAhappiness said
Thank you for this helpful information!
SJ said
Thanks for maintaining such a helpful and insightful website! We submitted a R01 grant in response to the PAR-20-178 call for COVID research and just received an impact score of 37. I know this score is not promising and maybe far from a fundable score, but would like know whether there is any information for this special request mechanism with regard to payline? Also, when would be a good timing to contact the PO? We are still waiting for the summary statement, but also don’t want to give PO impression that we don’t care. Lastly, if we receive the summary statement and there is no major concerns, does this mechanism allow for resubmission before the expiration date of August 10th? Thanks a lot.
writedit said
You definitely want to wait for your summary statement to contact the PO about next steps (there is no need for communication before then). This FOA only allows new applications, so you would not submit an A1, but because they shortened the expiration date from April 30, 2021 to August 14, 2020, I would not recommend submitting another new application to PAR-20-178, even if you have your summary statement in time to revise and submit again as new. The dramatically shortened submission window means they are not looking to fund more applications (especially repeat submissions not funded the first time in). You would be better off reworking the proposal for another FOA in consultation with the PO.
SJ said
Thank you very much for your information
DP2 Applicant said
Hi writedit, and Community
I am a DP2 applicant with a score of 20, and just found out I will not be funded by the common fund. Do you have thoughts on the likelihood of being picked up by an IC? I’ll be working on the submission for August nonetheless.
Thanks for your input
SaG said
Hmm, the Common Fund usually funds pretty much via score. And 20 seems like a very good score. Who told you that you weren’t going to be funded by the CF? If an IC is picking up your app your grant number will change. Has it?
Dp2 applicant said
Thank you for the feedback. No, unfortunately everything looks the same. I was told in the initial feedback call that I was in the “grey zone”. The summary statement seemed very favorable and concerns were addressed in 2 page rebuttal.
Ravi recently emailed saying I was not in the group to be funded by the common fund. The standard text in the email – which I think everyone who is not funded by the common fund received – says that ICs have the option of picking up applications over the next month.
SaG said
My best advice is try and figure out which institute is most relevant for funding your DP2 and contact a PO there. I have heard that lots of ICs fund DP2s at the last minute to use up end of year money.
writedit said
Thanks, SaG! I agree on reaching out t the most appropriate IC(s), especially your mentor’s PO(s), assuming they are in the same IC(s) and same area of research. If not (or in addition), I would suggest using your DP2 abstract in the Project RePORTER Matchmaker tool to identify the most likely IC-specific POs and then check each IC’s “contact by scientific area” website pages to confirm the best PO(s) based on their bios and grant portfolios.
K99 applicant said
At what point would you ask the SRO when the summary statement will be released? It is now 40 days after the study section met and I don’t have it yet. This is for a K99 that was discussed but received an unfundable score. Want to get started planning for the resubmission, but don’t want to be a pest (this is my first NIH grant).
writedit said
I assume you mean 40 calendar days vs 40 business days. Normally, you can expect it to take up to 6-8 weeks (but there is no official time by which they must be issued). With COVID-19, just about everything is taking longer. If you haven’t heard by mid-August, you could check in with the SRO – but that won’t necessarily speed anything up. In the meantime, you can focus on incorporating updates to your science and preliminary data since you applied and any new relevant training/skills that you could incorporate. This would be a good time to focus on getting manuscripts out, too.
Feri said
Dear writedit,
Always enjoy reading this blog and your comments have been invaluable For me.
I just saw my score posted for my R21 new application for NINDS that received a 16%. Based on their website It says that 16% is the Payline for all investigators but when I contacted my PO at NINDS, he said that they have set the pay at 14% without approved congressional NIH budget. So if the budget stays flat or decrease , this will be set at at 14% unless the budget increases which then it will go back to 16%. He ended his email with “ So not great news but hopefully it will work out.” I thanked him and also mentioned to him what I saw is written at NINDS website about the 2020 pay line and he hasn’t responded back which I don’t expect. Here is the information from their website. Please help me understand this! Do you think I should be hopeful? Thanks so much and all the best, Feri
NINDS Funding Strategy FY 2020
On December 20, 2019, President Trump signed H.R. 1865 Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 and NINDS and NIH received a full year appropriation. Though still awaiting final approval on NIH funding policy and details of the appropriation, NINDS is issuing this updated interim funding guidance based upon the expected final appropriation.
Competing Applications
The table below describes the paylines for different categories of new and competing applications. The payline applies to the following activities: R01, R03, R15, and R21. Applications within these paylines will be funded with rare, NANDS Council-approved exceptions.
Investigators General Pay Line
All Investigators 16%
Early Stage Investigators 25% (only R01s)
writedit said
Your application is for FY21. Although Congress is definitely planning on flat and possibly slightly increased appropriations for the NIH, nothing is certain until either the HHS-Labor-Education appropriation bill is signed into law or an omnibus bill funding the entire federal government is (or smaller omnibus bills). With the election and everything else that is going on, I can’t predict the likelihood of the NIH FY21 appropriation being signed into law by Oct 1, but I would say the odds are pretty low. Until the FY21 appropriation is signed into law, all ICs will operate at CR levels, which is 90% of the FY20 appropriation and no or very limited new awards until the FY21 appropriation arrives. This is why your PO is noncommittal but vaguely hopeful – but he has no other information or advice to help you and won’t until about 2 months after a President signs the federal budget into law, since it takes that long for money to trickle down to ICs – and they won’t know their exact appropriation until it passes down from HHS to NIH to IC (with $ skimmed off for administrative costs at each level). He didn’t respond to your comment on the FY20 funding strategy because it is not relevant to FY21 and is busy with urgent end-of-the-FY activities helping those with FY20 applications-awards. Still sounds like a good PO. You can watch the federal budget situation and the HHS appropriation bill especially, but you won’t know about funding likelihood until December or possibly next spring, so you would be well advised to submit an A1 in November, especially if nothing is happening with the federal budget. I think it would be a good idea to get in this fall under FY21 (which looks promising right now) rather than wait for FY22 (Feb/March 2021 applications).
Feri said
Thanks so much for the feedback Writedit! I now understand what’s happening.
davidzangao said
WriteIt:
My R01 revision was scored at 23% in June 2020; new investigator. I thought that it was not good enough and called the PO(nichd) in June. She encouraged me to revise and said all concerns are addressable. Today, I received her email:
“could you pls send response to all reviewer-identified weaknesses, no firm page limit but pls be concise, by end of month?
Thanks and best,”
Is this a good sign? Any advice? Thanks a ton!
writedit said
This is indeed good news. NICHD must have enough leftover funds for FY20 to start reaching for some R01s that it would like in its portfolio. Your PO sounds great, too, and she must have advocated for your application. You want to be quick like a bunny and get this off to her; 1-3 p would be good – the more concise, the better. You could send your 1-p Introduction for the A1 and a slightly longer, more comprehensive response, too. I would also suggest that you start working on JIT (especially if you need any approvals), since if (if) your application is picked for select pay, they would need to turn the award around by September 30th; you don’t want to submit JIT until it is requested (which it might not be – this isn’t a guarantee at all), but having it ready for rapid turnaround will be important.
davidzangao said
Writedit, thanks very much for your insightful advice. Zan
writedit said
You’re very welcome – I hope you get good news in the weeks ahead. I just realized you said this was a “revision”, though I’m not sure if you meant as a competitive supplement (Type 3 application) or a revised and resubmitted R01 application (Type 1 amended application or A1). Since there wouldn’t be an Introduction for the new (A0) submission of the prior A1 application, I would suggest you just prepare one response for your PO, keeping it concise but going over a page as needed to cover all concerns raised (no need to write as thank-you’s etc. as if for the study section – this is just for internal use at the IC).
davidzangao said
Yes. It was an A1. I will prepare one response as suggested by the PO and you. Thanks again, Zan
davidzangao said
writedit:
I received the advice from the PO “Thanks – for expediency’s sake, at this point I’d advise you to prepare for resubmission. Pls let me know if addn questions.” in early Sept. Later I asked if we still had the chance, she replied: “Not yet final decision but probably unlikely. ☹”
It seems that we won’t have much chance this year. Just to update. Thanks!
writedit said
Sorry you don’t have better news, but you have a great PO, so that is fantastic for the longer term.
DP5 round 2? said
Hi writedit and community,
I applied for a DP5 in September 2019 and am still waiting to hear about a final funding decision (not updates since I received my score in march). If my application is not funded I would like to reapply next cycle this upcoming September – does reapplying count against the institutional cap of 2 applicants per institution? Thank you!
writedit said
There is no resubmission – only new applications are accepted. You would submit a new application that would count as one of the two applications allowed from your institution.
DP5 round 2? said
Great to know, thank you for clarifying!
DP5 Applicant said
FYI, Common Fund decisions for DP5 applications came out by 7/17. If additional ICs pick up DP5 awards, they have until 8/7 to process them.
DP5 round 2? said
Thank you for letting me know, this is very helpful. I am keeping my fingers crossed but it sounds like I should switch my focus to resubmitting.
Kapplicant said
Hi Writedit,
I have submitted a K99 in cycle II last year, and the score is slightly above the payline. So I was kind of giving up hope on it getting funded. However, the status of my application has changed to “Pending” recently. And I was requested to submit JIT by the GM last week. PO told me that there is no guarantee whether my K will get funded. I am curious what is my chance here? And what will the NIH timeline be for such decision to be made?
Thank you.
writedit said
This is good news but not a guarantee. It means your IC has money left over that it needs to spend before September 30 (end of FY20), so they are reviewing many applications to be sure they have enough processed for rapid funding. No IC can carry over funds from one FY to the next, which is why there is always a flurry of last-minute application pick-ups in July-September. I assume you got your JIT in. You may not know for certain until late September (just before FY20 ends).
Kapplicant said
Thank you for your reply. I guess this is a select pay among all types of grant mechanism (Ks and Rs)? If so, is this kind of a long shot still?
writedit said
Yes, ICs are looking at all mechanisms and activity codes for select pay awards, but that doesn’t reduce your odds. Decisions now are made on programmatic priority.
Ryan Wu said
WriteIt:
My SBIR Phase 2 application (Sep 5, 2019) to NHLBI received an impact score of 28 (consideration range 10-40) without major concerns in Scientific review last November. It was not funded in February’s Council meeting, nor in the June Council meeting. I am wondering we can do next. We can certainly address the few minor concerns, but still run the risk to fail in next Council meeting.
Thank you!
writedit said
You want to talk with your PO about whether NHLBI is excited about and interested in your R&D, which is as big a factor as your score. If they are not interested in seeing this project continue to move forward, then there is no point in submitting again. If your PO is supportive, then the next conversation is how to make the next application more attractive to both reviewers and NHLBI program to be more competitive for an award.
Ryan said
Writedit:
Thanks a lot. I will ask the question to PO in next call.
tupanwe said
I submitted a revised K01 (A1) grant application March 2019. It was reviewed in June 2019 and my score was +6 above the pay line. I then resubmitted a revised application with more prelim data this May 2020 to the same institution. Late June 2020, I received an email from the Grants Management Specialist requesting for JIT of which I submitted two days after. The status changed to “Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist”. What does this mean? The PO is the same for my first submission, A1 and the recent submission. Should I contact him to discuss prospect for funding? or should I wait and see.
writedit said
As the end of the FY draws near (Sept 30), ICs need to spend their entire appropriation, so they start processing multiple additional applications to ensure all the money is spent. Your March 2019 A1 is being considered for funding after all (this is unrelated to your submission of the new A0 in May 2020). Your PO will not know the status of your March 2019 A1 in terms of funding likelihood, so there is no point in contacting them. Please just be sure to respond to the GMS quickly if you are contacted for additional information. If your March 2019 A1 receives an award, your May 2020 A0 will be withdrawn; if not, the May 2020 application will proceed to review as usual. And if the March 2019 A1 application does receive an award, be sure to thank your PO, who likely advocated for your application to receive additional consideration (without your being involved).
tupanwe said
Thank you Writedit for your insightful feedback!
I did submitted all the JIT information 2 days after I received an email from GMS. Since my application is being considered for select pay and the P0 is not involved at this stage, what could possibly go wrong not to get funding? This is my first experience with NIH funding.
writedit said
Your application is in a long line of applications waiting to be funded, so the money could run out before they get to yours. Usually, ICs do not request and process JIT information unless they intend to fund the application (save time and effort at NIH) – except at the end of the FY, when time is of the essence, and ICs would rather have more applications than they can fund ready for awards. An application ahead of yours may be skipped if the PI needs regulatory approval, duplicate/too much funding, or other JIT items that the IC does not have time to work out. The IC would like to fund you and will if the administrative review goes well and there is funding left when your application reaches the front of the line for award processing.
tupanwe said
I wanted to share my timeline for those who have applied or thinking of submitting a K application. Thank you Writedit for maintaining this blog. Your input and feedback has been extremely valuable.
Folks, this was my 2nd application of the 3 application. All in all DO NOT GIVE UP!
08/25/2020 Application awarded.
08/17/2020 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
06/30/2020 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
10/30/2019 Council review completed.
06/21/2019 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
03/18/2019 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
03/08/2019 Application entered into system
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you for sharing your timeline! Wow – you definitely had long periods of radio silence, which are really important to share, so thanks again. Best wishes for success with your career in biomedical research!
NGR said
Hi Writedit, Thanks for maintaining this great blog for a young researchers like me. I am an ESI, and a coronavirus researcher. I had submitted a R01 application to NIAID in Oct19 that scored 30%ile in Feb20. Reviewers comments were largely very positive I was told in May-20 that my PO is ” working to have my application funded as a select pay, but have not gotten approval yet for it. Will let me know if that changes, though!”. I had asked if I needed to resubmit or provide rebuttal. I wasn’t suggested to do either. I would’ve resubmitted in July if was told to do so. I recently emailed my PO requesting an update on the grant application, but didn’t hear back. I appreciate if you could provide some insight on what to expect and how to approach further given end of FY is close.
writedit said
If your status is still Council review completed and you have not been asked for JIT, you might want to try to call your PO – but also start thinking about a November A1 (and getting in a manuscript that supports your application). Missing the July deadline is unfortunate but not the end of the world, especially if the extra time allows you to strengthen your application with additional data or a manuscript accepted. Unless Congress manages to pass appropriation bills before the election, I expect FY21 will be pretty chaotic, with the first cycle applications especially quite delayed, and possibly cycle 2 (June-July) as well. The key will be to resubmit this fall, and you’ll have plenty of notice since the FY ends September 30. However, there is definitely still time for your application to be funded via select pay.
NGR said
Thank you! My application status still is “Council review completed” and I have not been asked to submit a JIT. I am surprised PO didn’t suggest me to resubmit despite asking about it 3-times (may be PO is occupied with COVID stuff). I will plan to resubmit in the fall. How late select pays are awarded and do you think 30% is at higher end to consider for select pay for an ESI (and coronavirus) application.
I appreciate your help!
writedit said
The select pay decision can come any time up until September 30 (but processing of your application would need to start much earlier). If you contacted your PO three times about whether to resubmit in July and never heard back, you might want to contact the PO’s branch/division chief for advice. This seems unusual for a PO who had been encouraging about select pay and in fact did not advise you to resubmit (most POs do not want to risk an investigator’s funding situation by not recommending resubmission if an award is not certain). If something has happened related to COVID-19, you may not have any way of knowing this, which is why I would suggest you politely contact whomever oversees the branch or section in which your PO is located (check on IC website) to explain your situation as you have here and to seek an update on your application and recommended next steps (including whether your PO is available or should you start working with another PO).
Shinny Purple Eagle said
Dear Writedit, I was told from the PO that my K99 is going to be funded. I had proposed a 100% effort for my K99 proposal and made a reduction to 75% in the previous JIT. A couple of days ago, the PM sent me an email to confirm the reduction of 25% or I want to stay with 100%. I was wondering whether the reduction will affect the funding opportunity, or to play safe, I should stick to 100%? Thank you so much for your help
writedit said
The question is why did you request the change from 100% to 75%. You will need to explain the change and demonstrate that this will not interfere with your ability to complete everything proposed. The study section reviewed your application assuming 100% effort on your part, and your PO will need to determine if such a significant change in effort (25% is considered significant) affects your ability to achieve the aims as reviewed. This will be especially true if you are filling this 25% with another project or other duties that could detract from your ability to focus on the awarded project and training (conversely, a new complementary project funded by another source that arose recently should be okay – though it sounds like this is not the case, since you can still go back to 100% apparently). Also, keep in mind that the money saved in salary will not be allocated elsewhere (ie, your award will just be smaller).
k-advice said
Dear Writeedit,
I submitted an A1 application for a K-award. After receiving the summary statement, I contacted the PO to ask if the application might be in competitive range for funding (the institute does not post a payline). The PO said that once the summary statements for all study sections have been released, he will be informed of the competitive range.
I was wondering if you might have a sense of how many months I should expect that process to take, e.g. are we likely talking 1-2 months or 3+ months?
Also, is there anything I might glean from the POs response that he needs to wait for all study sections to release their summary statements before responding? I didn’t realize that K paylines can be affected by the scores of applications reviewed in other (non-K) study sections and was wondering if that’s typical.
Thank you for this amazingly helpful resource!
writedit said
You should always wait for a summary statement before contacting a PO. They will never (because they cannot) offer any feedback on a score without a summary statement to convey the nature of reviewer concerns. Summary statements are usually available 6-8 weeks after scores are posted, but with COVID-19, a lot of NIH processes are much slower. Unlike scores, which are posted all at the same time, the SRO will issue summary statements as they are ready, so the timing of your summary statement will depend on where you are in line. There is nothing to glean yet until you have a summary statement. Even then, because this will be for FY21, your PO will not have a definitive answer, because the NIH does not know for sure what its budget will be – or when it will receive funding. Given the political climate and upcoming election, it is unlikely a federal budget be signed into law until next year, which means the NIH will operate on a continuing resolution that provides 90% of the FY20 budget (most ICs do not make any/many new awards during a continuing resolution). You will have your summary statement in time to prepare a new A0 application for October, if your PO recommends doing this (which is likely, if there is any question about funding, for insurance, since it could be many months before the PO has an answer).
k-advice said
Thanks very much for the reply, it sounds like I should plan on submitting an A0 in October.
Sorry if I was unclear, but I had already received and reviewed my application’s summary statement before contacting the PO with my question. The PO responded that he will be informed of the competitive range only after the summary statements for all study sections have been released, and I was wondering how to interpret the PO’s response and also around how long it may take for all other study sections’ summary statements to be released.
writedit said
Aha – well, no way of knowing how long it will take for all summary statements to be released, but you can assume at least 8 weeks from study section meeting dates and perhaps longer. Your PO wants to review the spread of scores and the summary statements of everyone else who is in the same boat as you (upper end or just over likely future payline) to see which reviews are most supportive of select pay likelihood (but no matter what, the PO won’t be able to guarantee anything for FY21).
Fred said
Hi,
Great website with awesome information! I wanted to run things related to two grants:
1. R21: I submitted an A1 that received a 3rd percentile (payline has been around 9-10%) with a start date of July 1st. I emailed my PO around the start date and was told “it is on a signed funding plan.” As of today (about 3-4 weeks) eRA commons just says “pending” and no JIT request from GMS as well. Little nervous but maybe things r just delayed with COVID? I always stories how a well scored grant didn’t up getting funded. I also wasn’t sure what a signed funded plan, I assume that is not a NOA like thing?
2. R03: for K awardees via NHLBI and received a 33 for A0. PO mentioned it was “very good score.” However I submitted a A1 which was due a day before the council met to be on the safe side. I received a GMS JIT request for the A0 which I submitted 1.5 weeks ago and eRA commons just has “pending.” Is this a good sign? Also for JIT they asked for the IACUC, support page and my response page. The JIt request came in about a 1-2 weeks after council so that seems like a good sign?
writedit said
You can be optimistic about both applications. The R21 is almost certainly a victim of COVID-19 delays. The July 1 start date is not an expiration date, and the IC has until Sept 30 to issue an award. The R03 is also likely to be funded, pending the review of your JIT (“Pending” = “Pending administrative review”). It was a good idea to submit an A1 for insurance, but this can easily be withdrawn if/when the A0 NoA is issued. Again, the timing is not an issue – everything is taking longer, and both applications can be funded any time up until Sept 30. Now, I assume you have enough effort for the K, R21, and R03 – the administrative review for each application will consider all 3 awards and what it means for your effort.
Researcher said
Hi Fred, I also received an impact score of 33 for my NHLBI R03. Did you find out from your PO what previous year impact scores have been funded by NHLBI? I did see a high success rate of 80% which is promising! I haven’t been able to find any information online. Thanks!
Fred said
Hi, I did ask but didn’t get a firm answer. I think this particular R03 was inactive for little (had a friend who go it when he was at the tail end of his K with a IS of around 45 when they had this) and I submitted mine in the first date around 11/19 or so when they restarted this so we’ll see. Based my conversation with the PO it seems like as long as it has a decent score, they will programmatically pick but that is my guess.
Researcher said
Hi Fred,
Thanks for your response. I heard back from a PO who said that R03s don’t go by funding lines because it’s an RFA (compared to parent mechanisms that use a payline). NHLBI sets aside funds and has funding for ~21 applications in FY21 (or 7 applications per cycle). They said a score of 33 is in a pretty good spot especially since NHLBI leadership has been so supportive of the R03. So promising news for both our applications!
writedit said
The PO cannot help with submitted applications, so you would need to communicate with eRA Commons. it’s hard for me to tell what you mean about a collaborator, since career development awards don’t involve co-investigators (and letters should be submitted by people familiar with you and your work). I assume you do not mean a mentor. If this person was not flagged as inappropriate in the first application, their letter for the A1 should be fine, too (and won’t invalidate a good score).
Salchi said
Dear Writedit,
It is my impression that the percentile score is what counts if one receives both the impact score and the percentile. Am I correct?
I found in your great website that the R01 ESI payline for NIAID is 31 and for NIMH is about three-quarters of the applications under the 20th percentile, many ESI/NI applications up to the 25th percentile. I received an impact score of 14 for my ESI R01 application (I selected NIMH and NIAID). Could I be cautiously optimistic?
Salchi said
* Percentile is 14.
writedit said
If you were just scored, then your application will be considered in FY21, so the paylines are not known yet, but I expect they will be similar, if the current appropriation drafts are eventually signed into law. Paylines for FY21 probably won’t be known until next year (not until after President signs federal budget into law). The percentile is generally the metric for funding decisions, along with programmatic priority (especially at NIMH). The secondary IC (NIAID – I assume) doesn’t come into play unless NIMH decides not to fund your application and NIAID is sufficiently interested (their paylines don’t apply – they won’t accept the application unless they want it, which is rare for secondary assignments).
ImmanK said
I received a score of 31 on a K24 to NHLBI. Payline for K awards is 32. Can I be optimistic it will be funded? The start date is 9/1/20, and will Council need to approve it?
writedit said
If your application was just reviewed, your application will be for FY21 (what you put for a start date doesn’t matter – it’s up to the IC, and it’s not an expiration date). The next Board meeting will be August 25, and with only a month thereafter before the end of the FY (Sept 30), NHLBI won’t be able to process a lot of awards for FY20. If the current draft appropriation bill for NIH is reflected in the federal budget signed into law later this year or (more likely) next year, then the paylines should be about the same. Still, when you have your summary statement (if you don’t already), you will want to talk with your PO about next steps, including whether you should resubmit for insurance, in case the payline does drop.
ImmanK said
I am still waiting to hear about my K24 that was submitted in Feb 2020 and scored at 31. In November, I did speak with PO who said the score was within payline for career awards and approved at the recent council meetings. But that because of the budget, they could not move anything forward with NHLBI grants administration. When should I follow-up and what type of timeline can I expect? Should I just wait?
writedit said
ICs received their appropriations within the past week or so. I would expect NHLBI to start moving soon. If you have not submitted JIT yet, you could ask your PO if you should do that now. If you have already submitted your JIT, you can just wait (your PO cannot speed up processing or give you an estimated timeline since they are not involved with administrative processing of applications).
ImmanK said
I received an official JIT request from NHLBI on June 15, 2021 for this A0 K24 application submitted Feb 2020. I was in the process of resubmitting since the payline dropped, but have decided not to. Hoping to get good news soon.
writedit said
You’re still above the payline, of course, but the JIT request is good news. It means they have made all their top-pick awards for each cycle and are now picking up one or two more applications at the end of the FY. You might want to check with your PO as to whether you should submit anyway next week. The application can easily be withdrawn if an award comes through, but if your PO is confident, then you’re good.
ImmanK said
K24 Application was funded last week. Submitted 2/20, reviewed in July 2020, and had to wait until many other funding decisions were made. Timeline was long! I kept in touch with PO throughout which was helpful. Hope this is helpful.
writedit said
Finally! (especially after you were initially optimistic about a Sept 2020 start) I am glad the A0 squeaked through with select pay. Congratulations and best wishes for success with your own research and mentoring others!
Kobe said
Hi writedit, thanks for maintaining this resource.
My PO mentioned my A0 is likely to receive select pay in the next few weeks and that I may want to start preparing JIT for when an official request comes. However the letter of intent for my A1 is due before I could hear back about my A0. Should I submit an A1 LOI, or does this make my A0 less attractive?
writedit said
A letter of intent is not required (only used to help anticipate the response and review needs), nor is it binding. It won’t affect anything with regard to the status of the A0, but since your PO is so positive, I would suggest you skip the LOI. I assume the PO is the same as the one associated with the FOA, so they will understand if you learn that you need to submit the A1 after the LOI deadline passes (without responding) and be able to communicate the reviewer needs to the SRO (and the same would be true if your PO is not listed in the FOA in terms of communicating with the SRO about review planning).
>
Sunny said
Hi writedit, I just found this great website and resource, and have a couple related questions.
My RO1 was just converted to a one-year R56 grant starting in August, as it is already A1 version, which cannot be resubmitted, for the next step, shall I submit it as a new application or renewal? I prefer to renew if it’s allowed so I will have one extra month to prepare for it. And when I renew, do I request continuous funding for another 4 years or 5 years as a regular RO1?
In the renewal, can I just refine the same three aims of the original RO1 instead of proposing new hypotheses and new set of aims as we do for regular RO1 renewal? The reason why I ask is that I only have three months before the 11/5 due date, it’s very difficult for me to collect sufficient preliminary data for new aims. I am guessing that I should ask for another 4 years to continue working on my original RO1, which is impossible to be completed in one year.
Thanks for your advice!
writedit said
You will submit a new A0, not a renewal (not allowed, so all of your renewal-specific queries are moot). Because you should be using the R56 to obtain additional data to address concerns with the R01 application for which the R56 is awarded, you probably don’t want to submit in October, since you will have had funding for at most a month. Although you are allowed to submit in October, I would recommend waiting until February to be sure you can address all concerns with a strong new Type 1 A0 submission and perhaps get a manuscript in before then. If the prior study section liked your aims, then you would only need to modify them based on any additional new data. Your PO can give you advice on the timing and focus of your next R01 application, too.
Sunny said
Thanks for your suggestions! If I submit a new A0 next February, then there will be a gap between the end of R56 (end of July, 2021) and the start of next RO1 (Sept. or Dec., 2021) if awarded. Can I ask for no cost extension of this R56 by then? I do have a new paper published in March, but missed the deadline of submitting to the prior study section review meeting, so can be used as part of the accomplishment of R56. However, this new paper is part of Aim 3 of the original RO1, so the reviewers would think this aim has been almost completed. I’ll have to come up with at least one new aim anyway. What a dilemma!
NIAIDFan said
Yes; the first year no-cost-extension (usually considered to be automatic in academic settigns) on an R56 at the level of your institution’s grants management office with justification are allowed. In my undestanding, extending it even further requires the permission from your institute at the NIH (usually handled by the PO). Thanks.
Sunny said
Thanks a lot, very helpful!
writedit said
As NIAIDFan said (thank you!), you can get the NCE on your R56. Now, if you already have an additional publication that would strengthen your next Type 1 A0 submission, you could go for an October deadline – but as you note, you would need to revise/replace Aim 3 to avoid proposing any science reported in the paper – but the paper will be helpful in further establishing the significance-feasibility-rigor of your work. Again, I would suggest you talk with the PO for advice on how to handle the next application, both timing and substance.
Sunny said
Great, thanks for the suggestions! I wrote to the PO today for advice. Love this website and recommended to my friend immediately, thanks for your quick responses too.
BV-2020 said
Below is the timeline for my R15 grant. Thank you so much for maintaining this website. Extremely valuable!
Timeline for an A0 NHLBI R15 application
10/24/19: Application entered (cycle III)
11/06/19: Scientific review group pending. Refer any questions to the scientific review administrator
2/03/20: Date of the study section
2/07/20: Scientific review group complete: council review pending. Refer any questions to program official (note: the program official was not listed in the summary statement). Impact factor 24 (no percentile).
2/21/20: Request for JIT
2/26/20: Summary statement available
3/26/20: Name of the program official became populated on the status information page (found out, by phone communication, that the program official was assigned at this time)
6/09/20: Date of the council meeting
6/15/20: Council review completed
6/22/20: Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to program official or grants management specialist.
6/23/20: Contacted by GMS to request additional JIT.
7/22/20: Award prepared, refer questions to Grants Management Specialist
7/29/20: Application awarded (Notice of Award [NOA])
Note that there were many times that updates were populated first on the status information page, and days later on the status results page.
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you so much for sharing your annotated timeline! Best wishes for success with your research.
Becks said
Hi,
I have a quick question about submitting two different K proposals to two different institutes simultaneously. For example, can I submit two different K99 proposals to NIA and NCI simultaneously? Thank you for your help in advance!
SaG said
Unlikely. the K99 FOA states, The NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time. An individual may not have two or more competing NIH career development applications pending review concurrently. In addition, NIH will not accept:
.
An application that has substantial overlap with another application pending appeal of initial peer review (see NOT-OD-11-101).
Cant see how you can propose 2 sufficiently different projects.
writedit said
SaG is correct – and this applies to almost every NIH application (you cannot submit duplicate science in simultaneous applications – whether via different activity codes, to different ICs, or to NSF). Both ICs would know about both applications, and aside from the prohibition of submitting two career development award applications cited by SaG, the ICs would not appreciate your submitting an application that could be a total waste of time for their reviewers (if you accept award at other IC). You will need to go back to these ICs for funding throughout your career and do not want to start off with a black mark to your name. You should talk with POs at each IC to gauge their interest in your work and seek their advice and decide which to target. Finally, if you really have two fully independent projects in different labs both with publication track records, you might want to be looking at a different activity code (and probably don’t need more postdoc training).
tiramisuxxx said
Dear writedit, thank you for your previous help on my questions about my K99 applicaiton. I got the NOA a few weeks ago! In my original application I requested for 100% effort but I have requested to reduced it to 85% effort and have gotten the approval. The GMO said that they will now issue a new NOA. Do you know whether they will reduce the entire budget package by 15%, or will they just reduce the keypersonnel salary and fringe by 15%? Thank you very much!
tiramisuxxx said
I forgot to say that the effort reduction is only for the first K99 year. I requested to keep 15% on an ongoing project that has been stalled during COVID-19. Thanks!
SaG said
Your budget shouldn’t change. Percent effort and salary drawn are 2 separate things. You cant take more salary then your effort but you can take less. Unless, like some Med Schools, they force you to take salary that = your effort.
writedit said
Yes, as SaG notes, you will have the lower salary level, but nothing else will (should) be changed. Congratulations on the award and best wishes for success with your career in biomedical research.
tiramisuxxx said
Thank you SaG and writedit. Once I get the new NOA I will post my timeline here. It takes so long to finally be able to “take the champagne out from the fridge”.
Sunny said
Dear writedit, my PO responded to my question about the transition from A1 R56 to RO1, you are right that the A1 R56 is not renewable, so I will submit a new application. The new A0 should be the continuation of the R56 project. If I receive a fundable score on the new A0 (or its A1), the new award will be for 4 years and not 5 because the R56 is considered as Year 1 of the new grant. He did not answer my other questions which I would ask your advice: 1). If I submit the new application next February and it gets funded, the earliest start date is September, or most likely December, then it will be a 4-month gap after the R56 ends (7/31/2021), or even longer if awarded on A1 version, is a gap allowed between R56 and next RO1? I want to have more time to polish my application, rather than rushing to meet a receipt date. 2). for the new application, shall I use the same project title and include a progress report for R56, same as regular RO1 renewal, so the reviewers know I am applying for the continuation of the previous RO1 project? Thank you!
writedit said
I’m glad the PO could help with your earlier questions. Yes, there can be a gap (and there usually is) between the R56 and R01. If you have funds to carry over, you can do that, but the gap does not affect the likelihood of the A0 or A1 being funded (same is true for a renewal – a break between budget periods does not affect the project itself). It is up to you whether to keep the title or modify it to reflect any new data and focus you might have, but you cannot include a progress report. The ASSIST application will not allow this for anything but a Type 2 application, and you cannot try to add it as another attachment. You can certainly highlight progress made with the R56 funding (you do not have an R01 project to continue), to demonstrate to reviewers that you have been productive in moving the project and science forward. This will just be part of your 12-p limit and integrated with the usual 3 components, depending on where the new data best strengthen your application (demonstrating significance of the work, highlighting innovation of your ideas or techniques, and/or showing the feasibility and logic of your experimental design and plan).
Sunny said
Thanks a lot for your clarification and suggestions! I guess that I don’t need to include an introduction page either to address the critiques from the reviewers of the R56. In fact, the reviewers for the next cycle won’t be able to see the previous summary statement and proposals, unless the new application is assigned to the same reviewers, right?
writedit said
Even then, they won’t be able to see it. Reviewers don’t see any prior summary statements except for A1s, and they don’t see prior proposals. Reviewers must destroy all materials after the study section meeting, and even if a reviewer who was on the panel when your last application was reviewed remembers your proposal, they must judge the scientific merit of the current application on its own, with no consideration to what has happened previously (ie, receiving the R56 does not predispose reviewers to look on your A0 favorably and has no bearing on whether you will receive a subsequent R01 – not all R56 awards convert to full R01 awards). You should make no assumption that you will receive an R01 – you need to receive a competitive score on the basis of scientific merit, just like any other application.
House Atreides said
Hello writedit!
As a student who had never before applied for NIH funding, your blog has been a constant source of advice and encouragement throughout my entire Kirschstein-NRSA F31 application process (NIA). I am immensely grateful to you and your posters for the resource you have created together. Below is a timeline of my F31 application odyssey; I hope it’s as useful to other grant applicants as so many of the timelines on your blog have been for me.
A0 Application (Initial Submission):
4/08/2019 Status: “Application entered into system”
4/26/2019 Status: “Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator”
6/13/2019 Study Section meeting date
6/17/2019 Status: “Scientific Review Group review completed. Refer any questions to Program Official”
7/09/2019 Status: “Summary Statement available” (Impact Score: 42)
7/31/2019: Phone conversation with PO who recommended I consider working on a resubmission
08/04/2020 Status: “Application withdrawn: previous application funded” (see below)
A1 Application (Resubmission):
12/9/2019 Status: “Application entered into system”
12/23/2019 Status: “Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator”
2/27/2020 Study Section meeting date
3/2/2020 Status: “Scientific Review Group review completed. Refer any questions to Program Official”
3/14/2020 Status: “Summary Statement Available” (Impact Score: 24)
3/18/2020 Phone conversation with PO regarding funding probability. PO stated that funding probability was reasonable based on reviewer comments and impact score
4/3/2020 Email on behalf of PO requesting response to reviewer comments in Summary Statement
4/27/2020 Response to Summary Statement submitted
5/29/2020 Email conversation with PO regarding expected funding decision timeline. PO mentioned that she had recommended the application move forward and expected funding decisions would be made in June or July
7/2/2020 JIT information requested (email sent directly to our department’s Pre-Award Administrator)
7/6/2020 Status: “Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist”
7/8/2020 JIT deadline
7/24/2020 Status: “Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist”
08/4/2020 Status: “Fellowship awarded”
writedit said
Wow – thanks for submitting this well-annotated, very helpful timeline of your fellowship saga, and congratulations on your award! Best wishes for success with your doctoral program and career in biomedical research.
K applicant said
Hi writedit
I got a JIT request from NIAAA GMS in mid-June and submitted within a week. My application status was changed to “Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist”.
After a week, my PO asked me to turn in the data sharing plan and I submitted it to both PO and GMS in mid-July. The GMS replied to me right away and said he will check with my PO for confirmation of acceptance and approval.
After that, I have not heard back from GMS and PO. My status is still “Pending administrative review”. Is it okay if I email my PO to check? Or should I wait longer because of COVID-19?
Thank you!
writedit said
I would suggest you just wait. Everything – at every IC – is taking longer due to COVID-19, plus they are busy with the end of the FY scramble. I suspect your data sharing plan was fine, and your application is in line for approvals outside the GMS’s control (and your PO is not involved at all in application processing or award preparation). If you are still pending by mid-August (end of next week or early the week after), you could check with the GMS to ask whether anything more is needed. I doubt it though – this is definitely the season of hurry up and wait.
R01 said
In the same boat with 2 pending (JIT submitted in June-July) at NIAAA. It could happen in the second half of August hopefully or as late as in September.
writedit said
Thanks for chiming in, and congrats on your two pending awards. Your experience also lets folks know that they don’t need to avoid submitting multiple applications in the same cycle.
DNAhappiness said
I am having a similar experience. I submitted the JIT info in June and then mid-July my grants office received requests from the GMS for clarification of small details. Even after that my status didn’t change from Pending Administrative Review to Award Prepared until July 28 and there is no NoA yet. I keep coming here to reassure myself by seeing others report their experiences of waiting.
DNAhappiness said
Update: Notice of Award came today, 8/7/2020.
writedit said
Awesome – congratulations and thanks for sharing your experience to help alleviate the concerns of others who are still waiting. Best wishes for success with your research!
DNAhappiness said
Thank you!! This blog is the best resource ever.
Morningside said
Dear writedit,
I have a general question, is the budget for the subcontract sent to the grantee institute as part of a whole package or directly to the subawardee from NIH? My GMS said the subcontract will be in place, but the money we received (NOGA issued on 7/27) did not include that for subaward, the subaward PI did not receive notice from NIH either, shall we just wait? Please advise, thank you!
Brian said
I am not writedit, but in my experience the subaward goes through the prime grantee. All of my NOAs show the subaward amounts.
Morningside said
Thank you, Brian, for your response.
writedit said
The subaward details will be on the PI’s NoA, because the PI is responsible for that work being done and progress being reported as part of the annual RPPR. You can contact the GMS to see if there was an administrative hold-up on issuing the subcontract award (ie, missing IACUC or IRB approval or other required documentation). If so, the subaward will be made when any required documentation is in hand. If there is no obvious reason for the delay, then you do want to contact the GMS for clarification and guidance.
Morningside said
Thank you, I’ll follow up with the GMS.
ESI said
How often does an official JIT request (i.e., not the automated email) result in funding? What about for applications that were outside the payline, but have been identified for possible select pay?
writedit said
Often but not always. At the end of the FY, decisions are made based on both programmatic priority and which awards can be made quickly (no regulatory approval needed, simple administrative review). Because ICs must spend their entire budget by September 30th, they need to have a certain number of applications reviewed and ready for award (ie, JIT processed in advance), so they can quickly spend down their funding on science of interest (payline not relevant at this point). This year, it is probably especially chaotic between the late receipt of the main federal appropriation (Feb-March) and the infusion of COVID-related supplemental funding in April-May. Whether you receive an award depends on how much $ is left by the time your application gets to the top of the list.
R01 PI said
Dear writedit,
This is a very helpful blog! I am a seasoned investigator but learned a lot here. My score for NIDDK R01 A1 is right right at the 2020 payline of 16%-tile. My PO told me that this grant would be paid from 2021 appropriations. How likely that the 16th-tile for NIDDK will hold in 2021?
And when will the funding situation for 2021 become more clear? Many thanks for any information.
writedit said
FY20 paylines should hold. Despite the struggling economy and trillions in coronavirus relief funding, the House passed an appropriation for the NIH that includes a 1% increase in the base appropriation plus another $5B in one-time “emergency” appropriations. The Senate hasn’t begun work on any appropriation bills but is likely to support the House levels (no cuts, certainly). No guarantees, since nothing is especially normal right now, but based on the spending bill status currently, you should have a reasonable shot at an award. Now, the federal budget will almost certainly be significantly delayed due to the election, and final paylines may not be reached until even later, so you still may want to submit again (as A0) for insurance (or at least get another project in), since you don’t want to wait until late spring or summer 2021 to discover that you might not get an award.
Parying for NOAs? said
Thanks so much putting this info together, Writedit! Incredibly helpful. Re NIDDK Paylines, do they like other institutes typically post very conservative interim Paylines? I see NIAID has interim FY21 up. Im sitting at a 11% A1 and this budgetary uncertainty has me going crazy.
writedit said
Yes, ICs are very conservative at the outset of an FY if they don’t have their appropriation yet (which is usually the case), since they do not want to be forced to lower paylines later if they do not receive the anticipated amount of funding – which did happen for at least one IC during the year some of the FY budget was sequestered (eg, they started with a payline of 12 and lowered it to 10 later in the FY). If ICs post interim paylines, they can raise them later and go back and pick up additional awards from earlier cycles that were within the later, higher payline. Right now, I expect the FY21 paylines to be about the same as FY20 (possibly better, but I also assume more applications were submitted than normal during the pandemic, which could offset any extra IC appropriation $). Your PO cannot guarantee funding, but they can comment on whether you should resubmit (out of necessity or for insurance).
DNAhappiness said
Dear writedit, do you have insight on the difference between a project period and a budget period? I received an NoA today. My application was a competitive renewal and the project period is listed as if I’ve had continuous funding for two grant periods, starting on 6/1/2015 but my budget period starts on 8/15/2020. It seems like I lost 2.5 months of time to work on the project. Am I understanding this correctly?
writedit said
The budget period starts when the award is made, and next year, the budget and project periods should match (easier to administer the award, including RPPRs, if the renewal project period matches the original project period start-end). You shouldn’t have lost anything. If you had funds carried over from the prior project period, your competitive renewal will be reduced by this amount for the first year (and you’ll have been able to keep working). If you had no carryover funds to use over the past couple of months, and you do not spend your Year 1 money by the end of the budget period, these funds will carry over (so you might eventually have an extra couple months to work at the end of the project period through carry over funding).
DNAhappiness said
Thanks, writedit, I was thinking of lost time, not lost money, because of the first “year” actually only being 8.5 months. Your comments are helpful.
AnxiousSJ said
Dear Writedit, do you have any insight about tracking the status of administrative supplement application? I submitted a admin supp application in response to NOT-AG-20-022 in late April and the status showed as “accepted for consideration” sometimes ago. But I could not track the status anymore a couple of weeks ago in the eRA commons, only my parent grant is listed there. At some point, the GMS did request some budget clarification and IACUC document from our OSP. Does this mean the admin supp application is not considered anymore since nothing can be tracked now in the eRA commons? Thanks a lot for your information.
writedit said
If the GMS requested clarification, then they are processing your application; whether you receive the supplement will likely depend on whether the IACUC and budget information is acceptable. The awards are made internally, so you probably won’t see your eRA status change if/until an award is made. This can happen any time up until September 30, so that is when you will know for sure that you are not receiving an award. You can ask the PO if your administrative supplement is going to receive an award, so you know it’s status in terms of being on the paylist, but the PO won’t know when you might receive an award, if you are scheduled to be funded (everything on the grants management end is taking a long time due to COVID-19, and POs are not involved in award processing).
AnxiousSJ said
Thanks so much for your information.
R36 said
There isn’t a lot of information the R36 mechanism so I thought I’d post my timeline here.
07/15/2020 Awarded
07/08/2020 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
05/20/2020 Just in Time request (from GMS)
05/13/2020 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
05/12/2020 Council review completed.
02/21/2020 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
11/27/2019 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
11/18/2019 Application entered into system
writedit said
Fantastic – thank you so much for sharing your experience and information with the community! Some might be interested in your impact score, too, since there are no public paylines for this activity code. Congratulations and best wishes for success with your doctoral project and career in biomedical research!
R36 said
Thank you!
My impact score was a 27. When I spoke to my PO after receiving the summary statement, they were optimistic and said it was within the fundable range, but could fall on either side of the funding line. This was in contrast to my A0 application with an impact score of 38, for which I was strongly encouraged to resubmit.
writedit said
Aha – great intel on the R36 funding thresholds. Thanks again for sharing your experience!
R36 said
Hey,
Thanks so much for posting this. Hardly any info on success rates for the R36 online. Which branch did you apply for (NIA;AHRQ; NIMH; NIDA), and By any chance did they tell you what the impact score cut off was?
Susharla said
Dear Writedit,
I have a SC1 grant (my IC is NIGMS). Would I be eligible to apply for an administrative supplement on my current SC1 grant as per https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-18-591.html to cover cost increases associated with achieving new research objectives within the original scope of the peer reviewed and approved project? I am confused because NIGMS does not usually give administrative supplement on SC1 grants (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-GM-17-001.html), but hoping that Pandemic situation may be treated differently. I will greatly appreciate response and suggestions.
writedit said
If you look at PA-18-591, you’ll see the NIGMS Notices of Special Interest (NOSI). The current GM NOSI for this PA focuses on equipment purchases for NIGMS-funded R01, R35, and R37 awards. You want to contact your PO first (and this is true for anyone applying for any supplement – always talk with the PO first) to discuss whether NIGMS would accept your request.
Susharla said
Thanks, Writedit for your response. I am waiting for my PO’s response.
SmallFishBigPond said
Dear Writedit,
Thanks so much for maintaining this great grant website, on which I have learned a lot. I have two different but related questions:
1. Is it rule of thumb that a proposal should be submitted as a new application rather than a resubmission if not discussed plus the reviewers’ scores are also bad. If so, should I submit it to a different study section to further avoid the same reviewers?
2. Is there any bad impact on the proposals if I have two R21s in the same study section for the same cycle? I am PI on one and multiple PI on the other one. What if part of the methodology for the two proposals are similar?
Thank you very much for your feedback.
writedit said
For #1, no specific rule, but often it is better simply to submit a new A0, since there was no prior discussion to address (the main point of the Introduction for A1s). You should change study sections if there is one better suited to review your application – not just to avoid the prior reviewers. If they were the appropriate reviewers (but your application had too many weaknesses), you definitely won’t do better in an inappropriate SRG, and CSR would probably change the assignment if the requested panel wasn’t appropriate. You should concentrate on thoroughly revising the last application, using what you learned from the individual reviewers, and contact a PO about both your aims and study section recommendations (ie, stick with current SRG or request a new one). POs know all the potentially appropriate study sections for projects in their portfolio. You can also paste your abstract in both the Project RePORTER Matchmaker tool and the CSR Assisted Referral Tool. If you haven’t communicated with a PO about this application, I would suggest touching base as part of your resubmission planning. 2. Reviewers are instructed to review each application on the basis of its scientific merit. It is up to the ICs, not the SRGs, to decide if they want to fund two applications for the same PI in the same cycle (which does happen – not often but regularly). As long as the aims and objectives are distinct, an overlapping methodology applied to two different projects should be fine. No one can give a definitive answer without knowing both projects, but shared methods are not disqualifying per se. Again, the PO(s) involved could confirm that your use of the same method in both applications is acceptable.
SmallFishBigPond said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you so much for your detailed answers with a lot of valuable insights. My proposal would be appropriate for two different study sections. This R21 proposal was discussed both in its original and resubmission. One of the reviewers really held an unfavorable view against this application if not biased. I certainly feel that it is almost impossible to persuade that reviewer and it seems he/she is a standing member of that study section.
Actually, we had already tried our best to revise the proposal in prior resubmission. So in the case, would you agree that changing study section might be a wise move?
Thanks.
writedit said
It’s really impossible for me to say, but I do know that sometimes PIs are a bit biased in their interpretation of/response to reviewer critiques. 😉 Again, your PO would give better advice based on knowledge of both your science and the potential study sections. Remember, too, that even standing members do not attend each meeting, and they rotate off regularly (no one is forever). By the time you submit again, your biggest critic could be gone. The bigger question is whether they understand your science – and whether the panel members have the appropriate expertise (you don’t know who reviewed your application, but you can look at the entire list, which you should always do before picking a study section). If some/most of these people publish in journals you read, then this is probably where your application goes. The ART tool can confirm.
AnxiousR01 said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you so much for being a wonderful resource.
A little background: I submitted a R01 application under the ESI status to NIMHD. My grant was reviewed under a special emphasis panel on 07/20/20 (Score 30, Percentile 14). I know these scores are not great and a tad on the high side.
Since NIMHD does not publish paylines and contact with my PO has been limited (other than the initial email saying wait for your summary statements to discuss further), what do you advise on how I should proceed? I have emailed the PO a few times since I received my summary statements and he hasn’t responded yet. I know these are trying times, but he was super responsive initially and now nothing.
1. Any advise or insights would be so helpful
2. Received summary statements 2 weeks ago and most are addressable. I have emailed my PO with no response. Should I plan for a revise and resubmit (the problem is that this PAR19-373 had a specific submission date). So when would I resubmit? Next submission cycle is not till March 2021
3. The council review on era commons is listed for 08/2020 with a start date of the grant listed as 09/2020. I am assuming this is because it was reviewed under a special emphasis panel.
How do you suggest I should proceed.
Thank you so much for your help.
writedit said
I suspect it is too soon for your PO to know anything, though a brief reply saying so would be polite. You have until next March to submit again (yes, that is the only time you can submit again), so the PO knows there is no rush in getting back to you and would probably rather wait until there is concrete information to share. If you do not receive funding this cycle, check with the PO in October, after the Sept 30 FY deadline passes (everyone will be frantically busy until then), for advice on preparing the March 2021 resubmission. The next NIMHD Council meeting is Sept 4, so your PO may not have an update until early September (the 8/2020 is a generic eRA Commons date, not specific to your application). Application processing will happen quickly, so if you need any regulatory approvals for JIT, you might look into that. You will only have a day or two to submit JIT if the request comes.
AnxiousR01 said
thank you so much for your response and guidance. Do you know what the paylines for NIMHD are for ESI?
writedit said
I don’t know about any NIMHD paylines, but they have traditionally made relatively few R01 awards (compared with other ICs), so I suspect their funding decisions are based as much or more on programmatic priority (vs score). However, a 14th percentile (the more relevant number for benchmarking) is respectable for ESI, so that should help in internal discussions.
TraderJoes said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you for maintaining this excellent resource! My question pertains to no-cost-extension. Would a competitive revision (S1) be extended automatically when the main grant is extended?
Thanks,
TJs
writedit said
The NoA for your Type 3 revision award (distinct from the parent award) states whether you have automatic carryover or if prior approval is required. If the terms in the NoA aren’t clear to you, your local grants administrator or GMS can look and confirm whether you need to take any specific action, but I suspect it will provide automatic carryover.
TraderJoes said
Thank you!
Morningside said
Dear Writedit,
We have a subcontract to our collaborator who will perform analysis on samples provided by our lab. If we want to increase the number of samples than we budgeted in the original application meaning higher charges from the collaborator, can we increase the amount of the subaward to them? We are still setting up the new funding so the subaward has not been issued to them. I am thinking, alternatively, if I can buy some lab supplies to be shipped to their lab if the subaward cannot be modified.
Thanks for your advice!
writedit said
You can shift costs around (ie, from your supplies or other budget categories) as long as nothing is reduced by a significant percentage (25% or more requires NIH approval), but I would suggest you confirm with your grants administrator that the reallocation you have in mind is okay.
Morningside said
Thank you!
etx001 said
I really learned a lot from this amazing site, Thank you! I will contribute a R44 grant timeline for NIAID. We are really lucky to get this one especially during this uncertain times.
08/04/2020 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
06/26/2020 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
06/02/2020 Council review completed.
03/12/2020 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
01/15/2020 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
01/05/2020 Application entered into system
writedit said
Congratulations – especially on the relatively rapid turnaround (only 8 months from submission to award, with >1 m “pending”!) – and best wishes for success in your research and development! I assume this was within the NIAID hard payline (34) vs being a higher-scored select pay award. Thanks for sharing your timeline and experience.
humbleservant said
Dear Writedit,
My STTR received a score that was above the payline for NIGMS. However, the grant was also assigned to a secondary institute where the paylines are higher.
I received the following message regarding my STTR: This email serves as Notice of Intent that a decision to fund your application has been deferred by the NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES.
Can you explain what defers means in this case? I received similar emails in the past but they never talked about deferral.
Shall I contact my PO to release the grant to another institute where the paylines are higher?
writedit said
I have not heard of a deferral either, but they don’t have much time left this FY (assuming your application is for an FY20 award), so I assume this means deferring a decision until FY21. I would suggest that you contact your NIGMS PO to ask about the deferral, whether the PO would recommend relinquishing the application to the secondary IC, and, if you don’t already have a contact at the secondary IC, whom to contact there about whether they could/would accept your application (no use having NIGMS relinquish it if they don’t want it). If you hadn’t already asked about resubmission advice, you could seek that, too. And if you do have a contact at the secondary IC, you might check with them first about whether they could/would accept the application (if not, your interaction with the NIGMS PO will be strictly about the deferral meaning and next steps).
Ds said
Hi there. Not sure if you’ll get this reply but I’m curious what the outcome was for your deferral. I have a similar situation. SBIR from last September (9/20) due date, just got a notice of deferral, rather than a decision not to fund.
Ds said
For anyone interested, I asked our PO and this deferral was specifically to give time to submit an amended application next year. So just routine. Thanks for a great blog.
writedit said
Aha – thanks for sharing the explanation from your PO. Good luck with the next submission.
MIRA ESI said
My PO asked me to send an email stating that I will accept the MIRA award. I’m curious whether this step is the beginning of the evaluation of my application by GMS or at the end of award preparation. I was not asked about the acceptance of the previous R21 award, though.
writedit said
This is a request that is specific to MIRA awards, and the request indicates that NIGMS intends to fund your application (assuming the subsequent administrative review does not uncover any problems). Some MIRA applicants have R01 applications simultaneously pending at another IC, so NIGMS wants to be sure the applicant will accept the MIRA (and decline the pending R01) before NIGMS begins the administrative review process, which is more involved than a routine grant application.
NervousR01 said
Dear Writedit,
Thanks for this great blog! It is extremely helpful.
Here is my question. My R01 A1 app (a continuation grant) to NICHD got 16th percentile. I wasn’t sure about the score but my PO in mid July said he recommended my app to get it funded this fiscal year and was “very hopeful.” Said I should know by mid-August. I have sent my responses to the review soon after but I haven’t heard from PO since then. I have emailed a couple of times in between. ERA page shows AC meeting scheduled on 9/9, although my PO seemed to suggest the meeting was to occur late July or early August. I know things must be hectic and crazy to finish up this fiscal year, but I suppose there are nothing for me to do except just wait? The start date is 9/1, which may not mean anything. I didn’t get an email re: JIT either. I am just getting totally nervous and anxious, because if my app doesn’t get funded, I may not get as many participants back as possible for this longitudinal study…. Any advice? Thanks!!
writedit said
At this point, you need to sit tight (and not bug your PO or GMS). Council meets on September 9-10, but they will approve some applications electronically en bloc in advance of the meeting (ie, August). If you have your JIT ready, you can go ahead and submit it online so it’s there, or you can wait until they ask for it – they won’t request it until they are sure your application will move forward for funding. Your start date is not an expiration date, so don’t worry about that. You can be funded any time up until September 30. Your PO clearly supports the continuation of your study (you would need to start fresh with a new Type 1 A0 application otherwise). If the PO cannot get a full award, he might be able to negotiate an R56, though this would still require a subsequent application (but you would have money to continue data collection in the meantime).
NervousR01 said
Super thanks for your prompt and thoughtful reply. I will sit tight and wait!
Humbleservant said
Dear Writedit,
My STTR received a score that was above the payline for NIGMS. However, the grant was also assigned to a secondary institute where the paylines are higher.
I received the following message regarding my STTR: This email serves as Notice of Intent that a decision to fund your application has been deferred by the NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES.
Can you explain what defer means in this case? I received similar emails in the past but they never talked about deferral.
Shall I contact my PO to ask them release the grant to another institute where the paylines are higher?
writedit said
Sorry about the delay – I replied above to your earlier post of this question. (yes, communicate with PO)
Humbleservant said
I can see your answer now. Thank you very much for your (always) very helpful comments.
Thomas said
I have received my impact score of 21 for my NIA MSTEM R25 submission. I received my statement, and the PO told me respond to the minor issues raised, and later told me that my chances of funding is promising. After the council meeting in May. Someone got across to me in June and asked few questions about some items in the budget which I clarified. My status changed to pending, since then Im yet to receive any feed back, on what is next or the time frame they will get back to me, on what I need to do next.
writedit said
If your status is pending, that means they are processing your application for a possible award, assuming no other issues are uncovered (they will work with you to correct them if so, like the budget items). You don’t need to do anything in the meantime, and there is no reason to contact your GMS or PO. Your status should eventually change to Notice of Award prepared and then Notice of Award issued (this will happen some time before September 30).
GrantMania said
Hello writeedit,
Thank you for this wonderful blog. I have an NIAID Phase 1 SBIR that is slightly above the payline. P.O. turned in a recommendation for funding back in April. Grant went through expedite review (which is common for NIAID). No word yet from eRA commons.
When are select pay awards issued typically for NIAID? In Aug? In Sep? And are grants chosen for select pay in order of increasing payline or is it really based on subject matter?
Thanks always for your support!
writedit said
Select pay awards are made all the way through September 30, and a variety of factors affect whether an application will receive an award. They are ranked by score and programmatic interest, but then if a higher ranked application cannot turn around its JIT quickly or has an administrative issue, it is skipped, so it is hard to predict until the very end how far down the list applications will be tapped for an award. If you haven’t communicated with your PO about resubmission, you should definitely do that now since you don’t want to miss a cycle waiting to hear.
NI Advantage? said
Does NCI give special consideration to New Investigator status for R01s? I know they do for ESI, but not sure about NI. I am partnering with an NI (not ESI) on a proposal, and we are trying to decide if it is better for him to be the sole PI due to his NI status or if we should be multi-PI. (I have already received R01s). Thank you!
writedit said
No, New Investigators are combined with Established Investigators in terms of review and payline. Only ESI receive special consideration.
Carmen said
Hello and happy Friday! We have just received a JIT for an SBIR Fast Track from the Grants Manager at NINDS. We have two other grants that expired on July 1 and August 31 of this year, in which the PIs are 50% on each grant (100% total). We asked for a ‘no-cost extension’, as we have had issues finishing up the work due to COVID. For the “Other Support” for this new grant, would we have an overlap in time/salary? We have each writen that we would be at 10% for this new grant, so in theory, if we had to, we would have to reduce the other two grants by 5%. But, since we have a no-cost extension, in theory I don’t think it would matter. Any advice?
writedit said
I think you’ll still need to reduce the effort on the other two awards, but your GMS will give you the best guidance, so just ask them (it won’t endanger your new award).
changingplaces said
Dear writedit,
May I ask you advice. I have an R01 ready to resubmit (the A0 scored pretty well), but I am contemplating changing institutions shortly after review of the A1 by the study section. Do you have any advice in regards to timing of a change in the context of a pending application?
writedit said
If your new institution has all the resources, equipment, core facilities, collaborators, appropriate research subjects (if relevant), etc. and you can readily demonstrate that the work can be performed there as well or better than your current institution, then the move should not be an issue. As soon as you know whether you might move, though, you will want to let your PO know. If your A1 application scores well, they may be able to delay the award until after you relocate, depending on this timing in the context of the fiscal year (ie, well before Sept 30). Even if not, your current institution should be willing to relinquish your portion of the award (ie, any funding of key personnel collaborators at your current institution would stay as a subaward). Communicating with the PO will not endanger the award – if the science is good and the new institution can support the work, they will want the project in their portfolio … and if the new environment is not as good, the NIH will not allow the award (if planned/made) to be transferred.
Izlude said
Hi,
For anyone who may be in a similar situation. I know with COVID, things are much slower based on what I have read. I submitted an A1 for an R21 that received a 3rd percentile. The council met in early June (if I remember) and I reached out to my PO on 6/23/20 since I haven’t heard anything after council. His response was “It is on a signed funding plan.” And states that the GMS may reach out to me if additional info is needed and that they are all very busy.
So I take it to mean leave the PO alone but now it is almost the end of August and the eRA commons still has “pending admin review.” I haven’t gotten the GMS JiT request yet as well. I am not in a super rush to start the work since I am catching up on work for a October submission but I guess little nervous. I know Sept 30th is the end of year but just seems crazy next week is Sept and still nothing.
Obviously the NOA is what I need but I am not sure what this “signed funding plan” really means? Is it essentially a slam dunk and I just have to wait? Just have nightmares that even with a good score some mishap will occur and doesn’t go via.
R01 hopeful said
We have a two percentile R01, council meeting was in this Feb, submitted JIT as requested by PO/GMS in June, but status is still “council meeting completed” as of today not even “pending”. I still hope it will get funded by the end of September. Anyone had a status changing from “council meeting completed” to NOA directly?
writedit said
Wow. The status will not jump from Council meeting completed” to “Notice of award issued” in one jump. Your PO is out of the award processing loop, so you want to check with the GMS to confirm your JIT is appropriate and what to expect in terms of award timing. As I’ve written a couple of times, the entire NIH is backlogged in terms of award processing due both to COVID-19 affecting efficiency and the workforce and to the delayed and then complicated appropriations (due to extra emergency appropriations for COVID-19 awards), but your application will have to receive an award by September 30.
writedit said
You are correct that you want to communicate with the GMS, not the PO (who is not involved in award processing and will not be able to provide any updates or insight). The signed funding plan or paylist will have more applications than can be funded (if some applications higher on the list have administrative problems, the grants managers can move to the next application on the list and not run out of approved applications before the money does), but yours should be toward the top. You can ask the GMS if they need your JIT and what to expect in terms of timing. The entire NIH seems to be incredibly behind on award processing (after a late start due to the delayed federal budget – appropriation arrived at the same time as SARS-CoV-2), and they had millions of extra COVID-19 and emergency funds to allocate as well, but they do have a hard deadline of September 30.
K99Pending said
Hi,
My K99 application has been pending for 9 months now! It received a fundable score, and PO was positive for funding. However, the application was put on administrative hold in January after the submission of JIT. Because several grants and renewals of my primary mentor are also under a similar administrative hold, I think this might be related. I reached out several times to GMS by email to discuss possible steps. But GMS always replies that the institute is making a final decision ( and ignores the request to discuss on the phone).
Is it too impolite to call GMS without an appointment? Any other suggestions will be highly appreciated.
writedit said
There is nothing you can do, since the issue is with your mentor’s award situation, so there is no need to talk with the GMS – and you should not try to call. The GMSs are all crazy busy trying to meet an excessive workload between all the extra COVID-19 awards, the reduced efficiency and workforce due to COVID-19, and the end of the FY. Continuing to bug the GMS will not help, and you should not to contact them again (especially do not call). They cannot answer any of your questions (meaning, they do not have the information or authority to change your situation – they are not withholding anything from you). If they need any information or documents from you, they will absolutely contact you. You can ask your mentor the status of their awards, since this is what will determine the status of your K99 (they are not separable). It could be you may need to resubmit the K99 with a different primary mentor, if all the current primary mentor’s applications/awards remain on hold (this would be a discussion with your mentor and then your PO, depending on what your mentor says).
HumaneGenome said
Last week I got my first NIH grant funded–an R01 from NIA. Thanks so much for maintaining this website, since I did not have mentors who could fill me in on what phrases like “Pending administrative review” really meant! I will post my timeline below.
For others posting timelines, maybe include the date of the Notice of Award instead of just saying “today,” since the timestamp can get lost when the comment is archived. I also would have liked to see by what % people’s awards were cut. I found myself wondering what the range was, to help me plan in advance how to reduce my budget.
Also, a note in case it’s of interest to other newbies: not only can NIH start your award after your proposed start date, but they can also start it before your proposed start date, even considerably earlier. I had entered a start date of Jan. 1, 2021, but my award will start Sept. 1, 2020, I guess because they wanted to allocate the money this fiscal year. This was unexpected (but I’m not complaining :).)
My NIA R01 timeline:
02/05/2019: First R01 application entered into system.
06/06/2019: Received impact score of 40 and percentile of 28.
06/19/2019: Receive my full summary statement.
Late summer 2019: After many unsuccessful attempts to contact my PO, by email and phone, I finally talk with her once. She gives me some feedback on the application and encourages a re-submission.
11/05/2019: Submit revised application (A1).
02/11/2020: Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
02/12/2020: I get impact score of 24 and percentile of 13; within NIA’s funding range for early stage investigators.
02/20/2020: Receive my full summary statement.
07/01/2020: Council review completed.
07/06/2020: Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
08/05/2020: Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
08/17/2020: Application awarded; received NOA with 18% cut to proposed budget and revised (4 months early) start date.
IcyR01 said
Congratulations!
Thanks for sharing the timeline!
writedit said
Congratulations and best wishes for success with your research! Thank you so much for sharing your detailed timeline and making suggestions to others out there considering the same. I am grateful for any contributions, but your recommendations are spot on and appreciated – especially including the budget cut (which is standard for almost all awards), so folks are not taken off guard. Including priority/impact scores and percentiles is also helpful to those waiting on funding decisions in specific ICs.
K99 pending said
Hi, writedit,
My K99 is in Pending administrative review. (I had JIT requested from GMS in June). Due to family issues and COVID-19, I am thinking about moving to another institute in different state. But at the same time, I do not want to give up my K. So I am trying to figure it out whether I can transfer it.
I was told that I should not reach out to my PO and discuss about this, because it will bring him some red flags. I should wait until I get NOA. But once I get NOA, everything will go fast. I may not have enough time to transfer my K to another institute. Most importantly, no one knows when I will get NOA or whether my K will be even funded. I feel awkward to discuss this with my mentor……Any suggestions? Thank you!
writedit said
I cannot agree with the advice not to communicate with the PO. They will find out eventually, and you want them (and the IC, to which you will return to again for funding) on your side. Hiding information from your future sponsor is never a good idea. If the new institution has the resources and environment to support the research, and you have a potential mentor there, transferring the award should not be a problem. You can move, and the award can follow you after the administrative work to transfer it. However, if you are looking at a faculty job (vs postdoc position), then your K99 will be dead in the water (no matter when you tell the PO). Similarly, if the new institution does not have an appropriate mentor for you and/or the facilities and other resources to allow you to conduct the research proposed, then you will not be able to take the award with you either. The NIH must approve the new mentor and the new institution before the K99 goes with you, which is why talking with the PO in advance is important to help you make this decision.
K99 pending said
Thank you so much writedit. I will contact my PO.
curious kangaroo said
I am in a similar position, and received a very promising score on my K99 resubmission. Can we get an update on how the conversation with the PO went, and the result of the interests/attempts to transfer your K99?
writedit said
I don’t know if K99 Pending will see your comment to respond, but the advice remains the same – you should communicate with your PO soon if you are considering changing institutions as a postdoc. Again, if you take any kind of faculty position – tenure track or non-tenure track (research faculty, instructor, etc.) – you will forfeit the award because you will no longer be a postdoc, not because you change institutions. But, if the new institution has the required resources and a mentor with appropriate expertise, then the transfer should be straightforward (note the link that SaG posted in a subsequent comment).
K99 not pending said
I usually get several notifications from this website and skip them (ha). For some reasons, I saw this one. 🙂
Before the call with my PO, I actually got a NOA. During the phone call, I explained my situation with him and my intention to transfer the K99 to another institute. He understands my situation but he believes it is not possible, because it would be hard to convince review panel that my new institute can provide the same degree of resource and environment as the current one. He suggested that I should stay at the current institute for at least a year and have a early transfer to R00 at the new institute (so, this is my current plan). I agree with writedit that you should definitely reach out to your PO.
I also want to share my salary issue with you. Hope this helps you when you are dealing with JIT. I did request a higher salary in the proposed budget in my application. During JIT, my admin turned in the information of my current one without further explanations. GMS noticed the difference between requested and current salary and asked us to reply and explain by the end of day (less than 5 hours). Of course, we did not respond to the GMS within the time frame and next day I received the NOA with the salary amount matched to my current one. Since then, my university has been trying to ask the GMS to revise the NOA and match my salary to at least NIH postdoc standard. We have been waiting for almost 6 months and still no response. I wanted to use my research funds to cover my salary, but my department said this is not allowed. So I still have a salary even lower than a first year postdoc.
To be honest, I feel like there are no clear rules for K99 salary or title. I do know some postdocs change their title to Assistant instructor and increase their salary after they are awarded K99 (at a different institute from mine). I also know some K99 postdocs use their research funds to cover their salary (same institute).
writedit said
Wow – thank you for this thorough update, K99 not pending. The POs need to assess whether the new institution offers a comparable or better environment than the one from which you submitted the application since they need to be true to the peer review (which gave you a fundable score based on your current mentor and location). I’m glad your PO suggested and you could arrange to wait a year and move with your R00 instead of your K99. I am very sorry that the wrong salary in your JIT led to a pay cut. You could ask the PO about this, too. They cannot change anything, but they can check with the GMS to see what the problem is. Of course, now you have learned the hard way to take JIT deadlines (even same-day requests) seriously. If you are getting an award at the end of the FY and cannot turn your JIT around quickly enough, you will lose the award because the ICs cannot wait and will instead move on to the next application in line. (just an FYI to keep in mind) The NIH has been trying to standardize the implementation of the K99 portion of the K99/R00. It was the wild west at first, with ICs having free reign to manage the K99 however they wanted. There are now more NIH-wide policies, and you can see differences among ICs participating in the parent FOA in the table of IC-specific information. Good luck with your new position later this year/next year and your career in biomedical research.
curious kangaroo said
Wow! Thank you for providing such a detailed explanation of your situation! I’m so sorry you received a pay cut over the course of the process. I am certainly planning to talk with my PO as soon as I get my summary statement. The one thing I have going for me is that the other transfer would be to a university/department where one of my K99 mentors is based and wouldn’t require a full transition of my mentorship team. I’m taking it one step at a time (ie, receive summary statement, speak with PO, etc) but was looking around for some insight on what this hypothetical process could look like and this page has been incredibly helpful
writedit said
Yes, having part of your mentoring team at the new institution would make a big difference, since the study section approved the team and locations in the application. Your PO still needs to approve any change in institution, but this would make it easier for them.
curious kangaroo said
Just got off the call with my PO! When I told them about my current offer, they actually suggested that I transfer the grant (should it get approved) before I could even get to asking about it and the process it would entail. Thanks for the encouragement to start the conversation early
writedit said
Perfect – hopefully others will read your posts and realize they should never hesitate to contact the PO. They are there to support the extramural research community (though admittedly, some are better than others, as in all professions).
SaG said
I agree with Writedit. The sooner you tell the PO the better. If you get the NoA and the grant can’t be transferred don’t you think the PO will be pissed that they did all that ward work for nothing? And They will know that you knew before the award but declined to tell them. I say this so that you can tell the person who gave you the advice that withholding important info from a Federal employee who wants to give you money is stupid advice. These are PhD level folks. More info (https://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-funding/process/apply/funding-mechanisms/k-awards/requesting-relocation-transfer-k-series-projects)
Jen said
this sites has so much wonderful advice.
Jen said
Hi writedit,
I have a R01 A1 submitted to NCI in March, received scores in June (11%). the published pay line is 10% When I contacted PO, the recommendation was to prepare for another new submission in Oct. Does that mean that the proposal is likely not funded? I also saw that the AC meeting happened yesterday although it was previously listed for Oct. What would be the recommended steps to increase chances of funding? I also listed another IC; NIMDH. Should I contact them to see whether they might be interested?
writedit said
Your R01 wouldn’t be funded until FY21, the appropriation for which will be incredibly late (due to election etc.), so you won’t know about the A1 until sometime in 2021. You want to have another application under review while the A1 sits in limbo, especially since, based on your PO’s response, you would likely need to hope for select pay (which might not be decided until the end of the FY – ie, late summer 2021). I am not sure which IC you mean, but if you are working with a PO at the secondary IC, you could certainly inquire, but the funding outcome still would not be known until 2021, so you are still better off having another A0 submitted in the meantime.
Jen said
Thank you and this is helpful!
Nick said
Hi, thank you for this great resource. I applied for a K99 in Feb and received a fundable in July with PO saying it’s likely to be funded. The advisory council meeting was just completed at NCI.
I’m hoping to delay the start date to July 2021 and increase the effort from 80% to 100% (originally requested start date of Jan 2021) and had other obligations in the spring that prevents 100% effort.
A colleague requested a change to start date as soon as IS was available, so I emailed my PO this week to see if this would be possible if I were funded. He indicated it’s too premature to discuss start date since funding decision not yet made. I was a little surprised by PO response because 1) I thought start date could impact funding decision and 2) council meeting has already been completed. What is your take on potentially changing the start date/increasing effort and the best timeline to make such request? Could the less enthusiastic response from PO indicate a smaller likelihood of being funded compared to his initial email (i.e. perhaps payline decreased after council meeting)? Thank you
writedit said
Your application will be considered in funding in FY21, which has not begun, and your PO has no idea what the NCI appropriation or payline will be (nor does anyone else at NCI – or anywhere at the NIH). Due to the election, the federal budget (and NIH appropriation) will likely be delayed until 2021, during which time the government will operate under a continuing resolution. Your start date might be closer to July 1, 2021 even if you had wanted it sooner. You don’t mention your score, but if your PO was optimistic, then you are probably okay – but nothing can be guaranteed. If you are running out of eligibility for the K99, you might ask the PO to be sure you are safe not to apply again in the meantime. If the PO says you don’t need to apply, then you can be pretty sure of an award – but you will still need to wait until the federal budget is signed into law (and then wait up to another 8 weeks after that before NCI knows what its final appropriation will be). The time to talk about the start date is when you are asked for JIT – that is when they will start processing your award. Again, that might be pretty darn close to July anyway. Now, with regard to raising your effort, your total cost won’t change, so the funds to cover the extra 20% effort would need to be transferred from a different budget category (eg, research support).
Nick said
Thanks very much. My IS was 20 and the start day on application was in Jan 2021 so I thought it would be FY20 (i.e. before Oct 2021). While his first email was positive saying I have a very good chance to get funded in July, I thought his recent email may indicate funding is now less likely perhaps after the council meeting that just completed yesterday so was a bit worried by his tone. My previous understanding is that PO’s opinion plays a significant role in ultimate K99 funding. From reading this resource, it seems the PO doesn’t make the decision on who gets funded but rather the IC director?
In regards to the budget, I only requested 80% of salary support for 80% effort – can I update the budget to request 100% salary support if I increase effort to 100% (still within the NCI 100k allowance for salary)? Not sure if that’s considered an unusual request since the original budget has been reviewed by council and peer review already.
writedit said
FY20 ends on September 30, 2020. FY21 ends on September 30, 2021. The IC Director makes all funding decisions – the PO gives recommendations, especially for applications that are near or above the payline, so you need the support of your PO – but not because they decide who gets funded (that happens at NSF, not NIH). With regard to the budget, you cannot ask for any more money that was requested in the submitted application. If you increase the amount of money going to salary support, you will need to reduce the amount of money in another budget category. You will not get additional funds to support the extra 20% effort that you want. You needed to ask for 100% of your salary at the time of application. So, if your total budget on the application as submitted and reviewed was, for example, $100K with $80K in salary (80% effort) and $20K in supplies, you would need to give up the $20K in supplies to get $100K in salary (100% effort). You cannot now ask for $100K in salary *and* keep your $20K in supplies. (these are just example amounts to convey the process, not your amounts) If your institution is going to make up the extra 20% of your salary, then you don’t need to change your % effort on the award, which reflects the amount the NIH is covering (80%, per your budget request).
WaitingForR01 said
First of all, I love this site.
Hi writedit,
Based on your experience, when the government is running under continuing resolution(s), do NIH and the ICs issue new grants? If so, do they go by the payline from the previous FY?
writedit said
No and no. ICs might make emergency awards but not routine awards until they have their final appropriation (which they won’t have in hand until ~4-8 weeks after the president signs the federal budget into law). ICs do not want to risk making awards and then receiving a lower appropriation than they anticipated, forcing them to lower the payline later in the FY. ICs that do use interim paylines are very conservative, such that the interim payline is generally several percentile points lower than the final payline from the prior FY (eg, 10th vs 15th); the payline can be raised later once the appropriation is in hand and the IC can better gauge the number of competitive applications that could potentially receive awards (and the higher payline is retroactive).
Chong Wu said
Hi writedit,
I have one question regarding the “council review completed” status. Today, I found the status of my R03 (impact score 28; percentile 6; for NIA) changed to “council review completed.” The style of this “council review completed” is same as “Not Discussed”; both are grey background and white words. Does this a negative sign and mean the application will not be considered for funding?
What’s the next step we should do? If we email PO, what kind of information we need to ask?
This is my first R03 and I am very nervous about it. Thank you for your help and time!
WaitingForR01 said
I have the same situation like yours. The status of my R21 at NIA (impact score 30, no percentile because it is a AD/RD grant) was changed to “council review completed” this morning. I don’t think it is a negative sign; it is just a stage of the process. Did you get contacted directly by the PO or GMS for JIT? I haven’t. But I know once they know whom to fund, they will ask for JIT and the status will change again. This is my understanding but I think writedit can give us more insight about this process.
SaG said
It probably means that the app has passed electronic Council. They could fund it this fiscal year but likely wont get funded until 2021. Not much to do but wait. You could contact the PO but they wont have much they can tell since NIH doesn’t have an FY21 budget yet.
Chong Wu said
I havn’t either. I will contact PO again to see if we need to resubmit.
writedit said
Yep – as SaG said, this is just a formality to convey that Council has considered your applications. Your POs will have no idea about actual funding likelihood, but what you can do, if you have not already discussed this, is ask your PO if you should submit another application (A1) in November (and if so, if they have any advice on resubmission strategy). They might suggest submitting again for insurance, even if there is a reasonable chance of an award, so it’s not necessarily bad news if they recommend an A1.
Chong Wu said
Thank you so much for your suggestions!
R01 hopeful said
Does anyone have a status changed from “council review completed” to “awarded” directly? My colleague has an R03 recently awarded and the status changed from “council review completed” directly. Is it possible that the GMS doesn’t have time to change the status such as “pending” and “award prepared”, due to the high work volume in the last 2 weeks of this FY?
writedit said
I would not be surprised, especially for an R03, which is a small, uncomplicated award to process. NIH extramural staff are frantically processing regular, emergency, and COVID awards before September 30.
Chupta Chupta said
Related to this, does anyone know what it means when status says “council review pending” and council meeting already happened on 09/03/20.
SaG said
Someone hasn’t pushed a button/done their job.
postdoc said
thank you for this amazing resource! do you know when the FY21 budget will be determined as it’s only a couple of weeks away? would it be considered annoying/overbearing to reach out to my PO for a grant which just underwent council review in early September? Thank you
SaG said
Sept Council is for FY2021 budget. Which, NIH doesn’t have yet. It will be months still before anyone knows the R21 payline.
writedit said
The end of the fiscal year is only a couple of weeks away, but the FY21 budget is months away. Hopefully we will have a continuing resolution passed and signed into law for October 1. Until the FY21 budget is passed and signed into law, ICs will not be making new awards or posting paylines (some, like NIAID, post interim paylines, but in general, everything will be on hold except noncompeting renewals and certain award types). I assume you have already asked your PO if you should resubmit. If not, you should ask, especially so you have time for the November submission date (if you would be submitting an A1).
R01 hopeful said
Thanks for this fantastic place to discuss Proposal/funding. Only two weeks left. Submitted JIT as requested in June but still not “pending” from eRA commons. PO is sure we will get funded in time, but no response from GMS. Very nervous but keep my fingers crossed.
writedit said
Be sure to leave everyone alone – if the GMS needs anything, they will contact you. You don’t want to waste any of their limited time by asking for an update. At least you don’t have long to wait, and it sounds like you will have good news.
Izlude said
writedit is right. One of my grants literally was sitting as “review pending” for like 4 months! I did email the GMS a month ago and they apparently sent to the grant to the wrong GMS so they were catching up. It was only recent I got the GMS JIT request and they sent NOA yesterday. They will let you know if anything else. My GMS emailed for 2-3 things over the week to clarify.
R01 hopeful said
Thanks. GMS just emailed to ask for couple things so they are processing it! It is crazy that only less than 2 wks are left before the FY ends.
writedit said
Great. The ICs need to spend their FY20 appropriation by September 30 – no carryover – so yes, they are frantically preparing awards to the very end (especially this year with the extra COVID-19 and emergency appropriations).
K_Awardee said
Hello, this has been a very useful blog. I have a question regarding the effort adjustment after K has been awarded. Is it okay to reduce a small amount of effort while maintain the awarded budget? I know it is allowed with R grants in case like salary increase. However, I am not sure whether the same rules apply to K awards. Thanks!
writedit said
As long as you meet the minimum effort, you should be okay. If you would drop below the minimum effort (depends on activity code and your clinical status, if relevant), then your institution would need to pick up the extra cost.
K_Awardee said
Sounds good. Thank you indeed.
Medchem said
Thanks for this useful blog. The following information may help someone with the similar situation during the last week of FY. Our proposal changed status from “council review completed” to “pending” to “awarded” within one week. So don’t give up hopes even in the last minute, as NIH may be processing your award without responding to your email. Good luck!
ESI2020 said
Thank you for this update!
writedit said
Thank you for posting this great intel and congratulations on your award – best wishes for success with your research!
Abraham said
I have a co-I who did not have an eRA account. He just applied for that. Does a co-investigator need to have an eRA common account at the time of a grant is submitted?
writedit said
The eRA account doesn’t take long to be created, so I assume by now, your co-investigator is all set (if not, don’t worry – not required for submission).
Abraham said
Thank you so much! He just got one.
writedit said
Great – best of luck with your submission.
Karen said
I’m preparing my first R01 for the October cycle. Would appreciate some advice about requesting a study section and what the strategy is behind that.
Thank you so much for this blog! I’ve learned so much from it!!
writedit said
You can ask your PO for suggestions, but I would first recommend that you take your draft abstract or Specific Aims page and run it through both Matchmaker on RePORTER and ART (assisted referral tool) at CSR. You will get ranked lists of suggestions, and when you click on the SRGs, you can compare reviewer panels and SRG foci. If the best choice isn’t obvious, then ask your PO for advice as to which would be more appropriate (POs generally attend the SRG meetings at which most of their portfolio applications are reviewed). You want to find reviewers who read the journals you publish in, attend conferences you attend, and so on – researchers who will be interested and invested in seeing your work published in 5 or so years.
BMcC said
Thank you for this excellent blog! I received a 7% on an application for which the primary IC is NICHD. I have contacted the PO three times to check on its status since receiving the summary statement with no response. Council review was completed in early September but I have yet to receive a specific JIT request. Is the lack of response or JIT request an indication that the application will not be funded since NICHD does not have a payline? Or should I just sit tight? Thanks for your help!
BMcC said
This is a R01 application…
writedit said
You probably won’t hear from the PO until October since everyone is busy with end of FY20 work, and your PO will have absolutely no news for you for several months. Your application is for FY21. With a 7th percentile, you were certainly on the list of applications sent to Council for approval for *consideration* for funding, but the Council role is not to actually select applications for awards. That is the role of the IC Director. However, FY21 awards will be on hold until a federal budget is signed into law, which I would not expect until next February or later (due to election). The NIH will operate under a continuing resolution (CR) that provides 90% of the funding level of FY20, which will allow ICs to issue noncompeting awards and select competing awards (each IC is different on whether/when they issue competing awards during a CR). In October, you can check with your PO to see if they need you to prepare a brief (1-p) rebuttal to the reviewer critiques and whether you should consider preparing an A1 resubmission for next February (though I would certainly hope the answer is no, some POs are extremely conservative and cautious). There is no point in asking about JIT or the likelihood of funding at this time, since your PO will not have any information. Finally, whatever you listed as a start date is not an expiration date, so don’t worry if your start date was Dec 1 and nothing has happened.
ESI2020 said
I have a follow-up question, what if both the rebuttal and JIT were requested? This is also a grant reviewed in June. JIT was requested from GMS (PO CC’d) stating that the grant is “selected for a potential award”. This happened in early September, but no updates since.
writedit said
Some ICs may be funding competitively scored FY21 applications in FY20, both to use up their FY20 appropriation and anticipating the delay in the FY21 budget. This is not typical, but it is possible. Even if your eRA status hasn’t changed, they could be processing an award (as you noted from MedChem’s post). You’ll know the outcome in a week.
ESI2020 said
Thank you Writedit!
Zhuoli Zhang said
I want to my R01 application to be assigned to NIBIB, can I budget 5 years period. NIBIB R01 for 4 years
SaG said
You can but they will likely only award 4 years. Many parts of NIH do that.
Mika said
Thanks
writedit said
As SaG notes, you can request 5 years, but unless you are ESI, it will likely be cut to 4 years, in which case you are better off writing your proposal for 4 years of work. I would suggest sending your specific aims page to your PO and ask whether to write your Research Strategy and budget for 4 or 5 years.
Mika said
Highly appreciated
Mika said
I confused NIH “Inclusion Across the Lifespan” requirement, no ideas how to organize, I would appreciate if someone could share this document
writedit said
If you are excluding human research participants of a certain age (eg, children) and/or are limiting your age range for enrollment, you will need to justify any age-related exclusions/restrictions. Usually the justification is for scientific reasons (e.g., disorder only occurs in adults, drug is approved for specific use in children but not yet in adults, etc.) but can be for ethical reasons as well (due to nature of intervention, data collection requirements, etc.). Investigators have already been doing this as part of the former Human Subjects section on Inclusion of Children (same as for Sex/Gender and Race/Ethnicity) – there is no special additional narrative required.
Mika said
very helpful, thanks
New PI said
I submitted an R03 in February for the NIDDK limited competition. It got an impact score of 29. My PO told me to follow up with her in late September about resubmission. This is what I got from her today:
I am optimistic we will be able to support the R03 but will not know for sure until late fall/early winter. Congress has not provided us with a budget for FY21, which starts October 1 and for which you are requesting funds in the R03 application. It looks like we will be on a short-term CR until December 11th.
At this point, I would not advise a resubmitting but if you feel more comfortable given our budget uncertainty, then by all means submit a revised application. Just know that we consider the latest iteration of the project and if there is a significant budget approval delay and we cannot make an award to the pending application prior to the review of the resubmission, it is the score of the resubmission we will consider.
It makes me feel a little anxious not to resubmit, but she’s advising against it. What would you do?
Thank you!!
writedit said
I am pretty sure the CR will be extended past Dec 11, depending on what happens with the election (though Congress could possibly get its act together and pass something). I assume you are a K awardee seeking the limited competition R03 funds and so don’t have an option to submit a different RPG application in the meantime. Usually ICs consider the better of two concurrent versions (ie, will go back to fund an A0 if the A1 scores higher), but some ICs are changing their internal policies, and this could be an SOP for these limited R03 applications in particular. It is unlikely that the NIH budget will be cut either way, so if your PO is optimistic based on current expectations, then the chances would remain good once the NIDDK receives its appropriation, and you could use this time to focus on advancing the work. However, if you feel confident about improving your score due to new data, publications, and/or improved experimental design, then you still might consider it. I suspect your PO would be willing to look at your Introduction and updated Aims page and give advice in comparison with A0 (ie, whether to go ahead with A1).
Rock_R01 said
Dear Writedit,
I submitted a R01 proposal to a special RFA and got a score 22 about 7 days ago. It seems percentiles will not be available for grants went to this RFA. I am still waiting for the summary statement.
It is the first time my R01 proposals were scored but no percentiles. I wonder should I be optimistic (or not) about this score? I am curious what criteria NIH would use to fund the proposals that don’t have percentiles? Should I consider to resubmit the proposal?
Thanks!
Rock
writedit said
Correct – percentiles are not calculated for applications in response to an RFA because there are not multiple rounds of reviews with which to do the calculation (just the one submission cycle). ICs use the score, summary statement, and their internal priorities to determine which applications receive awards. Your 22 is an excellent score, though, so that should at least put you in the running. When you have your summary statement (your PO will have no advice before then), you can get in touch with your PO about next steps, which could include preparing a brief rebuttal to concerns cited in the Summary of Discussion. You can also ask if you should submit your application again to a different FOA while you wait to hear the outcome, since the NIH appropriation for FY21 will likely be significantly delayed (ie, until next year).
Rock said
Thank you!
Rock said
Dear Writedit … I would like to report back. After I received the summary statement, I have had email communication with my PO. He asked me to send a rebuttal letter. But he also said … meanwhile I may consider to submit the proposal to another relevant mechanism. I am a bit confused and wonder what is the likelihood that the proposal is funded via the original mechanism (i.e., a special RFA). I appreciate your advice.
Regards,
Rock
writedit said
You have a great PO. The rebuttal is for the IC to use in internal discussions about which applications to fund (so they take into account how you would address concerns raised). The suggestion to submit again to another FOA is standard advice to anyone who has applied to an RFA. You can submit the same application (revised taking into consideration reviewer suggestions that improve the research strategy) to either the parent R01 FOA or any other relevant R01 PA while you wait to hear the outcome of this application. If you receive an award through the RFA program, your separate non-RFA R01 submission will be administratively withdrawn, and even if the non-RFA application is not discussed, it will not have any impact on the RFA decisions (ie, you could still receive an award). It is always a good idea to target different FOAs, different ICs, and different SRGs throughout your career so you have a diversified funding portfolio and are not always going back to the same reviewers and the same sponsor for money.
Rock said
Dear Writedit,
I appreciate your detailed explanations which help me and other people understand the procedure. Thank you!
Regards,
Rock
pneumosepsis said
I just received a score of 9th percentile on my R01 (established investigator, NIAID). Can I be optimistic about funding ?
writedit said
Yes, although you will also need to be very patient, since we won’t have a federal budget for months still. When you get your summary statement, you can check with your PO about whether you should consider resubmission or any other next steps, but your PO won’t know about funding until FY21 budget is signed into law.
>
pneumosepsis said
Thank you. The PO said situation is very promising. Are the pay lines expected to be similar/better than FY 2020 ?
writedit said
Right now, I assume they will be as good or better based on the House and Senate appropriation bills and Congress’s commitment to biomedical research in general.
>
NIAIDFan said
The interim FY2021 R01 payline -just like the past few years- for established investigators as per the latest update on NIAID website is 10, so your %-tile ranking is promising indeed. Good luck.
Izlude said
Hi,
I had a questions about ESI status. I am submitting my first R01 for this cycle (10/2020) and to make sure I am an ESI since that is huge. Here is my training what I think is ESI relevant:
1. MD done in 2006
2. Residency done in 2009
3. Fellowship (which I think is the latest post graduate clinical training) in 2011 which is a clinical fellowship
4. MSc (I would say latest in terms of research degree) in 2013.
My reading of their rule is that it meets for 2011 fellowship training? Or would it meet for the MSc? I only ask one to make sure I am indeed an ESI for the October submission this month and assuming a resubmission this would be June 2021 so m 10 years would end right around then if I am going by the 2011 fellowship.
If so I was going to apply for extension with COVID anyways.
Thanks!
writedit said
Your ESI status is linked to the conclusion of your clinical training, not completion of the Masters. Since your fellowship was for specialty clinical training, then 2011 is the relevant year to consider. If it had been as a lab postdoc (strictly for research), then 2009 would have been the relevant year. Because eRA Commons calculates your ESI status based on your training dates (not a box you check), you want to be sure your status is correct there, even before you request a COVID-19 extension.
>
pneumosepsis said
Thank you !
NIBIBR15 said
HI writedit,
I received an R15 score of 29 and 13%-ile from NIBIB, waiting for the summary report. The NIBIB do not post pay-lines for the R-15, but have for R-01. Can I orientate my likelihood for funding based on their R01? Any thoughts will be appreciated. Also, for the score of 29 the %ile is suspiciously low, is it due to the low number of application this year?
writedit said
I think a 13th percentile R15 should be reasonably competitive (based on R15 pattern across NIH, not NIBIB 18th percentile for R01). I do not know the spread of scores and percentiles considered by NIBIB, but the select pay status indicates they are willing to go as high as needed to fund research that is a high priority for them. When you get your summary statement, you can check in with your PO about next steps and whether you should consider resubmission. Your PO won’t be able to comment on funding likelihood because we won’t know about the federal budget for months (I would assume the NIH appropriation will be as good or better, but there are no guarantees).
NIBIBR15 said
Thank you for prompt response!
Abraham said
My R01 will go to the first meeting of a new study section, which seems just to evolve from an existing one. Generally, percentile of a proposal is calculated based on scores of past three rounds. Is the percentile of my application calculated based only on cores of the first meeting of the new study section or with scores in two other meetings of old study sections?
writedit said
The percentile starts fresh, so yours will just reflect your position in your meeting. Sometimes existing SRGs are recalibrated as well, when the scores creep down rather than reflect an appropriate use of the full scoring range.
Abraham said
Thank you so much!
Abraham said
Thank you so much!
NM2020 said
Thank you for this great opportunity to get information/advice. My question is about the NIH continuity funding NOT-OD-20-054 due to the COVID19 situation and whether I need to get my PO’s approval before I can apply. I’m a K01 awardee and my institution gives a COVID Gap award only if I’m eligible for NOT-OD-20-054, which I think I’m since I’ve 8-years old child who is doing full-time distance learning. My problem is that my PO never replied to my multiple email inquiries on whether I’m eligible and can go ahead and apply. Please advise. Thank you so much in advance.
SaG said
You don’t need your PO’s approval to apply. You might try contacting someone higher up. A Branch chief or Division Director. I am sure they would like feedback about the responsiveness of your PO. And, yes it might piss off the PO (probably embarrass them more). But, it is probably the BC or DD who makes the funding decisions for these supps.
writedit said
SaG gives exactly the same advice I was going to post. I’ll add that it is generally a good idea to get your PO’s input on any administrative supplement, but it isn’t required, and a non-response shouldn’t keep you from applying, especially since your situation does sound appropriate for this Notice and COVID gap funding. The PO might be dealing with at-home schooling or another COVID-related situation, but that doesn’t excuse the lack of response of any sort (or referral to someone who has the bandwidth to help, since this is a straightforward situation).
Mika said
I submitted two R01s on Oct 5 cycle, today, era commons updated that both have been assigned to Scientific Review Group: SBIB. SBIB is not specific Study Section?
writedit said
If you did not request specific SRG assignments, then your first referral is to an Integrated Review Group (IRG), and then to specific study sections within that IRG. It is always best to do some research and request the most appropriate SRGs. Your request often matches the CSR assignment anyway, but it is just as important to tailor your application to the reviewing study section (ie, tailor background information and points of emphasis to the expertise and interests of regular members).
Mika said
Highly appreciated. I did request specific SRG assignments (study sections: CTIS and EITA). Late on, They will be assigned to specific study sections.
writedit said
Sounds good – best wishes for success.
SciGuy said
Just got an A0 R21 score back. Impact score is not what I would consider competitive 43 but the percentile score is promising (25) for this funding mechanism and institute (NIGMS). Anyone have similar experience with oddly low percentiles relative to score? Should I chalk it up to a harsh study section?
SaG said
The SRO is great at getting the reviewers to spread scores. A 43 is a slightly above avg. grant (according to the NIH description a 5 is an avg. NIH app). A 25% reflects that.
writedit said
Absolutely what SaG said – I wish all study sections used the scoring range appropriately. Also, this SRG may have recently been recalibrated (or reconstituted), so your application could be among the first cycles (ie, score spreading strongly enforced and not diluted by prior cycles’ drift toward lower impact scores).
SciGuy said
That is a bit of a relief… I was just left a little nonplus by this as my previous experiences put a ~40 score in the 50%
Hulo said
Hi all, My first R21 is in review today. This is for NIDDK. Could you let me know what is considered to be a decent percentile score for being competitive? Have not received my score yet but am eagerly waiting. Thanks to all in advance.
writedit said
R21s are as or more competitive than R01s usually. After you get your summary statement (not just your score, which won’t be sufficiently informative), ask your PO if you should resubmit (if it is not obvious due to ND or very high score/percentile) and if so for advice on resubmission strategy. This is the more relevant question because we won’t have an FY21 budget for months still, so neither your PO nor anyone else will know about funding likelihood until next year.
Hulo said
Thanks a lot!! I am still waiting for the score. Nothing has been updated yet.
Hulo said
I received 43 impact score which I believe will not be fundable but I think I will have a chance to go for A1. On another note my student just received 36 impact score on her F31 submission for NIDDK. Do you think this is fundable?
writedit said
You are correct that the 43 is is too high, though the percentile will be more informative (and if this is for an RFA, then the PO will give you the best information on where you stand – and will likely want a rebuttal). The 36 is also too high for an F31, though, again, you can see what the percentile is (it would need to be a lot lower to be competitive). However, both these scores suggest a fixable problem (something in your Approach that you can revise, based on the summary statement critiques, to lower the score) vs mediocre enthusiasm for an otherwise technically adequate proposal.
Jun Wang said
Hi, I got review result of an NIA R21 which is AD related. The score is 34 and the percentile is 21. Can I get an idea whether is fundable, if the funding line stay the same? I looked at the NIA funding line policy by 2020. I feel confused since I don’t see R21 payline on the web page. Thanks!
SciGuy said
It is an inexact science (at least in my understanding when there are know cutoffs). I always look at funding rates by mechanism and institute to see if I am in the game for these (https://report.nih.gov/success_rates/). Seems to be 21.8% for NIA, but these decisions usually depend on program needs. Your PO will know better.
Jun Wang said
Thanks! It is great to know that.
writedit said
Success rates are absolutely not funding percentiles, so that is not a good metric to use, actually. This just tells you that the NIA funds about a fifth of all R21 applications, no matter the scientific topic or FOA. NIA lists its paylines for all research mechanisms reviewed at CSR (vs by NIA), including R21s, in the first line “All”. For FY21, the interim payline for AD is the 25th percentile, so you should be fine, but confirm with your PO whether you need to resubmit after you have your summary statement. See https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/grants-funding/nia-interim-funding-line-policy-fy-2021
Jun Wang said
Thanks! I hope NIA receives the same amount of additional fund the next year just like the most recent 5 years.
R012020 said
I would like to ask for advice. My R01 application with NIA received a score of 38 and 25%. The project is AD-related and I’m eligible as a New Investigator. According to the following website, NIA gives special consideration to NI R01s and the fundable score was 31% for AD projects in 2020. Can I have some hopes or I should consider resubmitting? Thank you very much in advance. Here is the website
https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/grants-funding/nia-funding-line-policy-fy-2020
writedit said
I think you can be positive, but you should still contact your PO after you receive your summary statement. I believe the extra funding for AD is lower in the FY21 AD By-pass Budget, which could mean slightly lower paylines in FY21, but I am not sure where the NIH budget requests stand. Your PO will not know anything with certainty, but they should be aware of whether the anticipated amount of AD funding will be slightly lower based on where things currently stand. Even if there is a slight reduction, I am not sure if that would be enough to lower paylines by more than 5 percentile points. Since your PO will not know about funding likelihood, simply ask whether you should resubmit, since the FY21 budget won’t be resolved until some time next year (and you don’t want to miss a submission cycle if there is any doubt about an award).
writedit said
Actually, I just did what I should have done first: checked for NIA FY21 Interim Paylines, which are indeed posted. The interim FY21 payline for NI R01 applications is the 28th percentile, so you should be fine. I would still advice confirming this with your PO after receiving your summary statement, but I expect the news will be positive. See https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/grants-funding/nia-interim-funding-line-policy-fy-2021
NCI11th said
My NCI R01 received 11th percentile in June. I know this is borderline score. If I resubmit it in this November cycle, and receive a score not as good as the 11th percentile, is this new score rather than the better old one will be counted for this application? Do you suggest waiting for one more cycle for the resubmission? Thank you so much!
writedit said
In the past, most or all ICs focused on the lower scoring application (ie, if A1 scored higher, they continued to work to fund the A0), but some folks here have posted that their PO suggested otherwise (I cannot remember which ICs were involved, unfortunately). I would suggest you ask your PO for advice on resubmission and whether this might put your A0 application in jeopardy. It should not, but ICs can set their own policies, and your PO will have the best advice – and will be your best advocate at NCI, where PO backing is critical, so you want to include them in all your application decisions.
NCI11th said
Thank you so much writedit! This is very helpful.
New PI said
I submitted an R01 proposal on 10/5. It still hasn’t been assigned an ID. Just shows as entered in the system. Is it normal for it to take this long? Thank you!!
writedit said
If you did not request an IC assignment, CSR could be waiting to hear back about whether one or more ICs (ie, primary and/or secondary ICs) will accept your application (at least one IC must accept any application before it will be referred for review). If you did communicate with a PO who was interested in your application, then it could just be a slow start to the FY (and a heavy referral workload due to lots of PIs having extra writing time this summer for October submissions).
New PI said
My proposal still hasn’t been assigned. I did submit an IC request. I did communicate with a PO but there was no place to indicate that since they don’t allow that on the cover letter anymore. Is there something I can do to follow up? My grants and contracts people assure me that it’s properly submitted. It shows on my era commons as being entered.
writedit said
If it’s been more than 2 weeks since submission with no assignment to an IC or SRG, you should contact the CSR Division of Receipt and Referral (301-435-0715; [email protected]). As an aside, you can submit an optional cover letter and name the PO, but you don’t need to (sometimes it’s good for the SRO to know the PO’s name, which doesn’t have a place on the PHS referral form).
New PI said
Thank you so much for the advice! I called the number and I actually got to speak to a human right away. She said they received 3100 proposals for the 10/5 cycle and they are just bogged down. She confirmed that my application was entered appropriately. She said if it’s not assigned by next Thursday, to call back. She was very nice. I feel better. Thank you!
writedit said
Wow. I had assumed they were just overwhelmed (and still struggling with work from home/COVID-19 staffing issues), so I am glad to hear that is all it is. And yes, you should never hesitate to call the folks at CSR and eRA (I have not heard from anyone who had a bad experience calling a help line and usually hear what a pleasant experience it was).
R01 renewal said
I have a quick question. I am 3 years into an R01 award and want to submit a renewal, but I am not sure if this PA allows for renewals. The PA was https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-15-135.html I would very much appreciate your advice!
writedit said
The PA to which you applied has been reissued as PA-18-876: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-18-876.html However, you are correct that Section II of PA-18-876 does not list Renewals as a type of application accepted, so you should ask your PO how to handle your renewal. It could be you will need to renew through the parent R01 FOA instead.
R01 renewal said
Thank you for your quick reply!
Resubmission said
Thank you always for your advice.
I am an ESI. I applied my first R01 to NIA in 2019 and got R56 for a year starting this September.
Currently, I am preparing for resubmission for November.
A few days ago, NIA announced a new interim 2021 payline, and the ESI payline has dropped significantly to 13%.
I am wondering if it is possible to receive R56 and resubmit to another institute. If not, should I make a new submission to other institutes? Do you think there is a benefit to resubmit to NIA?
Thank you!!!
SaG said
You don’t really get to pick your institute, If you send it to Institute X but it fits the mission of Institute Z it will go to Z. You would have to do a major rewrite (almost a new app) to change Institutes now. The interim payline will go up after NIH gets a full year budget.
writedit said
The interim payline is always conservative and therefore low because ICs do not know what the federal budget will look like signed into law (for FY21, this won’t happen until December at the earliest but more likely next February or later). If the NIH appropriation comes through as anticipated (based on current Congressional levels), the paylines will go back up to FY20 levels (and be retroactive to the beginning of the FY). It’s easier to raise the interim payline and go back to fund additional applications than to subsequently lower the payline in the middle of the FY (leaving those who anticipated an award unfunded). The fact that NIA gave you an R56 means they believe in your project and want to fund it. You are clearly at the right IC – you should never attempt to change ICs based on payline alone (if the other ICs don’t think your science supports their mission, they won’t accept or fund your applications). You should communicate with your PO about how to strengthen your R01 application.
Abraham said
Dear writedit,
My R01 application was assigned to a “member conflict” study section (starting with ZRG) instead of a standing study section I requested. That study section does not exist in each submission rounds and usually have different names. I am wondering how the percentile be calculated. Does it based on 1 meeting or combined with other similar study sections in the same IRG groups.
Thanks!
writedit said
To be honest, I am not sure if you will only receive an impact score, a percentile based on just this review cycle, or a percentile calculated using the SRG from which applications were referred. These special panels used to be very small and specific to one SRG (and often just a few applications), but I believe CSR is combining them now to increase efficiency and reduce attempts to secure SEP review by applying with a known conflict (ie, to move out of large group into smaller perhaps friendlier panel). However, I am curious about why you requested this SRG, when you apparently should have known there would be a member conflict. If this is a complete surprise to you (ie, you do not know with whom on the panel and your application the conflict arises), you might ask the SRO of the SRG you requested why your application was sent to the member conflict panel.
Abraham said
Thank you for your quick reply. The study section I requested is a new study section. It is evolved from an older one. I don’t who is the conflict. Actually I am not sure whether such an arrangement is good or bad. I heard somebody said small study sections seem to be more friendly. A good thing is this member conflict study section usually meets almost 1 month later than standing sections. I will have more time to publish preliminary data:-)
writedit said
These member conflict study sections used to result in higher likelihood of funding, but to save money, CSR began combining these little panels to cover more than one or two applications, so I don’t know how it works out now for PIs reviewed there. However, I am still puzzled as to why your application was in conflict if you don’t know the reason. Usually if there is a conflicted reviewer, they just leave the room and do not have access to application materials (ie, applications from their own institution, from a colleague or trainee or mentor, etc.). The member conflict panel is typically used when an investigator on the application is also a member of the SRG to which the application is sent for review (hence the name, “member” conflict panel – member of the SRG).
Resub said
Dear Writedit,
I received a 10% on a A1 R01 NICHD that was reviewed in July. Council met in Sept and the ERA Commons status is still listed as “Council review completed”. I tried contacting my PO without success and ended emailing the chief of the division. He said that he was hoping that they would fund up to 10%, but to go ahead and resubmit. A number of my colleagues have told me that 10% should be funded if the new budget stays the same. Should I just be patient?
writedit said
Your status will stay at “Council review completed” well into next year. If you’re okay with potentially losing a year of funding, then you can wait. The FY21 budget could be signed into law in December but will likely be delayed until February 2021 or later, which means ICs won’t have their appropriations and be able to gauge paylines until April-May or later. If you wait and your A1 is not funded, your next submission window would be June or October, depending on budget timing. If the current Congressional levels for the NIH appropriation stay the same, then you should be okay with a 10th percentile – but this is 2020 after all, which is why the Division Chief suggested resubmitting (for insurance). The next A0 window will be February, and I would recommend that you have an application ready to submit – whether a reworking of this A1 or a new project (you should always have multiple projects under development, especially if they can be submitted to different ICs and/or SRGs, to ensure your funding portfolio is diversified and has staggered start-end dates).
JONR15 said
Hi Everyone, I have been applying for AREA R-15 (NIGMS) three consecutive years and only now obtained competitive score. The issue is that I have a reviewer who has been copy-pasting his/her comments constantly from the very 1st submission although the new proposal (3rd) has been modified from the initial version twice. I feel he/she did not dedicate the requisite time to read the new proposal and did not fully consider its merits and hence damaged the overall score (the score is excellent now but could be outstanding). The proposal development takes enormous amount of time/energy/resources and it is reasonable to expect that the proposal review will be conducted according to NIH’s core values and the highest level of ethical standards and not simply copy-pasting previous comment. How do I approach my PO in this matter? Should I request exclusion of this reviewer from my future applications? Did anyone have same experience? Please advice.
SaG said
I would suggest sending an email to the SRO of the study section and cc: the PO. It is the SRO who would need to deal with this situation but the PO should know.
writedit said
Thanks for this great advice, SaG.
JONR15 said
Thank you SaG and writedit. I am curious to know what would be potential outcome, is it possible that the score and percentile will be reconsidered/recalculated?
writedit said
If you make a formal appeal, which I don’t actually recommend, the exact same application (no modifications on your part) would reviewed in the same study section by different reviewers in the cycle following your Council meeting (Council must approve the appeal first). You would lose more time this way than by simply reapplying, and the third reviewer is unlikely to be score-driving, but their lack of enthusiasm and effort doesn’t help with the scoring range. However, if your PO realizes there was a problem, this could be taken into consideration when your IC considers whether to fund your application (especially if you are asked to send a short rebuttal to the critiques); the IC personnel cannot second-guess the review and will rely on the Summary of Discussion comments, so if none of the third reviewer concerns are listed there, it’s unlikely to have an impact – but still a concern worth raising with the SRO and PO.
SaG said
I agree with writedit. Having a lazy reviewer is not a basis for an appeal anyway.
JONR15 said
That was thoroughly explain, thank you very much.
LAM said
Dear writedit,
I received an impact score of a 26 on my AD-related K23 to the NIA. It was reviewed in June. When I spoke to my PO in June she seemed enthusiastic and optimistic, but was unsure because the FY21 paylines were not available. My status is “council review completed.” I just noticed that the NIA FY21 paylines were posted and I still think that I am within funding range. This is my first NIH grant and I just was curious what the next steps are?
Thank you
writedit said
Congratulations on the score within the AD payline. At this point, you will have a lot of hurry up and wait. The NIH is operating under a continuing resolution (CR) until December, and this will likely be extended past January 2021. While ICs make some awards under a CR, most wait until the federal budget for the FY has been signed into law, and the ICs know the appropriation they anticipate is what they will receive. You probably won’t have much activity on your application until after either a spending bill with HHS funds has been signed into law (a possibility, especially with COVID-19, since the CDC and FDA will also be hamstrung by the CR) or the entire federal budget omnibus has been passed and signed. Watch the news for signs that the federal budget or parts of it (HHS) are close to being enacted. ICs won’t get their appropriations until 4-6 weeks later, but at least you will know when the process will get started.
LAM said
Thank you so much for this information!
Pam said
Dear friends, does any of you have some knowledge about R01 payline at NIDCR? I just scored 15 percentile and not sure if that is likely to be within funding range. Not new investigator. Thanks.
writedit said
NIDCR doesn’t have a big budget, so 15th percentile is probably in the select pay zone, but probably close. Because they don’t publish a payline, they likely make a fair number of select pay awards, so when you get your summary statement, you’ll want to communicate with your PO about whether you should resubmit (whether because you need to or just for insurance) and, if so, strategies for the revised application. Because the federal budget is months away, your PO won’t be able to comment specifically on funding likelihood yet.
Tony Duncan said
Dear writedit:
First of all, thank you very much for all the information that you provided, there were very helpful. I am an established investigator and my recent NCI R01 grant was reviewed last week. The score is 10% (impact factor=25). I contact my PO and received her reply this morning. She said that NCI is still under continuing resolution and no payline is available for FY2021. My question is: based on the budget and appropriations that NCI received for FY2021, is it likely that NCI will maintain its R01 payline at the level of 10% for FY2021? Many thanks for your insight information and help.
With warmest regards,
Tony Duncan
writedit said
Assuming there are no surprises in the FY21 budget once it is signed into law (which probably will not happen until next February or later), NCI is targeting an 11th percentile payline, per Michelle Bennett’s blog post: https://www.cancer.gov/grants-training/nci-bottom-line-blog/2020/accelerating-progress-nci-annual-plan-and-budget-proposal-for-fy-2022 (earlier she noted the intention to get up to the 15th percentile for RPGs by 2025). In that case, you should be in good shape. However, your PO will not know if the 11th percentile project will be realized during the CR, which currently lasts until December but will likely be extended past inauguration. When you have your summary statement, you can talk with your PO about whether to sit tight (based on positive reviews and NCI Bottom Line Blog) or apply again (if PO has concerns).
Carmen said
Hello writedit,
We just received an impact score of 19 for an NINDS U44, with no percentile. Since the NINDS payline has a % and not a score, is there likelihood of this grant getting funded? Thank you!
writedit said
The percentile is just for RPGs (R01, R03, R15, R21) in any case, so a score would not be helpful either. When you get your summary statement, you will want to check with the PO about next steps. A 19 seems as though it should be competitive, but NINDS will probably take other factors into consideration on Phase II award decisions. Your PO won’t have any definitive information until a budget is signed into law (probably not until next year), but they can advise on whether to resubmit and/or prepare a rebuttal for this review for internal use during award discussions at NINDS (again, not until next year probably).
R01anxious said
Dear Writeedit, thank you so much for such a helpful site. My question is about the recently posted FY21 pay lines of NIA. I have noticed that the AD/ADRD program announcements (PAR) pay lines are set by score, not percentile and the current passing score is 37. Is this also the passing score for the NI and ESI? Does the R01 application considered as a program project and falls under the 37 pay line?
Thank you so much!
https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/blog/2020/10/proceeding-caution-cr-new-interim-pay-lines-fy-2021
writedit said
An R01 is not a program project, but an NIA-reviewed R01 would fall under the second line of the NIA-Reviewed Applications table for “Other NIA-Reviewed Research”, which has the same paylines (15 non-AD/ADRD – 37 AD/ADRD). Since they do not break it down any further, I assume the impact score of 37 applies to all NIA-specific applications, but your PO could clarify for your specific situation.
R01 Freshman said
Dear Writedit,
I have an R01 resubmission, which was just scored as 44 impact score and 36% percentile. The original submission was not discussed.
The center is National Eye Institute (NEI). The success rate at NEI for new submission as opposed to competing renewal in 2019 is 24.9%. I am an early and new investigator.
I know I need to wait for the summary and talk to the PO for all insights and info. I am just nervously curious that is there any slight chance my R01 could be considered for funding, though it does not look like there is a good chance obviously.
writedit said
While it is not impossible that you could be funded, it is not likely. However, the score suggests there will be fixable problems, so if the reviewers were otherwise enthusiastic about the proposal and your PO is interested in your work, then the summary statement and PO advice should be a good blueprint to a competitive score.
AHRQ R01 said
I was fortunate to receive a 12th percentile score for a recent AHRQ R01 submission. Because they do not publish strict pay lines, I’m wondering if others have a sense whether this is a competitive score at AHRQ? I recognize that I need to wait for the summary statement, talk to the PO, and see if the grant is still of sufficient programmatic interest to them, but just putting out feelers to this very knowledgeable group. Thanks in advance!
JP said
AHRQ unfortunately does not publish their paylines. Based on my experience, for investigator-initiated R01s, AHRQ’s payline is around 5th %tile.
Fk said
Hello:
My colleague received a score of 30 (16 percentile) on an R21 with NICHD. Any idea about potential funding since they do not publish strict pay lines.
Thank you!
writedit said
Probably high, but your colleague’s PO will be able to give the best advice on next steps, including whether to resubmit. At this point, no one will be able to discuss funding likelihood until the FY21 budget is signed into law.
Fk said
Thank you!
writedit said
AHRQ has a tiny budget, so their paylines tend to be low out of necessity, but they are also supportive of high-priority projects, so your conversation with the PO will be important, too.
AHRQ R01 said
Thanks. My application was for one of the Funding Opportunity Announcements under the National Action Plans to Prevent Healthcare-Acquired Infections/Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, so hoping this means a more generous payline.
writedit said
Aha – yes, if your score is among the best in response to that FOA, then you should be in good shape. This is where the summary statement and conversation with your PO will be key.
AHRQ R01 said
Thank you for your reply!
AHRQ ? said
May I ask if you got funded? I was in a similar situation last cycle and did not (was an A0 R01 application to AHRQ).
AHRQ R01 said
Not yet. Since this is FY 21, I probably won’t know much until the the new year when the budget gets signed after the inauguration. I had a good conversation with the PO but am not banking on anything yet.
writedit said
Actually, FASEB Inside (the Beltway) Scoop suggests there is a chance Congress will pass a budget before winter recess (http://washingtonupdate.faseb.org/inside-beltway-scoop-63/). I wouldn’t have thought this possible, but now that they’re working toward pandemic relief, too, we might have an FY21 budget by the end of 2020. ICs still would not have their appropriations until February, but that’s better than March-April (or later). Just keep an eye on the news to gauge when ICs might start processing/making awards in earnest (6-8+ weeks after budget is signed into law).
AHRQ ? said
Thank you for your reply. Good luck to you!!
DK said
Hi, I recently received a score of 30 on my NIDDK K01. I realize NIDDK does not publish their K paylines,but I was wondering if anyone has insights into potentially what last year’s cutoff was for K awards (or K01s), and if its likely to hold through 2021, barring any unexpected changes to funding. Thank you.
ESI2020 said
It depends on your area of research, but a score of 30 in general has a good chance to be funded. I’ve heard K01 proposals around 30 being funded by NIDDK.
DK said
Thanks a lot
writedit said
Yes, that’s definitely in the zone of consideration, but NIDDK won’t know anything definite until the federal budget is signed into law (probably not until next year). When you get your summary statement, contact your PO about next steps (rebuttal, resubmission).
MeMeMe said
SSPT study section, impact score 27, no percentile (yet?). Does anybody whether or not that might be a fundable score for an R61/33 application to NHLBI? Payline is currently 16% for R01s.
writedit said
Do you mean R21/R33? NHLBI probably doesn’t go on a straight payline for a special activity code like this, so when you get your summary statement, check with your PO about next steps (rebuttal, resubmission). No one at NHLBI will know about funding decisions until the FY21 budget is signed into law, which probably won’t happen until next year, so you won’t get an update on funding likelihood at this point.
MeMeMe said
Thanks for the reply (and for operating this extremely valuable resource). It is, in fact, an R61/R33 – I had not heard of the R61 mechanism before submitting to the PAR in question, but it is used in lieu of the R21 mechanism for bigger budgets:
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/ac_search_results.htm?text_curr=r61&Search_Type=Activity
MeMeMe said
To answer my own question: no, a 27 is not quite good enough, at least at NHLBI at present. So, back in it goes!
writedit said
Oh no – so sorry to hear this. I hope your PO was able to give you some insights based on the discussion (ie, what reviewers talked most about and seemed most concerned about). If you haven’t asked, you can check if they heard the discussion and can offer any feedback on your introduction and/or revised aims.
NIAID payline said
NIAID newbie here. I see they use paylines, do they also do select pay beyond those, or is it a hard cutoff (non-ESI).
writedit said
All ICs make some select pay awards, but at NIAID, these are the exception rather than the rule, especially for established investigators. For FY21, NIAID plans (pending budget passage) to set aside $3M per Division for selective pay and $9M per Division for bridge awards (R56), so not a lot of money there.
Mika said
Dear Writedit,
What is NIDDK payline for senior/established PI in FY 2021?
writedit said
NIDDK has not set any FY21 paylines because the FY21 budget has not been signed into law and probably won’t be until next year. You can use last year’s payline (16th percentile) as a gauge and communicate with your PO about next steps (rebuttal, resubmission) when you have your summary statement.
Mika said
Thank Writedit very much, you are my dictionary of R01 issues
Joseph Backer said
If SBIR grant was submitted in April 2020 and Council was in September 2020,, which year payline is used in the award, 2020 or 2021? Thank you.
Brian said
Usually 2021, if it were 2020, you’d be awarded already.
writedit said
April 5 is the Cycle III submission for the current FY, which would have been FY20 (Start Date Sept 1). In that case, if you did not receive an award by September 30, you need to resubmit. You should communicate with your PO for advice on whether the application was in fact a Sept 1 vs Dec 1 start date (if this is not clear in eRA Commons) and help to improve funding likelihood on resubmission.
Wenyan Mei said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you very much for taking time to answer questions on this forum. Very informative and helpful! I have a question on the dual assignment of ICs. If an R01 application is assigned to two ICs, and one is them is primary. What happens when the percentile of the application falls out of the payline of the primary IC, but is within the payline of the secondary IC? Is there a chance that the secondary IC funds the application? If so, will the PO in the primary institute initiate the process or should the applicant contact the PO of the secondary IC to seek the funding possibility? Thanks in advance.
writedit said
ICs rarely pick up secondary applications for funding, but it does happen. In FY21, no secondary IC pick-ups would be happening until next summer. First the primary IC needs to confirm they will not fund the application, which may not be clear until the end of the FY (if the IC is considering making a select pay award). Once the PO from the primary IC confirms they will not make an award, they take steps to relinquish the application to the secondary IC – which must first be willing to pick up the award. If you have an application that just scored in this situation, you should contact the primary IC PO about next steps (rebuttal, resubmission). If the primary IC recommends resubmission, the question then is whether the secondary IC is a better home for your work (based on science, not payline). Don’t forget that the secondary assignment means secondary interest (hence the very low rate of ICs funding secondary applications). The science is more important than the score in deciding which applications to accept (simply being within their payline does not mean being within their priority for funding).
Wenyan Mei said
Dear Writedit,
Your detailed explanation is very helpful! I really appreciate it!
Thomas Nathaniel said
I know some had already posted this question, but Im not sure if there is a response yet. I also have a question on the dual assignment of ICs. If an R01 application is assigned to two ICs, and one is them is primary, and the other is secondary. What happens when the percentile of the application falls out of the payline of the primary IC, but is within the payline of the secondary IC? Is there a chance that the secondary IC funds the application? If so, will the PO in the primary institute initiate the process or should the applicant contact the PO of the secondary IC to seek the funding possibility? I appreciate your response..
writedit said
Please see my response immediately above to Wenyan Mei. Even if your application score is within the secondary IC payline, it doesn’t mean your science is within their priorities (otherwise, it would have been the primary IC), which is why few ICs pick up secondary applications for funding.
SaG said
To expand on what writedit said above, few NIH Institutes are willing to consider taking primary on a grant after it has been reviewed. They don’t want to encourage payline shopping. When you resubmit you could try and get your app made primary at the Institute with the better payline before it is reviewed. But, as W.E. said, you have to make a strong scientific argument that it is a better fit for the mission of the other institute.
Wenyan Mei said
I greatly appreciate the detailed explanation from both Writedit and SaG. This is very helpful!
WomanInScience said
Dear Writedit,
I just received my R01 A1 score and it was 17th%. The requested funding institute is NHLBI. I am an established investigator. Should I have any hope or not?
writedit said
This is tough. You are just above the FY20 payline, and with the onslaught of pandemic applications, I don’t expect paylines to be higher in FY21, though it could happen. Not hopeless, but I suspect your PO will recommend submitting again in Feb. You can ask for advice when you get your summary statement.
WomanInScience said
Thank you so much for the input/advice Writedit. I will discuss with my PO after receiving the summary statement.
WomanInScience said
Any possibility for a selective pay?
writedit said
That depends entirely on the summary statement (addressable concerns), whether your science is of sufficiently high priority to NHLBI, and whether your submission was to an RFA or other special FOA (less likely to go strictly by score/percentile). In general, you shouldn’t count on selective pay, as it is the exception rather than the rule.
WomanInScience said
Very helpful. I greatly appreciated your comments/suggestions.
WomanInSceince said
Is there any possibility for an application scored just above the pay-line gets funded by the NIH?
SaG said
They made it to 16% last year so there is some hope. But you should revise and resubmit. If the payline goes up or they reach for your app it won’t be for months yet; maybe not until Summer.
WomanInScience said
Thank you so much SaG. I will revise and resubmit the application.
SaG said
Of course you should try and check with a PO at NHLBI too.
Ras said
Dear writedit,
Thanks so much for this blog. I have found it very helpful. I just received my impact score 26 for my k08 from NIAMS? Do you have any insight as to the likelihood of fundability given the fiscal constraints brought on by COVID?
Ras
writedit said
I tend to view K scores below 30 as being in the competitive range, though it varies from IC to IC. Right now, the Congressional appropriation for the NIH is on par with FY20, and though that could change before the federal budget is finalized (probably not until next year), I wouldn’t expect a significant cut if there is one (due to ballooning deficit). However, the number of applications in June-July and Oct-Nov will be higher, since so many investigators had lots of time to write proposals, which could then increase the number of competitive scores and cause paylines to stay the same or slightly lower.
ras said
I very much appreciate your perspective. I am finding it difficult to put the score in perspective based on previous NIAMS FY due to the uncertainty caused by the multiple effects of the pandemic.
hummingbird said
Dear Writedit,
I resubmitted my K99/R00 in March 2020, got the score (15) in July 2020. The council meeting was on 09/25/2020. Got the personal JIT request from GMS on 10/8/2020 and submitted the JIT on 10/16/2020.
On 10/21/2020 the status changed from “council meeting completed” to “pending”. Last Friday I received an email from my PO saying I got the grant and with all the instructions explaining what to do when I get the NoA.
Since the 2020 fiscal year is gone already and I read your comments about the new budget that will be not available before Jan/Feb 2021, when do you think I’ll get the NoA and my project will start?
Thanks for taking the time to reply to me!
SaG said
The PO would not (or should not) have said you got the grant unless they had the money. So, expect a NoA in the next couple of weeks. NIH did get some money just not a full year budget.
writedit said
“Pending” can last for months, but if your PO sent instructions on how to handle the NoA, then it sounds like you are one of the very fortunate investigators to have a new award issued during a continuing resolution. It will be interesting to see what your start date is.
hummingbird said
Thank you both! The status changed today in “award prepared”. I’m also very curious to see the start date of the project.
alee.stella86 said
Last update: got the NoA today, project start on 11/9/2020. Thanks for keeping this forum! It’s very helpful!
writedit said
Congratulations and best wishes for success with your project and your career in biomedical research!
Dipanjan Pan said
Dear Writedit,
I just received scores for two of my NIH R21s. They were submitted in response NOSI Emergency Awards COVID-19 FOA (NIAID). One scored 47 and the other 56. For a regular submission, these scores are not fundable.
However, I’m wondering if there is any information about how these COVID-19 proposals being considered. Is there any chance of getting these funded? Any information is highly appreciated.
Thank you for your time,
pd
writedit said
Not impossible, but those scores are pretty high. It will depend on the summary statement and programmatic interest. If reviewers had concerns that cannot be readily addressed without significant changes to your approach (which would require a second review of scientific merit), then you are unlikely to be funded. If it’s a lot of relatively minor issues, then you are more likely to get some consideration, especially if the science is compelling.
pd said
Great thoughts. Thanks
pd
Demetris Yannopoulos said
For an R01 going for council review in January do the same payline 2020 apply? I am asking because I got a 15th %ile in NHLBI with a 2020 payline 16
Does NHLBI have an approved budget this fiscal year?
writedit said
No, the NIH won’t have its appropriation until after the federal budget is signed into law, which most likely won’t happen until next year. The current Congressional appropriation is on par with 2020 and is unlikely to be reduced (though the pandemic could change things), so the NIH budget should be at least the same if not a little higher. However, the number of applications for FY21 awards increased while investigators were home writing, so if the number of competitive applications also increases, the paylines could stay the same or be slightly lower due to the higher volume. While your 15th percentile has a good chance of receiving an award, this might not be clear until next spring or summer, and you would not want to miss the next submission cycle in case the payline does drop. You can talk with your PO about next steps after you receive your summary statement.
New PI said
My R01 that I submitted on10/5 finally got assigned today. In era commons, it lists a PO that is not the PO that I spoke to. When I looked her up, it says that she is an SRO. I’m super confused.
Thank you so much for your help! This blog is invaluable.
writedit said
Your eRA Commons page lists the SRO in charge of the study section to which CSR has assigned your application for review, which I suspect is what you are looking at.
New PI said
It lists an SRO and a PO. But the NIH website says the person who is listed as PO is an SRO. Do they do both jobs?
writedit said
Staff can change their roles within the IC, so it could be that the individual listed just moved from an SRO to a PO role (but their online bio has not been updated as yet). You can let the PO with whom you did communicate know and ask them with whom you should work on this application moving forward.
K applicant said
In my case, the name of PO was changed in my eRA common after the 1st assignment (from the division director to the PO eventually assigned to my application). However, my PO assigned to me was not the PO I discussed during my submission (I did indicate his name in cover letter). Both PO work in the same division and have a similar research area. I asked my original PO and he told me that the division director assigns applications to POs based on the research area each PO covers. He believes my current PO is more experienced. Luckily, both PO were helpful.
writedit said
Thanks for sharing your experience, K applicant – great news that you had two helpful POs on your side.
GrantFighter said
R01 scored at 14 percentile in May, and council meeting has finished about two weeks ago. But there is no update on eRA commons so far. How long will they reach the funding decision after council meeting?
writedit said
Later in the FY, ICs develop and begin processing their paylists shortly after Council meets. However, no FY21 awards can be considered until about 6 weeks after the federal budget is signed into law, which is when ICs will know their actual appropriation for FY21. I don’t expect a federal budget until next year (the current continuing resolution ending in December will probably be continued through February), so it will be months before your PO can speak to funding likelihood. If you have not asked about resubmission, you probably want to have that discussion, including any PO advice on strategies, if resubmission is advised.
GrantFighter said
Thanks, writedit!
GrantFighter said
Hi writedit. I just realize that doesn’t continuing resolution allow ICs to continue giving out awards? It seems strange that they have to hold up the process until the federal budget is signed into law…
writedit said
During a continuing resolution, the entire federal government operates on a temporary budget that is set at 90% (or less) of the year prior. In other words, ICs (which cannot carry over any appropriation monies from one FY to another) took a 10% budget cut and have no guarantee that they will receive the full appropriation that they anticipate. They therefore reserve funding to continue making noncompeting awards (which they are obligated to do). This year, with uncertainties injected by the election and COVID-19 (potential impact on economy and federal budget), ICs will be especially conservative with their regular operating funds, though some emergency funds (signed into law separately) will be available for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 research. It is like this every year, and even on the very rare occasion that the federal budget has been in place on or shortly after October 1, the NIH still does not usually make many awards before early the following calendar year, so applicants should never count on an award from October through January. The NIH talked a few years ago about readjusting their application-award cycles to reflect this reality (ie, move the first cycle for the next FY – and all subsequent submission dates – later in the calendar year so applications are submitted closer to award date), but I’m not sure where that stands.
GrantFighter said
That is insightful. Thanks so much!
GrantFighter said
This is so insightful! I would then enjoy a peaceful holiday season and put the thoughts away for now. Thank you again, writedit!!
Kat said
Thanks for your guidance in the NIH grant submission process. I have a clarification question about paylines. For the NICHD, you have listed at the top of this page:
“NICHD ($1.56B): FY19… 21st percentile for F31, F31 diversity, & F32”
But on the NICHD’s ‘Funding Strategies for Fiscal Year 2019’ page (https://www.nichd.nih.gov/grants-contracts/process-strategies/strategies/2019) it says:
“The 2019 payline for F30 applications is Priority Score 30. The payline for parent F31 applications is the 28th percentile. The payline for Diversity F31 applications is the 30th percentile. The 2019 payline for F32 Fellowship applications is the 30th percentile.”
And the 2020 payline, for the F32 for example, is even higher at 35th percentile per the NICHD website.
Could you please clarify why the paylines you report are so different than those on the NICHD website? I wonder if the payline strategies listed on the NICHD website are more optimistic (e.g, 30th %ile) than what actually ends up funded (e.g., 21st %ile)…
Thanks!
Kat
writedit said
My explanation is that I don’t always keep up with IC payline updates, but now that I know how closely folks are monitoring them, I will! Clearly what I had when you checked (since updated) was an interim FY19 payline, and I apologize for causing confusion. I see that I need to update my links, too – truly my bad, and I apologize for being so far out of date. Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy, which serves as a serious nudge to take the top of this page seriously (or take it down – but I’ll get on it instead).
ESI2020 said
Writedit, I don’t think you need to apologize for anything. Thank you for keeping this excellent resource for all of us. I am very grateful.
writedit said
Thank you – you are very welcome. You all make the site an excellent resource through your contributions (and keep me honest), so thank you, too!
Kat said
Absolutely agreed with ESI2020 – if anything, folks like me will dig too far to find morsels of information about our chances! Thank you for clarifying and it’s great news if the FY2020 payline really was at the very generous level of 35% 🙂 I was suspicious in any case.
Thanks for all your help and guidance here,
Kat
Kat said
And, just to reiterate, it was certainly not my intention to discourage or minimize your effort here, or to point out things that needed updating, rather I’m just a newbie to NIH and not sure how paylines are reported (proposed vs. actualized in the budget). This is an invaluable resource and a lot of work to maintain, which you do very well!
Kat
writedit said
No worries, I did not take your comment as criticism at all – I imposed that on myself (the title of the page is NIH Paylines!). Not an excuse, but I often reply via email solely, without ever seeing the website, so it becomes an issue of out of sight, out of mind (and all too quickly, out of date). Thanks again for all your kind words and thoughts – I am so happy to help everyone however I can, including just by providing a platform for sharing information.
R01 PI said
Please continue to maintain this blog – I wish I had discovered it earlier, would’ve saved me many sleepless nights.
writedit said
Ah, no worries – above I only meant the top section of the page that lists the paylines, not all the comments and advice. However, rather than take the IC info off, I’ll just make sure to check more regularly for items that need to be updated – and I always appreciate being told (via comments here) when new paylines are available.
Thomas Nathaniel said
I will appreciate your advice on how to initiate a delay in the implementation of an R25 grant for a year. This is because the COVID-19 pandemic is not allowing us to visit schools in-person for the recruitment of students for the summer program. This hard to do remotely. I just received the award on September 15, 2020 and will like to delay it for year. Your advice on the process to delay the implementation of a grant award for a year will be appreciated.
writedit said
The NIH is being very flexible on delays in grant award implementation due to COVID-19. I would first suggest that your institution not charge anything to the award (which accepts/activates the award) and that you talk with your PO about how to manage this. Your PO can work with you to do what is allowable on their end and most helpful for your program.
MaxxY said
Dear writedit,
my recent R01 (reviewed back in June) was on the boundary of being un/funded. The PO told me it will not get funded this year, but mentioned “… I would remain somewhat optimistic as I sometimes can fund up to your percentile. I might not be until next year however”. I have two specific questions: one is what does “somewhat optimistic” imply, very little hope or a good chance of hope? The other is about “next year”; I assume I would email/ask him again, but when would you recommend for me to contact PO next year, Jan or Feb or even later? Or just wait for the PO patiently. TIA.
WomanInScience said
Would you mind sharing your score/percentile with us? Also, which IC was the application assigned to? I am on the same boat, and mine is at NHLBI. Thanks!
writedit said
If you submitted in February/March and were reviewed in June, your application falls under FY21 (which began Oct 1). The federal government is operating under a continuing resolution, currently through December but likely well into 2021, that provides 90% of the FY20 budget (ie, 10% budget cut). This means the ICs will not be making any (or very many) awards until the final FY21 federal budget is signed into law, since they will not know what their final appropriation is until then (or 6 weeks after the budget is signed by the President). It’s not just your application that won’t be funded now, in other words. If you did not specifically ask your PO if you should resubmit, you could ask if you should and if so, for advice on resubmission strategies (what points will be most important to address based on the discussion). The term “cautiously optimistic” generally means likely funding (but absolutely no guarantees); your PO uses “somewhat optimistic” and “sometimes”, which suggests only a modest likelihood of funding (possible but not probable) – but it’s hard to say, especially with so much uncertainty (no federal budget, COVID-19, economic health, etc.).
MaxxY said
Thanks! This has been very helpful.
Sha said
Hi. I received a 25 on my NIDCR R03 submission which the PO said was good and that I didn’t need to consider a resubmission. However, since the council meeting (sept 10), I haven’t received a decision. I’m also not getting much in terms of feedback from the GMO or the PO except that a funding decision hasn’t been made. Considering your comments about the ICs not making awards until the final FY21 budget is signed into law, should I resubmit? The next deadline is Nov 15 and without a decision or further feedback, I’m kind of at a loss of what to do.
writedit said
It sounds like your PO already said that you did not need to submit again, but it is true that neither the PO nor GMO can give you feedback about a funding decision due to the lack of a federal budget (which will almost certainly be delayed until 2021). You could confirm with your PO your understanding that resubmission isn’t necessary, in case they have any second thoughts, but if they say you are safe to wait, then you can take their advice to sit tight – perhaps plan your next application (or manuscript).
Sha said
Thanks! I needed to hear a outside perspective, appreciate it
Mika said
Dear Writedit,
Second submission, R01 NIDDK, Impact Score: 40
Percentile: 23.0. What I can do next step …..Thanks, Mika
SaG said
I would suggest waiting for the Summary statement, contact your PO and be prepared to resubmit. If you are an ESI you might have an outside chance.
Mika said
Dear SaG, thank you very much for your advice. If I will submit it as a new RO1, can I use the same title
Best regards,
Mika
SaG said
Yes you can. Good luck getting this one funded!
writedit said
If you are ESI, you are within the FY20 payline, but NIDDK won’t know about FY21 until next year, so your PO may advise submitting again for insurance in the meantime. If you are not ESI, you will need to resubmit. If both the A0 and the A1 had concerns about the significance of your research, then you may need to reframe your question(s) to address a topic of higher priority. If the 40 is an improvement in score (especially from not discussed), then look carefully at the concerns related to both significance and approach and work with your colleagues to address them in a new application. If you haven’t already, you could search RePORTER to see what similar research is being funded, so you do not duplicate anything already underway and communicate with your PO about tailoring your work to address NIDDK needs.
grantnewbie said
Hi Writedit,
I submitted an Alzheimer’s-focused K01 to NIA in June and it was scored in September. It got a score of 41 and the payline is 35. I waited the obligatory 30 days for my summary statement and when it did not come, I emailed the SRO to ask about it and they replied that they had completed it and it was “under a second level review and will be released soon.”
What does the “second level review” mean? No one I’ve asked has ever heard of this. I know it’s not getting funded because it’s six points from the payline but I know the reviews can’t be just horrible (I wondered if the reviews were so mean/bad the SRO didn’t want to just return them to me without covering their butt by sending it up the chain) because it’s not a horrible score. What should I make of this?
Thank you!
writedit said
Summary statements can take 6-8 weeks to be released, so there is nothing magical about 30 days. Career development applications are reviewed within each IC, not by CSR (in general, in any case), so it could be NIA has a policy of signing off on summary statements before they are released to applicants. In fact, it could be that internally reviewed applications at all ICs undergo similar reviews prior to summary statement release, but applicants just don’t know about this invisible step – and I don’t know this either, just suggesting it as a hypothetical. Regardless, the IC will not be doing anything to alter the score or reviewer critiques, so you don’t need to be worried that you are being protected from horrendous comments. Just bureaucracy in action, slowed by the personnel impacts of the pandemic, end of the FY (October is always very busy at the NIH), and continuing resolution. With that score, hopefully there will be clearly fixable issues that, once addressed, will result in a fundable score. That will be a conversation with your PO once you have your summary statement and have digested what you do learn from the review.
grantnewbie said
Thank you so much! My rational side said, “This is just bureaucratic backlog, nothing to worry about,” but my first-time grant applicant side said, “This is it! There’s no hope now!” I really appreciate you taking the time to explain your thoughts. I didn’t want to ask the SRO for clarification because I know, as you said, they are really busy right now and I assumed this was just something I wasn’t understanding. I will continue to obsessively refresh eRA Commons, I mean, wait patiently, until the statement is released. Again, thank you for all the information you provide on this site! It has been and continues to be very helpful!
dewawin365 said
I am so grateful for your post.Much thanks again. Great.
NIHgrantseeker said
Greetings! First, what a great resource, I wish I found it way sooner.
Submitted a new R03 to NICHD on June 16 and recently received an Impact Score: 29 and Percentile: 13. Study Section Council Meeting date was 10/8/20, and automatic JIT email received on 10/27/20. Status is Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Summary statement not yet received. Also, I had incorrectly put the start date at 7/1/2021 when it should have been 4/1/2021 but emailed the SRO about the incorrect start date and eRA still shows the original start date. Thoughts on next steps? And likelihood (or not) of funding? Do we wait for Summary Statement before submitting any JIT?
writedit said
You will first want to wait for your summary statement, which can take 6-8 weeks, and then check with the PO for advice on whether you need to submit again (I think you can be positive, but the PO will give you guidance on next steps). You don’t submit JIT until the PO or GMO directly requests it (even if the link is active in eRA Commons – it is active for every application), so you can put that thought on hold for a few months (since awards will not be issued until the FY21 federal budget is signed into law). You also don’t need to worry about the start date, which is decided at the time of the Notice of Award – it’s not set in stone, and it’s not an expiration date (for those with start dates in December that won’t happen until 2021).
NIHgrantseeker said
Thanks so much! Our previously funded R01 received a really good score, but this 13th percentile on this R03 is somewhat too close to call. Any idea if we have a good shot of being funded? We did include voluntary cost-share and would be ok if we were cut 20-25 percent. Would telling them that increase our chances of being funded? Appreciate your insight. TIA!
writedit said
The NIH does not allow/consider cost-share, so that does not affect your chances, and your budget should reflect the cost of conducting the research. If the reviewer thought you had over-budgeted, they would have included this comment in the summary statement. Offering to do the work for less does not increase your likelihood of funding but does communicate to the NIH that you were overestimating or inflating the cost at submission. Also, this is an R03 – $50K/year for 2 years. Usually small grant budgets are not cut at all (or much) due to their small size and the assumption that the work is so discrete and well-defined that it is appropriate for this level of funding and does not have wiggle room for adjustment as with larger, longer term awards. Waiting for insight from the PO (without discussing your proposed budget) will be most valuable once your summary statement arrives.
WishfulThinking said
Received an Impact Score of 34 for an R03 at NIAID under the NOSI for COVID-19 related research. I am a new investigator FWIW. Impact scores of 25 are the posted cutoff. Does a 34 stand any chance? I will wait until summary statements are received to reach out to the program officer, but I was curious if anyone here had an opinion. Thanks!
writedit said
For COVID-19 work in particular, I suspect there will be a lot of discretion for work addressing topics of high priority and filling gaps in the portfolio. NIAID won’t want to fund applications all proposing the same work just because they are within the stated payline, so if your application fills a key niche, you could have a shot. As you note, you’ll need to wait for the summary statement to reach out to the PO for input and advice on next steps.
Hoping4Money said
Do you have any advice for when to contact POs following the release of a summary statement? A lot of places suggest that you wait at least a week, but I am struggling to see any rationale for that, but maybe I am missing something (I suspect I will be waiting some time to hear back with potential time to discuss).
SaG said
I would say send them an email to set up a call as soon as the SS is released. What places are suggesting you wait a week? Seems arbitrary to me.
Hoping4Money said
I agree with you. From a quick google search, all types of research offices were saying to wait at least a week to digest the information, which seemed arbitrary and stupid to me. I also don’t want to piss off the guy who can determine if I get money.
writedit said
Yep, as SaG, no magic to a one-week delay, though you do want to take the time (a day or two should suffice) to read and reflect on what the reviewers are really saying and what advice you want to incorporate vs explain why it isn’t appropriate. At the NIH “Regional” Seminar last week, I did see a presentation that mentioned something about a one-week delay in contacting the PO, but that included a couple days for the PI to review the summary statement, then set it aside for a day or two (as if you could not think about it), then look at it again and draft points in response to both valuable recommendations and concerns that could be addressed via better explanation. I always recommend several days (weeks) to draft actual Introductions for A1 applications – and many unbiased, disinterested third-party readers to tell you if you are still too visceral and not sufficiently objective in your response.
SaG said
I am pretty sure that most POs are not scrambling to read the SSs the week after they are released. It might be more of them having to a flood of email requests to chat.
LNS said
I just received JIT request and status changed to “pending administrative review” on a large R01 (3rd percentile, Cycle I). I assumed it wouldn’t be considered for funding until a budget passed, but do these recent developments suggest we might get funded during the continuing resolution?
Thank you!
writedit said
Some ICs do make awards during a CR for emergency, high priority, and highly competitive (like yours) applications, so it’s very possible. It’s also possible that your status could remain pending for a few months (and the IC is just getting the administrative review out of the way now), but hopefully the NoA will arrive sooner than later.
Joseph Backer said
Are 2021 Interim NCI paylines for SBIR and STTR grants announced?
On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 9:28 PM Medical Writing, Editing & Grantsmanship wrote:
> LNS commented: “I just received JIT request and status changed to “pending > administrative review” on a large R01 (3rd percentile, Cycle I). I assumed > it wouldn’t be considered for funding until a budget passed, but do these > recent developments suggest we might get funde” >
writedit said
NCI does not post paylines for SBIR/STTR activity codes. You can search this page and the most recent archived page for posts about your activity code at NCI (and the outcome), but prior experience may not reflect future outcomes. When you have your summary statement, the question for your PO will be whether to submit again, as they will have no idea about funding likelihood (unless your score is obviously within or outside funding range, but you probably can gauge that) until the FY21 federal budget is signed into law, which won’t happen until next year.
K99 applicant said
Thanks for maintaining this informative group.
I got an email from the program office that my K99 application is put on hold due to lack of funding and if money becomes available they will pick my application for funding. What is the consequences of this scenario and does anyone experienced this before? Should I wait for the decision and if so how long? Any suggestion. Thanks again.
writedit said
Do you know if your PO meant the application was put on hold until the NIH (and your IC) receives their appropriation, which will happen after the federal budget is signed into law? If the timing of your funding only hinges on the timing of the federal budget, then you can sit tight until the continuing resolution is replaced by an FY21 budget (probably early next year). However, if your PO meant that your score is on the bubble, and they won’t know until the end of FY21 if there will be funds available, then you probably want to resubmit in the meantime. I know you don’t want to bug your PO again, but you could ask for clarification as to whether your application will be awarded when the FY21 budget arrives or if you should submit again (and if so, any advice on resubmission strategy).
mirazulislam2015 said
Thanks a lot for your reply.
l1zerdbreath said
Hi writedit and all, I received an impact score of 31 (no percentile) for my R15 with NICHD. I am an ESI- does this matter for R15s? Should I be hopeful?
Thanks!
writedit said
The ESI break only applies to R01s (ie, no special payline), but program will probably take into account that you are an early stage investigator. The current NICHD interim payline for R15s is 20, and FY20 concluded with a payline of 29, so you might just be over – but you should communicate with your PO once you have your summary statement about next steps (including advice on resubmission strategy, if that is recommended).
R15 AREA said
I applied for an R15 at NCI three times now. The first submission was scored 34, the R1 was 43. The PO was positive in the A0, but then after I got R1 score, he started to tell me things that did not say the first time. I did, however, noted everything that he said and applied again as a new submission. Now I got a score of 27 and the PO is no longer the previous one. It is someone else. I wrote to her and set up an appointment and she seems positive. She told me that she liked the proposal and asked me to write a rebuttal of the reviewers’ comments that could help her make my proposal’s case. She told me that she doesn’t know if the proposal will be funded (and I understand that), but will try to fund it. She will not know anything about the funding before January anyway. The cut at NCI is 25 for R15. The PO did tell me that I may have the proposal funded, but I may as well have it not funded and I should be prepared to resubmit, if needed. I was wondering if you have any comments on this. The submission was in June and council review is in January (and I received the JIT email (the automatic one).
writedit said
Sorry you had the score set-back with your A1, but it sounds like you learned a lot about preparing a strong application, and your new PO sounds very helpful. The rebuttal you write will help her make the case for funding your application, so you are writing for her colleagues at NCI (not for the reviewers) and should concisely address the concerns raised (focusing on the Summary of Discussion paragraph). She will not know anything before January (or later possibly) because we don’t have a federal budget for FY21 yet, so NCI does not know how much money they will have for awards. The current continuing resolution ends in December, but it could be extended until after January 21. The next application window would be in February 2021, and NCI may or may not have their appropriation by then (ie, your PO may still not know about funding due to the lack of the federal FY21 budget). When you send your rebuttal, you can ask your PO for feedback on this document to use in preparing an A1 (if you need to submit again). If you have published since applying (or have a manuscript under review), you want to let your PO know about this, too. Since you don’t want to lose a funding cycle, you probably want to be working on the A1 so you can turn it around quickly if you either don’t have an answer in January or learn that you probably won’t receive an award.
R15 AREA said
Thank you for your reply. I really appreciate it. Yes, that what I was going to do. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
R15 AREA said
I have one more question: the PO still doesn’t know if my proposal will be awarded (R15 score of 27 at NCI; cutoff 25), and the advisory council meeting is on Feb 11. She suggested to me to resubmit (deadline Feb 25), to avoid any loss of time. Does this mean that she is still supporting this application to be funded, but she doesn’t know anything before the council meeting?
writedit said
Exactly. Because your score is just above the payline, she’ll need to request an exception (select pay), and while Council will meet on February 11, they do not make funding decisions (they just approve which applications can receive awards, but not all approved applications will receive awards). The select pay decisions won’t be made by the NCI SPLs and Director until well after that, which could (probably would) be too late for you to submit in time for Feb 25. Your PO does not want you to miss a cycle, so while it will hopefully turn out to be unnecessary, she doesn’t want to risk your having to wait until summer to get another application in.
R15 AREA said
OK, then I will prepare and submit the application and will remain hopeful that the current application will still be funded. I appreciate the reply. It gives me a little more hope
R15 AREA said
My R15 AREA score of 27 (submitted June 2020, reviewed in Sept 2020, NCI cutoff 25) went on Feb 11 through council and is now council complete. The PO is supportive and told me that she still doesn’t know much about funding the proposal. She also asked me to to resubmit, just in case. However, in the A1, while it is the same SRA and study section, it is a different PO (Chief, Program Coordination and Referral Branch). When I looked him up on NIH reporter, he doesn’t manage any grants as PO. I was wondering whether it is normal to have A0 to a PO and the A1 to a different PO. Also, any suggestions on what to do in this situation? Thanks.
writedit said
It’s not typical, but neither is a global pandemic. You can check with your A0 PO as both to whether she is still able to help with the A0 and why she was not assigned to the A1. It could be that she is on leave or retiring (since your last interaction), or that the R15 portfolio is being transferred to a different PO (with branch chief serving as interim in either situation). Once you clarify the situation with your A0 PO, you will know whether to reach out to the branch chief A1 PO or stick with your original PO for future follow-up.
R15 AREA said
thanks for the advice. The A0 PO is relatively young, and last I got a reply from her was 2 weeks ago (and was positive about A0). I will ask the PO and see how it goes.
Shley said
Hi, great blog! I have a few questions. I was awarded my first R01 (as an ESI) in September this year (it was submitted in March 2020). I submitted another R01 in June on a totally different area of my lab and I just received the score. I have two questions. 1) It still says I am an ESI in Commons for this application even though we recently were awarded an R01, I assume I will have to have a score within the established investigator range but just wanted to see if you had any more insight about that. And 2) My new submission R01’s score is 31 and 10 percentile and the IC is NINDS. What do you think the likelihood of funding is? The percentile seems decent but I am not sure if the impact score is good enough to get funded. What matters more, the impact score or the percentile?
writedit said
Congratulations on your first and second (in all likelihood) R01 awards. You will not be considered ESI for the second application: although your official ESI status is calculated based on the date of submission, the IC considers your status at the time of award, so your September R01 will disqualify you for a second ESI award. However, your percentile will be used to determine funding, and your 10th percentile is well within the NINDS FY21 interim payline for established investigators at the 14th percentile. Nothing is guaranteed until after the administrative review and NoA, but assuming all goes well, you should have two R01 awards next year.
ross2ah said
Thanks for the reply! I will cross my fingers and (im)patiently wait!
K_23_Q said
Do you know how many attempts at K23 applications are allowed? I have applied twice (A0 and A1) can I apply again? Will 6 years from terminal degree/training be a disadvantage for the K series? Thank you.
writedit said
You can apply as many times as you want, but you need to be sure you are applying to the correct funding mechanism for your career stage and goals. Whether to apply again depends on your prior scores and critiques. Your PO and mentor team can give you the best advice moving forward, especially since your window for an ESI R01 application is closing.
>
K_23_Q said
Thank you for your reply. I will speak with my mentors and PO.
k23 said
It’s possible that 6 years from training may be a disadvantage. I saw a talk not too long ago where the presenter submitted K23 7 years after her clinical fellowship, and was met with lukewarm reviewers where one of the criticisms being lack of productivity during those 7 years, which also impacted institutional commitment since reviewers thought the hospital is giving too much clinical responsibility and that leads to a lack of academic productivity for the applicant. In addition to talking to PO, see if you have other K23 recipients at your institution.
b_b said
anyone know about the impact score payline of NCI K99? thanks
writedit said
You can search this and recent archived pages for posts about NCI K99 scores and their outcomes. Certainly anything below 30 would be positive. Your PO will not know about the FY21 payline/pay range until the FY21 federal budget is signed into law (probably not until next year), but after you receive your summary statement, you can ask for advice on next steps, including whether to prepare a resubmission.
b_b said
thank you so much!
Saga said
Hi, did you contact the PO? I submitted my K99 A1 in March 2020 and got an impact score of 20 in June. Contacted PO twice, one in June and the other in September, but the PO’s responses were consistent: “we will have more information in December”. Very anxious now.
writedit said
Your PO will not know about award timing until the FY21 federal budget is signed into law. The continuing resolution that currently ends in December will be extended into 2021, likely February or some other time point after inauguration, and the ICs will not be certain about their appropriations until the federal budget is finalized. While it looks good for NIH funding and I do not anticipate any drop in budget, ICs cannot act until their appropriation is assured. If you are anxious, the question for your PO is whether you should resubmit (assuming you are still eligible). If you have already asked and been told to sit tight, this is great news, and you can continue to monitor progress on the federal budget in 2021 to get a better idea of when your award might be processed (not until 6-8 weeks after the President signs the FY21 budget into law though).
Karen said
Are those applying for F awards considered “esi?”
I submitted to NINDS which doesn’t list specific paylines for F awards.
writedit said
ESI only applies to R01 applicants who are within 10 years of their terminal doctoral degree or clinical training (residency/fellowship). When you have your summary statement, you can ask your PO about next steps. You can also search this page and recently archived pages for the outcomes of your F activity code at NINDS for some insight – but nothing guaranteed (in terms of same outcome at the same score).
Mike said
Hi writedit. I submitted an NCI F30 award back in March and scored within the 18th percentile in July. I contacted my PO about funding likelihood and he said that at the time, they set a tentative payline at or below the 25th percentile. However, after emailing the PO again a week ago, he said there was nothing official but that the NCI is considering funding all awards at or below the 28th percentile. My eRA commons has not changed from “Scientific Review Complete. Refer any questions to the PO” since July and I have not formally received JIT request. Honestly, I am getting a little nervous with each passing day as my MD/PhD situation is a little complicated in terms of timing. The PO did not mention anything about resubmission and I am not sure what can be done at this point? Any recommendations?
Mike said
I forgot to add that there was nothing of concern noted by the SRO or PO on the summary statement. Also, the projected start date was September 1, 2020. Finally, as I am the first ever MD/PhD student at my institution, few have any experience with F30 awards that I can have discussions with. Any advice would be much appreciated!!
writedit said
First and foremost, congratulations on being the first MD-PhD student at your institution! That is remarkable, and I know how important peer mentoring and support is, so your accomplishment and perseverance is even more impressive. Your PO is telling you that you are all set in terms of award likelihood (so no need to resubmit), but they cannot tell you the actual timing of an award because the FY21 federal budget has not been signed into law (and likely will not be until next year). Your start date is not an expiration date, so you don’t need to worry about that. You could contact the PO about your timing issue (ie, the need for support during your PhD doctoral research) – they are probably aware, but you can discuss how to handle this concern (please be sure to let the PO know that you are all alone and do not have the support or guidance of an established MSTP program). Fellowships do not go to Council, and although NCI will make very few if any new awards during the Continuing Resolution (which funds federal agencies at 90% of their FY20 appropriation), they might be able to approve a fellowship, since it is of short duration and small (comparatively speaking) budget – I don’t know whether this is possible or likely at all, I am just noting the special situation for fellowships. Also, just as an FYI, the PO is not involved at all with the summary statement; the reviewers write the individual critiques, and the SRO writes the Resume and Summary of Discussion paragraph at the outset based on the panel discussion (this is true for all grant applications, not just fellowships).
Mike said
Thank you writedit! I appreciate the kind gesture and any good news at this point is welcomed. I will see if I can schedule a chat with the PO in the coming weeks (already bothered him enough I think) and see where it goes. To conclude I have two final questions:
Should I be concerned about the eRA status not updating since July or is this wait common for cycle 1 applications? Also, as I have all of the JIT compiled should I go ahead and submit despite not receiving a formal request or should I remain patient?
Thanks again for the advice!
writedit said
Your eRA status won’t change until JIT is requested, which is when you should submit it. Cycle 1 applications always have the longest wait since there is almost never a federal budget in place by October (or December, even). I understand your desire to wait and not bug him again, but that shouldn’t be too big of a deal on his end (especially for this activity code). He should know from your application of when you started your PhD work and when you should be finishing it, but the fact that you’re the only (and first) MD-PhD student could be different from what is “typical” in an MSTP institution.
Mike said
Thank you writedit! I appreciate the kind gesture. Receiving this award is a big deal for me and I just want to make sure I am doing everything in my capacity to ensure the award comes through without any problems. I will try and contact the PO to schedule a chat in the coming weeks (I think I have bothered him enough).
I have two more questions just to finish:
1. Is it normal for eRA common statuses to not update for this long (since July) and is this common for cycle 1 applications?
2. Should I go ahead and submit JIT material using the automatically generated link despite not being formally asked, or should I remain patient?
Thanks again for the advice and the help!
Michelle said
Thanks so much for having this space! it’s such a helpful resource.
I submitted a K99 to NICHD in June, scored in October. It got an initial impact score of 28, so I got the JIT request, but have not gotten the summary statement yet.
I saw that NICHD have released an interim pay line of 18 for the Ks – which is of course much higher than K99s have been in the last couple years (around 30). Do you have a sense of how different the interim pay lines end up being from the final pay lines, either typically or in particular right now?
Once I have the summary statement I’ll as the PO explicitly about resubmission, but I’m trying to get a sense of what FY2021 is going to look like (if that’s at all possible…)
writedit said
Assuming the appropriation that the NIH (& all the ICs) is expecting for FY21 comes through in the final federal budget act, the interim paylines should go up to FY20 levels. The only other variable is whether more people submitted applications during the pandemic (ie, more competitive applications leads to lower paylines to fit within appropriation constraints), but such a phenomenon is more likely to affect the number of RPG applications (R01, R03, R21) than career development and other applications, especially K99s, with their eligibility constraints. You can ignore the JIT request – everyone receives one – and wait until your PO or GMS request it, if you are eventually in line for funding. In the meantime, you have the right plan to review your summary statement and then check with your PO about whether you should submit again.
Michelle said
Thanks! that’s helpful
NervousK99 said
Hi Michelle,
I hope you get your K99
I got an impact score of 25, and very nervous if it is in the gray zone.
Thanks!
writedit said
The NICHD K99 payline was set at 30, so Michelle should be fine. Not sure to which IC you submitted, but hopefully a 25 leads to an award.
K01 applicant said
Hi, I recently received a score of 41 on my NIMHD K01 resubmission that I submitted in July 2020 (initially, it received a score of 49). I realize NIMHD does not publish their K pay lines, but I was wondering if anyone has insights into potentially what last year’s cutoff was for K awards (or K01s) by NIMHD, and if it will be similar for 2020-2021. In addition, is there an eligibility period after completion of Ph.D. to apply for K awards? Thank you.
writedit said
You can search this page and the recent archived pages, in case someone has posted their experience with Ks at NIMHD (and hopefully someone will post their recent experience). The K01 does not have a cut-off like the K99 and other activity codes beyond which you are no longer eligible to apply. However, once you are beyond 5 years since your PhD, you want to be thinking about taking advantage of your ESI status for an R01 submission before that status ends at 10 years out (which means starting to apply years before this in case multiple submissions are needed). The 41 score is likely too high, but once you have your summary statement, you can check with your PO for advice on next steps (if they say to sit tight, terrific – if not, seek advice on resubmission strategy). Now, if you addressed all the prior concerns and the score stayed in the 40s and the reviewers do not cite many additional specific concerns about your Candidate or Research Plans, then you need to look hard at the importance of the project you are proposing – that is, will it provide a good foundation for your career as an independent researcher. Even if your approach is flawless, if it is not important (significant) research to perform, reviewers will not be enthusiastic. I mention this because often when a score stays roughly the same (within 10 percentile points), the reviewers are probably not convinced that the science should be pursued. Of course, if there are still several addressable issues in your Candidate Plan or Approach, then the score could improve next time in. Your mentor team and PO can give the best advice on this once your summary statement is available.
K01 applicant said
Thank you so much. I will wait and see what the summary statement says.
Lily said
Hi Writedit, I have a R21-A1 at NIAID (submitted June) that went from ND to an impact score of 33. I talked to the PO who sounded enthusiastic about the research idea. He mentioned that Rev1 and 2 were positive but Rev 3 drove the discussion down. He told me that 33 puts me on the gray zone but likely outside the FY2021 final payline (normally between 28-31). He recommended that I submit the same idea (which he likes) as new in Feb. The PO also offer to “read anything that I have before submission”. Do you think I should re-write the proposal and send it to him in January, before the council meets? Maybe that will remind him of my proposal and maybe he’ll consider funding it? (I saw here on the comments other NIAID R21 scored at slightly above the payline that eventually got funded… ). THANKS!
writedit said
You have a fantastic PO. The timing of when you send him a new A0 draft won’t affect the A1 funding outcome, so you should get it ready in November or December rather than wait, so you have time to make revisions. The PO wants you to submit again because NIAID won’t have their appropriation until over a month after the FY21 federal budget is signed into law, which probably won’t happen until after the inauguration (hopefully in February, which means ICs would know their final funding levels in March or April). Your PO does not want you to miss the February submission window since you won’t have an answer on your application even after Council meets. Also, while ICs are anticipating the same or slightly more funding for FY21, the pandemic led to a surge in applications while everyone had so much time on their hands. If the number of lower-scoring applications also goes up, then the payline will go down and could put your 33 even farther out of reach.
Lily said
Hi Writedit, I submitted an R01 (my first) where I chose NIBIB (the institute that manages my DP2). It was firstly assigned to NIBIB but now I see that it has changed to NIGMS instead. Does this happen often? and What could be the cause?
writedit said
If you mean the primary IC has changed from NIBIB to NIGMS, it means either NIBIB changed their mind about accepting the application (as primary) or NIGMS requested primary assignment, and NIBIB agreed. The primary IC assignment is based on the science, not the PI’s preference (though you can always ask). If you think NIBIB is the more appropriate IC based on your science, you could ask the PO you worked with on the R01 why the IC assignment changed. CSR will honor PI requests for referral that are scientifically valid, but the IC needs to accept the application, which I assume NIBIB did not do in this case (but again, it’s hard to say for sure without seeking an explanation).
Lily said
Is there any data on the fundable scores for R13s (conference support) for NIBIB? I just got an impact score of 31. I am curious of how it compares to funded proposals. THANKS!
writedit said
That seems a little high, but funding decisions for R13s depend on PO (& IC) enthusiasm for the application and conference proposed. These awards are so small that if the PO really wants to see it happen, they can usually get at least partial funding. You’ll need to wait for the summary statement and then talk with the PO.
R01_Hopeful said
Hi Writedit! Thank you for this wonderful resource over the years!!
I submitted my first R01 in June to NHLBI, and just got my score back at the 26%-ile (the payline for an ESI!). I was just curious what you thought the chances are that this grant will be funded? I’m waiting to get the SS before reaching out to the PO, but thought I would get your thoughts first.
Thanks again!!
writedit said
Congratulations on your first R01 being scored (period) and scored (hopefully) within the payline. I suspect NHLBI will have the same paylines for FY21 that they had in FY20, but there is a slight chance of them dropping slightly if the onslaught of pandemic applications results in an increase in low-scoring applications (which in turn would require slightly adjusted paylines). However, I would see that being an issue more for established than ESI applications, since the latter has a smaller eligible applicant pool (vs anyone with time on their hands). Your PO won’t be able to comment on funding likelihood until the FY21 budget is clear (which won’t happen until next year), but they can comment on next steps, including whether you should consider resubmission. If not, you’ll know your PO is pretty confident (though not able to guarantee) about an award. If so, though, your PO is just being cautious so you don’t potentially lose a cycle while waiting for the delayed FY21 appropriation.
Vinayak Joshi said
Hello Writedit,
Thank you for the great work you are doing. I recently applied for NIAID’s Commercialization readiness program (CRP) grant and trying to find its recent year’s paylines, which are not readily available.
Please let me know if you have more information.
Thank you.
writedit said
This is a special activity code (no formal payline posted), so you will need to check in with your PO after you get your summary statement. I would imagine the payline is roughly in line with the other SBIR/STTR paylines, but it depends on the number of competitive applications and programmatic priorities, so again, you want to check with your PO for advice on next steps.
PO_Qs said
I got my summary statement a couple weeks ago (possibly fundable) and reached out to my PO via email. Never hear back from them. Tried reaching out again… again crickets. Is there some special sauce to getting them to respond (do I need to be aggressive or patient)?
writedit said
October can be busy, the federal budget is in limbo (so no info on funding likelihood is available), and anything could be happening with COVID (family issues, staffing shortage, etc.), but it would be nice if they at least acknowledged receipt and noted there will be a delay in responding. Your PO cannot tell you if your score is fundable at this point and won’t be able to until the FY21 budget is signed into law, which won’t be until sometime next year. However, your PO can give advice on whether you should prepare to submit again (and advice on submission strategy, if appropriate). If you have already asked, then I would suggest one more note explaining that you would appreciate guidance on resubmission in time to prepare for a February or March submission (depending on whether you need to submit a new A0 or the A1). If you don’t have any response by Thanksgiving, then after the holiday (ie, ~Dec 1), reach out for resubmission guidance (only – nothing about funding likelihood, no complaints about PO) to the appropriate branch or division chief (depending on your IC’s structure) and copy the PO.
PO_Qs2 said
Thank you for this Q&A! I’m having the same issue. I’m wondering if we have the same PO…
wanttoknow said
Hello Writedit,
I received an impact score of 28 for my K99 from NIGMS. I know NIGMS doesn’t publish paylines, but is there a database where I can see the impact score range for previously funded K99’s through NIGMS? Does this seems like a potentially fundable score?
writedit said
You can search this page and a recent archive page for NIGMS K99, but I think anything below 30 will be considered for funding. When you have your summary statement, your PO can provide guidance on whether to resubmit (and, if so, strategies for doing so). The FY21 federal budget will be in limbo until next year, so you won’t get any clarity on funding likelihood at this point, though if your PO says you can sit tight and just submit a rebuttal, that is good news at least (but not necessarily bad news if you are advised to consider resubmission for insurance).
wanttoknow said
Okay, shall hang tight till I get the summary statement and then talk to my PO. Thanks for the advice and this great resource you maintain!
Sameboat said
Hi wanttoknow: I’m in the similar situation (impact score=24) in NIGMS K99 and was wondering what was your outcome was. I’d really appreciate it if you can share your experience. Thanks!
similarscoreNIGMS said
Hi, did you got it? I am also in a similar situation with a score in the 20s for NIGMS K99. I also appreciate you could share your outcome and experience. Thanks!
EGK said
Hello Writedit,
I submitted my A1 application for a K08 to NIDDK in March. I received a score of 23. My PO recommended replying to the concerns raised in Summary statement by August (for internal use during council meeting), which I did and council met in September. My status is still council review completed. I contacted the PO 2 months ago and she stated funding is likely but not guaranteed. She did not recommend resubmitting at this time. I realize that not a lot of awards are made before FY2021 is signed but when should I expect to get a non-generic JIT request from NIDDK?
writedit said
This is all fantastic news – but you do have a long wait, since passage of the FY21 federal budget is months away (and any NIDDK awards would be 2-3 months after that). Your status will probably remain Council review completed until next March or April (or later, depending on budget timing). You should wait to submit JIT until you are asked for it (by PO or GMS), though if you need IRB or any other regulatory approval (and/or certification), you should be sure those approvals and certifications are in hand in the meantime. I don’t know how early they will start administrative review on applications on the paylist, but don’t be surprised if it is not until next spring – and don’t get impatient if they do move forward with a JIT request sooner but then leave your status as Pending for a few months. The status doesn’t tell you anything about when you might receive an award – the federal budget passage is what will give you an indication of the timing of your eventual award.
EGK said
Thank you very much. This is very helpful.
Shannon said
Hello,
I received a score at the 25th percentile for an NICHD F32 (above the current NICHD F32 interim payline but below the historical payline for the last few years). I am waiting to hear back from my PO regarding the summary statement critiques. Overall, they seem fairly straightforward to address.
I am trying to decide if I should push to revise for the Dec 8th deadline for a resubmission (with a start date of August 2021). My concern is that waiting until the April 8th deadline will mean it’s FY22 and it may not have a resolution until spring 2022. On the other hand, it’s such a tight turn around that I doubt I’ll hear back from the PO before the due date. I’m not sure if I do need to resubmit and I hate to rush the opportunity to resubmit (although I think I can do a good job), but I also can’t wait until spring 2022 for funding.
I’d appreciate any guidance on this!
writedit said
You are certainly well within the FY20 payline (35th percentile), and I don’t foresee it dropping (at all, or at most by a point, if they received more competitive applications than is typical – but more likely to stay flat). I think NICHD just has one person in charge of all NRSA applications, so I’m sure he’s been flooded with email and is probably prioritizing responses to those who do need to resubmit (not discussed, score over 35th percentile) and new applicants submitting for the first time. I would suggest you send a very brief message simply asking if you should resubmit in December (as in, one sentence, such as “With my F32 score at the 25th percentile, should I resubmit to the December 8th deadline or wait?”), with no added explanation or questions, though you should attach the summary statement again, so he can confirm that there are no concerns that could endanger an award. If he encourages submission for insurance (since budget won’t be known until next year), you mentioned that the concerns are straightforward to address, so hopefully the Dec 8 deadline is feasible.
Shannon said
Thank you so much for your helpful response. Upon reviewing my summary statement, I’ve now noticed it says, “SRG Action: Impact Score: 28 Percentile: 25 +”
Do you know what that + might mean?
ScoreHelp said
If you check the footnotes,
“+ Derived from the range of percentile values calculated for the study section that reviewed this application.”
Percentiles based on that study section.
Shannon said
Thank you, ScoreHelp, you’re exactly right about the footnote. I appreciate it.
koopahtroopah said
Hi, just got an Impact Score of 34 for my MOSAIC K99/R00 application through NHLBI. I realize this would not be fundable through the normal K99 mechanism but it might be through the MOSAIC program? Since it’s the first year NIH is holding this program there won’t be any data from previous years to go off of. Maybe others out there have also received their scores and would be open to sharing to get a better idea? I feel like I’m right on the cusp of “fundable” but also wouldn’t be surprised if I needed to resubmit. Thanks.
writedit said
As a brand new program, there will probably be programmatic interests involved in selecting awardees (in addition to scores). We’ll see if anyone jumps in to share their score here, but when you get your summary statement, think about how you would respond to the concerns raised and then contact your PO for advice on next steps.
Rather Not Disclose said
Hi, I also applied to the MOSAIC K99 and got a score of well under 20, which I am told is good, but I was wondering if there is any actual certainty on whether it will get funded? Does the council often override good scores and opts for not funding? I know they can often do the opposite, of funding borderline proposals, but do they often take a very good score and not funded? Thank you all for your help.
writedit said
Congratulations on your exceptional score, which should be funded. Council does not make funding decisions, but they do approve applications for consideration for funding (the IC Director makes all final award decisions). Applications in the first percentile can be “skipped” (not funded), but this is usually when an established applicant PI is already well funded (over $1M direct costs per year – or over $750K at NIGMS), which certainly will not be the case for a K99. Some applications are deemed not appropriate or not high priority, but this is also rare and usually the result of a PI never contacting someone at the IC about their application (ie, PO would have recommended shifting focus). If you look at some IC funding trends, patterns, or outcomes graphs (eg, NCI, NINDS, NIDDK, et al.), you’ll see an occasional low-scoring application that does not receive an award, and these are the typical reasons, though other issues can arise, too. You would be aware of any potential reason your application might not be funded, though.
Buffalo said
Hi Writedit, Thanks for maintaining this fantastic site. A quick question for you: I am an established PI submitting my R01 grant to NCI, and got a score of 3rd percentile. I heard NCI uses the hard payline, so do you think my score is safe enough to be awarded? Thank you!
writedit said
I certainly hope a 3rd percentile application, which is well below the 9th percentile payline, is safe from being skipped. As long as there are no administrative issues (which you should be able to anticipate) or potential concern about your level of funding (ie, if you are eligible for extra scrutiny because you currently receive >$1M DC in funding), then you should be fine, though it will be a long time before any award is processed. Your PO can certainly confirm once you have your summary statement.
Buffalo said
Thanks for your quick response. For the extra scrutiny, do you mean https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-12-140.html? That’s about PD/PI with $1M DC per year, right?
writedit said
Correct. The extra scrutiny occurs at Council, and ICs use Council input on making funding decisions, so policy implementation varies IC by IC (NIGMS has a lower threshold of PI funding levels, for example).
faculty_track_question said
Hello, If an assistant professor in a non-tenure track position receives a K-award, does their institution typically — or even mandatorily have to, per the grant — put them on the tenure track? Is it common and/or allowed for K-awardees to remain in a non-tenure track position in that situation? Thank you!
writedit said
No, the institution is under no obligation to convert the appointment from non-tenure track to tenure track, and having a tenure track appointment is not a requirement or condition of award. Non-tenure track (Research Assistant Profs) can and have received K awards, but I do not know how often this happens, especially since reviewers are faced with so many qualified tenure-track faculty seeking career development support. Assuming your institution allows non-tenure track professors to apply for K funding, you would want to talk with the appropriate PO for advice on your application.
faculty_track_question said
Thanks for explaining, genuinely helpful (as always) and much appreciated.
Hopeful said
Thanks for this amazing resource! I am an Early Stage Investigator who submitted an R01 to NICHD to this PAR (my project involves COVID-19 and they added a special COVID focus & due date): https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-20-103.html
Just got my scores a few days ago: Impact Score 32, Percentile 17. I know NICHD doesn’t publish paylines, so am curious how you might estimate my odds. I reached out to the PO but haven’t heard back. Summary statement isn’t up yet. Should I reach out to her again, or wait for the Summary Statement before bugging her?
Also, I requested (and was assigned) both NICHD and NIMH as potential institutes, but only chatted with the NICHD PO when preparing the proposal. If I don’t hear from her, should I identify and reach out to a PO at NIMH as well? Is there any downside to having more than one institute potentially involved?
writedit said
I think between your ESI status and the COVID-19 priority, you could feel hopeful about a 17th percentile application. You definitely need to wait until you have your summary statement to contact the PO (this is always true – there is absolutely nothing they can say to you without seeing the summary statement, which they do not see until you do). For a NOSI like this, your PO needs to evaluate the number of competitive applications received and the amount of funding available to NICHD for this program (another reason you will not hear anything before summary statements are released). ICs are spending their special COVID-19 appropriations pretty quickly, so you shouldn’t count on any interest from NIMH (and should not reach out to that PO about funding), since that is not your choice to make anyway (your NICHD PO needs to relinquish the application to them). Your most immediate question to the NICHD PO should be whether you need to prepare another submission. If they tell you no (sit tight), you can feel cautiously optimistic about an award. If they tell you yes, it is probably because there is only one more submission date, they are not sure about how many/which applications will receive awards, and they are not sure when they will know about final funding decisions, which are made by the NICHD Director (and they don’t want you to miss an opportunity to apply).
Hopeful said
So helpful– thank you! I’m cautiously optimistic.
DKR01 said
Thanks writedit for this blog incredibly helpful. Established PI here with a 11% A1 for the NIDDK. Last year Payline was 16%. Should I be preparing to submit an A0 or do we think pay lines will hold from last year based on recent appropriations info from the Senate? I know nothing is guaranteed until signed into law but wanted your take..
writedit said
I do not expect the NIH appropriation to go down. FY21 could be affected by additional applications during the pandemic, but not so many that paylines plummet. I think you can be cautiously optimistic. You can (& should) ask your PO if you should submit again or sit tight. A really conservative PO might still recommend submitting, but I suspect you’ll be told to wait. In the meantime, you can devote your energy to a different project/application (a different submission would be a more productive back-up plan than sending the 11th percentile R01 in again).
newPI said
thanks writedit, do we have any data on how many more applications are coming in during this time? For one, I think those numbers will be biased for more senior PI and men without child care responsibilities.
writedit said
Those numbers won’t be available until next year, but the delay in processing applications received for referral suggests a possible uptick (but also suggests workforce strain due to COVID-19 – including those working remotely amid family obligations). If there are more applications for FY21, I would agree with your thought on the bias toward senior, male investigators.
DDK-R21 said
Hi there, I received an impact score of 24 on my first-time R21 submission to the NIDDK. We won’t receive a percentile, is that right? I haven’t seen the summary statements yet, but any idea if that’s close to a fundable range?
writedit said
You are correct that you will not receive a percentile. Your score seems within the zone of consideration, but you’ll need to wait for your summary statement to contact your PO to ask about next steps. Your PO will not know whether you will receive an award until NIDDK receives its appropriation next year, but your PO can advise whether you should submit an A1 application in March (which is what you should ask – whether you should prepare an A1 application).
Thomas Nathaniel said
Hi , I received an impact score of 38 (no percentile) for my R01 with NIA’s COVID-19 grant. Is there any hope on this?
writedit said
That seems high even for a COVID-19 FOA, but there will be a lot of programmatic priorities considered in making funding decisions. When you receive your summary statement, you’ll want to contact the PO about next steps.
SC said
Thank you writedit for this helpful blog. I have a similar question. My submission is in response to the COVID-19 FOA but with the focus of ADRD. There is no percentile reported. The NIA interim funding line is 15 (impact score) for general research and 37 for ADRD research. I am wondering whether there is a possibility NIA will apply the ADRD funding line to the COVID-19 applications?
writedit said
If your work fits within the scope of ADRD research, then the higher payline should apply, and if NIA is using programmatic priority rather than scores alone for COVID-19 applications, then the ADRD focus should still help. When you have your summary statement, you can check with your PO about next steps.
SC said
Thank you, writedit! My impact score is 29. It is within the payline of ADRD research, but I have no idea what is the general fundable score for COVID research. I will surely contact my PO once I get my summary statement. Thanks.
Thomas Nathaniel said
Hi , I received an impact score of 38 (no percentile) for my R01 with NIA’s COVID-19 grant. Is there any hope on this?
SBIR Newbie said
Hi, I just received an impact score of 28 (no percentile) for my R44 (SBIR phase II) with NIDDK. It is a conventional phase II SBIR following successful completion of phase I. Is 28 a fundable score at NIDDK? Would you share your experience? Thanks!
Brian said
28 is a decent score for SBIR. No one knows the funding for 2021 yet, but I’d say you’re in better than average shape. Advise talking to your PO once you have the Summary Statement in hand.
writedit said
We will see if someone else jumps in with their experience, but I am not familiar with SBIR funding trends at NIDDK. My best advice is, as always, to wait until you receive your summary statement to contact your PO about next steps (mainly whether you need to work on submitting again, since the PO will not know about funding until next year, after the federal budget is signed into law).
SBIR Newbie said
Thank you for your advice! Brian and Writedit!
genewiz said
Dear Writedit,
Thanks for posting this helpful blog. I received a score of 23 on my K99 in July (NIGMS, A1, resubmitted in March 2020 after a score of 24), and got my summary statements, which were enthusiastic. I discussed with my PO, who said he was cautiously optimistic and told me to check back at the beginning of November. I did and he said he didn’t have any decisions yet but asked me to submit JIT and wanted to know if I will be on the faculty job market this year.
I reached out again to him recently asking if he’s got any news and he told me he didn’t have any decisions but that my application was not on the paylist yet and applications will be considered as the fiscal year continues. He also said my application will now be managed by a different PO. My questions are:
1. Does this mean that they are going down the list of applications to be funded and my application may or may not be considered depending on how much money is left after they have funded the highest scoring applications?
2. You mentioned above somewhere that decisions may not be made until the new FY, which may be months from now. Do you think that’s the hold up here as well? Will my application be considered in the new FY if there are no remaining funds from the previous year?
3. Is it common for POs to transfer applications to a different PO? I checked the profile of the new PO and their subject area is really not where my application fits in. Why would they do this and does this matter?
4. This is my last shot at a K99 application and I would like to apply for faculty positions this year if my application doesn’t get funded. Should I voice this to the PO?
Thank you for this amazing resource
writedit said
NIGMS has not made any new awards for FY21, so if your PO mentioned the paylist, they may be just starting to process priority awards for funding – but probably will not make many awards until the FY21 federal budget is signed into law (probably next year). If your initial PO was cautiously optimistic, I think you can still wait hopefully – but it could be a long wait. No funds from FY20 are carried over to FY21 (ICs must spend their entire wad by Sept 30, which is why that last 6 weeks or so is such a scramble). Your new PO will not have any update until next February at least – you can monitor the news for the status of the FY21 federal budget, which I suspect won’t see any movement until after inauguration and hopefully will not be delayed by partisan fighting. Speaking of the new PO, you don’t need to be alarmed or worry about their science focus. ICs have a set of POs who focus solely on various training, fellowship, and career development mechanisms (agnostic to the science), and I suspect there was just a change in assignments at NIGMS that led to a new PO taking over the K99s. When it’s time for your R00, you’ll work with the scientifically appropriate PO for the research project. The K99 PO will focus on your mentored training and career development path itself to ensure you are set up for a successful career. Now, with regard to looking for a faculty position, ICs now assume if a K99 applicant is actively applying and/or interviewing for jobs, that they are ready for a faculty position and no longer need the mentored K99 award. Others have posted here that when a PO asks if they are on the market, and they admit to applying for faculty positions, they are no longer considered for an award (even if they don’t successfully secure a position, even if they had a very competitive K99 score). This is why the eligibility period is short – the NIH wants the K99 to support postdocs while they are still learning, not when they are ready to become independent. Your original PO was curious because you are at the end of the eligibility period (when some postdocs then start looking even while waiting to hear about the K99) – if you had admitted to looking, my guess is he would have said to start looking into an R01, MIRA, or DP2 (all of which are much better awards than an R00, especially to launch a new career). Of course, if you are competitive for faculty positions now (without the K99), then it might be better to skip the K99 rather than be suspended in postdoctoral training you don’t really need. This would be a conversation with your mentor. If, with the pandemic especially, you could use another year to gain new skills and publications and wait for jobs to open up, then you probably want to put that search on hold – at least until you have clarity about an award from your PO.
genewiz said
Thank you for the detailed response. This is super helpful.
Should i introduce myself to the new PO or just wait until Feb (or whenever they start making decisions) for them to email me?
Out of curiosity: because of how the FY ends in September, does it take longer for ICs to make award decisions around this time of year in a typical year (non-pandemic/non-general election)?
Thanks again for answering all our questions. This is by far the most useful website for this type of information.
writedit said
You can certainly introduce yourself to the new PO – always a good idea to reach out and make a personal connection. If you have any timing issues that could be causing stress, such as funding or an appointment running out some time in 2021, this would be helpful to convey. If you are secure right now, you can just let the new PO know that you understand the federal budget situation but look forward to advice on next steps whenever an update is available. In the meantime, if you have any new publications, accepted abstracts, or other milestones, you can send those updates to the PO (in case there is any internal discussion of award ranking, your continued progress would be good to highlight). There is always – always – a lull in new awards after the new FY starts Oct 1, even if a federal budget is in place (but this has only been true a couple of times in the last two decades). ICs are busy closing books and wrapping up the prior FY accounting during Oct and Nov, plus getting ready for the next FY, so it’s always hard to get awards out in December, even in an ideal budget year. Any time you see the new FY starts under a Continuing Resolution, you can assume that nothing will happen at the NIH until after the federal budget (or HHS-Labor-Education appropriation bill) is signed into law … and even then, there is a delay of 6-8 weeks (sometimes more) before ICs actually know their final appropriation. It’s not direct deposit. The funds first go to HHS, then to NIH, then to ICs – and $ is skimmed off at each step for administration, reporting, and other federal bureaucracy requirements. Once they have an idea of their final appropriation (when budget is signed into law), the ICs can start planning and processing in earnest, but the awards themselves will be held up until a couple months after the budget is in place (a lot of PIs wonder why their NoA hasn’t arrived within days of the new budget being enacted).
genewiz said
Thank you!
genewiz said
Hi Writedit. I’m still waiting to hear back from the PO (status: council review completed since September 2020). I asked them in early March if final award decisions have been made and they said not until April. I have seen NIGMS (through NIH Reporter) make other K99 awards so I’m beginning to wonder if my application will be funded. With a score of 23 I initially thought I might have a decent chance but I’m quite uncertain now. NIGMS doesn’t publish paylines so is there a way to see what the score distribution is for funded applications? Would it help to reach out to my PO again? I don’t want to annoy them, especially if they don’t have any more info.
Thank you.
writedit said
Oh wow. That is way too long not to have heard anything about a competitive K99 application, especially if the new PO has never been in touch with you. You should definitely get in touch with the Branch Chief for Postdoctoral, Early Career, and Workforce Development, Michael Sesma, to explain your situation and request an update and advice on next steps.
genewiz said
The new PO was in touch in early March only to say she had no news yet when I asked them about the status of my application. She has been quick to respond, generally. It’s just that there has been no new updates. I don’t want to offend her so would it be appropriate to get in touch with the Branch Chief? Should I reach out to her again before doing that?
Thanks again
writedit said
Aha – I thought you meant you had heard nothing since last December. No, no need to contact the Branch Chief in that case. If you haven’t asked about submitting again, you could certainly put that question out there, though I would have hoped that one or the other POs would have recommended this sooner if they thought it was important (so you didn’t risk missing a funding cycle – or your eligibility window). After so long with no firm commitment to funding, you certainly deserve some guidance on what alternatives, if any, you should consider/pursue in the meantime.
genewiz said
This is a resubmission (A1) so i don’t think I have many other alternatives besides trying to submit a new application, which I think is too late at this point. I will reach out to the PO once again to see what the status is. Thank you for your guidance.
genewiz said
Dear Writedit,
I emailed the PO again to see if there were any updates and she said the something: the application is still under consideration but no final decision has been reached. However, now she asked me to check back in late August if I haven’t heard anything. This seems like an unusually long wait, given that I resubmitted in March of 2020. Do you have an idea as to what might be the reason for this? Is there anything I can ask my PO to get some clarity on the matter?
Thank you.
writedit said
Your PO is hoping that your application will be picked up for funding at the end of the fiscal year, which ends Sept 30, so final award decisions are made in August. I know you said the March 2020 A1 was your last shot, but if the COVID-related extension makes you eligible to submit again, then you could submit a new A0 in June. You could ask the new PO about another submission based on the COVID policy and, if she agrees you qualify, you can ask for any insight on what would make a new A0 competitive with reviewers (based on the last discussion) and NIGMS (what would make your application rise to the top).
genewiz said
Hi Writedit,
Thanks for the info. Definitely helps to understand the process more, i.e. that final funding decisions can be made until the end of the fiscal year.
KW said
I submitted a K23 in February. Status is council completed. Was also told by PO that it was forwarded to director. Does anyone happen to know of JITs or NGAs have been sent out by NIAAA from Feb submissions?
writedit said
There won’t be any action on FY21 awards (ie, February submissions) until the FY21 federal budget is signed into law, which likely won’t happen until next year. ICs make very few awards during a continuing resolution. Everything is on hold for now (not bad news – just more waiting). When you see in the news that Congress is acting on an omnibus bill for the federal budget (or the individual appropriation bills, including HHS-Labor-Education), and that the President has signed this into law, then you can expect some action (administrative processing), with awards starting 6-8+ weeks after the FY21 budget becomes law.
KW said
Thank you!
californialivin said
Hi, can you provide an update on the current NIH budget situation? If you received a fundable score (well below historical payline) and were reviewed in September council for an R01 with optimism from PO but counsel about holding pattern due to CR, what should we expect in the coming weeks? Thanks in advance!
writedit said
If you are well below the payline, then you should be seeing some action on your application in the next few weeks. It takes 4-6 weeks before appropriations trickle down from HHS to NIH to ICs (some $ is skimmed off at each step for administrative reporting n’at, which is why ICs must wait until they see what they actually receive). Then ICs need to figure out what they can spend in Cycle 1. The NIH increase is less than expected (3% in signed law vs 4.8% in Senate bill or 13% in House bill), so paylines won’t probably be going higher (though, I am still hoping NCI keeps to its plans and shifts more of its budget from discretionary to support a higher hard payline – no promises, though, especially now). Whether paylines drop, which I hope they won’t at all, depends on the quality of submissions during the pandemic. Even if the final number submitted is higher, that doesn’t mean all those lockdown applications from home-bound investigators are competitive.
CaliforniaLivin said
Thank you so much. 4th percentile R01 submitted in February so I’m cautiously optimistic. Just hard waiting since it’s been a year since submission! So what I’m hearing you say is we are still within the realm of not panicking…Right? 🙂
writedit said
No need to panic! Actually, February/March submissions will always, even in a hypothetical “normal” fiscal year, wait at least a year for funding due to FY-end delays at the NIH (Dec start dates are rarely feasible), which is why if waiting until June will strengthen an application, it can be worth it since the timing of award will be similar (Jan-Febish vs Aprilish).
Quick Question said
Hello, just a quick question to double check – is it necessary to request the same study group on a resubmitted application? I assume it will be automatically directed to the same study group (albeit the members may be different). I was just going to leave the optional study group request blank.
Thanks as always for this great resource!
writedit said
You should be fine, as long as the SRG hasn’t been reorganized. If you see assignment to a different SRG (in eRA Commons), you can contact about reassigning back to the original panel.
LNS said
I have an R01 that recently changed from “Pending administrative review” to “Council review completed” while I was pulling together our requested JIT. Should I be concerned?
writedit said
Not necessarily, especially if you were asked to submit JIT. If JIT was requested, a GMS could have opened your application for processing before realizing your JIT was not in or only needed access briefly (so status reverted back when GMS was done).
LNS said
Oh good. Thank you so much. Yes, JIT was requested but just took longer than planned to submit so I was worried. Thank you!
R15seeker said
I have an A1 R15 scored outside the payline. Can I submit exactly the same proposal as a new A0-R15 changing the title?
writedit said
You could (and you don’t need to change the title), but I would strongly recommend revising in response to the A1 critiques (vs submitting “exactly the same proposal”). You just don’t include an introduction or mention the prior submissions in the new A0.
Mike said
Hi writedit!
After 4 months of patient waiting, my NCI F30 application status changed to “Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.”
My question is whether this means that the application will be funded? The reason I ask is because I was nominated for a Prestigious University Award and wanted to highlight this as I would be the only person at my school to have received a F30 fellowship. I want to be accurate and do not want to make any promises, but in your opinion, what do you think the chances are for this application to be funded in the end? The deadline for all of the information to be submitted is in early January, and with my experience with the NIH, I am sure I won’t know about the award until far after this date.
Thanks for the advice on my previous comment! Keep up the great work with this forum.
writedit said
I think you can cite the F30 on your nomination application. Your F30 is being processed for an award. You can contact your PO, explaining the University award nomination, and ask for confirmation as to whether you can include the F30 – and whether the NoA might be sent before the January deadline. Nothing is absolutely guaranteed until the NoA is in hand, but I think in this case, your PO will be happy to be as helpful as they can.
Thomas Nathaniel said
Hey Writedit, I have a quick question on the transferability of a training grant (NIH R25 of the institute of NIA) to another institution. Ive Just been awarded the NIH R25 grant and I will be moving to another institution in the summer of 2021. The new institution just offered me a new faculty position. I will appreciate your take on whether this grant can be transferred to be implemented in my new institution.
writedit said
All NIH awards are made to institutions, not individuals. No grant is transferred unless the institution relinquishes it. For research project grants, such as R01s, the institution almost always allows the PI to take most or all of the award, since the PI is the one who conceived of and can do the science as reviewed (and institutions do not interfere with investigators moving their research programs, since they want their recruits to be able to bring research programs as well). With your R25, the education grant is much more specific to the institution than to you as PI. That is, reviewers assessed the value of the program based on the faculty, research training environment, and the trainee pool at your original (current) institution when giving a competitive score (it wasn’t about you personally or your scientific ideas). You would need to apply for another R25 from your new institution, since the evaluation of the new environment and faculty must be done through peer review. Instead, NIA will give your current institution the opportunity to name a new PI for the R25 – or not make the award, if there is no one else who can direct the program, but that is unlikely (otherwise, reviewers would not have rated your program so highly). You can talk with your program officer to confirm this – and if your PO indicates that you can move the R25 – assuming your current institution is willing to relinquish it – then please report back, as I would be quite surprised and would be interested to learn this is possible.
stressed_k99applicant said
Dear WriteEdit,
Thank you for organizing such a wonderful resource and forum!
I recently got an impact score of 40s for my first K99 application. I feel encouraged by the comments and definitely want to re-submit again. Everything was hopeful, until recently my current postdoc mentor (also primary mentor on K99) told the lab he will be moving to another university in 2021 and won’t be able to leave any money behind (ah I hate 2020). I haven’t made the decision – personally don’t want to move at this stage, since I’m almost wrapping up my postdoc, and also have a family to consider. But most importantly, I also worry about how the lab move (or change of mentor) might affect my K99 application.
1. I think I will have to re-submit from my current university with my current PI for sure, since the submission date is before the lab move date. The lab move date will be before the k99 award start date. But how does one deal with this situation? Will the reviewers consider this negatively? Or discuss with the PO after I actually get awarded?
2. If I can find another lab to support me at my current institute after my PI moves, will it be an issue for my K99 application? I imagine my current PI can still provide guidance remotely (if our relationship still holds of course).
This situation is causing me a lot of stress for sure… and I truly appreciate your inputs.
writedit said
Someone on your review committee might know about your mentor’s planned move, especially since they seem to have a fixed date in mind already (& may already be discussing this publicly – and/or the new university may issue a press release prior to review), and because this person is critical to the success of the K99, you don’t want to torpedo your application by pretending this won’t happen. Also, the IC funding decision will be based on this person and institution serving as your mentor/training environment, since that is what reviewers will have evaluated in judging scientific merit. My advice would be to see if you could find a lab and mentor who can support you at your current institution, with your current mentor remaining part of your mentorship team but no longer primary mentor. If you are requesting 2 years of K99 support, it could be that you might be able to move between years (with IC approval) and start your faculty job search from the new institution (if it is a better launching pad for your career). Now, if you think there is a chance that you might move with your current mentor (and you would prefer to stay with your current mentor), you might want to wait and apply from the new institution (but you can start working on application now, looking into the training and other connections you would need to make at the new university to support your K99 period, so you can submit as soon as you get there). If timing is an issue, don’t forget about the temporary extension of eligibility due to COVID (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-20-158.html). You can also talk with your PO about what they feel would be best, especially in terms of a multi-mentor team if you stay at the current university. The concerns raised in the summary statement might help guide the best route, too (eg, if working with a different lab at current university addresses scientific/training gap or if the new university has resources that would strengthen approach/training).
stressed_k99applicant said
Thank you very much for the prompt reply!! Yes that’s exactly my worry (reviewer will know about the move even if I don’t mention it). Sadly the Feb/March cycle will be my last chance, even after counting the COVID extension – so I’m pretty much stuck with the current institute for re-submission. My K99 application does have another co-mentor who provides training in expertise skills, and I could reach out to him to see whether he will be able to serve as primary mentor for the re-submission. When I mentioned about this possibility with my current mentor, he doesn’t like this suggestion (citing the other co-mentor doesn’t have as good of a training record) – I should discuss with him again about this. I’m also waiting to hear back from the PO. Thank you very much for the suggestions.
writedit said
I don’t understand why your current mentor isn’t supportive of your plan if he plans to move and not leave any funding behind. He knows you need to submit where you are. I hope this is not a subtle way to pressure you to move with him. And while an initial score of 40 isn’t terrible, it doesn’t suggest he is a slam dunk, either. If you have publications with the co-mentor, that is what reviewers will look for, and if the co-mentor is more junior (and therefore has fewer trainees), then this will be taken into consideration, too, especially if the current university has resources (eg, CTSA, career development office, etc.) to help you (with career development) and the co-mentor (be a better mentor).
stressed_k99applicant said
So I just had a long discussion with my mentor and he suggests another solution will be me moving with him on paperwork but work remotely from my current location (especially half of what I do is computational). I’m seriously considering this option. He also doesn’t think K99 reviewers will be concerned if I’m moving with him to a new university (similar environment/resources/better ranking than current university).
The co-mentor is slightly more junior, but unfortunately I don’t have any publication with him (my mentor does have a long history collaborating with him and they are good buddies).
writedit said
I’ll be interested in what your PO says. To do what you suggest, you would need to apply from current institution and describe the resources of both. You would need strong letters of support from the new institution. Also, reviewers might be a bit leery about having your K99 funded during a year of transition for your mentor (ie, lab shuts down and loses time/productivity during and after the move until everything is up to speed). You don’t mention what the non-computational half of your work is. If it is performed in the bench lab of your co-mentor, then you need to explain how that will be handled at the new institution (since you will be pretending to move with your mentor) – that is, you’ll need letters from a new co-mentor to provide the non-computational training and research environment. And of course, the award will be made to your current institution and then transferred to the new institution (more delays and lost productivity) – and if the award is moved but you do not, how do you get paid? Is the new institution on board with your living in another city as a trainee? (not all universities would be for a postdoc) And what if you don’t get your K99? Will your primary mentor drop you from his other grants (again, not sure he can pay you if you are not there)? Do you have other options at the new institution? I see various potential problems with this approach, but again, your PO will have good advice. I am still a little concerned your mentor is acting in his best interest (vs yours) because he doesn’t want to lose your excellent research skills and ideas. If you are almost beyond your K99 eligibility, you might want to just wait, move with your PI, and apply for another K mechanism (K22 transition, K01/K08/K25 et al., K12 at new institution), especially if you are competitive to hit the job market. Alternatively, you could pursue the K99 at the current institution (with primary mentor now co-mentor from distance) plus the other K options I just suggested. You might think long and hard about your long-term goals and interests, beyond this K99 with the current primary mentor.
stressed_k99applicant said
PO suggests me to change a primary mentor if I’m going to stay at the current university; or to submit post-submission materials to address change of institute.
Thank you writeedit for the thoughtful response and the note on the other K awards. I agree with you my PI is acting in his best interest. It’s sad. For me the most important thing currently is to make sure my remaining work getting published (currently working on manuscripts); and switching lab/mentor will not be a good idea.
writedit said
Aha. Well, I am glad your PO indicated you could submit the change in institution as part of your post-submission materials (so it will be part of peer review). I assume, then, your primary mentor will move prior to review (not just prior to start date). I understand completely about not wanting to burn your most important bridge (you especially would not want your primary mentor to take anything out on you if you don’t continue to support his work) and maximize your opportunity for publishing in the best journals/best conferences so you are on solid ground when you seek your own faculty position for the R00. I wish you all the best with this and am happy to answer any questions that I can. Thank you so much, too, for reporting back about your PO’s input, which is helpful to know.
IC hoping for K said
Dear WriteEdit
I applied for a K08 application to NHLBI in the June cycle and was given an Impact score of 32. The NHLBI K payline is 32. I am very encouraged as this is A0 for me. I and my co-mentors think we can address the comments we received reasonably well and I am working towards it. I wanted to get your and anyone else’s thoughts on my score and likelihood of funding.
This is a great thread and has been tremendously informative. Thanks to all the contributors.
writedit said
Since the FY20 payline was 32, you should be in good shape for FY21, since final paylines should stay the same (not get worse). If you haven’t communicated with the PO yet, you can ask about whether a rebuttal would be useful and advice on next steps (including whether you should consider an A1 in March).
KARTHIK MURUGIAH said
Thanks writedit. I spoke with the PO. I was told that due to COVID it may be that the payline cutoff may be reduced for next year! And I was advised to resubmit. Wondering if other funding career development applicants are experiencing something similar. Writedit, your thoughts on this will be deeply appreciated. Thx.
writedit said
Wow. This suggests to me that the number of applications (and the number of low-scoring applications) increased since more investigators had time to spend on writing when they couldn’t be in the lab or clinic. NHLBI will get COVID-designated funding, but it could also be that they want to set aside some of their regular appropriation for COVID PARs/RFAs as well. NHLBI probably won’t know until after February or possibly March, which is why your PO wants to be sure you don’t miss a cycle waiting. UPDATE: Actually, I wonder, too, if the ICs need to set aside some career development $ to cover unanticipated short-term extensions for current awardees due to COVID, which would definitely cut into the portion of the budget available for new awards – fortunately only for this one year.
JL said
Many thanks for all the valuable information shared and posted here! May I ask how to find the paylines for NHLBI K01 application? This is going to be my first post on this website 😉
JL said
Never mind. I found the answer: it was 32 for FY2018, 2019, 2020 and then 28 for FY2021 for NHLBI K awards. Does anybody have any insights on why there was a decrease for the Payline for FY2021? Do we expect to have 32 back again for FY2022? 🙂
writedit said
In any other year, the drop in payline could have been due to a higher number of lower scoring applications (ie, the number scoring 28 and below was about the same as the number scoring 32 and below in prior years). For FY21, another consideration was all the unexpected funds needed to support K awardees through the pandemic, including extending awards – which had not been budgeted. To cover the support of current K awardees during the pandemic, less money was left for new awards in FY21. The FY22 payline could be a little lower but should not be as heavily impacted (by pandemic spending, though the number of very low-scoring applications could again drop the payline due to budget limitations).
Fei K25 said
Dear Writeedit,
Thanks for the great resource. I have a NIA A1 K25 with score 30, and I am still waiting for the final decision due to the CR. The PO told me if the CR situation continues until June, I would better submit a new proposal as my score is very close. But the first Aim in my proposal likely have been published at that time. I am not sure if I can still keep the current Aim 1 or I have to change the aim. It seems that it is going to be a big change on my proposal. Also, if I have a paper published in the area, does that mean I will not be eligible for K25 anymore.
writedit said
It is more important to highlight your latest publications, so you should consider how you would expand the work based on your Aim 1 findings. You would need to be thinking about this anyway, since apparently you’ve had these results for months if a publication is imminent (that is, you should be considering how you will continue the work beyond what you previously proposed even if you do not need to apply again). You submitted the first A0 at least 2 years ago, so the field has surely moved on as well, and reviewers will not want to see you stuck on the same exact project after all this time. If you don’t need the new K25 A0 after all, you can still use the new experiments and ideas you have developed for a subsequent grant application, updated as appropriate based on your future findings and reports in the literature. The K25 is for all levels of PI experience, from postdoc up through senior faculty, so your publication will not disqualify you.
R21/NIAID said
Dear WriteEdit,
This is a great forum, I have learned a lot from.
I applied for a R21 to NIAID in this July, got an impact score of 20 in the Oct, it was a PAR, so not have a payline be established. I emailed my PO in Oct, he was very polite, told me that funding decisions were on hold as their financial systems transition fiscal years, and he also told me not to submit JIT until they ask. However, last month I just found that the status of this R21 changed from “Council review completed” to “Pending administrative review”, and about one week later it changed back to “Council review completed”, I am wondering what happened? Should I reach out to the PO again?
Thank you for your help in advance.
writedit said
Interesting. Someone else just asked this. The change in status means a GMS opened your file to work on it, probably realized there was no JIT to review (or perhaps was checking that or something else), and then closed it back up, reverting to Council review completed. This brief administrative activity may or may not be due to the fact that the federal FY21 budget might get passed later this week (or perhaps next, if there is another very short CR) along with the next COVID relief/stimulus bolus. If the FY21 budget does pass alongside a pandemic relief bill, then ICs will start processing awards next Jan or (more likely) February. You can sit tight until the GMS and/or PO requests the JIT. It sounds like your PO believes this will happen as soon as there is clarity as to the status of their FY21 appropriation, which may be sooner than later after all.
R21/NIAID said
Writedit, thanks for your explanation, it’s very helpful, I appreciate.
Kathleen Keller said
Hello – I got a 16th% on the first submission of my R01 to NIDDK. It went to council in August and my PO told me I am on the borderline, so to resubmit. I resubmitted in November and am just waiting to see if the original grant will be funded. The entire study section I submitted to initially was disbanded, so there will be very little overlap in reviewers. What are the chances that my original submission will be funded?
writedit said
You are at the FY20 payline (ie, a 16th percentile would receive an award), but your PO probably needs to wait to see what happens with the FY21 budget, which is why they advised you to resubmit for insurance. I expect paylines to stay the same, but NIDDK won’t have its appropriation until late January or early February, assuming Congress passes the FY21 budget next week. Whatever happens with your score, your PO will take into consideration the change in SRG membership, but assuming it still remains the most appropriate study section for your science, the new roster will still be taken into consideration, but the merit of their review will not be discounted (ie, if they raise valid concerns with your science, the PO cannot ignore that). However, it could be that you will know about the A0 status before the A1 is reviewed or the summary statement issued – and your PO can still award the A0, no matter what happens with the A1.
Kathleen Keller said
This is really helpful, thanks!
SC said
Dear writedit, my NIA proposal on COVID and ADRD received an impact score of 29 (no percentile) and I received the summary statement after 2 weeks. I emailed my PO about the next step, but no response. I guess there is nothing I can do at this point except waiting? Thanks
writedit said
Yes – you’ll just need to wait – but probably not too long, given the emergency nature of the funding (hence the rapid turnaround on your summary statement, too). Your PO is probably waiting to respond until they have concrete information to share. The score is not bad, but it’s really hard to judge any special solicitation like this based on score alone (NIA will take other factors into consideration, too).
SC said
thank you!
SC said
Hello Writedit, It just occurred to me although my submission responded to a COVID-related FOA (PAR20-237, which allows two rounds of submission), it seems to follow the standard dates – i.e. standard councils date and standard starting date. So I assume probably I will have to wait longer? Thank you again!!
writedit said
No, you should know about your application status before the Dec 1 applications are reviewed. I would suggest in the meantime you start to draft a rebuttal to the summary statement, which your PO may request eventually, and which you would want to have considered if you were to submit this as a new application (you wouldn’t include a formal introduction, of course, but you would want to address legitimate concerns raised and recognize what might not have been clear to these reviewers).
SC said
Thank you so much, Writedit. I just got a request from my PO today for a rebuttal.
SB NP said
Dear Writedit,
Thanks for maintaining this forum and your insightful response to all the questions!
My 01A1 resubmission of K99/R00 to NIGMS in July received a score of 19 and I got the summary statement yesterday with mostly enthusiastic comments but some criticism. Today I wrote to the PO asking for his opinion on the likelihood of funding and what should be my next steps. Surprisingly, the PO responded within hours. I am quoting the response below:
“Yes. Your application was reviewed favorably. I can’t speak to the funding question at this time as we are awaiting our budget. We always have more competitive applications than we have funds to award. Regardless, you should respond to a request for Just-in-time documentation as soon as you receive it.
Your next step is to be patient. I will update you as I have information to share”
What should I expect? I was hoping that the PO will ask me to work on a rebuttal, but I was just asked to wait!
Thanks!
writedit said
All good news (don’t worry that you were not asked for a rebuttal – also good news). If Congress passes the FY21 budget next week, then NIGMS will have their appropriation in late January or early February. The appropriation goes to HHS and then to NIH and then to NIGMS – and the IC does not know how much money might be skimmed off at each stop so will not know its final appropriation until 6-8 weeks after the budget is signed into law. However, assuming the administrative review of your application does not uncover any issues, you should be funded reasonably close to your April 1 start date – probably late though.
SB NP said
Thank you for your encouragement, I am cautiously optimistic!
syxbach said
Dear Writedit,
We submitted our NIEHS proposal this April. We received a score of 31 and the response from the PO was reviewed favorably. We submitted a letter suggested by the PO and it went through the council review in September. Then last month, we got a personal JIT request. Now we are waiting for the final results. Do you know how long we should wait for the final decision?
Thanks!
writedit said
Congratulations on the good news. You don’t mention the mechanism, but I see NIEHS has issued two competing awards to R21 applications (on 11/18 & 12/4), which is not surprising since these are short, relatively small budget awards. If this is an R01 or another larger-budget activity code not for a COVID-related funding opportunity, then you will probably be waiting until late January or February (as late as March, depending on the application backlog), since the ICs will not receive their FY21 appropriations until 6+ weeks after the budget bill is signed into law (with extra delays now due to the holidays and COVID) … assuming the FY21 budget is passed next week.
syxbach said
Thanks Writedit. It is an R01 grant, initiated in Feb or March this year, if I remember correctly. It is our first trial on NIH funding, so we are excited to see the results.
Scienceguy said
I am an established investigator and the resubmission of my NCI R01 competitive renewal received a 20%ile about two months ago. Anything I can do to increase my chance of funding from what I assume is its current zero percent chance, given the 9%ile payline?
writedit said
A long shot unless your PO really wants to push for funding (and asked for a rebuttal to help in this effort). A lot of it would depend on your PO’s interest in keeping your R01 in their portfolio, whether the score improved from A0 to A1, and whether the concerns are all addressable by tweaking scientific approach (vs addressing underlying significance or major changes to the approach). If you have the summary statement and haven’t checked in yet with the PO, that would be the first step. You would also want to be able to convey the impact on your lab, ongoing work, team members (especially grad students and postdocs), n’at, especially if you can’t absorb their support on other grant awards. If even an R56 bridge award would help, you could consider noting this as well.
T32 PI said
The renewal application for our NHLBI T32 application received an impact score of 21 in June. I was assured by the PO shortly thereafter that the grant would be renewed. Council met in late October, and Commons status changed to “Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist” in mid-November. We have not yet received a JIT request. Any guidance as to when to expect things to move forward?
writedit said
This will probably depend on when the FY21 federal budget is signed into law – hopefully next week. If so, NHLBI should have their final appropriation by the end of January-early February, which is when they will be able to start working on awards. You could get a JIT request sooner, but don’t be surprised if it doesn’t come until next year.
nk said
Dear WriteEdit,
I am established PI and received an 8% score on an NCI R01 with a Jan 2021 council. I know this is within the interim payline of 9%, but looking at the funding in 2019 here: https://gsspubssl.nci.nih.gov/blog/articles?funding_patterns/2019
it is interesting that about 95% is funded at 8 percentile and there is a sharp drop in success rate for higher scores. I was wondering how this could be if the pay line was 9 percentile in 2019. I was wondering what determines my chances of getting funded and if it is worth contacting the PO at this stage.
Thank you for any input and for this remarkable forum!
Best
writedit said
You should be fine, assuming that you do not currently have >$1M in direct costs from NIH funding (multiple awards). In that case, per NOT-OD-12-140, the NCAB conducts a Special Council Review to “to assess the merit of funding applications that provide unique opportunities to advance research that is both highly promising and distinct from other funded projects from the PD/PI”. This is not a hard threshold – Council decides which productive establish investigators should exceed the suggested funding cap – but this accounts for some of the skipped awards below the payline (9th percentile at NCI). Above the 9th percentile, the funded established investigator applications are all select pay; in fact, NCI has been setting a very low hard payline to make more funds available for applications that score above the payline (a Harold Varmus strategy, so the SPLs could hand-pick as many awards as possible), though NCI is working to increase their hard payline (their goal is 15th percentile), which in turn will reduce the number of these select pay applications.
nk said
Thank you WriteEdit and also for the clarification on why the success rate is not always 100% below pay line. I do have another R01 but way less than 1M/year DC which is also in the final year.
I have heard from on senior PO at NCI that he was very annoyed by the select pay policy since it is much more work for them:)
Going through the posts of blog is incredibly informative helping junior as well as senior PIs navigate the complex NIH funding landscape.
Thanks again for your service to the community!
Anand
writedit said
Great – sounds like you should be all set. I am always happy to help – and I appreciate everyone’s questions and input, since we all learn and benefit together.
nk said
Also meant to add that a 15% hard pay line would be a dream of many a cancer researcher…or at least provide a modicum of consolation given with other institutes like the NIA where R35s are being given out even with percentiles in the 30s.
writedit said
Oh, I know. In FY10, NCI’s hard payline was at the 15th percentile. I know PIs who, over this past decade, kept managing to lower their R01 percentiles only to miss each new, even lower percentile by a point (especially during the dark sequester years with a 7th percentile hard payline) until their funding dried up and labs closed – a huge loss for science (not to mention the loss of NCI’s initial investment in these labs). NCI can definitely get back to the 15th percentile, especially with solid (secure) bipartisan support for the NIH.
Thomas said
Dear WriteEdit, I received the impact scores for my R01 for the Covid-19 grant submitted to NIA. My impact score was 38, and I received statement last week. I did not contact my PO, because I feel the scores was on the high side for consideration, and I was planning for a re-submission. I just received a mail that says that my grant is currently being considered for funding by NIA and that I should send a brief statement to address the critiques in my application summary statement and that I should highlight the objective and significance of my study. Is this a sign of hope that my application could be funded??
writedit said
Yes, and you should not delay in responding to your PO. The COVID-related FOAs will have scores all over the spectrum funded, and if this is AD/ADRD-related, NIA will be particularly interested, even with the higher score (FY20 payline was 40, interim for FY21 is 37). Regardless, the exercise of reviewing and responding to the critiques will help with your resubmission (if needed – and you should know before Feb/March whether resubmission is needed).
SC said
Dear writedit, thanks so much your insight! Really helpful. Now my PO asked for a 1-2 page rebuttle and stated that “focusing on comments in the Resume and Summary of Discussion section of the summary statement”. Do you think I should also discuss the individual critiques that are not included in the Resume section, as what we do in A1 submission? Thank you!
writedit said
You should stick with the concerns raised in the Summary of Discussion paragraph(s). You can include the specific critique in which they may be presented in more detail, but you don’t need to go through all the concerns raised in individual critiques that were not mentioned in the Summary of Discussion. I usually recommend that investigators start with the concern quoted verbatim (vs paraphrased), perhaps set off in italics, with the response/explanation/clarification below. If the individual reviewer has a slightly different or more detailed wording, then you could cite that verbatim in the same section [eg, “One weakness was blah-blah-blah” (Summary of Discussion) and “Investigators failed to consider blah-blah-blah in their XYZ” (Critique 2) … and then your response to this concern below]. The IC mainly wants to be sure you can address any issues the panel as a group and the SRO agreed on and elevated to the formal summary. Individual concerns left in specific critiques might have been mentioned but dealt with during the discussion (and not changed in the critique) or not considered significant by the entire group (but still something you would want to consider if submitting a new or revised application).
SC said
Thank you so much for your suggestions, Writedit.
Joe said
I had a recent SBIR grant application (COVID-related) at NINR receive a score of 33. I asked my PO about likelihood of funding and he said it would not be funded this round, but would be reconsidered in the spring. He added, “You do not need to resubmit.” My question is, should I interpret that as I should not resubmit or just that I don’t need to resubmit for the 33 to be considered in the spring?
writedit said
You do not need to resubmit and can be cautiously optimistic in the meantime (nothing is final until a NoA is issued). NINR will not be making any awards until they receive their FY21 appropriation (about 6-8 wks after FY21 federal budget is signed into law) – hence the comment about not being funded this cycle. Once ICs have their FY21 appropriation, they can set paylines that will be retrospective to applications submitted for the first cycle and start to process first and second cycle applications for awards at about the same time (including yours).
nk said
Hi WriteEdit,
I was wondering if the proposed increase in NIH budget was approved as part of the spending bill that was just passed?
Also I was curious if this would mean that the 2021 budget has been passed and the paylines for 2021 will be finalized soon by the various institutes?
I am not sure what the planned payline for NCI was but their interim was 9%, hopefully it will go above 10% that was in 2020.
Thank you
nk said
oops! sorry to jinx it. Looks like the clown is trying to derail the bill.
writedit said
Ha! Whenever the FY21 federal budget is signed into law, it will still be 6-8 weeks before ICs receive their appropriations and can begin to assess paylines, but I would expect them to be similar or slightly better than FY20. In addition, NCI had announced a plan to get their base payline up to the 15th percentile (eventually, not necessarily in FY21), so I would expect it to stay at least at the 10th percentile and hopefully move up a point or two.
SBIR Newbie said
Hi, I got a score of 28 for my R44 SBIR application. The summary statement has come in so I reached out to my PO and asked whether I should resubmit. He said that I stand a good chance to be funded but asked me to provide a response to the critiques. My question here is how will my response be used (in the council review meeting, I presume), and whether my response will be sent to the reviewers. Any insight about what role my response can play will be appreciated as it will help me draft a more effective response. Thanks, and happy holidays!
writedit said
Your response will not go to Council or back to reviewers, so you don’t need to write a typical Introduction to an amended application. This will be used internally at your IC by POs and senior IC personnel in making award decisions. You’ll want to quote (verbatim) each weakness cited in the Resume and Summary of Discussion paragraph and write how you will address this (or why it isn’t really an issue); if one reviewer describes the concern in more detail, you can base your response on this expanded discussion of the weakness raised. You can talk about new data since the application was submitted and reviewed, and if you have any new publications (including manuscripts accepted), you can mention these, too. You should still keep it to a page or so, but don’t worry about going a little over if you really need to. This is intended to be a quick reference page during the discussion of your application and will not undergo review (so you don’t need detailed background, references cited, etc. – just a straightforward response of how you will adapt your approach as appropriate).
SBIR Newbie said
Thank you! This is very helpful!
Jon said
Hi,
I am currently entering the last year of my K (it was for 4 years) and did submit my first R01 this past fall. The last year of my K08 is the calender year so will end on Dec 2021. Obviously not unique to me with COVID, my timeline for everything was pushed back over a cycle due to University restrictions and increased clinical demands to care for COVID patients which obviously was important.
Things have been somewhat back to normal with about 75% return to research but still has been a challenge. With my R01 submitted this fall, I am assuming I will have to put in a A1 for July 2021. Even if that makes it I will end up with a funding gap. I have spoken with my chair for this scenerio but obviously with finances being affected by COVID hard to say what will happen.
My question what are options for K awardees who may be in my shoes? I do have a R03 and R21 that will ends in summer of 2022 but obviously falls short for the 75%. I emailed my PO to see if there is some supplement I can apply for, even if I can get an extra 6 months. Has anyone addressed this, any options to look into?
writedit said
You can ask your PO for an extension, which ICs are authorized to offer on a case by case basis (per: https://grants.nih.gov/faqs#/covid-19.htm?anchor=question55913). Your PO may want to know how your data collection was affected, but they’ll let you know what information is needed to be considered for an extension. I would hope this won’t be a problem, but I have not personally heard how career development awards are being managed.
>
NanoAI said
Dear Writedit,
I submitted an RADx R01 related to COVID-19. I received a JIT from the PO a few weeks back and then learnt that it was not funded. PO also informed me that there won’t be any review comments or scores available. This is very strange and disappointing as I was asked to submit the JIT but not received funding. Is there any way I may appeal? Any suggestion would highly be appreciated.
Thanks
NanoAI
writedit said
A JIT request is never, ever a guarantee of funding. Even for typical applications, ICs often request JIT for more applications than they can fund (and sometimes the administrative processing of JIT turns up irreconcilable problems). This is especially true at the end of the FY – ICs ask many PIs to supply JIT so they can be sure to spend their entire appropriation by the end of the FY (ie, if a better-scoring application cannot turn around JIT in time, the next application on the paylist will be considered instead). With the RADx initiative, there is nothing typical about the application process – starting with the lack of score or summary statement. Everyone was asked for JIT since they needed to make these awards by December (ie, they could not wait to process applications sequentially, as is usually the case). I am sorry that you will not receive an award, but you cannot appeal and should not try.
NanoAI said
Thank you for the explanation, Writedit. The confusion came beacuse I only received a JIT for this RADx and not the other applications (I submitted three).
writedit said
I apologize – I should have clarified that everyone whom the NIH was considering for a potential award (not every application submitted) received a JIT request. I am quite sure the NIH received many more applications (including your other 2) that were not kept in the pool for possible funding consideration (and were not asked for JIT).
R01Anxiuos_20 said
Dear writeedit, I have a pending R01 application at NIA, with a 38 impact score and 26% and I’m a NI and the project is AD-related. I have contacted my PO after receiving the summary statement to ask if I should resubmit. My PO was very responsive and advised sending a brief response letter to the reviewer’s comments and asked to wait to hear from the council and budget meetings, also mentioned that it’s my decision if I want to resubmit. Would you also advise waiting or I should consider resubmitting. Thank you in advance for your advice!
writedit said
Because you are within the interim payline for your application (28th percentile, NI AD/ADRD R01s), and because your PO did not specifically advise you to resubmit, it is indeed up to you. If you have another project you can get ready for an NIH application (R01, R21, or other activity code), I would recommend working on that instead. If some unanticipated situation or administrative concern affects your funding likelihood, you can submit in July (or June as a new A0, if the 26th percentile was an A1) and probably receive an award just a little later than if you had submitted in February/March (Cycle 1 awards are always delayed, even if the federal budget is passed in the fall).
johnny said
Dear writeedit, I have a question about negotiating the starting date of a new project. I have submitted a new SBIR application with a proposed start date of September 1, 2021, and the PO indicated that there is a good chance that the project will be funded in this cycle. I know everything is still in the air until the award notice, which comes in whenever it decides to, but I just wonder if there is a nice and effective way to negotiate with the PO to push the start date back to later 2021, because I am currently working on another project until end of August 2021. I’d like your advice on how to approach this. Thank you very much!
johnny said
by the way, the grant was submitted to the NIH. Thanks
writedit said
The latest possible start date for any FY21 award will be September 30 (though most start dates in September are earlier in the month), but it sounds like your PO wants to fund it as soon as April or May. If you submitted to a special COVID or other RFA or PAR with specific dates, then you may need to accept whatever funding schedule is associated with that funding (eg, FOA might have listed an earlier start date). You shouldn’t wait until the award notice arrives to ask for a change – you can let your PO know that, if possible, you would like to keep the Sept 1 start date, if your application is considered for an award.
johnny said
Thank you for the rapid response!!! The application is not COVID related and the FOA did not specify any start date. I did put a September 2021 start date in my application. I don’t have much experience negotiating with the PO at the NIH regarding start dates… Is it simply to request (or remind the PO) my preference for a later start date when I receive an Intent to Award, which is after the council meeting? How likely is the NIH responsive to a request like that? Thanks!
writedit said
As I said, you do not want to wait until your application is processed for an award. I am not sure what you mean about “reminding” your PO about your preference for a later start date. If you already communicated your preference and the PO indicated they would fund it sooner, then it sounds like you will need to accept the earlier award date. If you mean that your PO should already know your preference based on what you put on your application, then contact your PO to explain you would prefer that the award start later – Sept 1 – if possible. POs ignore the start dates on applications (PIs can make mistakes on the application, often NoA arrives well after the application start date, which is not an expiration date). You want to communicate clearly with the PO so there is no confusion – your PO would rather hear about your preference (if they have not already) sooner than later.
johnny said
Hi, I got an email saying that my application is under administrative review today and the email is requesting a lot of JIT info, including financial reports of the company. This is before the council meeting (later this month). I feel the NIH is fast tracking my application, which is surprising because the project is not COVID related and the score is on the bubble… The PO has previously indicated that my application has a good chance of getting funded THIS CYCLE. I haven’t discussed with my PO about having a September start date (which I prefer due to other commitments), because I am concerned that doing so may jeopardize my chance of getting the funding… considering that the NIH doesn’t have a budget yet. My questions is: would/can the NIH ear-mark the funding for me until later if I ask for a September start date? I know I should talk to my PO about this ASAP, but I don’t want to request putting my application on hold just so other proposals (with much better scores) show up and the PO changes his mind? What would you do in this situation? Thank you for your advice!
writedit said
You need to talk with the PO ASAP. Waiting until the NoA is issued will just piss them off, and talking to them now will not endanger the award.
johnny said
By the way, the email is from the GMS and is requesting that I provide the JIT info in 3 days. It is not an automatic JIT request that every application having a score better than 30 gets. Thanks!
SaG said
My advice is “Go on, take the money and run”
NCI-PI said
Dear WriteEdit,
Happy New Year! May 2021 bring better health to everyone and higher pay lines:)
I have a grant that scored under the NCI payline, and we submitted the JIT for the Jan council. I noticed on the Commons page that the grant was assigned a GMS. I was wondering if that is an indication that they are more serious about funding or if its routine thing for all grants that were requested a JIT?
I know I just need to sit tight till the NCI council meets but was just curious.
Best
writedit said
If your PO asked you to submit JIT, there needed to be a GMS assigned to review it. This is all positive news, but not a guarantee of funding (though I think you would know about any potential reasons your application might be skipped, such as having >$1M in direct costs from other awards – your PO probably would have been in touch, too). NCI won’t have it’s appropriation for another 3-4 weeks or so, but the administrative review process can begin now, and hopefully the award notices, including yours (if yours was a February/March submission) will start to crank out in February. If yours was a June/July submission, you’ll probably get your award about when you would expect it in April.
NCI-PI said
Thank you Writedit. This is for a June submission. The PO was positive in the email so hopefully no issues. We will keep fingers crossed.
Grant transfer said
Dear Writedit,
I am considering moving to a foreign institution. I have active NIH grants. Could I transfer the active grant to a foreign institution and continue to work on the NIH-funded projects or it is not allowed to transfer the NIH grant to the outside of the US?
Thank you in advance for your advice.
SaG said
It depends on where you are moving to and what NIH Institute funds your work. Grants to foreign countries need Council approval. And the laws of the Country you are moving to might conflict with NIH grant requirements. Plus, some NIH institutes will not fund foreign grants at all.
So, get on the phone and start a conversation with your NIH PO and Grants person.
writedit said
Depending on the type of award (not all awards can be transferred to foreign institutions – check your Notice of Award), it can be transferred if the foreign institution has the required research environment and resources (qualified personnel, equipment, animal facilities, patient population, etc.) to complete the work that was peer reviewed and all required federal (US) certifications. The NIH needs to approve the new institution (whether you can conduct your research there is not something you decide on your own). The State Department would also review the research to be moved and need to give its approval. Your current institution needs to relinquish the awards, too, which generally is not a problem, but if a lot of the work is being done by other faculty at your current institution (or at multiple US institutions), you may end up taking a subcontract with you for your portion of the work rather than the main award (especially if MPI). This is really a discussion to have with your program officer(s), since they will readily know what issues (if any) you might face, and they will hold your plans in confidence – but they will absolutely need to know as soon you do plan to move (if that is your decision), since it will be a lot of work on their part and take some time.
QuantumLO said
I applied to a RADx grant with Sept 30 deadline and PO replied in a November email that results are expected by the end of the year. I did not receive a JIT email. Nor did I receive any other email from NIH. Status in Era Commons is still “Pending Council Review”. Does it mean my application was not considered as you suggest above in your comment from December 27, 2020 @ 9:18 pm? How long do you think it will take to get the funding decision? And, should I email the PO again and ask?
QuantumLO said
Correction, status is: “Pending IRG Review”
writedit said
If your status is still pending IRG review, it could be your PO does not yet know the outcome. Unless you want to submit this work in February for a regular R01 or other mechanism, you should probably just wait to hear from the PO. If you do want to get this in as part of a different application, you could check before you submit in case there is an update (and also to confirm your RADx is not still considered “under review”).
QuantumLO said
Thank you! I will wait and hopefully get good news.
Andrea said
I am reaching out for a junior colleague who was awarded a K22 through NCI. The intent was to have the newly awarded PI enter into a cost share with the university so she would have more resources to dedicate to her science. Through communicating with her, she said that she reached out to the PO, but that the PO said it could not be cost shared. Is this true? Seems counterintuitive. I previously came to the same university with a K99 and was able to cost share my 75% effort so that I had more direct resources. Any thoughts on this? I would like her to have more of her funded NIH dollars to go into her lab, rather than pay her salary if possible. Thank you!
writedit said
The emphasis of a career development award is on buying protected time for the applicant to get their independent research started and receive career development training and mentorship – not paying for the research project itself. No K award is a good deal for an applicant who mainly needs project support. If an investigator has their salary covered (and time protected for research), they should apply for research project funding, such as an R01. The funding in a K award funds cannot be diverted from salary to cover research costs, which would be the more appropriate place for institutions to, not so much cost share (which the NIH does not like – or allow, really), but provide pilot project support outside NIH funding (to cover research expenses other than salary). I am guessing your K99 was some years ago – the NIH is now much more strict about how the K99 is administered to ensure that funding is used for postdoctoral training rather than launching a new career (some ICs used to be very flexible with K99 awards, including paying them even after a faculty position was lined up).
SC said
Dear Writedit,
Special council review will be conducted for investigators who have >$1M direct cost. I assume this refers to the direct cost per year? If an investigator has several ongoing projects with total $2M direct costs over 3 years (less than $1M per year), will the investigator go through special council review? Thanks!
writedit said
Yes, the NIH threshold is $1M in direct costs for the FY in which the new award would be made (NIGMS threshold is $750K) – not the total direct costs over the life of the award. Above that, Council reviews the PI’s portfolio and decides whether to approve an additional award (ie, it’s not an automatic disqualifier of additional funding).
SC said
Thank you, writedit. I remembered reading it somewhere that this does not apply to grants respond to a special RFA?
writedit said
The NIH 2012 policy notes room for exception for RFAs (and other situations), but each IC can set its own policy, so you should check your IC policies – or better yet, just ask your PO.
SC said
Sorry. I meant pending project that responds to a special RFA.
SC said
Thank you!
SaG said
And, except for NIGMS again, it only counts NIH $.
SC said
Thank you!
NCI-PI said
Hi WriteEdt,
My RO1 council meeting date says 2021/01 but when I searched online I could not find any NCI council meeting dates in Jan but only in Feb and March.
I was just curious to know what the council dates in the eRA mean…nothing important.
Thank you!
writedit said
eRA Commons does not give the exact dates since each IC is different but simply tries to convey the Council “season” so to speak. Also, NCI is one of the few ICs with more than 3 Council meetings. The meeting on Feb 11, 2021 will be for June-July (Cycle II) applications. The joint meeting in May with NIDA & NIAAA and will not include discussion of grant applications under consideration for funding (next meeting to review applications will be June for Oct/Nov-Cycle III)
NCI-PI said
I see. Thank you!
Tony Duncan said
Dear Writedit:
The 2020 NCI payline for R01 was 10%, however, the current NCI intrim payline is 9% due to CR. On December 21, 2020, congress has approved the NIH/NCI budget with 3% increase. Would you expect that the 2021 NCI payline will be back to last year’s level at 10%? Many thanks!
Tony
NCI-PI said
Yes Writedit had commented a few posts earlier that the NCI pay line will likely go back to 10% or even higher for 2021.
writedit said
I’ll add that I certainly hope the NCI sticks with its plan to increase the hard payline, even with the 3% increase in the NIH appropriation (less than anticipated). As of last September, they were aiming for an 11th percentile payline in FY21. Hopefully they can and will stick with this plan.
New PI said
I got a personal request from my PO to do the JIT. Her message asks me to address a specific summary statement concern. Can you provide some suggestions for how I do that in the JIT? Is it in the form of a letter? If so, who would I address it to? Do I do it like the intro on a resubmission?
Thank you!!
writedit said
Your PO probably wants the response separately, emailed directly to her (vs part of JIT), but you can ask her to confirm. You would just quote the concern she asked about from the Summary of Discussion paragraph and then give your response-rebuttal to the concern – how you will address it, explaining more about the underlying science if appropriate (if it wasn’t clear to reviewers). You can cite references, but you don’t send any reprints. For just one concern, this should be less than a page – a few sentences or short paragraph as appropriate to give a brief explanation.
Tony Duncan said
Dear Writedit and NCI-PI:
Thank you for your comments above. On December 20, 2019, the congress approved the NIH/NCI appropriation for FY2020 budget. On January 16, 2020 (about 4 wks after congress approval), the NCI director announced the FY2020 payline for R01 at 10% (https://www.cancer.gov/grants-training/nci-bottom-line-blog/2020/fy-2020-budget-boost-for-nci). Similarly, congress approved the FY2021 NIH/NCI budget on December 21, 2020. Would you expect that NCI will provide more information on the FY2021 payline around January 20, 2021? Thanks a lot.
Tony
writedit said
Excellent observation! Yes, the timing should be similar, though it might be a little later this year, since the appropriation increase is not what they were anticipating, and the pandemic may or may not have altered the number/quality of applications. Plus, there are a few other things going on at the federal government right now.
NCI-PI said
Hi Writedit,
continuing on the same topic, are funding decisions for all NCI grants from the June-July submissions only made when council meets, or do some or all of the grants below payline decided sooner?
thank you for answering all these questions so patiently!
writedit said
Applications with competitive scores that do not require any special consideration (e.g., well-funded PI, foreign component, RFA, etc.) are generally sent to Council members in advance of the scheduled meeting for electronic approval en bloc, but this is weeks before the meeting (not months, so not a huge head start). Only applications for fellowships and special rapid funding mechanisms do not need to be sent to Council; all other applications require Council approval before the IC DIrector can consider them for awards.
NCI-PI said
Thank you.
DK_R01seeker said
Hi writedit,
Great blog, incredible resource. Now that the FY21 budget is signed into law, how do you think this will impact pay lines? In terms of NIDDK, it appears they are receiving a 0.8% increase (while maintaining the T1D specific funding) which is a bit below other institutes. In your infinite wisdom, do you see NIDDK holding at 16% for established PIs like FY20?
writedit said
I would hope all the FY20 paylines hold, especially since ICs can assume continued support for NIH budget increases in the future (ie, R01s are safe long-term investments). However, I still wouldn’t be surprised to see a slight drop, especially if they need to offer (unbudgeted) extensions to awards due to the break in research during the pandemic and/or if they have a couple cycles’ worth of very competitive applications. The latter probably depends on if any extra writing time out of the lab-clinic-classroom was offset by distractions at home.
Feixiong Cheng said
Dear writedit,
Dose ADRD payline from NIA apply to this U01 RAF: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-19-269.html? Thanks
writedit said
This PAR would fall under the ADRD pay line for “Other NIA-reviewed research”, which is up to an impact score of 37 for the interim payline (FY20 was 40).
doubledocintraining said
This website helped a lot with my restlessness, so I thought I’d pay it forward by posting my own F30 grant timeline with the NCI.
04/07/2020: Application entered into system
04/18/2020: Scientific Review Group review pending
07/20/2020: Scientific Review Group review completed (Impact score 18, 4.0 percentile)
07/27/2020: Summary statement posted
12/02/2020: Pending administrative review.
12/22/2020: JIT request received, with 12/29 due date. This is where things got messy because my grants officer was on vacation and the GMS also went on vacation and then fully retired from the NCI!
01/07/21: JIT submission finally completed after 2 weeks of out-of-office emails
01/08/2021: Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
01/11/2021: NOA Posted
All in all, a very informative taste of the grant application process…
doubledocintraining said
I’ll also add that I never contacted my PO in any of this process, especially since I had a surefire score, so that really added to the restlessness because I received no communication at all from July to December.
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you so much for posting such a detailed and informative timeline … and the postscript about the restless waiting throughout 6 months of radio silence. You are correct that the PO would have really only told you that you should get funded (no promises, especially on timing), so you didn’t need to reach out. I wonder if being in an MD-PhD program puts you in a unique position to take the very long view of everything to maintain mental health and perspective. Best wishes for success on your doctoral program, your return to medical school, your post-graduate training, and your future independent career in biomedical research – we need you!
NCI-PI said
I wanted to mention https://projectreporter.nih.gov/ as an incredibly powerful tool that could help answer many queries we may have about funding and council review etc.,.
For example, you can exactly get an idea of where the award processing is at….I just searched under project start date > 01/01/2021, and the result was interesting, although sort of obvious, that currently NO projects with start dates > Feb 01 have been awarded NIH wide! The ones being awarded now are probably the Feb/March submissions and have start dates in Jan.
You can also search by award type and/or key words to see what type of grants are being funded in your specific area of research and which study section reviewer, down to every little detail.
As much as people complain of the government, the NIH is truly an outstanding example of efficiency and transparency in a public organization.
writedit said
Thanks for highlighting an incredible tool that every NIH applicant should be using regularly for many things. You can also search by FOA to see what awards have been made (to get an idea of the type of work being funded and whether similar work to your project has already been funded), by SRG (to see what applications reviewed by that group go on to receive awards), by PO (to check their portfolio – and get a better understanding of why their response is not always immediate), and so much more. The Matchmaker tool is fantastic for those seeking the most appropriate IC, PO, and SRG for their work. And the Data Book – awesome resource where you can now see funding trends (applications submitted & awarded) for every IC and the data (great graphical presentations, too) for just about any question you might have. Also, be sure to work in the new RePORTER interface at https://reporter.nih.gov/ (just lop off “project”).
NCI-PI said
Thank you for the link to the new interface.
NotESIAnymore said
I was wondering if writedit or anyone else knows what “W1” at the end of my supplement request means. It is likely “3R01MHXXXXXX-02W1”. The request was submitted 3 months ago and the W1 was added today. I am really curious about what it means. Thank you!
SaG said
It means they have accepted the request. Depends on the IC whether it means they are considering funding it.
NotESIAnymore said
Thank you. Today the status of the supplement is changed to “Pending administrative review”. Hope it means the request is coming through.
writedit said
Aha – thanks, SaG! The “Pending administrative review” means they are processing it for a possible award.
WishfulThinking said
I submitted an R03 in June 2020 under the SARS-CoV-2 NOSI (NIAID). I received an impact score but no percentile. Council meets on Jan. 25th, but my status says “council review completed”. I assume this was the “en bloc” council review that occurs 4-8 weeks prior to the actual meeting.
My question is: does this tell me anything? Is it a good sign? I have revised my proposal to resubmit in February, but I guess I am still holding out hope.
FWIW, I have not received a JIT email with instructions to submit.
writedit said
This is good news in that it means your application was on the list of applications sent to Council for electronic approval en bloc in advance of the meeting. NIAID now has approval from Council to fund your application. You can certainly contact your PO to ask if you should submit in February.
WishfulThinking said
Thanks a lot for your input and advice. I did contact the PO and they have advised me to resubmit that they felt my score would fall below the final Payline.
Lily said
Hi WishfulThinking, I am in an analogous situation for an R21, also NIAID. Got a status modification to “Council Review Completed” before the Council meeting but nothing really happened after that (no JIT request) and my score is 33 (the new payline is 31). So I plan to resubmit Feb 16 (as new cause this was already an A1). Let me know if there was some action in your case in the meantime:-)
writedit said
You can contact your PO to confirm whether you should resubmit on the 16th. I suspect the answer will be yes (resubmit), but you can confirm this and also ask the PO if they have any advice on the resubmission to make your next A0 more competitive (based on your summary statement and the study section meeting, if the PO attended).
Lily said
Hi Writedit. I have a NIAID R21 that went from ND (A0), to 33 (A1) (Jul2020). It changed status to Council Review Completed ahead of the Council Meeting. The (very nice and responsive!) PO told me the A1 was gray zone and advised to re-submit. Unfortunately the A0 submitted in Oct2020 scored 56:-( I have not received that summary statement yet but the PO told me that the A1 (score 33) will be considered for “end of the year” funding but cautioned that “there is little money left” and he doubts that “my proposal or any other R21 will be picked up”. My question is: is there data of how many proposals are picked up to “end of year” funding at NIAID? And if it were to be picked up, when will it typically switch to “Pending”, August? Thanks! As ever, Lily.
writedit said
No data in realtime, but sometimes it can be gleaned after the FY ends (based on budget allocation). You could receive a JIT request (either original or updated, if you already submitted) any time up until early September, since the awards can be issued up until September 30. ICs make final decisions on whether to go with more regular awards or more R56 bridge awards in the final months of the FY, and there is not a set number or dollar amount for either category. Your PO is probably giving you the best information, so if you haven’t submitted an A1 to the 56 A0, then you should decide whether to submit a new A0 in September … or carefully rethink and rework the project. It could be an issue with significance, which can’t really be fixed, and given the length of time since your initial A0 (in 2018 or 2019, I assume), the question is whether this is still exploratory work, or has the field moved on. While you wait to hear about the 33 A1, you might talk with the PO and/or mentor/senior colleagues about whether a strategic reworking of the project is in order.
Lily said
Thanks Writedit. This is a tough one. R21 NIAID A0-ND, A1-33, A0-56. PO said the A1-33 will be considered for end of year funding but was not confident there will be available funds. I just got the summary statement for the A0-56 and it was a split review. Two reviewers very positive with no weakness to state, one reviewer tanked it with 5,6 scores. Any advice on how to talk to the PO? He said he will discuss that summary statement but i’m very discouraged by it. Reviewer 3 reviewed it as if it was an R01. I can still resubmit as an A1 but as you said, at some point I’ll struggle to keep this “Exploratory R21”
writedit said
Hopefully the PO heard both discussions (A1-33 and A0-56) and can provide good insight on what will be most important to address, whether it is stronger support for the premise and/or an update to the approach (based on new knowledge/techniques).
R03hopeful said
My PI submitted the R03 in June 2020 and received a good score, but 13th percentile. We also received the automated JIT request and PI spoke with PO who mentioned budget is really tight, but R03s are a bit more lenient. Council is coming up in early February, but we are preparing for resubmission in case he’s not awarded. I noticed the PA actually expired on 1/8/21 and I can’t seem to find any reissue of the expired PA into a new one. Is it just a timing thing and it will be coming in the next few weeks? I’m wondering which PA I should submit under since the original one is now expired. Can one even resubmit to an expired PA? The NICHD parent R03 is still active and doesn’t expire until May 2021. The resubmission would be due March 16. Thanks for any insight!
writedit said
You cannot submit to an expired PA, but you can submit the A1 to the parent announcement. You can ask the PO if there is another FOA that you could use (though I think you would have seen any relevant opportunities) or if you should just submit the the parent R03 PA. The PO would also know if your original PA were going to be reissued, but this usually occurs before the prior FOA expires.
F31hopeful said
Hi writedit! First, thank you so much for all the work you’ve put into this blog — I’m sure I speak for many when I express my deep appreciation!
I’m wondering if you could offer some insight into my situation. I’m a PhD student and submitted an F31 to the NCI in April — I received an impact score of 21 and ranked in the 16th percentile. Unfortunately, I have no idea what this means considering the NCI doesn’t appear to publicize their funding strategy for F31 applications. I contacted a PO after receiving my summary statement and he responded that my application is among those that will be considered for funding in FY 2021 and additionally mentioned that in the meantime, I should not prepare a resubmission (this was in early September). I reached out again in mid-December. However, I still haven’t received any communications and am feeling really overwhelmed and anxious about the outcome. Do you have any insight into how I should proceed? Thank you in advance!
Former F31 said
I wouldn’t panic if they told you not to resubmit. They are just getting their appropriations. I was in the same boat when I got an F31 a number of years ago. When there is budget gridlock in congress, awards get delayed a lot. The fact that they told you FY2021 should be a clue that you just need to be patient.
writedit said
Former F31 is exactly right. Your PO should have responded in December but would have had no news then, and they already told you the most important information, namely, that you do not need to resubmit (POs are exceedlingly conservative and would only recommend that if you were almost certain to have an award). ICs just got their appropriations in the past week, so your PO should be in touch soon – but don’t panic if there is more delay (big backlog to address) before you hear anything.
grantnewbie said
Hi writedit – I have yet another first-timer question. I’m sorry if this is redundant but I didn’t see the answer to this anywhere above so maybe it’s a new question?
I submitted a NIA ADRD-related K01 in June. It got an impact score of 41 and the payline is 35. Talked with PO about resubmitting in March. They didn’t have much guidance on what to fix – comments were all minor and nothing fatal nor anything requiring a major overhaul. She had a few pieces of guidance on what to do for resubmission but not much. But she also didn’t suggest that it was fundable this go-around either.
I emailed the PO again a couple of weeks ago when I saw that Congress passed the budget and it included an additional $300+ million for ADRD research just to see if that would change anything for me and my grant (knowing they won’t make those decisions still for a little while). The PO didn’t reply but they aren’t very responsive normally and I didn’t think it was worth following up.
Council met on Tuesday and I assumed that didn’t have any particular meaning for me since I didn’t meet the payline but I looked at eRA Commons today and my status now says “Council Review Completed”. I thought that just meant, essentially, “Council happened – nothing to see here” but then I started reading around here and elsewhere and it sounds like sometimes it means something more? Could you explain what this status means for me in this situation?
Thank you!
SC said
I do not think there is anything particular about the status “council review completed”. All discussed proposals (i.e. with scores) will have that status after the council. Sometimes I did see some projects with scores higher than the funding line were funded at the end of fiscal year.
grantnewbie said
Got it! That is what I assumed but when I started going down the rabbit hole and people seemed really excited about seeing that status so I wondered what I was missing! Thanks for your expertise!
writedit said
You probably saw people whose status changed to “Council review completed” BEFORE the scheduled Council meeting. In that case, it means their application was on the paylist for Council to approve electronically en bloc ahead of the meeting – but it still did not guarantee awards (just that the IC Director had Council’s approval to fund those applications if they were selected for awards).
MomoneyMoproblems said
Looks like NCI published FY21 payline. Moved up to 11% for R01s for established PIs
https://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/grantspolicies/finalfundltr.htm
NCI-PI said
nice catch and good news. I heard NCI got their budget on the 12th,
I love your username btw 🙂
writedit said
Thanks for the heads up! Was hoping for a little more movement in the R01 & R21 percentile, but 11th percentile is better than 10th … and 9th … and 7th.
R15 AREA said
OK, then I will prepare and submit the application and will remain hopeful that the current application will still be funded. I appreciate the reply. It gives me a little more hope
k99 reapplicant said
I applied for a K99, three times (the third submission was a new A0, on a similar project, allowed under the COVID extension). My first A0 application was scored, but over the payline and not funded. My A1 was one point over the payline and submitted, with the gracious help of a very supportive PO, for select pay. It’s currently on the funded list and I was told to be cautiously optimistic. Now, I have just received my score on the new A0 and it is scored, but like my first A0, outside funding range. Does my poorer score on the third application affect the possible funding of my A1, or are they independent events?
Thanks in advance for your help and this wonderful resource
writedit said
Each application can be considered independently until it is administratively withdrawn (automatic after set period of time). Your PO will still push for the A1. When you get your new A0 summary statement, you can ask your PO if you should prepare any rebuttal to concerns that might also apply to the A1 – but your PO may not need that by the time the summary statement is available (hopefully your A1 will be under administrative review by then). Your supportive PO is the most important part of this equation, and they understand you have no more chances.
k99 reapplicant said
My address has changed from “Council Review Completed” to “Pending.” I’ve received the pink sheets from my third application. Given the status change, I feel a little more comfortable, but I will prepare a rebuttal in case I am asked for one.
writedit said
If your status changed to Pending, you shouldn’t need to prepare any response for the new A0, since it seems they are processing your A1 application. I assume you provided JIT for the A1, but if not, they should be requesting it soon.
Vaccines4All said
Checking the status of my R01 app, I was surprised to see “pending administrative review” status one week prior to Advisory council for NIDDK. No official payline is published for FY21 for NIDDK but I am sitting at a 11% (FY20 payline was 16% as you know). Is this good news for a pending award?
writedit said
Very good news. Your 11th percentile R01 was approved electronically en bloc (with all the other competitively scored applications on the paylist sent to them) in advance of the Council meeting, which allowed the NIDDK Director to approve your application for review for an award.
2021nEWyEAR said
Do you know when the start dates will probably be for these NOAs?
writedit said
It depends on the application. Those that should have had start dates in December could have the date of the NoA as the start date or have it pushed to the beginning or middle of the month for easier book-keeping (NoA start dates can be set before or after the NoA is actually issued). Those from Cycle II will probably be close to April 1 as expected.
WomanInScience said
Dear Writedit et al,
Do you know when the FY21 payline at the NHLBI will be released? Any information would be greatly appreciated.
writedit said
No, but it should be within the next month, now that they have their appropriation (and by the Feb-March, a lot of third cycle scores will be available, to help gauge how far the $ needs to go).
WomanInScience said
Thanks so much!
Grantquest said
I am working on an R01 renewal application to NIEHS. I am an MPI on the parent grant. Will I have to name the same MPI on the renewal grant or could I potentially name a different MPI?
writedit said
I assume you are the Contact PI, and I assume the other PI no longer wishes to be or cannot remain involved, in which case you can update the renewal team however it best serves the science being proposed.
R012021 said
Dear Writedit, thank you for such a valuable resource.
I have a pending R01 application at NIA and I see a recent status change to “Council Review Completed” in my era commons. I wonder if I should contact my PO at this time and ask about the likelihood of my application being funded or I should wait until they have their funding meetings. My other question is when NIA would publish their 2021 Pay lines? They only have the Interim Pay lines so far. Thank you so much in advance.
writedit said
NIAID published some of their FY21 paylines today (same as FY20), so other ICs should be following suit soon. If your score is within the FY20 payline, you are probably in good shape. If you are trying to decide whether to resubmit, by all means, contact your PO for guidance.
Thomas said
I am also having a similar situation
Suse Broyde said
Dear Writedit: My NIEHS competitive renewal was reviewed in June and received an 11%, Impact Score 25. My PO asked me to write replies to the critiques and put it in for Special Consideration which went through September Council. The PO also suggested I put in an A1 for Nov. 1 (orignially put as Plan B). Now both are shown on Commons. I understand that it could be another month or so before the PO has funds from the 2021 budget. But what will happen if my A1 is reviewed (March 1)…??? Any insight here?? Thanks! signed: worried and confused!
writedit said
Oof. Hard to believe NIEHS can’t fund a competing renewal at the 11th percentile. NIEHS should have just received its FY21 appropriation, so your PO may know more soon. Your A0 remains active until it is administratively removed from the system, which won’t happen even after the A1 is reviewed (that is, both applications will be active). However, it would be nice if NIEHS made a decision sooner, just to relieve a little reviewer burden and maintain stability and continuity in your lab and research. If you have not been asked for JIT yet, you could contact your PO about whether you should submit that. If you have submitted JIT and do not hear from your PO by mid-February (and the application eRA Commons status doesn’t change), you could check in for an update, as they would certainly have a clearer idea of where your A0 stands.
New PI said
I received a pay letter for my R03 at the beginning of January. I have not yet received the NOA. I reached out to the GMS about timeline because I am concerned about getting on top of planning/hiring due to the short 2 year award period. The GMS has not responded. Is there a typical amount of time between the pay letter and the NOA? And then after the NOA, when can I expect to receive the funds?
Thank you for this invaluable resource!!
writedit said
I am not sure what you mean by “pay letter”. Do you mean your PO indicated that you were on the paylist? If so, this is not a guarantee of an award (it means Council approved your application for consideration for an award). If you mean you received a JIT request, this still is not a guarantee that you will receive a NOA, and the time required to process the application for a possible award varies. Also, if this is for an application submitted in June-July, then you will still wait until April 1 or shortly thereafter for your start date. If this was a Feb-March 2020 application, then you are in a long queue, since almost all the Cycle 1 applications (hundreds, depending on the IC) still need to be processed for awards. Your eRA status could be stuck at “pending” for several weeks – or your application could be turned around quickly. It depends on where you are in the queue – but you should not bother the GMS, who is frantically working to catch up on a huge backlog of applications to process (therefore will not be answering PI emails) and cannot predict the award timelines. After applications are processed by the GMS, they wait in line again for approval by the IC Director before an award is issued, and the GMS will have no idea about this timeframe.
pneumosepsis said
Can a grant award be denied/passed up due to delay in submission of JIT ? I recently moved to a new institution and had transferred my scored grant (within payline but not awarded yet) . A week ago, the GMO asked for IACUC and IRB approvals after review of the JIT that was submitted in Dec. The institutional compliance committee asked me to submit an amendment in IACUC which is currently pending review. Should I be worried about the delay affecting the award ?
Thank you for this great platform to clarify grant-related questions.
writedit said
At the end of the FY, absolutely. Awards must be made before Oct 1, so if an applicant cannot turn around regulatory approvals in time, their application will be skipped. However, this early in the FY, it should not matter, and delays due to the move should be expected and accommodated. I assume the IACUC at your new institution knows an award is waiting on their approval. The GMO is crazy busy with a huge backlog of awards from Cycle 1, (and Cycle 2 awards with an April 1 start date being queued up as well), so they have plenty else to do in the meantime, too. Your PO isn’t involved in the award processing, but you could send them a quick update on the move, including the pending IACUC approval, and thank them for getting the application transferred to the new institution, if you have not touched base with them since moving.
pneumosepsis said
Thank you, your clarification alleviated some of my anxiety ! The proposed start date for my grant was 01/01/2021 (Oct review). The departmental administrator is working with the IACUC to try to expedite it. I just received update that the approval should come soon. I have been updating the PO with the move and the grant transfer request was submitted to the same GMO, so they both are in the loop. Keeping fingers crossed !!
Thank you again !
writedit said
Great – you should definitely not worry about having your award delayed or skipped in this situation (would have been unlikely in general, but even more unlikely with everyone in the loop and working on your behalf).
IK said
Hi Writedit,
My NIGMS ESI MIRA renewal (or technically an application for a EI MIRA) scored 23, a historically fundable score. PO asked for JIT in Nov with the usual disclaimer that it carries no implication of fundability. I e-mailed the PO three times asking whether I should put another submission for the Jan deadline but never heard back. Given the score I wasn’t too worried and I didn’t put another submission in. Previously, the PO was responsive although not immediately, so naively I took the silence as a positive sign. The council is early next week and there are no signs of any movement of ERA commons. There isn’t much to be done at this point; if the grant doesn’t get funded I’ll roll it into a no cost extension and submit again in May, but what’s the best way to handle unresponsive PO’s in the future? Don’t want to piss them off, but getting some idea would be nice.
Thank you!
writedit said
Some POs are not responsive because they have no response to give. From November until about a week ago, your PO would have had nothing to suggest due to the lack of an appropriation for NIGMS. If your application is only going to Council next week, then you wouldn’t expect any change in eRA Commons status until then or soon after, but even the change to “pending” could be delayed due to the backlog of Cycle 1 applications being processed for awards first, now that IC appropriations have arrived (ie, Cycle 2 applications/April or later start date will probably wait until all the Cycle 1/December start date applications are completed). The fact that your PO did not recommend resubmission initially would not change unless they learned the NIGMS appropriation was much lower than anticipated (eg, due to sequester), which wouldn’t have been known until last week-ish. In general, if a PO is unresponsive when they should be able to convey useful information (which was not possible during the Continuing Resolution), you can try calling versus email, in case your correspondence is just lost in a sea of unread messages, you can engage their Branch or Division chief (whoever is the PO’s immediate supervisor, depending on the IC – check the research contacts-org charts). You can either email the PO and copy the supervisor or contact the supervisor directly with your inquiry, simply noting that you have not been able to get an answer to your question and need advice on next steps (nothing accusatory – it could be the PO was out on medical leave, had family issues, was reassigned, etc. and/or was not able to keep up with emails from hundreds of investigators). Don’t forget that most POs have an active portfolio of 100 or more applications, plus they hear from hundreds more applicants each cycle and throughout the year, and they need to participate in internal meetings, trainings, etc. On the other hand, the extramural staff is there to support the extramural research community, so POs should be responsive. I would recommend going up to the PO’s boss with a specific issue that is timely – eg, should I resubmit or I am considering a change in institutions and need advice on how my award will be handled, etc. – versus a general complaint that your PO isn’t answering your emails, but if there is a pattern of non-response to focused inquiries on various specific grant-related matters, this is worth raising to a higher level, especially if you could be assigned to a more responsive, scientifically appropriate PO. Like trainees and faculty, POs sometimes need help and mentoring, too – especially those who have just joined – so this sort of qualitative feedback done respectfully can be useful.
IK said
Thanks so much Writedit for a quick and detailed response! You are a wonderful resource for the community!
Fingers crossed.
R21PI said
Hi, Writedit,
Thank you for the informative resource.
I submitted my first NIA ADRD-related R21 in July last year. It got an impact score of 38 and the interim payline is 40. When I asked the PO, he suggested waiting until they receive a full-year appropriation.
As a proactive PI, I sent a one-pager brief response to the summary statement before they requested. One of the staff (her title is health specialist, not GMS) requested the response on the day after I sent it. I got a notification from her that they received my response.
The Council meeting was scheduled for Jan 12th, and I see my status now says “Council Review Completed”. I haven’t heard anything from my PO yet, which makes me nervous. Can I still assume funding possibility for my A01, or should I ask PO for the update on my application, or should I prepare to resubmit in March?
Thank you for your time in advance.
writedit said
ICs just received their appropriations, so it’s not surprising that your status hasn’t changed – and yes, your A0 could still be funded, especially since paylines should stay about the same. If you have not heard or seen any update by early February, you could check with your PO about whether you should submit the A1 in March. If he says you’re okay (to sit tight), you still might have a bit of a wait before your application is processed since NIA will need to clear out the backlog of applications from Cycle 1. If the PO is unsure still, it’s up to you as to how long you can wait before committing to the A1 (ie, how quickly can you turn the application around if you wait until later in February).
NIA-R21 application said
I am also nervously waiting for the NIA R21 status change. PO asked for response letter, but he said it is two pages instead of one page. If you have any response, pls post and I would know.
NotESIAnymore said
I can tell you that NIA is slow with this process at the moment. My R21 was scored last June. I got JIT request in November saying the grant is under consideration with anticipated start date of Jan-1-2021. As of today, I still haven’t received NOA despite the status showing “pending administrative review” since early December. Assuming they haven’t finished processing the pile from last June, it may take some time for them to work on those from last Oct.
anxiousPI said
Dear Writedit, I noticed that NIA published their updated payline today. They have general allocation payline (percentile-based ), payline responding to some specific ADRD PAs, and NIA-reviewed research payline (based on impact score). My pending project responded to a COVID-related FOA, with the focus on ADRD population. There was only an impact score and no percentiles. I am not sure whether the ADRD related-payline applies to my research because the FOA was not listed under the ADRD PAs, and it does not seem to be NIA-reviewed (based on the review panel). Do you think they will have a separate pay mechanism for these COVID-related research? I do not want to bother the PO at this point as I assume they are busy with the cycle-I applications. Thanks!
writedit said
I see the paylines are still listed as interim, but I don’t think the ADRD priority score thresholds will go higher than 40. You won’t get a percentile for a COVID-related application (you don’t mention the activity code, but I assume R01 if you were anticipating a percentile). My guess is that for applications assigned to NIA, they will rank the applications in order of score and decide how many and which ones they want to fund – though you don’t mention if your application was in response to an RFA or a NOSI, which could affect how it is handled in terms of funding decisions. I would suggest that you wait to hear from your PO, since I assume you do not need to know immediately so you can resubmit in February (ie, you would have to wait until June anyway, so no huge rush to bug PO). It’s hard for me to give a timeframe for how long to wait before reaching out since you do not indicate when the application was submitted or reviewed (or if you have summary statement), but probably a few weeks after Council (if your application went to Council this cycle).
anxiousPI said
Thank you so much, Writedit! It is an RFA, not NOSI. The application was submitted at the end of Aug 2021, and the start date is 4/1/2021. Council has completed two weeks ago.
writedit said
Ah – for an RFA, they won’t necessarily go in rank order but will consider programmatic priority (the impact score of 40 is probably a good upper threshold still, though). If you haven’t seen or heard an update in the next week, you could check in with your PO about next steps. I know with other COVID RFAs, POs have contacted applicants with questions about review concerns, but I am not sure that is a universal practice.
anxiousPI said
Thank you!
Naïve_applicant said
Hi Writedit,
I have a question about council review. We applied to an SBIR (R43) grant to NINDS, received a pretty good score (25), and the council review is scheduled for February 3.
Today, I received an email from the PO (cc’d the director) asking a specific scientific question concerning my grant and asking if I could answer by today. Three hours later, the director pinged us and said it was urgent we answer this question.
What exactly goes on in council review? Why is it urgent they clarify scientific questions beforehand?
Thank you!
Best,
Naïve applicant
writedit said
I hope you responded. Council reviews the quality of peer review and the appropriateness of an application (in terms of science) for the NINDS mission, and they approve a paylist of applications for the IC Director to consider for funding (there are more applications on the paylist than can be awarded with IC funds to ensure there are enough approved applications in case some run into administrative or other problems). This request is surprising given your score, and I cannot say for sure what this was about, but it could be that there was something that concerned NINDS or that someone on Council asked for clarification, either about the application itself or its SRG review.
EternallyOptimisticNewPI said
Good evening, I just received an exceptional impact score of 14 for my R01 submitted to the NIAID (PAR-20-178, Emergency COVID-19 RFA). I am a new PI and have also published high impact papers on COVID research. This grant would provide me much-needed and timely resources to be able to continue our exciting research on CoVs. What are your thoughts on likelihood of funding? Thank you very much for your time and advice.
writedit said
Congratulations on the exceptional score, which should put you in good standing for an award, assuming NIAID is not already funding similar work in another lab (proposed separately – NIAID already made 10 awards for this FOA). This isn’t necessarily likely – I am just pointing it out as a possible consideration at NIAID (and you can check the awards to date in RePORTER by searching in the FOA field for PAR-20-178). Since you were just scored and they will need to discuss the entire pool of applications in the context of their programmatic priorities, you won’t hear anything immediately, but given their priority for turning these applications around quickly (the 10 funded applications were submitted April or later and funded in July and August), the PO could be in touch with any questions about your application within a few weeks. If you haven’t heard anything by the end of February, you could check in for an update and next steps.
EternallyOptimisticNewPI said
Thank you very much for your insights. I checked the funded grants and couldn’t find any funded project similar to what I had proposed. So staying hopeful.
K99 hopeful said
Hi,
I applied for a K99 last Feb, council review was in Oct and have received a personal JIT request, which we submitted in November. My status still says “Pending administrative review” since end of November. I emailed my PO/GMS to see if they need any additional information a few weeks ago and have not heard back. I understand they’re busy and have a lot going on and don’t want to bother them again. My question is: is this typical and is there a maximum amount of time for which an application can be pending administrative review after it’s been recommended for funding? I see they’ve already made a few awards this year just by searching the Grants Reporter database.
writedit said
Not to worry – the “Pending administrative review” status can last for months, and the ICs just got their appropriations a week or two ago, so it will take a while to work through the backlog of applications from Cycle 1. Awards made since Oct 1 are probably related to COVID or other emergency funding, but I do know of some “regular” applications that received awards (though I wonder if they qualified in some way under some of the emergency designations). The bulk of Cycle 1 awards will be issued in the coming weeks so grants management can turn their attention to the Cycle 2 applications with April(ish) start dates. In the meantime, you can sit tight until the NoA is issued, unless the GMS contacts you first (PO is not involved at this point).
K99 hopeful said
Thank you very much. In the worst case scenario, how often does a grant not get funded after administrative review if it’s been recommended for funding? Are there particular reasons other than administrative documents missing/not appropriate.
writedit said
The lengthy “pending” period does not mean extra scrutiny, so you don’t need to be worried that they found something concerning or are digging extra hard. Various award types might uncover reasons to skip or change the award during the administrative, such as duplicate funding for the same work (eg, a foundation grant was awarded at around the same time for the same work), the PI status change (change in institution, health or family reasons for being unable to accept the award, etc.), and so on, but they are not hidden gotchas. The PIs would be anticipating these types of reasons. For a K99, applicants who are offered or accept faculty positions can be disqualified (and I believe typically are now based on NIH policy, though before it was at the discretion of ICs). Ks and Fs in which the primary mentor/advisor moves or withdraws from the application would also probably put an award on hold until the NIH approved a new mentor/advisor (who could oversee the project described in the application – not a different line of research, which would require a new application). Again, events that would be expected to require NIH engagement.
K99AlsoWaiting said
I’m in exactly the same boat—February K99 application in administrative review and coming up on the year anniversary of when we submitted…Hopefully things will happen soon!
writedit said
Applications submitted in February-March will almost never receive awards before January (even if the federal budget is in place on Oct 1), which is something to keep in mind if you are rushing an application to meet the Cycle 1 deadlines and do not have a pressing need for immediate submission (ie, if you are not facing a funding gap, coming to the end of your eligibility window, needing an award or promising score for tenure package or job application, etc.). Waiting until June-July could allow you to obtain more data, publish preliminary results, and prepare a more compelling narrative.
Study Section Disparities said
There was a post on the NIA blog that they are restructuring K study sections by award type instead of research topic due to disparities in scoring between different study sections. I received my score on a K to NIA from a study section that I’m told scores more harshly, and am wondering how this situation would affect funding decisions – are funding decisions specific to the study section, normalized in some way, or are all K99s grouped together irrespective of study section? I was never able to get a reply from the NIA PO before submission, but plan to discuss this with the PO once I get my summary statement (if I can get a response this time!). Thanks.
writedit said
It might make a slight difference if you are just over the payline and your summary statement critiques can be readily addressed, but you wouldn’t receive special consideration just because you were reviewed in the “tough” panel. If your PO does not respond after you receive your summary statement and reach out for guidance, check the NIA career development contacts for whomever serves as chief there and contact this individual, or, if this is difficult to identify, contact one of the leaders of the Division of Extramural Activities with your request for help. I just talked about this in a different post, but you can always respectfully reach out for help from a supervisor or someone higher in the hierarchy if a PO is not responsive to appropriate questions (eg, not simply “will I get an award” but, “should I reapply”, “is this project of interest to NIA” (& send Aims in advance of applying), or other very focused questions). You have no way of knowing if the PO might be having health or family issues that have kept them away from work, and of course POs manage portfolios of over 100 active awards plus field questions from hundreds of applicants each cycle (pre- and post-submission queries) – plus required NIH training and so on (ie, they are busy – but that does not excuse them from responding to a question that can be answered or referring it to someone else who can help). Also, POs new to the NIH or new to the IC/assigned branch or division might be struggling to keep up but not ask for help, so these type of PI queries (to supervisors) sometimes help all parties involved.
Demetris Yannopoulos said
Do we know what is the Pauline for 2021 for NHLBI?
there is paucity of information despite a budget approval and council meeting today?
thank you
writedit said
The Council doesn’t set paylines, so that is not a relevant milestone. I suspect the NHLBI leadership is waiting to see what the Cycle 3 reviews look like so they can better gauge how far their funding will need to go (ie, they will have the scoring range for the bulk of applications submitted for FY21).
Disparities Researcher said
Hi, I’ve been waiting to hear back from NIMHD on an R01 I submitted last year to a special PAR (PAR-19-093). I got a score of 30 (14th percentile). The PO has not been very communicative about the prospect of success for my application. We are approaching the final deadline for this PAR (March 4th). Should I start getting ready for the resubmission? I asked the PO and got a reply that they always recommend the applicants to be ready for plan B including the resubmission. When do you think NIMHD would make the decision on the proposals submitted in the last cycle? Is it possible that they would not announce anything before the deadline for resubmission? I have been checking NIH RePORTER and they have only funded one more project for this PAR in 2021. Thanks so much
writedit said
The application awarded on Jan 15 is shared by NEI & NIMHD, so it could be that NEI is responsible for that application being funded sooner. With the other ICs involved, it could be they are negotiating who will fund additional awards through this FOA, if there is a limit on the funds available. I understand if you don’t want to ask again, but another question for the PO (or really any PO on the FOA) would be whether this FOA will be reissued. They have a NOSI for this FOA that lasts through September 2022, but the NOSI applies to multiple FOAs, so this PAR could expire and the NOSI continue in effect for other FOAs only. I think your PO would have been pretty firm in advising resubmission if you were not on their ranked paylist (ie, not likely to be considered for funding), but they probably don’t know how far the money will go this cycle so do not want to advise against resubmission (for insurance). (and they are not delaying decisions until after the final submission date just to get folks to resubmit – the federal budget delays are responsible) I’d suggest you get a revised application ready and plan to submit if you have not received a JIT request or seen any change in eRA status by the deadline. I realize it is a lot of work you would rather avoid, but you can always withdraw the A1 application if your A0 receives an award.
Disparities Researcher said
Great, thanks so much! We received a generic JIT request in the summer and submitted all the required forms. We also received the written comments from the reviewers and addressed all of them (they were all very manageable comments with no request for major revisions).
writedit said
The GMS may want updated JIT, but you shouldn’t contact them to ask because they are all flat out scrambling to catch up with processing Cycle 1 awards (and will contact you if they need anything). If the PO asked for your response to the critiques, that’s good news, though not a guarantee, and will certainly help if you submit the A1.
Disparities Researcher said
Hi, We went through the resubmission process. But also last week received a JIT request from the NIMHD grant submission specialist and we responded to it. I guess this JIT request is more promising than the generic one that the NIH Office of Extramural Research sends to every application with score above 40? Does a JIT request from NIMHD mean they approved the award for this cycle? Thanks
writedit said
Yes, much more promising, since it means they are going to do an administrative review in preparation for a possible award. It’s not guaranteed, but they would not do this unless they were seriously considering your application.
Disparities Researcher said
Thanks so much! This is really reassuring.
Disparities Researcher said
Hi, my original R01 submission is still under administrative review (we responded to JIT request by NIMHD admin person in March). We have contacted them a few times but have not heard back yet. Our resubmission application is going through the regular review process and is the scientific review committee will meet in the first week of July. Does this mean they decided to not to fund our original R01 application and we need to wait for the resubmission to go through the same process. Is it possible for an NIH institute to get an application to the level of administrative review, then decide to drop it? Thanks so much
writedit said
Someone else waiting to hear from NIMHD about a pending application posted that the PO indicated the IC is way behind on processing applications for awards due to COVID applications (higher priority) and COVID impact on productivity. I don’t think you should read anything bad into the delay. You can sit tight and leave your A1 in for review – NIMHD is just struggling to catch up vs waiting to see what happens with your A1 before deciding about your A0.
SaG said
Yes that could happen but it is rare. In general no PO will withdraw a pending A1 app until a NoA is released for the A0. This is more work for review but prevents the problem where the A1 is withdrawn but the A0 can’t be paid for some reason. Rare but painful. Now of course you could withdraw the A1 but that seems risky to me and I wouldn’t advise it.
StressedOutPostdoc said
Hi Writedit. Thanks for all the information you disseminate – it’s so helpful.
I resubmitted my K99 application to NIAID in July. It was scored in September (thankfully it did very well – impact score below 15), yet I know it takes a while to hear about funding decisions, particularly when it comes to the K99’s. Council met on January 25th and I waited about a week to reach out to my PO (probably too soon but I was anxious). So far, I have only submitted an NIH JIT, but not an NIAID JIT (which I heard you are asked to submit if they are advancing your proposal to the next stage?), and my award status still says council review completed in eRA commons.
I was wondering what kind of timeline I could expect and if there is anything holding up the pipeline that is NIAID-specific? I have heard it takes ~12 months from grant submission date to NoA for K99, particularly in NIAID.
writedit said
Your start date should be around April 1, and you could actually come close to that (applications submitted in Feb-March often wait a full year before awards are made, such as this year). Right now, NIAID and every other IC is scrambling to process those Cycle 1 applications for awards – then they’ll get to Cycle 2 applications like yours. If you submitted JIT last fall, the GMS may eventually ask you to update it, or they may be able to use your prior JIT (depends on your situation). If your PO hasn’t responded, it’s probably because they’re also busy catching upon Cycle 1 and 2 applications that need attention, such as those in the gray zone or above payline (which yours is not), plus helping PIs with applications being submitted in February and March (and later) – plus Cycle 3 applications just reviewed from last Oct-Nov (those PIs all want to know if their score is fundable). Since your application does not require PO involvement in terms of advocating for select pay or as part of RFA application discussions, your PO probably does not have a lot to say right now (though it would be nice if they responded even briefly). Also, POs are not involved in internal application processing and approvals, so your PO would not be able to estimate when a GMS would start looking at your application for processing (which is when your eRA status will change – it is not automatic after Council meets). With your score, you can sit tight and expect some action probably by early March (ie, roughly on time for April 1ish award), though that depends on the work backlog and whether there are any staffing shortages due to COVID-19.
StressedOutPostdoc said
Thank you so much for this info! I know my reply is very delayed but I spoke with my PO (finally) and now I’m more confused.
The PO mentioned that Cycle 2 grants don’t get decided on until later in the fiscal year, around Aug/Sept, which confused me given that they have April 1 start dates.
I then noticed that our grants manager requested my grant start start date be Aug 2021, rather than the earlier possible April 2021 (this is probably because I am on a K12 which would end for me in July). Is my requested start date delaying my application from being evaluated for funding? Or, is NIAID behind in terms of K grants?
writedit said
Hmm. That is very odd. Some Cycle 1 applications are considered in Aug-Sept, but mostly for Dec 1 start dates (though a Sept 1 start date is theoretically feasible and can be requested for some mechanisms – but mostly ignored when random applicants put an August or Sept start in their Cycle 1 applications). I am guessing the PO looked at the start date of August and assumed it was a February/March submission that requested an early (vs Dec 1) start date – not a June-July submission with a typical April 1 start. You should definitely point out the submission date and the fact that your application has gone to Council already; you don’t mention this, but I assume your status is Council review complete. If you can stop your K12 early to initiate the K99 award, be sure to let the PO know this as well. Now, it is odd that you are on a K12, since those slots are usually reserved for faculty rather than postdocs, but I assume you are still classified as a postdoc, and your PO was fine with the K12 position as a K99 applicant.
StressedOutPostdoc said
Sorry for the confusion – I am on an institutional K12 grant (IRACDA). In theory, I can get off of that whenever I need to if I have alternative funding. And yes, it says council review completed.
Looking back on the email from the PO, it specifically says “these types of awards are generally considered for funding at the end of the fiscal year” and “given that yours is a FY21 grant, it will be considered around Aug/Sept, but I haven’t gotten an answer on which month decisions will be made.” So when they made the statement about Cycle 2 grants, it was in reference to K99s specifically. I will respond to the PO and clarify the proposed start date to make sure that isn’t holding anything up. Could it be that this is specific to NIAID? I know they don’t prefer the K99 funding mechanism.
writedit said
Interesting. I knew you could end a K12 slot any time – I didn’t know there were K12 awards that supported postdocs (vs faculty). Also interesting. I just checked RePORTER. NIAID does not seem to make K99 awards before July 1 (and often not until Aug-Sept). I had no idea about this, but they must wait until all 3 cycles are reviewed before making any commitments. I guess this makes sense if they can only make ~12 new awards (FY20), and they want to see the entire pool before making any decisions. They might also wait to see if any 2-y K99s get cut to 1 year so the R00 can start early. So – no need to talk with the PO about changing the start date – and maybe your grants administrator knew about this NIAID SOP with regard to K99 start dates being later. With your score, I assume your PO has not given you any reason to think you need to submit again, but you might want to confirm this (if they haven’t already), so you don’t needlessly miss the July submission window.
StressedOutPostdoc said
Thank you so much for that info – that makes total sense. Sucks one has to wait so long given the whole process takes awhile to begin with. And yes, the IRACDA programs are for institutions to fund ~12-15 postdocs who are interested in research + teaching careers.
My PO has not suggested I put together a resubmission as this was my resubmission. With an impact score of 11, I would hope that would be fundable…otherwise I may quit academia 🙂 If anything, I could propose to turn it into a K22, but I can check with my PO just in case. Thanks again for all of your insight!.
writedit said
Oh wow – you said your score was below 15, which is enough for me to feel like you will just be in a holding pattern (vs needing to be concerned). Congratulations on the 11! Sorry that you have to wait until fall, but glad you will be waiting for a positive outcome with no stress about whether your score is good enough. I would hope that yours is among the first applications to be processed at least.
Grant_rollercoaster said
Hi writedit,
Pleasantly surprised to see an update from “pending administrative review..” to “Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist”. This grant was submitted as an A1 in July ’20 with an anticipated start date 4/1/21. Any chance that a NOA of award comes sooner? How long is the transition from Award prepared to funded typically? Thanks for all you do this community!
writedit said
Depending on your IC, there is probably still a line of Cycle 1 applications waiting to be processed, so you are most likely to receive your award around April 1. The “pending” status can last months, as the Cycle 1 applicants whose status changed to “pending” last year (and remain pending) can attest.
Grant_rollercoaster said
Thanks writedit, is “Award prepared” status still considered ‘pending’?. I was thinking it would sit at pending administrative review for a while that why I was surprised to see the status change to award prepared. Thanks again!
writedit said
Fantastic news! Your award is just waiting for the IC Director to sign off on it, so you should have your NoA tomorrow or next week. Congratulations and best wishes for success with your research.
hopeful_investigator said
Dear writedit:
i received an impact score of 23 (no centiles provided) on PAR20-243. I reached out to PO after the summary statement listed only minor and addressable issues. PO asked for a response to the reviewers which i provided. council was 2 days ago and waiting on word. However, final submission date on this original PAR is March 2. when will i know if i need to quickly prepare a resubmission?
writedit said
I would recommend that you contact the PO now with 2 questions: should you resubmit on March 2, and will the PAR be renewed. If your PO says not to worry about resubmitting, the second question is mostly moot (though even a PO being cautiously optimistic about an award cannot guarantee anything). If your PO recommends resubmission, the answer to the second question will let you know if you can wait and/or have a third chance, if neither your A0 nor your A1 applications receive an award. I am not sure which IC you are at (several are participating in the FOA), but an impact score of 23 should put you in the competitive mix (more difficult to say without a percentile though).
Hopeful investigator said
Thanks for the advice. Nichd if that helps.
WomanInScience said
Dear writedit,
I have a silly question. Who makes a final decision on funding? Councils or ICs?
writedit said
IC Directors make all final funding decisions. The Council approves a long list of applications for the IC Director to consider for funding, but it does not mean every application on the list will receive an award. There are more applications on this paylist than can be funded to provide back-up in case some applications ranked higher end up not getting awards for some reason or more money can be shifted around.
WomanInScience said
Thanks so much!
R01__ said
After R01 was submitted, if I move to a new university, what is going to happen? If it is triaged, nothing is worried, But if my application receive a good impact score, then can I transfer the submitted R01 to a new University? Thanks.
writedit said
Your university should be willing to transfer the application, but the NIH needs to approve your new institution as capable (appropriate facilities, resources, & personnel) of conducting the research that was reviewed and scored. If your budget funded other faculty at your prior university, they may want to keep that portion of the award (ie, you subcontract the work back), but that is a negotiation between you and your prior university (NIH does not get involved in deciding whether to transfer applications, but, again, they need to approve it). You should let the PO know you have moved so you can at least confirm they would be willing to transfer the application based on the research facilities and environment. If it has not been reviewed, you could also withdraw it and resubmit from your new university and avoid any entanglement with the old university (though they will need to withdraw it, too). Your PO can give you good advice specific to your situation – you need to inform them as soon as possible in any case (they would have preferred to know before you moved, so they could anticipate the need to transfer the application).
R01__ said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you for your clear explanation!
NotESIAnymore said
Hi writedit,
I have a question about the start date of a grant. One of my grants received a fundable score last Oct and is going through the council. The proposed start date is Apr-1st but I would hope to push it to mid-Aug. Is it something to do now, or is it something to do after receiving the NOA?
Thanks!!
writedit said
I am not sure any IC would want to commit to a mid-August start date since they will be frantically selecting and processing awards before the end of the FY (Sept 30), but I guess if the negotiations on the award language could be completed in advance (and the award notice just needs to be issued), it might be feasible. This is a question for your PO, though. IC policies vary (eg, IC might want to revisit your Other Support before issuing in August, in case you have secured additional funding from another source in the meantime), but if it is allowable, your PO would want to know well in advance. You can first just ask if you are allowed to delay your start date and go from there – but you will likely need an acceptable rationale (other than you plan to be away all summer once you can finally travel again), so have that explanation ready as well.
NotESIAnymore said
Thank you. I will talk to me PO then.
National_Institutes_of_Suspense said
Hi Writedit,
I received a borderline score on my first K99 submission to NIGMS. The council met last wednesday (3rd Feb) but the era common status still says council review pending. Just wondering how long it could be before I hear anything? Weeks to months?
The proposed start date is April 1st — could this be pushed back if NIH doesn’t finish processing all applications by then?
SaG said
The Council review pending should change a few days after Council. No worries there. The proposed start date could change based on NIGMS’ budget and your score. That is, a borderline score might not be paid until the Summer as a reach. Your best info will come from your PO.
writedit said
If you have not asked yet, you should check in with your PO as to whether you should resubmit (if you are eligible to do so) or take other next steps (if you are not eligible to submit again for K99). The start date is not an expiration date and only provides guideline on the earliest you could expect to start. However, if NIGMS is not considering your application for an award, you want to know this so you can begin working on an application (whether K99 or another mechanism).
National_Institutes_of_Suspense said
Gotcha — shall check in the PO — thanks for the advice to both of you.
National_Institutes_of_Suspense said
I have a follow up question. The PO has not responded to me in 3 month now, and there is no change in status in era commons (“council review completed”). Will I be notified if the grant is ultimately not funded? Or is it possible nothing will change and I will never hear about this again?
SaG said
Yes, but, you will not get an email for 2-3 years. If it isn’t paid before the end of the Fiscal Year 2021 (Sept. 30) that equals a No.
K99applicant said
Dear Writedit,
Concerning the K99/R00 application, is it possible that the specific IC refuge to handle an application even if DRR assigned the application to them? Or is it possible that the application with a ‘fundable score’ does not get funded if the PO and/or IC found the application is not a high-priority application?
writedit said
Yes to both. DRR does not assign an application until an IC accepts it (CSR asks, IC says yes or no). If an IC refuses to accept an application, it is usually because it does not fit with their mission or they are not participating in that specific FOA. For example, some ICs refuse certain cancer-related applications because they think it should go to NCI (PI should have checked with PO in target IC first). Applications are “skipped” (ie, within payline but not picked for award) when an IC is oversubscribed in a certain scientific area and is looking to fill gaps elsewhere in its portfolio. This are both less likely to happen with K awards, since the applicants should be in close contact with the PO, but I guess it could happen without any advance communication.
ESIapplicantNEI said
Dear Writedit. I am waiting for the council on one of my R01 from NEI. I got 19 percentile with an impact score of 33. I am an ESI as well as New Investigator. I talked to my PO, she said my application will be discussed in Council in Feb 2021, and then only I will hear about funding decisions. Since NEI doesn’t have paylines I am wondering whether I will be funded or not and should I go ahead with my revised submission? I will highly appreciate your thought/suggestions on this. Some of the PI in my field suggest I am on borderline and I may or may not get funded. This is giving me a sleepless night since October 2020 (IRG review).
writedit said
I understand (but am sorry about) the sleepless nights. Even if your PO cannot comment on funding likelihood, they can always give advice on whether to resubmit. If you did not ask your PO about this, I would suggest you ask if you should resubmit in March, and, if so, does she have any advice on your resubmission strategy (what did reviewers spent the most time discussing at the study section meeting?). She might be willing to look at your draft Introduction and revised Aims page, too.
Hopeful123 said
Hi Writedit, Thanks for a great site. I received a 24 on my K23 submission to the NIA. I’m a postdoc, but will be transitioning to a TT position at another institution (I submitted my K through my current institution). The Council meets in May 2021. The current payline for ADRD K awards is 35, so I think I have a good chance at funding. Should I wait until the Council to bring up the fact that I will be moving institutions?
Kel123 said
Dear Writedit, I received 24 on my K23 submission (ADRD research). The payline is currently 35, is there a good chance that it will be funded?
writedit said
Yes, you should be in good shape for an award. If you were just scored, wait until you receive your summary statement and then check in with your PO about next steps.
Kel123 said
Thank you! I will be moving institutions in the summer for a TT position. When should I bring this up to the PO? Before or after the Council meets?
writedit said
Yes, if you have already accepted the position, it is best to contact your PO now (regardless of Council timing). Your PO will need to approve the change in institution and mentor to confirm the award could be issued at the new institution (ie, appropriate resources/patient population for the research project, appropriate expertise to mentor you and fulfill career development plan). Your current institution will need to relinquish the application, too, but that won’t be a big deal since this is a K23 (no other money in it for them). Assuming you are going to a university with similar or better resources and expertise, this shouldn’t be a problem (your budget is the same, so your new institution may need to pick up some of your salary, depending on how comparable the salary levels are), and your PO will appreciate as much lead time as possible (a lot of paperwork and approvals needed) so the NOA can be negotiated directly with your new institution this summer.
Kel123 said
Thank you – this is helpful.
ImmanK said
Are NHLBI paylines going to change substantially? When will they be posted?
writedit said
I assume they will stay about the same (they won’t go up). I don’t know when they will update their paylines, but I suspect NHLBI is waiting until the Cycle 3 awards are reviewed so they have a better idea of the total number of competitively scored applications to consider in setting paylines.
WomanInScience said
Dear Writedit, I would appreciate your insight on this situation. My R01 A1 grant was reviewed in October 2020 and received a borderline score (1% higher than the FY20 payline). The PO was very helpful and discussed with me over the phone in November. She asked me to provide responses to the reviewers’ critiques. Council meeting was held last week and eRA Common status showed “Council Meeting Completed” the next day. This morning, the status turned to “Pending”. Is this a good sign or not?
writedit said
Good sign, though nothing guaranteed. It could just be some bookkeeping work (in which case the status would go back to Council review completed within a few days), but it could also be that the administrative review of your application has begun. In that case, if you have not provided JIT yet, you should be getting a request soon (if you already submitted JIT, then that is likely under review). If you haven’t provided JIT, you could ask the GMS if you should submit it. If you have provided JIT, you could check with the PO for an update to confirm whether the application is under consideration for an award – or if you should be working on a new A0.
WomanInScience said
Thank you so much writedit. Very helpful. I will check with the PO for an update.
Sci12 said
Dear Writedit, I received a borderline score on my NIA K01 (impact score 18) with council meeting scheduled in early May. The interim payline for FY2021 is 18 for K awards. Considering that there is a possibility for funding, I have a question about eligibility. My green card application is currently under processing and most probably I will have it before Fall. In case of a delay, is it possible to request a delay in the start date of the award? When is a good time to talk about this issue to the PO? Thank you for your time.
writedit said
A score of 18 is eligible for an award (congratulations!). The payline is inclusive of the threshold score (18), so you are within the payline, not on the border. FY21 applications need to be awarded by Sept 30, 2021, so I would recommend that you contact the PO about how to manage the NOA timing with regard to your residency status. I do not know how they handle this situation, but your PO will want to know for planning purposes.
QuedlinburgQuack said
I actually think the NIA K99 interim payline (and others) has been increased and is now at 21: https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/grants-funding/nia-interim-funding-line-policy-fy-2021
Sci12 said
Thank you. I see that the payline has now been increased to 21 for K awards. Good news.
writedit said
Thanks for the heads up about the updated NIH paylines.
Sci12 said
Thank you. I will contact him after I get the summary statement.
Syyd said
Dear Writedit, I would appreciate your insight on this situation. I am a new investigator and was an early investigator at the time of my R01 res-submission to NIBIB last Summer. My R01 grant was reviewed in October 2020 and received a score of 21% which is within the payline for new investigator (23% for NIBIB). The status of my application says “council review completed” and I have not provided JIT yet. Although submitted during FY 2020, the PO told me my application falls within FY 2021 for the payline and they will find out the new % later in Spring (April-May). Unfortunately the budget was cut for NIBIB, although it was increased to NIH. Do you think I still have a chance? What should I do at this point? Any advices/tips would be greatly appreciated and thanks for your time.
writedit said
Yes, applications are almost always for the FY following the calendar year in which they were submitted (ie, all applications submitted in 2021 are for FY22). Even if the payline drops, more than 2 percentile points would be a lot, so hopefully you will at least be on the bubble. If that R01 was your last chance as ESI (and your status cannot be extended due to COVID-19), you should bring this up with the PO, so they can take it into consideration if they advocate on your behalf for select pay (if needed due to drop in payline). Because the outcome might not be clear until as late as May (or later, if you have to wait until the end of the FY for select pay decisions), you should probably ask the PO now if you should plan to submit a new A0 in June, so you can be planning and obtain data that would address any reviewer concerns from the A1 (though not described as such in the A0, obviously). Your PO will likely have attended the review meeting for your application and, if so, can help fill you in on what was driving the discussion of your project.
Syyd said
Thank you very much for your response with such insight. Just to clarify, new investigators are no longer eligible for the 5% payline increase? If so, this is making my situation a little more stressful and will definitely bring this up to my PO. On the other hand, it looks like the payline percentile does not drop dramatically from one year to another one which is reassuring. My main concern is that NIBIB was one of the few institutes getting a budget cut this year (404M for FY20, 368M for FY21). Again, thanks the recommendations 🙂
writedit said
Still no FY21 budget levels posted anywhere, but each IC received at least a 1.5% increase above FY20. Of course, taking into account even minimal inflation, that’s essentially flat at best, especially in terms of the amount left for new awards. The other unknown is whether the number of applications went up when researchers could do less in the lab or clinic – and increase in the number of competitively scored applications could affect paylines, too, but in general, I still would not expect much if any change from FY20. I forgot the NIBIB gives the payline break to both ESI and new investigators, so you don’t need to worry about your ESI clock.
sbencherif said
Dear Writedit, I would like to follow up on our previous conversation. NIBIB just released their FY21 Payline (21% for new investigators). My R01/A1 application (submitted in July 2020) received a score of 21% which is within their new payline for new investigators. Do you think my application is fundable, considering it is within their payline limit? Thank you!
writedit said
Yes, NIBIB will pay applications up to and include those at the 21st percentile (unless there is an administrative reason not to, but you would be aware of any potential bars).
Syyd said
Thank you! That’s reassuring. So what’s next at this point? Should I just wait? If so, for how long? Your help is much appreciated.
writedit said
You should make sure your JIT is ready to go, but you should wait for a request, or you can check with your PO – or your assigned GMS, if one is listed – as to when you should submit it. If they just set their payline, there is probably a bit of a backlog of applications that scored closer to the payline to work through.
BME said
I do not think 368M is the final enacted budget, while 404M is the FY20 enacted budget. I think the enacted FY21 may be higher, which we do not know now. Correct me if I am wrong.
Syyd said
Thanks BME! You made a very good point.
scisense said
Hi Writedit, Thanks for this wonderful website and resource! I am an ESI and I submitted my first R01 to NIGMS last May. It scored 11% and when I spoke to the PO in October, they would not comment directly on if it would be funded, only that applications with similar scores had been funded previously. The status updated to council review complete earlier this week. Would it be appropriate for me to write to my PO to ask if the grant will be funded and/or if I should prepare for a resubmission, or better to just sit tight?
writedit said
I think you should be in good standing for an award, but you could certainly at this point ask your PO if you should plan to submit JIT information for the 11th percentile A0 or an A1 in March. Your PO would not have known last October (no budget) but should know by now.
scisense said
Hi Writedit, Thanks for your help. I followed up with my PO as suggested. I also had submitted an R35 in the Fall, and the PO said they are waiting for the outcome of the R35 before making a decision on the RO1 (which is still under consideration). However they also said I am free to resubmit the RO1, but it is suggested to wait until after the R35 summary statement. I’m confused about why they would wait for the R35 to decide on the RO1, and also if I should be concerned / if it is meaningful that they told me I can resubmit the RO1? I had hoped 11% as an ESI would be good enough but it doesn’t sound like it at this point.
SaG said
NIGMS prefers to award an R35 over an R01. The vague resubmit answer is because POs don’t want to tell you what to do. If you are told not to resubmit and neither the R35 or R01 is paid you might go screaming to a Director (or on twitter) about how you did what you were told and got screwed. That said an 11% is a great score ESI or EI.
writedit said
Great information – thank you so much for sharing the NIGMS intel, SaG!
scisence said
Thank you SaG, really helpful (and somewhat soothing)!
PublishandPerish said
NIDDK payline info up for FY21. Paylines hold from FY20 16th percentile for established and 25th for ESIs: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-funding/process/award-funding-policy
writedit said
Thanks so much for the heads up!
Gimme$at1nce said
Dear Writedit,
Do you think an IC would make two K99 awards to two postdocs in the same lab during the same funding cycle? Both the applicants have fundable scores but had applied at different cycles.
Thanks for your insight!
writedit said
Yes – the IC is investing in each individual, not the lab. Very productive labs can support several postdocs pursuing different areas of focus, and I assume the research is different (that would be the only reason an IC might bulk – they don’t need to pay for the same work twice … but also, the mentor needs to send both postdocs out with projects they can take with them for their independent R00 research).
KL said
Hello
just received scores for an A1 for an R21: PS:23 (10%-tile). Previous scores: PS34 (28%-tile). What is the chance for getting funded by the May Council? The PO from NICHD I spoke with after the first attempt seemed supportive.
writedit said
That’s a nice improvement in score/percentile, so if your PO was supportive of the A0, they should be able to advocate for a 10th percentile R21 A1 (though I would hope a 10th percentile would at least be at the payline if not within it). You can check back with your PO about next steps when you get the summary statement.
KL said
Thank you so much for your response. When you said the PO “should be able to ADVOCATE for a 10th percentile..”, is she obligated to do so? How should I request her “support” when I speak with her without appearing as “demanding”?
Also, some colleagues told me that NICHD does not have much money, so the PO’s support could be critical in this case. Do you know if NICHD has ever funded an R21 with a 10th percentile recently? At their website, they said there is no stated payline for R01, R21, R03.
writedit said
Unfortunately, I do not know about the NICHD paylines for other activity codes, though someone with past experience might jump in with some insight. You don’t want to demand your PO’s help, but you can ask – again, after you receive your summary statement – if you should prepare a short rebuttal to the R21 review. Your PO cannot comment on funding likelihood based on just the score – they need to see the summary statement as well (and do not see it any sooner than you do).
established PI said
Hi WriteEdit,
I was curious about the ‘SNAP indicator code’ on the eRA Commons page, I have found in the past that every time a grant is about to be funded the SNAP turns to a ‘Y’.
I noticed this again when the council review for my NCI grant (scored below pay line) just completed and was hopeful this might be indication that the award process is likely to be initiated. There is no other indication on the page (i.e., no change to ‘Pending’ yet) other that the AC met at 11 AM on 2/11.
But I might be totally misguided about this. Please let me know if you have any thoughts…I find this a rather interesting if true, it could help other PIs anxiously awaiting funding,
Thank you
writedit said
SNAP simply refers to the fact that the application is eligible for streamlined noncompeting award procedures (not all applications are eligible). I do not know the SOPs for grant management there, but my guess is that every application on an IC’s paylist receives this level of administrative check (SNAP eligible/ineligible), but not every application on the paylist receives an award. Only a direct JIT request and/or a change in status to “Pending” or “Pending administrative review” indicates that the application is being processed (again, still no guarantee of an award at this point though). Congratulations on your own within-payline score, and thank you for bringing this up as a possible indicator to help those waiting for news (but the best source of insight still remains the PO – especially at this point in the FY, when they should now know rough budget plans, though maybe not how gray-zone applications will fare).
established PI said
Thank you for the patient response. I did get a direct JIT request and we submitted late December. PO said nothing is guaranteed as always but there is a high chance of funding. The status has not changed from Pending council yet.
Best
HWF35 said
Hi Writedit,
Do you have any insight on the range of fundable scores for a NIDDK F31/F32?
Thanks!
writedit said
There is often a little difference between F31 and F32, with the payline being slightly higher typically for F31s. You can search this page and the archives for NIDDK scores for the activity code of personal interest to you, but I assume anything up through priority score of 30 should be reasonably competitive. If you were just scored, then wait for your summary statement and check with your PO about next steps (and if you were reviewed in a previous cycle, your PO should have better insight now).
PostDocLife said
Hi Writedit and the community,
Thanks so much for this wonderful resource! I am curious if you or someone from the community could shed some light on my situation…
I am currently a postdoc with an active F32.. Applied for my K99 at NHLBI last february, got scored at 25 – well within the range of funding (32 at NHLBI for FY20). So, my assumption has been that I will get funded – PO confirmed as much without explicitly saying so (“we are highly supportive of our K programs and our payline in the recent past has been a 32” and “I do not recommend a resubmission”).
Now the GMS is involved and they’re working with the grants office at my institution to get my F32 terminated early. The institution submitted the paperwork with Jan 31st as the termination date for my F32 – which has yet to be processed by the NHLBI. All this without having any notice of award or an official indication about whether my K99 will actually get funded or not (although all arrows point towards it). My question really is, what is the likelihood that I will have an NOA with a start date of Feb 1st even though it’s almost middle of the month already? I am starting to get nervous that even if they give me an NOA with Feb 1st, whether my institute will have enough time to set up the award to pay my February salary from it as opposed to from my PI’s grants – especially if my F32 is relinquished.
Any thoughts?
writedit said
If you applied last February, I certainly hope the K99 can be issued this February. Your GMS probably has a ton on their plate with the backload of Cycle 1 applications awaiting processing for awards (and Cycle 2 applications up next/now). I don’t think it will be a big deal to both end the F32 and start the K99 by the end of this month, but that’s easy for me to say. The sponsored programs or grant administrator at your institution might have better insight soon and should be able to contact the GMS directly about your situation to be sure everything is squared away. It could be that the early termination of the F32 has an extra layer of paperwork due to the NRSA payback requirements (not an issue since you’re continuing your research training in the K99, but still forms to complete). If NHLBI hasn’t processed the F32 termination, they are probably waiting until the K99 NOA is ready to avoid a funding gap, and they can set the end (F32) and start (K99) dates to whatever they need to be, such that the K99 starts the day of/after the F32 ends. Your PO (or POs, since they could be different for the 2 awards) is/are completely out of this award processing loop (so will have no insight as to timing) but might be able to provide reassurance that, whatever the end/start dates happen to be, you won’t be left without salary support n’at.
Jaymin Kathiriya said
Thank you so much for the response! I totally understand about the paperwork. I just wished it didn’t take as long. But it is what it is. I have tried to email my GMS (I have been cc-ed on all communications that my institute receives from there) – of course without much communication back from them as they understandably are so busy. It would be certainly nice to start on the k99 at the earliest.
PostDocLife said
btw.. just wanted to update for everyone else’s sake. Turns out my institution submitted the paperwork (rather late; on Feb 8th) for a Jan 31 termination of my F32, “assuming” the K99 start date of 2/1. No one bothered to write a simple note to GMS asking what the start date they are aiming for. The GMS is saying that there is no way Feb 1 start for K99 is possible.. and even a 3/1 K99 start is only a “may be” because the paperwork for early termination of my F32 took like 10 days to submit from my institution.
PO for both my F32 and pending K99 is the same.. and they mentioned that there is nothing that can be done. The institution grant office basically told me that “this happens all the time. Your department will take care of you”.. which basically translates to ” your PI has money.. he will pay your salary”.
Needless to say, this is not ideal. But the reason I am putting this is for other trainees to see and learn from… Don’t let your institution terminate your existing grant before getting at least an assurance that the start date and end date of the two grants overlap. I am lucky that my PI basically told me to not worry about it and he will take it up with the department.. But I am not sure everyone will be in the same boat.
writedit said
Thank you so much for sharing this valuable, though unfortunate, update. I guess I am a little puzzled about the delay past 3/1, but I have no idea what is involved in terminating a NRSA and starting a K99. The start date isn’t limited to the first of the month, either, and also do not need to reflect the actual NOA date.I am glad you will be okay salary-wise because you are correct that not all investigator can or will extend salary between awards.
PostDocLife said
Agreed. For what it’s worth, I am lucky to have a continuous support from my PI. Trying to look at the bright side…
I do have one question however….
The GMS has been pretty responsive (all this happened last week and they replied to my queries within a day). They told me last week that they will reach out to their colleagues who are working on NRSA termination and try their best to get K99 NOA by 3/1 (no promises, of course).
Because 3/1 is approaching, I wanted to see if I need to make some more arrangements for my salary for the next month. My question is: considering how busy it is for them, will it be an overkill if I were to reach out to them again this week?
writedit said
Well, it’s March 1 (sorry – major grant due today sucked up all my waking – & much sleeping – time over the past couple weeks). Contacting the GMS won’t speed things up, and since your GMS is so responsive and helpful (going above & beyond at crunch time with low staffing), you can be sure they would have gotten in touch if they had any definitive word. I hope you have received your NOA – if not, I trust your PI has stepped up (unfortunate as it is that they need to make up for an institutional mistake).
PostDocLife said
You have nothing to apologize about 🙂 The fact that you are able to respond to this is – at whichever frequency – itself amazing.
So, I have some potentially good news. The AOR from my institution reached out to the F32 ET team and they were gracious enough to change the ET date for my F32 – which is now 2/28 (it is done.. already got an email from eRA that my F32 is terminated).
I also got an email from the GMS (in fact just a couple of days after I wrote the latest note here), saying that she is working on it and trying to line up my K99 right after my F32 ends.. She also mentioned that there is a provision where the K99 has a “pre-award authority, and therefore, your concern regarding a gap in funding should not be an issue if not awarded by 3/1” (quoted from the GMS). Of course, I will breathe a sigh of relief when I see the NOA and when the award is set up. But all in all, this is heading towards a happy ending
Also, good luck with your grant!
writedit said
Argh! Of course, assuming your institution is willing to set up accounts for this, you can begin pre-award spending, which is allowable up to 90 days before the award starts (true for all awards, not just K99, so you can keep that in mind for future R01s n’at, too). Happy for happy endings.
writedit said
Maybe PostdocLife could share some advice on how to handle overlapping aims in an F32 and K99 for NeuroPostdoc (see comment below)?
PostDocLife said
Hi Writedit,
Just wanted to provide an update (a quick one at this point) and ask a question…
Long story short, my K99 is still not funded (although there is still every indication that it will be). The latest reason, among a series of unfortunate events, for the delay is that my “Other Support” document was incorrect for my 2nd year of F32 RPPR (the mistake was on my institute’s side). The latest status (heard from the GMS) is: “This K99 is with leadership”. So, I am assuming that the GMS has prepared the award and now is with the ‘power-that-be’ to stamp a final approval.
My question is… do you have any indication on how long it might take from the time GMS sends it to the NIH for final approval to actually get NOA? I of course do not have an idea when exactly it went to the leadership but i would just assume that it went today morning and count the longest it might take.
The reason why I ask is because Apr 1st is coming soon and if it is after then that, I might lose out on the increased salary for yet another month (at this point, I have lost on three months worth of increased salary, which 65% of my current salary… not a small amount for a postdoc working in the most expensive city in the States) – but anyway, I recognize that this forum is for academic. So, I will stop there. If you (or anyone else here) have any insight into how long it usually sits with the leadership, it will be great!
writedit said
I think your eRA status would be “Award prepared” if the award were ready and waiting for approval by the IC Director, but I am not sure if the status terms are different for Ks. The wait for prepared awards to be approved by the IC Director can be as little as hours (ie, same day for Award prepared and Notice of award issued”) to a week or more (if there is a backlog). So sorry to hear about another SNAFU on how your institution handled your F32 RPPR. Your GMS previously indicated that you should be eligible for pre-award spending (ie, you are within 90 days of award), which should allow you to start charging the higher salary starting April 1. Your institution sets up the pre-award spending account and then charges your salary to the award as soon as the award is issued. Did you ask about this? Or does your institution not set up these pre-award spending accounts? Hoping you have NoA in hand early next week though – what a slog.
PostDocLife said
Good point about the status! The status (in eRA commons) is still pending although the GMS did say explicitly that “This K99 is with the leadership”. I wonder what that means if it’s not with the IC director. Alternative could be that it is with the IC director but the GMS (or the system) has not updated the status… At this point, I am not sure what to make of it.. I am not sure if reaching out to the GMS will be of any use except for clarification… I have been advised by my institution not to reach out to the GMS unless absolutely necessary.
You do make a good point about the pre-award aspect of this. My institution should be able to do it.. They have generally been really supportive through the last couple of months. So, I am sure they’re going to set up the award appropriately. In many ways, I am taking this is a teaching moment… learning patience – loads of it.
writedit said
You are clearly going to receive the award, and the institution contributed (doubly) to the delay, so it’s the least they could do.
lillgan said
Hi,
I just wanted to update for NHLBI-k99 applicants that my summary statement was posted today.
PostDocLife said
So.. just wanted to leave a note here for other NHLBI folks.. Seems like everything is delayed and cut… I was lucky that my score was 25..so, it was safe despite the cut.. However, I feel for those who are around 30.. esp with K99 having a strict time limit.
Anyway, I finally got my NOA today morning! Turns out the GMS saying “the grant is with the leadership” did not really mean that the award was prepared. .Because the status changed to “Award Prepared’ on 4/7.. and it took another week for the award notice.
Anyhow, it has been long overdue… I left a note for my institution to remind them to set up a pre-award spending account when they are setting up the award. Hopefully, that will be possible…
BTW, I do have a question.. I am slightly confused about the pre-award spending. The budget is from 4/1/21 to 3/31/2022. So, if I were to draw funds to cover my salary for the previous month(s), wouldn’t it mean that my salary funds will run out before 3/31/2022? How does that really work? Any thoughts?
writedit said
Woohoo – congratulations at last! And thanks to SaG for all the explanations! Regarding the pre-award spending, this is now a moot point. You cannot retroactively charge past months to the award, since the award was not active, but you can get the full higher salary for April at least – your institution should be able to put extra in the next pay stub. I was advising pre-award spending to ensure you could get your full salary for April (ie, I thought if you did not start drawing the higher salary on April 1, you would have to wait another month), but I you cannot go back and cover March. The prespending typically includes being able to advertise to hire other staff, order supplies/animals, etc. – getting the ball rolling to ensure you have all the necessary people/materials in place when the award starts. Because it is your institution’s fault that you lost out on one or two months of higher salary (Feb and March, correct?), it might be worth asking if they would be willing to cover this, too – you are now covering your salary for them with your K99. Longshot, but in this case, they do bear some responsibility for the K99 not starting earlier (and for not communicating in advance about the timing and what NHLBI needed for F32 termination/K99 initiation).
SaG said
For pre award spending you are borrowing money from your school to start your grant early. You are spreading the first 12 months of money over 12.5 or 13 months. It takes 7 days to get your NoA after the award is prepared because Congress likes 7 days notice before a grant is awarded. That way they can send out a press release and take credit for bringing home the bacon to their district. And, the grant is with leadership” probably means that various senior folks still have to sign off but those signatures are usually rubber stamps at that point.
PostDocLife said
Thanks SaG and Writedit… it makes sense on how the award is set up.. It’s a good insight about the pre-award spending… I am not very confident about the institute’s willingness to cover at least some of the salary.. they will simply say “yes.. your PI has money; he can do it”. And it only means that the money comes from the lab’s research spending.. Not sure if I want to go that route.
All in all, I am lucky that my PI was able to cover my salary for a month and that I have a K99.. time to focus on science now 🙂
New PI said
Thank you for this invaluable resource! I was awarded an R03 from NIDDK. Posting the timeline in case it’s helpful for anyone else:
2/14/2020: Application entered into system
2/20/2020: Scientific Review Group review pending.
6/26/2020: Scientific Review Group review completed.
9/10/2020: council review completed
12/1/2020: Pending administrative review
2/9/2021: Award prepared
2/16/2021: NOA received.
Thank you again! Continue to learn immense amounts from this community.
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you for posting your timeline (almost made the 1-year anniversary of submission)! Glad the site was helpful – best wishes for success with your research.
SC said
Hi Writedit, I have a COVID-related R01 proposal pending with NIA (submitted last August). Council was completed in Jan. I email my PO about 2 weeks ago about the status, and my PO said they just held their internal funding meeting, and final funding decisions will probably be made in the next couple weeks. My PO did not say whether I was on the playlist or not. So far I have not received JIT notice. I guess there is nothing I can do at this point except waiting? Thank you!
writedit said
Yes – nothing to do but hurry up and wait. The lack of JIT request is not surprising if they have not made final funding decisions. I don’t know what your score was, but I think the PO would have said if you were not even in the running for funding (“no” is easy – what POs never want to do is say “yes” or even “maybe” and then have a situation with no award for the PI). What your PO does not know is which applications will receive awards since that is out of their hands.
SC said
Thank you so much for your suggestions, writedit! I am just curious who will make the final funding decision after the council and their internal funding meeting? The IC director?
writedit said
The buck stops (& starts) with the IC Director. The delay between “Award prepared” and NOA is the time waiting in line at the IC office for final review and sign-off.
>
SC said
Thank you for your comment, writedit. I just noticed that the status was switched to “pending administrative review” on 2/16/2021. However, I still have not received a JIT request. In the past, I always received a JIT request prior to “pending” status. Should I contact GMS for the JIT request or just wait? Thank you again for your valuable advice!
writedit said
I know they are swamped, so while you could ask, it’s okay to wait (it won’t affect the timing of your award) – or you could just submit it so it’s there when they need it. Otherwise, you should definitely have everything ready to submit as soon as you are asked.
SC said
thank you!
NIHResearcher said
I too would like to thank you for putting this site together – it has been educational and extremely helpful for planning purposes. Using the NIH Reporter tool I searched by the “Approved By” date and see that award notices seem to be coming out just before the start date. I also noticed that there is nothing with a start date after Feb 15 that has been approved. Do you anticipate that this will continue for a while? For example, would you expect grants with a start date of May 1 to be approved in late April or do you think they might catch up by then? Thanks again!
writedit said
There is nothing set in stone or magical about start dates, as you have discovered. Right now, they are catching up on Cycle 1 awards, so they are pushing out many awards each day (as soon as approved by IC Director). By April, they should be caught up but will be issuing Cycle 2 awards (so another busy few weeks before and after). My guess is that your NoA will be issued close to May 1. If you need to start spending early, you can ask your institution to set up an account for pre-award spending, since you should be within 90 days now (can confirm with PO).
NIHResearcher said
OK that’s what I suspected and thanks for the suggestion. I guess we will exhaust every last drop of suspense this time! Right now I am at “pending” and have been for almost 2 months now. What about “to be paid” status, which I believe is the next step? Could that come much sooner, or is “to be paid” usually issued right on the heels of the Notice of Award?
writedit said
I think the moral here is not to get hung up on the wording or timing. Pending (and its various permutations) can last months, so that is not unusual. I think the Award prepared status change occurs after the GMS has finished preparing the award, which is sent to the IC Director for approval. The length of time between Award prepared and Notice of Award depends on the line at the IC Director office.
NCI PI said
Following the same question, I wonder if at the ‘Pending’ stage the grant has already passed the Council review stage where it has been approved for funding but is yet to undergo administrative review? In my experience I have never seen ‘pending administrative review’ in the main status bar, only ‘Pending’.
writedit said
The status after Council meets can be Council review completed before the change to Pending. Pending means someone is doing something with your application, which eventually means administrative review (whether or not the status ever says that). Applications sometimes change temporarily to Pending if someone in grants management needed to open the application to check or change something unrelated to a formal administrative review, but they change back to Council review completed soon after if there is no administrative review planned or underway.
NCI-PI said
Looking at the posts above and search for ‘pending administrative” leads to a lot of answers for this question, so WriteEdt doesn’t have to repeat. Thank you.
MaxxY said
Hi writedit – my R01 (A1 version) is still under funding consideration (from cycle 1; submitted a year ago), with a border-line score. While waiting, I resubmitted it (i.e., a new A0) which was assigned to the same PO. Surprisingly, the A0 was changed to a different institute (without any PO assigned) two days before the study section meeting while the A1 is still with the same PO (despite the shared nature of A1 and A0). I emailed the PO about 3 weeks ago, but have not heard from him since then. I am extremely confused. Any advice on what I need to do? Should I stay patient and wait? Should I email the PO again? Thank you in advance!!!
writedit said
It is very unusual that the Institute would have changed so abruptly just before review. Your current PO should have answered, since this is a significant change. If just the PO had changed, it could be a personnel change at the original IC (hence no reply from PO), but changing the IC assignment suggests a possible decision higher up that could also affect the decision on your pending A1 (ie, if the original IC truly is not interested in that science any more). I would suggest you contact the Branch Chief or Division Director to whom the PO reports for an explanation (the PO may not even know himself). You can ask first about the change in IC assignment for the new A0 but then also ask about an update on the pending A1.
MaxxY said
Thank you! I am walking a fine line here since the PO is still technically handling the A1. Meanwhile, the previous branch chief just retired and an acting chief is in charge. Should I wait for the A0 summary statement and then make an appoint with the PO? I becoming nervous now to talk directly to the Branch Chief or Division Director, without getting the PO involved due to the A1… Not sure what to do.
writedit said
Okay – you hit the jackpot here. I suspect they are understaffed during a very busy period. Also, if you look at the query after yours on this page, it is the same situation – unexpected change in IC right at the time of review. You did not mention if the new IC had been a secondary institute or if it was an appropriate IC for your application. My concern would be that the new IC, especially if they had no role originally, would not be as interested in your science as the original IC. However, if the new IC is a logical choice and should also be interested in your work, then I guess you could sit tight and wait for the summary statement. With the agreement of both POs, the application could also be transferred back to your first IC, if they are interested in funding it and the new IC is not. Hopefully you will hear soon about the A1, since ICs are starting to catch up on processing applications from last February-March.
Lily said
Dear Writedit, thanks in advance for your help! We submitted an MPI R01 Oct2020. The other PI is an established NIDDK investigator and my work aligns with NIGMS. It was firstly assigned to NIGMS primary and NIDDK, then it switched with NIDDK becoming primary. We got 19 percentile and the day after NIGMS is not even listed. We will wait for the summary statement before contacting the PO but should we mention anything related to the IC change? THANKS! As ever.
writedit said
Wow – two queries in a row about the IC being changed at the time of review (see MaxxY above your post), something that I would have to think hard about but don’t recall seeing. I definitely understand IC changes around the time of receipt and referral. I really can’t say in this case if NIDDK suddenly decided they really wanted this application in their portfolio or something happened at NIGMS to take it off the table. I think you can definitely contact the original PO, whom I assume is in NIGMS, to ask what happened (even before summary statement – just don’t mention the score or ask anything about funding likelihood at all). You should be able to get clarity on the IC change, especially if you requested GM as your primary in the assignment request form (and clearly you got the requested assignment initially if so). Please post an update, if you don’t mind, since I suspect you might not be the only 2 applications facing this IC shuffle.
Lily said
Hi Writedit. I got an update on the IC shuffle. Both the NIGMS and NIDDK POs responded quickly which is really great! It seems that with interdisciplinary proposals (such as our MPI), IC assignment is not clear cut so they went a bit back and forth finally with NIDDK becoming primary. NIGMS said they removed themselves as secondary (after review) cause they rarely fund applications as secondary. THANKS! As ever, Lily.
writedit said
Thank you so much for coming back with an update! Very interesting, and this makes sense. Glad the POs were immediately helpful. Hopefully the NIDDK PO will be in your court if there is a chance for select pay; if you need to resubmit, you might talk with both POs about better tailoring the A1 to one or the other IC (plus advice on SRG comments). There will probably be more IC shuffles as more MPI applications that could fall into two or more IC portfolios. I had since heard that GM will be eliminating secondary assignments to avoid giving false hope. I wish other ICs that did not intend to co-fund or take over an application would implement a similar policy.
Lily said
Dear Writedit, the NIDDK PO seems to be on “our court” as you mentioned. The MPI-R01 switched to “Pending” after Council. The PO emailed and said they plan to fund the R01 (no need to resubmit an A1 in Jul) but “because it is select pay, the budget is significantly reduced”. 20% cut per year and for a period of only 3 years. I’ll take it of course (first R01 here yay!) but I am curious: is this a standard thing, that “select-pay” grants get a significant budget/period cut? Thanks! As ever, Lily.
R01 PI said
Hi Lily, I had a 16th-tile on my new R01 with NIDDK. They cut my budget by 20% and 1 year. So, yes, it happens.
writedit said
Yes, this is common, because ICs are trying to make the funding they have left go farther. However, I just realized that you didn’t state in your first post that you are (were) ESI. If you had submitted this as a sole PI, you would have definitely been funded at the 19th percentile for the full budget and the full 5 years. This is why ESIs should not apply as MPI with established investigators – you lose everything. You could remind the PO that this is your first R01 as ESI, but I think they won’t be able to help you here due to the application’s MPI status with an established investigator. I am quite disappointed that the established PI did not point this out to you (ie, you should not apply as ESI with established PI for MPI R01). They should know how important it is for ESIs to get both their one-time payline and budget break. The full budget and full 5 years is just as big, since when you go to renew, you will be constrained by this budget, which is severely cut (that is, your renewal can only be 20% more than your current budget – so, essentially what you asked for originally but with no room for cost increases, additional work, etc.). You should probably ask about changing the scope of work so you are not held to the original aims when you go to renew. This is automatic if the cut is 25% or more, but in this case, you will have to ask.
iPostDoc said
Dear Writedit, thank you for organizing this wonderful resource. I have learned quite a lot reading your responses to applicants’ questions.
I submitted a K99/R00 resubmission 7/20 to NIMHD which was scored “within the funding range” as noted by the PO. Currently, my status reads, “Council review completed” as of last week. I believe the NIMHD budget has been released, do you know when I may hear back about final decisions?
writedit said
Don’t worry about your eRA status not changing yet. ICs are still finishing their Cycle 1 awards (which have nominal start dates of 12/1 but have been delayed by the federal budget) and will start processing Cycle 2 awards, if they have not already, soon so that most receive awards close to their typical 4/1 start date. i know it’s tough, but it’s best just to wait until the GMS reaches out for JIT or other info (and if you have submitted it, then you can just wait until the award date (if there are no administrative questions in the interim).
iPostDoc said
Thank you for the helpful response. Based on some of the questions posed here, it seems that start dates are flexible? Under what conditions are start dates delayed?
writedit said
Correct. Start dates are not expiration dates and are not set in stone – they only give guidance on when to anticipate an award, assuming no budget delays, administrative issues, etc. Every Cycle 1 start date is delayed until the federal budget is signed into law (if this has not happened by Oct 1, since it typically takes 8 weeks before ICs receive their appropriations and know what their final allocation is. Start dates can be delayed in any cycle if an applicant needs to submit regulatory approvals or address other administrative concerns prior to the award being negotiated and issued.
curious kangaroo said
I’m curious what the funding range for a K99/R00 was classified as for NIMHD! I just got a score in the low 20s for my resubmission and it still seems quite ambiguous, but also quite hopeful
writedit said
Your low 20s score is promising, and your PO will be able to gauge your chances of funding after you get your summary statement … at which time you can also ask them about transferring the award to a new institution.
Curious kangaroo said
@writedit Thank you for your response! My K99/R00 was discussed during the May advisory council. My PO said that I should remain positive because the score is very good and within funding range, etc. However, she also informed me that I may not receive any further updates in the era commons on the status of my proposal (currently listed as “council review complete”) until September 30th. She indicated that the NIMHD is running a behind on funding decisions due to an overabundance of work, review, and special PAs for covid. I can’t help but stress out, though, because my current position ends this summer. I’d love to hear your thoughts!
writedit said
I am a little confused as to when you submitted the application. If you submitted in February and were just reviewed in study section, then you will not be eligible for funding until after Oct 1 and likely won’t get an award before Dec 1 – though some ICs do make awards for February applications in September. If you submitted last October, reviewed last winter, and went to Council in May, then you will (almost certainly) have an award by Sept 30. In either case, you should definitely talk with your mentor about extending your position until the award comes through. If need be, go to the Department Chair for support until the award can be issued. Both your mentor and the Department should be happy to do this to benefit from your K99 support.
Curious kangaroo said
My apologies for the lack of clarity. I submitted the A0 in February 2020. The A0 was reviewed in October 2020 and received a score of a 50. It didn’t go to council for obvious reasons. I submitted the A1 in November 2020. The A1 was reviewed in March received a score of a 24, which was regarded as within the funding range for a K99/R00 from NIMHD by the PO. The council meeting was May 24th. My commons account still lists it as “Council Review Completed.” I checked in with the PO who said that I may receive further update on my A1 any time between now and Sept. 30th. She also indicated that it the NIMHD is moving slow due to an excessive amount of covid-related special projects. She said I should remain hopeful with cautious optimism and that my score is very good, but this process is long and she has no control over it (which, I certainly know).
writedit said
No worries – thanks for the clarification and update. Hopefully your PO’s message is enough to convince your mentor to extend your position through September, if need be. If not, you could perhaps ask the PO to reach out to them on your behalf (though the PO cannot guarantee them anything either, at least it the mentor may take more seriously the benefit of extending your position until final word is available).
Curious kangaroo said
My K99/R00 (A1) submission to the NIMHD has moved to pending administrative review and I received an NIMHD-specific JIT request this Monday! Cautiously optimistic, but a bit excited nonetheless
writedit said
Woohoo – awesome news! Sounds like your K99 should be in place before your current position ends, but if not, I assume your advisor can extend your position for as long as needed (since it will be a matter of weeks/monthish).
Curious kangaroo said
Thank you, @writedit! My advisor was able to provide me with bridge funding until the final funding decision is made and I have a back-up plan in place for the next academic year in the event that it falls through somehow. Feeling incredibly grateful, excited, & nervous! Given the lack of details on the NIMHD timelines out there, I’ll post my final timeline for the A0 and A1 once I receive a final decision! Thank you so much for this invaluable resource!
Lily said
Hi, I saw your comment and wonder did you get the K99 funding? I got a score of 20 for my A1 and haven’t got any information about whether it will get funded. So I wonder if 20 is a fundable score for NIMHD? Thanks a lot!
Anxiouslywaiting said
Dear Writedit,
I had posted previously on a R01 assigned to NICHD that was scored in the 10th% in July (cycle 1). Despite multiple attempts, I was not able to get in touch with my PO. However, I did get in contact with the Division Chief who had mentioned that he would hope that they would fund grants up to the 10th%. I noticed that NICHD posted on Feb 5 that the 2021 funding recommendations had been set, but as you know NICHD does not have a set payline for R01s. Do you know if NICHD waits for cycle 3 grants to be reviewed before sending out award letters?
California livin said
Hi, I’m in the same boat as you waiting on a cycle one funding decision from NICHD.. have you received a JIT request yet?
Anxiouslywaiting said
Received the standard form email, but nothing from the PO.
Thank you said
Thank you for this incredible resource that was extremely helpful. Want to post my timeline and some of the things I learned through the NCI K99 process:
02/12/2021 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
11/25/2020 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
09/03/2020 Council review completed.
07/06/2020 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
02/29/2020 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
02/10/2020 Application entered into system
I got an IS of 18 and emailed PO in July, with response that if things go well, I should be in good shape. Didn’t hear back anything until November personal JIT request, when PO said nothing is official until NOA. At first, sensing the hesitation on the part of the PO, I was a bit discouraged, thinking perhaps I may not get funded. In reality, everything he said is true – I had a very good chance to get funded but nothing really is official until NOA. App was under administrative review for several months. Emails PO and GMS in Jan, no response. Followed up in Feb, got a response immediately saying they will try to work on it ASAP. They are extremely busy people and have lots of application to go through. Any delay is likely not a reflection of application quality, but their work load. Keeping in constant communication with PO/GMS is important but I tried to only follow up if I haven’t heard back for >1 month.
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you so much for sharing your timeline and fantastic insights and advice! Grants can be pending for many, many months while the NIH waits for the federal budget to be signed into law and then for their appropriation to arrive 1-2 months after that. Also, POs always have to be cautious and never promise anything since they do not want to put anyone’s career at risk counting on an award that is not issued for an unexpected reason. I am so glad you finally received your award – congrats again and best wishes for success as you work toward a tenure track position and launch your independent research career!
Transitional award applicant said
Dear Writeedit,
I applied for K99/R00 and my score was 28. Program Officer told me this is a good start and we should wait for the Council meeting. Several days before the Council meeting in January, Program Officer asked me to send responses to comments by email, which I did. Several days after Council meeting date I sent an email to PO about the chances and I did not get any response. The Council meeting was more than a month ago and my tentative grant starting time is April, 01. Do you have any suggestion what I should do at this time, since I do not see any changes in status of application and it just shows Council meeting completed. Thanks so much
Gimme$at1nce said
Assuming this is an A0 application, you should plan to revise and resubmit in March to be on the safe side. It seems unlikely that you will receive an award soon, but it is quite possible that your initial A0 is awarded later. If not, you’ll still have the A1. All the best!
writedit said
Always safe to plan on resubmission, though I would hoped the PO would have recommended this from the outset if there was some doubt about outcome. The April 1 start date is just a placeholder to provide context of funding decisions in a “normal” FY. I think ICs are still catching up on processing Cycle 1 awards. POs are not in the application-processing loop, so it’s hard for them to give advice on when an application might start to be processed, but the PO in this case should be able to let Transitional Award Applicant know by now whether they should resubmit or sit tight.
National_Institutes_of_Suspense said
I’m in a very similar situation. Just curious, which IC is considering your application?
writedit said
Note my other replies – the April 1 start date is not set in stone and is not an expiration date, and ICs are still catching up on Cycle 1 awards. Your PO is always the best source for an update, depending on when you last communicated with them. Love the handle, BTW.
writedit said
The score and your PO’s request for a rebuttal are all good news. ICs are still working on Cycle 1 awards (which should have had a 12/1 start date), so it’s not too late for them to start working on Cycle 2 awards. If you have not emailed your PO in a month, then definitely start there. You can ask for an update on the A0 and whether you should submit an A1 (and if so, any recommendations for the resubmission strategy). I suspect many ICs are short-staffed right now, plus all the complications of the pandemic affects efficiency.
SK said
Hi. I also applied for K99R00 in June. I am in the same situation. Which IC did you apply to?
NeuroSam said
Any insight on Fellowship success at NINDS lately? Wondering how a 21%ile will fare…
writedit said
Probably depends a bit on the type (pre- vs post-doctoral), but I think 21st percentile should be in good shape. Fellowships are such small budgets and short durations that they can go to a higher payline than for larger, longer term applications like R01s, and I am pretty sure they get fewer fellowship applications than with R03s and R21s. When you have your summary statement, check with the PO about next steps, including whether you might need to resubmit.
NeuroSam said
Thanks, this was my resubmission. Went from a 42/44 to 28/21 (impact/%ile) for an F31 pre doctoral app.
writedit said
Fantastic – a big jump like that is important, too. POs take this into consideration, so this will further benefit you when your application is discussed internally (fellowships do not go to Council). I think you can feel positive about your chances – hoping the PO concurs.
NeuroSam said
Thank you again for the boost in confidence. The JIT link is live and I do recall the PO stating there is no real payline after my first submission; another trainee in the lab received their F31 on a 15%ile score resubmission so my score has me bummed that I missed the mark.
writedit said
If you look at similar-sized ICs, NHLBI has their F31/32 payline at the 39th percentile and NICHD at the 22nd percentile. On the other hand, NIAID is at priority score of 19 for F31, and NIA at 20. It depends a lot on the number of applications (NRSA funding is a set percentage of each IC’s budget), and if NINDS does not use a hard payline, then your big improvement in score will weigh in your favor. I assume the PO was positive about your science – ICs are looking for fellowship awardees who will move into academic research careers in areas of high scientific priority.
NINDS-IS30 said
I received a fellowship from NINDS two years ago with an IS of 30 (no percentile included). The PO said they were very optimistic for funding (and it was awarded), so I believe you are in a good position.
NeuroSam said
Apologies I cannot figure out how to respond to more recent comments, but I want to thank you and NINDS-IS30 for your comments. After spending a covid year of many more downs than ups in the lab, getting this fellowship would be an enormous bump in morale. The work continues, regardless!
writedit said
Thanks to NINDS-IS30 for chiming in with a positive word! Fingers crossed for a positive update, NeuroSam.
Hulo said
Received 28 percentile in my R01 application today (first submission). I am not a new investigator. This is for NIDDK. I have to go for resubmission. Just seeing if writeedit has any other comments.
writedit said
I think with a positive but out of reach score that your summary statement should point to a few clear issues to address on resubmission. What is trickier are scores right at the edge with no serious criticisms, so the PI has no clear indication as to how to improve the score a smidge. If your PO heard the discussion, they should be able to offer suggestions, too, so don’t hesitate to get in touch after you have your summary statement.
Hulo said
Thanks again and for taking the time to respond.
JustNervous said
Dear writedit,
I submitted K99/R00 to NICHD. The scientific review was Feb 25th. My status is still “Pending IRG Review”. This is my resubmission. My first submission was “Not Discussed”. Do you think if I should contact the PO about this ？
Thanks!
Yun
SaG said
The PO won’t know what is going on. You need to contact the SRO. But, wait a few more days. There could be a glitch in closing the meeting. Alternatively your app could have been deferred for some reason. That is, it couldn’t be reviewed at that meeting. If nothing has changed by Friday contact the SRO.
JustNervous said
Thanks! SaG. It is delayed. Just receive the score is 25. The payline of K99 at NICHD is 30. I guess this score is dangerous.
writedit said
Thanks, SaG! I have seen it take a few extra days for scores to post (it is not just you – all of the applications reviewed at that meeting would have the same status), so I assume it is something on the SRO’s end. Definitely follow SaG’s advice to contact the SRO by Friday if nothing has changed.
JustNervous said
Thanks! Writedit. I actually just found that my impact score is 25. on their official website. The payline of K99 is 30. How dangerous is my 25? Thanks.
writedit said
Congratulations – you are well within the payline and can be cautiously optimistic about an award! Assuming there are no administrative or other issues, you should have your award this summer (but nothing is guaranteed until the award is issued).
NeuroPostdoc said
Dear writedit:
Thank you so much for all these resources!
I am currently funded by F32 NRSA in NIA and preparing for K99 submission at NIA for this June cycle.
Since I am just in the second year of F32 funding, my aims for F32 have not finished yet, but I wonder if these unfinished aims can be written in my new K99 application.
Basically my last aim in F32 will be my first aim in K99. I have developed a new model during F32, and I am hoping to write my aims based on this model and further do the mechanism work which was already proposed in F32.
I am just worried that reviewers will look at this as ‘less novelty’ due to this overlapping aim. Should I just write completely different aims from F32 for K99?
Any thoughts or opinions will be greatly appreciated.
writedit said
I just asked PostDocLife for their take on your situation. I suggest you read that exchange carefully so the termination of your F32 does not result in a gap in salary support until the K99 starts. It sounds perfect to base your first K99 aim on a model you developed as part of your F32 work – you definitely want to show that you are building on what you started during the F32 and advancing it to serve as your future independent research program. You won’t want to make it sound incremental (just teasing out mechanisms for discoveries during the F32 won’t be too exciting), but you can certainly take your existing final aim to a new level based on what you’ve learned since writing it 2 years ago. Reviewers will like this, and they will not have your F32 application to compare aims (even if your aims are written in your public abstract, the K99 1st aim will still be a more advanced version of the F32 final aim). Your publications and research design will be more important than any overlap. Your mentor and the K99 PO can offer good insight, too. Think carefully about where you see this work going over the next 5-10 years, which might help you consider what needs to be accomplished in that first K99 aim to get you there (beyond simply extending F32 work). Extra credit if it helps you develop a new skill (to justify mentored training), maybe even in a different lab (to learn new skill – not to change primary mentors). Don’t forget, too, that if you submit this June 2021, you are still looking at an April 1 2022 start date at the earliest, which should be in the third and last year of your F32. The start date can be delayed a bit, or your F32 can be terminated early (see PostDocLife, who I assume will finish their F32 work as part of the K99).
PostDocLife said
Agreed… I think have good relations with your grants office at your institution so that they are readily available to answer any of your questions and ensure that the end date of F32 and start date of K99 does overlap. Although, you don’t have to worry about this until you get your impact score and get some sort of positive news from your PO after your summary statement and council meeting.
Meanwhile, I agree with writedit… incremental advance in your proposal may not be the best idea. The committee won’t be encouraged to fund the same (or similar) experiments that are already funded – however, if the model you developed in F32 is pretty novel, working its mechanisms out is also – by extension – highly novel. In my K99, my first aim was a follow up to my manuscript that was primarily based on my F32 (lung epithelial regeneration). Second aim was to find parallels in human and the third aim was looking at the same question (what are the cells responsible for epithelial regeneration) but focusing on a different cell type than the ones in aims 1/2. Do reach out to your PO (although I never did) with your specific aims page and point out what concerns you might have. They are indeed a great scientific resource – IMO, the PO’s scientific acumen is greatly underutilized by the applicants.
In my case, I have moved quite away from the 2nd aim of my F32 but with justifiable data – which I have included in my progress report. So, I may not continue working on it exactly as written.. but my first aim in K99 and parts of my F32 did overlap (not in proposed studies/experiments but in theme). One way to ensure that you don’t lose on the “novelty” is to ensure that you incorporate extremely new techniques to analyze and work out your model that you developed. K99/R00 (esp K99 phase) is still a training grant… and in my limited experience, “novelty” is two-fold – that of scientific question and that of tools utilized to answer that question.
PS – an advice I got from my mentor – have a manuscript in press when your K99 is being reviewed… I had mine in press right when I submitted my K99.. and every reviewer explicitly acknowledged that.. that I have a manuscript in press based off of my previous proposal and the proposed studies in K99 are natural extensions of that manuscripts… Reviewers like preliminary data in a grant that is published.. because it assures them that the data is “true” and withstood the test of peer review.
Good Luck! and feel free to post any questions about this award.
PostDocLife said
[Edit] K99/R00 (esp K99 phase) is still a training grant.. “So, learning state of the art techniques is viewed as part of your training during the K99 phase, and therefore, encouraged”.
NeuroPostdoc said
Thank you so much for both PostDocLife and wriest!
I feel much better.
Yes, I should be worried about this after I get scores and everything, but I would like to make sure my base is covered before I really dive in more writing.
Thank you so much and this was super helpful.
writedit said
Thank you so much for this fantastic reply and intel, PostDocLife. Folks thank me for this resource, but it is truly all of you both asking questions (which allows others to see the questions and their answers) and providing a wealth of insight from personal experience (posts like this, timelines, reporting back on PO communication, etc.) that makes MWEG so valuable for the community. Thank you all!
Mika said
Do three PIs allow in the one R01? does NIH allow one R01 with three PIs (mPIs)?
writedit said
If the science justifies it, 3 or more MPIs is fine and increasingly common, with the growth in team science and research from multiple fields combined in one application.
RS said
I’m an ESI and my ADRD R01 was just reviewed at NIA. Got an impact score of 43 and 28th percentile. It’s an A0 but I’m looking at a big funding gap if I need to go for resubmission. Any thoughts on chances of getting funded at that score? And what would you recommend as next steps?
writedit said
If you were reviewed in a standing CSR study section for an application assigned to NIA, then the payline is the 33rd percentile (which you are well under). If your application was reviewed by an NIA review committee, then your application falls under the impact score of 40 payline, but your PO might be willing to advocate for R56 bridge funding (and possibly a full award, since you are ESI). You will need to wait until you receive your summary statement to contact your PO in either case, but it’s likely your PO will try to work with you to avoid a funding gap if your application falls under the impact score of 40 payline.
RS said
Thank you so much writedit! That’s super helpful. And thank you for all the hard work you put into this website which has likely helped maintain the sanity of hundreds (thousands?) of researchers!!
KL said
I just want to say what a resource this is. Thanks so much for all the time and efforts that writedit put into this!
I am writing to seek input from the Community what the funding chance is for an R21 with a PS of 23 (10th percentile) for NICHD in their June Council Meeting, NICHD do not have publish paylines for R01, R21, and R03. The Summary Statement is very positive to positive. A couple of minor concerns but I think the particular reviewer was asking something that could be considered as out of the scope of a 2-year grant. Emailed the PO, who happened to be a Branch Chief (understandably super busy) on Monday, but have not heard back yet….
Anyone who had a 10th or higher (i.e., 11th, 12th) score got funded by NICHD before?
Any insights will be appreciated.
writedit said
Congrats on the excellent score, though R21s are as or more competitive than R01s, so it’s a tough call. You’ll probably need to wait to hear back from the PO. If the out-of-scope concern was only in the individual critiques, not the Summary of Discussion, then you should be okay (ie, SRO did not incorporate in their summary, so either resolved during the discussion or not a major concern for the group). It would probably be good to draft a 1-page response to the concerns in the Summary paragraph, both in case the PO needs it for internal discussion and in case you are advised to resubmit (PO can comment on whether your response gets at the heart of the issues discussed).
WaitingWaiting said
Did you include your visa information and the assurance from the Institute that you will have continued sponsorship of visa during K99 period and no known obstacles to receiving a visa during transition in your Institutional commitment letter? That description is what GMS wants in the letter (see the application instruction). I saw someone with H1B visa forgot to include this in the letter and GMS requested for JIT, need a new Institutional commitment letter to include these information.
AnxiouslyWaiting said
I had a NICHD R01 reviewed this past summer (cycle 1) that scored 10%. I was just informed this week that it will not be funded.
writedit said
Wow – I am so sorry to hear this, but I appreciate your sharing this information to help others waiting to hear. I hope your PO also gave you some guidance on next steps, such as strategies for resubmission – and whether to resubmit, given that they did not want to “reach” for this application at the 10th percentile (ie, I am wondering if the topic is of sufficiently high priority to NICHD). Your PO might have suggestions for how to tweak an aim to be especially compelling for NICHD leadership. Even NCI is getting above the 10th percentile these days, so it’s disappointing to hear NICHD is not.
KL said
AnxiouslyWaiting, Thanks for sharing. Did your PO say anything about why (s)he cannot advoate for it, given that there is really no payline and yours was so close? Was there any point in time that the PO suggest that it might be funded? If I may ask, was your budget higher than the usual?
My subject area is indeed one of their high priority areas, so you think it “may” make a difference? Most importantly, what did the PO suggest you to do next?
Anxiouslywaiting said
Writedit and KL, the area of research is listed as one of the priority areas and the budget was not excessive, so it isn’t clear whether the decision to not fund is programmatic or due to NICHD budget constraints. What is more frustrating is that there are few if any concerns in the summary statement. The grant was a A1, which went from a 26% to a 10%. Since the grant was scored last summer, I have emailed the PO about 10 times and this past week was the first response. I am hoping to finally set up a time to discuss the next step.
writedit said
Oh, this is doubly painful, and I suspect (hope) also for your PO, whom I assume (hope) went to bat for you, especially with such a significant drop in score. Usually this is compelling evidence for making a case for funding. I am pretty sure reviewers assumed you would be funded (hence the minimal concerns) and would not be pleased to see you having to submit an exceptional application yet again. If you do not get a response from your PO for a follow-up conversation about next steps, you might next look into reaching out to the branch-division chief for insight, especially how to improve a 10th percentile application with few criticisms after a 16% improvement. It could be your PO is as frustrated as you (or I hope so, anyway, vs being not engaged and not advocating for you) and doesn’t know what to say.
KL said
Dear Anxiouslywaiting, thanks again for sharing. I am truly sorry about this and I have to say that after learing this from you, I definitely will not set my hope too high (if any). The lack of the paylines is, as far as I was told, supposed to allow the POs to be more flexible and advocate for applications with meritious scores like ours that are on the edge. I will be waiting for my PO (who happens to be a super busy Branch Chief) to respond about what to do next and may be from you after your talking to your PO as well (if you’re willing to share later).
One quick comment for you and Writedit If your application was scored in Summer 2020, you must have gone through 2 Council Meetings by now. Was there even a single hint about the outcome or suggestion to resubmit throughout all these time? My colleague told me that sometimes an application that was not funded at an earlier Council Meeting could be picked up at later Meeting. In your case, was there any chance that they were trying to pick it up at the Feb/March Council after the Sep/Oct Council? Will they look at it again in the upcoming Council Meetings or two Meetings are the maximum?
writedit said
KL, applications can be considered for funding throughout the FY (ie, 3 Councils), though it sounds like Anxiouslywaiting was told by their PO that there would be no additional consideration, such as occurs at the end of the FY, when there is a flurry of last-minute spending to expend the entire IC appropriation (ICs must return unspent $ at the end of the FY – no carryover). Applications can also be funded in subsequent FYs, as long as they have not been administratively withdrawn, though this is vanishingly rare, since each FY has more competitive applications than can be funded (so cannot look back at past unfunded applications).
AnxiouslyWaiting said
KL and Writedit, I talked with my PO this week and funding at NICHD is very tight and only reaching to 9% (at least in my case). I have another grant at another IG and the PO there said the same thing. Funding increased over the last couple of years but with this year being relatively flat they are having trouble paying grants from previous years. The PO was very sympathetic, but did say that there is a chance it could be picked up at the end of the fiscal year. Needless to say I’m resubmitting.
writedit said
Oh wow – this is so disappointing, though I had wondered how the flat budget might affect funding decisions (especially if there was a surge in applications during lockdown), but I had hoped it would mainly mean flat paylines. You could ask both PIs about the possibility of R56 funding as well. I am guessing study sections will be frustrated that many applications they thought would have been funded are back for review yet again (and will have to provide even lower scores to convey scientific merit to ICs). Thank you so much for sharing this intel – I hope one or both POs can offer a lifeline of some sort.
KL said
AnxiouslyWaiting, Thanks for sharing again. I do not quite understand how they operate at all. While I certainly do not expect them to fund any grant way past 20%-tile, but if they stick to a 9% tile payline, why didn’t they publish this payline at ther site like NCI? Why all the talks about flexibility for selecting meritious grants which narrowly passed the payline (apparently they do have one)? Also when is the end of fiscal year in our cases, July 2021? ( I think yours was reviewed in June 2020 and mine was reviewed in Feb 2021). If we are resubmitting, any advice from Writedit on which cycle should we target?
writedit said
FY21 applications can be awarded up through September 30th (Oct 1 is the start of FY22), and many ICs do not publish their paylines, actually, though you can now use the NIH Data Book to gauge where they fell in prior years. NICHD must be incredibly tight, between the less than anticipated appropriation and perhaps higher numbers of applications (just a guess on my part), since they did much better at the 9th percentile in FY20 for R01 equivalents. They funded most applications up through the 12th percentile in fact.
KL said
Writedit, thanks for the quick response. By the way, my 10%tile R21 was submitted in response to a PAR. Will this make any difference in final funding decision?
writedit said
Well, for a PAR, it’s programmatic priority more than score that plays a role, so it’s not your 10th percentile so much as the science that might overcome a tight budget situation. In general, though, R21s often have a lower success rate than R01s, so I am not entirely surprised that things are tight with the R21 payline (often below 10th percentile). R21 applications do better if the work proposed matches the mechanism (many new investigators treat it like a small R01, which it is not). I just realized I did not include the link for funding success by percentile at NICHD (FY20), though this is for R01 equivalents, not R21s: https://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/report/302?ic=NICHD&fy=2020
KL said
Thanks writedit! This was written in the Summary Statement “there was wide agreement tha proposed studies are appropriate for the R21 mechanism and enthusiasm for this application was high.
It is expected to highly impact the advancement of…” So I gathered the grant matched the mechanism…. (Still have not heard back from the PO yet)
writedit said
Fantastic – and that’s a great comment for your PO to work with in advocating for your application. Hope you receive some positive feedback.
KL said
Dear Writedit,
I have emailed my PO twice since early March about my grant, but heard no replies at both times. Any ideas on why the reluctance to respond and what I can do to get a reply?
writedit said
Looking back at the thread, I see this is a branch chief and that your application is for the June Council (July 1 start). Although it is possible/likely that they will have no information until closer to the Council date, that is no excuse for not replying. You definitely should not interpret this as any sort of reluctance to reply – they just haven’t made time for it (it’s quick and easy to say either they don’t know yet or your application won’t be funded). While a simple question about the status of your scored application isn’t time-critical, if you haven’t already, I would suggest sending a separate message only asking if you should plan to resubmit in July (or June, if your 10th percentile R21 was an A1). If you get no response and no guidance within a week of asking this question, it’s time to kick up to the next level, which at NICHD is the Director of Extramural Research. Now, I also see that much of NICHD leadership is “acting” (at least per the website), which could also be part of the problem – but they need to get their act together and at least provide basic responses to extramural investigators seeking help.
KL said
Dear Writedit, Thanks for the continued support for this long thread, which said a lot about your dedication and the importance of the site.
I agree with all the things you said, but am a little concerned if I ever have to go above the PO and talk to the Director of Extramural Research, mainly because of my fear that this might annoy the PO. If you recall, even though my application was submitted in response to a PAR, and there is no published payline for R21 for NICHD, my score did fall on the edge by most “traditional standards”. It is very likely I will need the PO to advocate for funding and therefore, I need to be on the PO’s good side. It is truly a frustrating situation.
writedit said
I suggested giving the PO/BC one more shot by sending a query just to ask, not about funding likelihood, but if you should submit this application again (whether to the PAR, if that is an option, or to a different FOA). Their response to the resubmission/submission elsewhere query does not require the magic eight ball. Be sure the subject line changes to something like the grant number and “is resubmission advised” or whatever would be appropriate for your situation. Then the PO should realize you are not asking about an award but are trying to be proactive so as to avoid missing a funding cycle. I only suggested going over the PO’s head if he ignores this query, too. Another alternative, if you have no contact at all from the PO for another week or two, would be to email the PO and copy the DER Director via reply all to your unanswered email. In that email, you could acknowledge how busy they all are (especially with no permanent leadership at NICDH, it seems) but would appreciate guidance on whether to continue sitting tight or resubmit/repurpose the application for the June-July submission dates.
SaG said
I have heard that in the olden days folks would show at at PO’s office unannounced. You don’t have many options though. You can send an email to the DEA Director or even the Institute Director but as you noted there is a risk. You have to hope that the BC is a Professional. Also, the Institute should know that this person is not responsive. How do you think the privileged multi-R01 PIs get all of their money? They are shaking that tree as hard as they can. You could couch you email in terms like, you understand how busy they are in these extraordinary times is there someone else you could speak with…give the BC an excuse. Whether deserved or not.
K99-pending said
My K99 award is pending administrative review. I am on an H1B visa, and the GMS had asked for proof of visa for the entire duration of the award. My current visa will expire in June 2022, and renewable for additional three years. So I’ll be able to finish one year of the award (considering 4/1/21 start date), but my visa is not current for the entire duration of the award. Could this be a problem? Thanks for your response!
writedit said
I think this should be okay, since your current visa is renewable and you will be engaged in activities that support its renewal, but I am not an expert on visa policies and practices. Your PO or GMS can confirm whether this will be acceptable – or your institution grants administrator probably has experience in this regard from prior applicants/awardees.
WaitingWaiting said
Did you include your visa information and the assurance from the Institute that you will have continued sponsorship of visa during K99 period and no known obstacles to receiving a visa during transition in your Institutional commitment letter? That description is what GMS wants in the letter (see the application instruction). I saw someone with H1B visa forgot to include this in the letter and GMS requested for JIT, need a new Institutional commitment letter to include these information.
K99-pending said
Thanks, Writedit, and WaitingWaiting for your responses! The institutional support letter assured that the H1B is active and that there are no known obstacles (e.g. home country requirement) to
updating the visa if necessary. We got a JIT from the GMS asking for visa expiry date, and responded that visa is current until 6/22 and renewable for additional three years. I am slightly concerned if this could be an issue given the K99 phase is expected to be from 4/21-4/23.
writedit said
The GMS doesn’t make these decisions, but you can check with your PO for reassurance that the 3-year renewal will be acceptable to issue the award for 2 years of K99 support. (and thanks for chiming in, WaitingWaiting!)
WaitingWaiting said
Which IC you applied if you don’t mind telling me? Thanks. I am also applying for K99 with H1B.
K99-pending said
Thanks, Writedit, I’ll check with the PO. But given the SO at my institute didn’t raise any concern while responding to the JIT request, I am probably overthinking! I am also waiting for a response from the SO regarding this.
WaitingWaiting, it’s NIGMS
Kelly said
Hello! My K23 application was reviewed on 2/4 and still not summary statement posted. I emailed the PO yesterday, but did not get a response yet. I think it’s been 30 days since the review and my colleagues who got theirs reviewed at the same study section got their back already. Is there anything else I should do? In the past my summary statements have been posted within a couple of weeks.
writedit said
Your PO is not involved with the summary statement and will have no insight. Summary statements can take up to 8 weeks to be posted, so this is not an unusual time frame. Unlike scores, summary statements are not posted all at the same time, so it depends on the order in which the SRO works on them and whether illness or other factors are delaying their progress. If you have not received your summary statement by mid to late March, you can contact the SRO for an update.
rap82 said
Hello!
I have just learned that my NIAID DP2 New Innovators Award application received an impact score of 28. Since there is no percentile, I am not sure what my chances are but considering this is a competitive award, I am not giving myself high hopes.
Even before receiving the impact score, I had been thinking about rewriting it as a new RO1 (I was thinking that it might not even be discussed). Since the next deadline for RO1 is June, should I start rewriting it as an RO1 now or should I wait for the result of the advisory council meeting happening in May?
mlnet said
I had also applied for the NIAID DP2 this cycle (I was in the first year of my faculty position at the time of application). I got an impact score of 26. I think both of us can potentially be cautiously optimistic. There are of course no percentiles or published paylines for the NIAID DP2. But the current payline for a NIAID R21 is an impact score of 31, and for an ESI R01 is 18 percentile (should translate into an impact score of around 30). I also noticed on this forum that two NIAID DP2 application with impact scores of 26 and 33 last year seem to have had favorable outcomes. Of course, we can’t assume anything, but am keeping my fingers crossed!
rap82 said
I also added mine! Best of luck to us!
mlnet said
Thanks! Hope these scores lead to a positive outcome for both of us!
mlnet said
Dear rap82, Have you received your summary statement yet? Am still waiting for mine. Thanks!
rap82 said
Hi Minet,
No summary statement yet… Still waiting. Cross fingers for both of us!
mlnet said
Thanks rap82 for the quick response. I noticed your post (above) regarding your email exchange with your PO. I too had a similar email exchange with my PO. Fingers crossed!
rap82 said
a little update. i got my summary statement – it says budget is recommended. still not celebrating but really hoping it gets funded!
rap82 said
as i read from comments here – “budget is recommended” does not mean anything. so i’m preparing to discuss with PO and whether I should begin drafting the rebutall.
mlnet said
Thanks rap82 for the update. Yes, I received my summary statement too. Overall, the comments are very positive with minor/easily addressable concerns. “Budget is recommended” doesn’t mean anything, but based on the score + summary statement, I am remaining “very cautiously” optimistic. Hope both of us get funded!
writedit said
As you have since heard from minet, your score is not necessarily a sign of doom, since DP2s are competitive (fundable scores go higher than typical R01s), and since there is a fair bit of programmatic leeway in making decisions. You won’t know about your DP2 until late summer (July-August, more likely August), so you can certainly submit the R01 and withdraw it if the DP2 is awarded. You should have your summary statement in time (hopefully by mid-April) to still prepare an R01, so you could wait until then, so you can talk with the PO first – or you can start drafting the R01 and then use the summary statement to refine your approach, if your PO suggests you submit in June for insurance. I might suggest that you both (rap82 and minet) submit your information to the online DP2/MIRA spreadsheet, which you can also see shows you are in the gray zone of funding consideration – though scores as high as the 40s have received awards, too.
rap82 said
Thank you for your replies. I am a postdoc and this is my first time to apply to an NIH grant (did not have the chance to apply to any K or F) so I am clueless. Thanks to this wonderful resource! Will add my info to the spreadsheet.
mlnet said
Thank you very much writedit for your response. Side note – I wanted to thank you for creating this wonderful resource for the community. I hadn’t added to the spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10f1MDXXW57r5pYxwqTnAKM_NRY_SmvC0s0b3joyO_Zo/edit) as this is not the NIH OD/Common Fund DP2. This is a NIAID-specific DP2 (different FOA, different review rules – “standard” review and not the 2-stage review for OD/Common Fund DP2, and different eligibility – postdocs and faculty only in their first year at the time of application, not all ESIs). For this, I think the earliest award start date is July 2021 which is also different from the OD DP2. However, based on your recommendation, I will add my score to the spreadsheet with these caveats. Thanks also to rap82 for sharing your score.
writedit said
The DP2 tab is pretty clearly trans-NIH (cancer, microbiome, etc. represented). I do not see anywhere that the listings are limited to the NIAID FOA, so perhaps you could point me to where this is explicitly stated (also, posters keep referring to Ravi, who oversees Common Fund programs, not NIAID). Most of the tabs and discussion are about ESI MIRA, which various commenters suggest is a better route than DP2.
mlnet said
Yes, there are 2 separate FOAs. The standard FOA is https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/rfa-rm-20-012.html which is coordinated by the Office of the Director (NIH Common Fund). Ravi Basavappa is the PO. It is my understanding that OD handles all DP2s submitted to this FOA, the grants are trans-NIH, and are finally administered through a specific institute depending on the focus area. All ESIs are eligible for this. The NIAID DP2 is a separate new mechanism – https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-20-259.html with different eligibility criteria and a separate review process. Till last year, it was limited only to postdocs who are close to obtaining a faculty position. This year they opened it up to faculty only in their first year at the time of application (https://www.niaid.nih.gov/grants-contracts/questions-answers-par-ai-dp2). Since this is such a new mechanism (handled internally within NIAID – nothing to do with OD), my guess is that the current entries on the spreadsheet do not correspond to this mechanism (hence my initial hesitation in adding my score to the spreadsheet).
writedit said
Aha – you mean that your application was not submitted to the Common Fund DP2 and therefore does not necessarily track with the other spreadsheet responses (ie, I erroneously interpreted your comment to mean that the spreadsheet data are for the NIAID FOA).
mlnet said
Yes, exactly 🙂 I went ahead and added my score to the spreadsheet though with the caveats noted.
rap82 said
the status of my NIAID-specific DP2 application changed to “council review completed” a couple of weeks ago. does it mean anything about funding decision? according to the eRA commons, the Advisory Council meeting will be in June 7.
SaG said
Must have been Early Concurrence Council. And, no it doesn’t mean much yet.
rap82 said
would the PO at least know by now if they would not fund it (at least I could move forward already if not considered for funding)? i guess i could ask the PO but i assume he’s very busy. he has been so responsive to me since the start of my application i’m afraid i’ll annoy him with too many questions at this point.
writedit said
Your PO probably won’t know, since those decisions are made by NIAID leadership after Council. If you are trying to decide whether to submit an application in June (traditional R01 or other mechanism), you could ask him if you should do so or wait. If you would wait until the fall to submit anyway (ie, you aren’t thinking about a June or July submission), then best to just sit tight. The PO will contact you as soon as he has news. The delay is not necessarily bad, since it’s faster for ICs to identify the applications that definitely won’t get awards.
Achilles said
I applied to this R03:
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAS-19-392.html
The FOA states that they will fund “12 awards for this FOA and its companions (2 other FOAs), corresponding to a total of $1.8 million, for fiscal year 2020. Future year amounts will depend on annual appropriations.”
I just received an impact score 41 and 23%ile in a CSR study section. For funding, does NIA go by published payline (which is 28% for ADRD) or since this is a PAS with set-aside funds, do they go by a different standard?
writedit said
Since your application went to a CSR (vs NIA) panel, your percentile will be the basis of any funding decisions, which means you are within the 28th percentile. Now, because this is a PAS, there is a putative cap on the number of awards (based on the set-aside funds), so it will also depend on where NIA is in terms of spending this pot of money (if it is all spent, they are not obligated to fund you just because you are within the payline). The usual advice applies: when you get your summary statement, check with the PO for next steps. Hopefully, given your percentile, the next step will be to submit JIT and wait to hear from them.
Khan said
Hi, I also just received an impact score 44 and 28 percentile under the same PA (NIA). Just wondering at what percentile NIA funded applications in previous cycle. Any idea? Thanks
writedit said
The 28th percentile would be funded in FY21, but I just realized that both you and Achilles mention being reviewed this summer, which means both applications will fall under the FY22 paylines – which will not be set for several months (and possibly not until early in 2022). My guess is that the PO will recommend submitting again for insurance in case the federal budget is delayed. The NIH will likely receive the same or more funding, so paylines in general probably won’t be different from FY21, but individual ICs may adjust their priorities, and I am not sure what the AD/ADRD boost will be for FY22, so NIA may not have as much funding for applications in these categories.
Aaron said
Dear Writedit, firstly I would thank you and others for maintaining this fabulous website, and I was benefited from a lot of helpful information and insights here.
I was wondering whether you or other people have experience in receiving a letter from NIH, starting with “The National… and we plan to fund your application. However, this letter does not take the place of the official Notice of Grant Award.”, while my eRA Commons status is “pending administrative review” and a JIT has been requested and submitted. Would this mean I should just wait and expect an NOA very soon? Thank you in advance for your insights.
writedit said
Congratulations! I will assume your application has a start date around April 1, which is probably when you could expect the NOA, assuming there are no problems with the administrative review. You’ll probably get a status change to Notice of Award prepared (by the GMS) followed by a delay of one or more days (can be up to a week – don’t panic) while your award awaits approval by the IC Director before the actual NOA is sent.
Aaron said
Thanks for the prompt and encouraging reply, Writedit. I will come back to update a timeline when the actual NOA is received.
l1zerdbreath said
Has anyone gotta their grant funded through the IDeA co-funding mechanism (https://www.nigms.nih.gov/Research/DRCB/IDeA/Pages/IDeA-Co-funding.aspx)? I am in an eligible state and my R15 scored a 31 (payline 29 for 2021 for NICHD). Should I reach out to my PO about this or do they just do this on their own? I submitted an A1 already, but as you all know a new submission is no guarantee of funding so it would be great to know if there was still a chance for my A0.
writedit said
If your PO wants to nominate your application for IDeA co-funding, they do that on their own (your requesting consideration wouldn’t make a difference – ICs can only nominate a few applications, so they pick internally from among many eligible applications). If your PO did this and secures funding, they’ll tell you to withdraw the pending application. In the meantime, it is good that you have your A1 in for insurance, so you did the right thing by submitting again.
Pandora said
Hi, thanks for a great resource here. I just received reviews of a PAR resubmission at NIDCR, which does not publish paylines, and the PO advised to reapply despite what I thought could be a fundable percentile in low 20s as ESI. Funny thing is I just looked up what grants have been funded on this PAR since it opened up in 2018– and there’s only 1. Is this a red flag that the funds available are quite limited and so even lower paylines might apply than usual?
writedit said
A score in the low 20s could be promising, a percentile in the low 20s is not (an exception would be AD/ADRD at NIA). You need to be in the mid-teens or, more likely, lower to be competitive for funding. The single award for this PAR could reflect few applications in total or few competitive applications. The PO could have advised you to apply again because they want to keep that FOA alive (ie, they don’t want NIDCR to terminate it early due to lack of response) or because you are close but they cannot advocate for funding at such a high percentile (and are interested in your science).
Pandora said
Thanks for the reply. It’s helpful that you seem to have a sense of ESI paylines at NIDCR since none are published. I had thought there might be a possibility since some other institutes have paylines in the 20-25%ile range for ESI, and success rates for the institute are >18%.
writedit said
Ah – I missed your original mention of ESI. You are right that some ICs fund ESI up to the 25th percentile, but NIDCR does not have a big budget, so they might stop their ESI funding at the 20th percentile or lower – and given your PO’s advice, that must be the case.
smh said
Hi Writedit,
This is a great resource! Thank you. I’ve been following the site for several years.
I’m an established investigator and my R01A1 at NIDDK scored 20%. Likely won’t be funded. Should I go ahead and prepare to submit the application as new in June? Waiting to speak to PO when the summary sheet comes, but waiting until the end of the FY for a potential award (R56?) seems not such a great hedge.
What are your thoughts on this type of situation? Any other feedback from the group will be welcome!
writedit said
Sounds like a good idea to submit a June A0. You would want to get this application in even if you might receive an R56, since that would only be a bridge to the A0 award. However, I think the R56 would only come into play if you were at risk of shutting down your lab in the interim (and the NIDDK did not want to lose this work entirely) or some other compelling reason beyond simply not getting the A1 funded.
smh said
Thanks, Writedit. Score moved from 36% to 20%.
writedit said
That’s a nice jump, so if your PO is keen on your science, they might be able to do more so you don’t have to put this on hold for another year. Hopefully they’ll have positive news when you talk after the summary statement arrives, but you should start thinking ahead, so you can also bounce off ideas for the A0 (to shave off another 4-5 percentile points), if the PO can’t offer more help with the A1.
PostdocOrFaculty said
Hi writeedit thanks so much for keeping this resource up! I am about to start a K99 and got an offer for a tenure track position that I can start anytime I want in the next 1.5 years. Do you happen to know what is the minimum amount of time that I should be on the K99 to be able to keep the K99/R00 as I transition to a faculty position next year?
writedit said
If your K99 is for 2 years, then you would want to talk with your PO about shortening it to 1 year. I believe for reporting purposes, that will be preferable to 18 months, but you can ask that as well. You will need to demonstrate that you can accomplish all the peer-reviewed training (described in the application) in a shorter time frame (so have this ready before you communicate with PO). I assume you already have the K99 NOA. Some (and more now that the NIH is cracking down on this) POs feel that a job offer before the K99 even starts is an indication that you don’t need the K99/R00 (which is intended to help postdocs navigate and bridge the transition from training to faculty) and could apply for either an independent K award or an R-mechanism award from the offered faculty position.
Lillygan said
Hi Writedit Thank you for the great forum! I have been reading through the different posts recently to understand NIH review process. I submitted an NHLBI K99 and received an impact score of 31 (pay-line for this year is 32).Do you have any ideas what are my chances of receiving funding? I don’t feel optimistic given that the score is at the tail of the curve
Silentstorm said
I’m also in this cycle, got a impact score from NHLBI yesterday. It is 34. The pay line was 32 for 2019 and 2020. I think 31 is fine, hopefully you will get it. My friend got his K99 in 2018 with a impact score 30.
I connected with my PO, I’m thinking to development my K99 as a new R21 or R01 now.
Lillygan said
Thank you Silentstorm for the quick response. Congrats on your score too, it is not that far from the payline so you may still have a chance for this cycle. I was told by my mentor to wait until the comments are posted before connecting. Do you think it is helpful to email the PO now?
Californialivin said
Typical guidance is to ALWAYS wait until summary statement comes out. PO can’t say anything until then and it’s being considerate of their time & confidentiality issues. Good luck!
writedit said
Lillygan, I forgot to mention before that you should wait until you have your summary statement to contact the PO (even though you are within the payline, best to wait, just in case the PO wants to ask you about something written in the pink sheets).
Silentstorm said
Hi Lillygan, typically we’d better connect with PO after the summary statement. But I emailed my PO at the moment I got the impact score, since she is also my F32 PO, she gave me some useful advice about my K99 submission. So I contacted with her to updating my score. She hasn’t replied me yet. But I know 34 is not a promising score 😦
writedit said
Silentstorm, your PO won’t reply until the summary statement is available. If this is your last chance at a K99, even though you are above the payline, she might be considering whether to advocate for an award, but she can’t do that until she sees the reviewers’ concerns. If she can not help on the K99, you should ask her for a referral to an appropriate PO based on your science to discuss the R-type application. You would be much better off going for the R01 if you can (usually this requires a faculty position since universities do not consider postdocs employees) – the R01 is longer with a larger budget and is renewable – and comes with the ESI break. The R21 is as or more competitive in terms of priority score-percentile and is only appropriate for very specific applications (pilot trials, preliminary data on an experimental model, etc.). Once you have your summary statement, I’m sure your PO will be helpful, one way or another.
writedit said
The payline of 32 includes all scores up to and including 32, so unless there is an administrative problem with your application when it is processed for an award, you should be expecting a NoA in time for a July start date. Your PO is not involved with the administrative processing (and thus won’t know the timing of award), but they could confirm your being within the payline and answer any questions about next steps related to the award.
Lillygan said
Than you writedit for the information!
Silentstorm said
Thank you writedit! This is my last chance at a K99, I can’t resubmit it. Let me wait until the summary statement.
Velvet said
Hi @writedit, thank you for this great resource and website. I submitted a K01-01A1 to NIDA last March, received impact score: 32 and percentile: 14%. So far it is not funded. I am in West Virginia, and IDeA state.
Does anyone here know if NIGMS or another IC will co-fund K awards?
I know NIGMS co-funds R01 and R15 proposals.
Any advice much appreciated!
writedit said
It’s actually not NIGMS as an institute co-funding IDeA state applications. The IDeA program is managed within NIGMS, but it is trans-NIH, not specific to NIGMS. The IDeA program only supports R01 and R15 applications – no other activity codes (like your K01). When you receive your summary statement, you can check with the PO about next steps. If your score improved dramatically, or if you have published since the study section met, your PO may be able to advocate for an award if your score is out of their usual range (I do not know how far they typically reach for career development – or any mechanism, really).
R01 Curiouser said
Dear Writedit:
I truly enjoy reading your blog! I have a quick question – my R01 proposal was reviewed 10 days ago and got “Not Discussed”. However, my eRA webpage shows “JIT” and “Human Subjects. I have not received the Summary Statement yet. I wonder why my proposal was not discussed but received this JIT info? Does this mean my proposal was scored below 30 or 40, but was not discussed for some reasons? Or is this an error from eRA system? Any suggestions? Thank you for advices!
Best,
R01 Curiouser
writedit said
The Just-in-Time link appears in eRA Commons for all grant applications within 24 hours after the score is released. The NIH automatically issues an email requesting JIT for all applications with an impact score of 30 or less. Both the automatic link and the automated email should be ignored. The GMS or PO will email the PI directly if the IC intends to consider the application for an award.
Sine said
Dear Writedit,
This is a great resource. Thank you for your service to the community.
I have a question about JIT. I recently received a personalized JIT request for an R15 with a score of 28. This is for an A1 resubmission from Feb 2020. Because I was not certain about being funded with this score, I submitted a revised grant as a new A0 submission (same title) in the next cycle (Oct 2020). Should I mention the October A0 submission in the JIT and say that the grant is OVERLAPPING and will be withdrawn if the current (Feb 2020) proposal is funded. Or should I not mention it and this is understood because of the same titles.
writedit said
You would submit it as pending support and indicate that the application would be withdrawn if the A1 is awarded. This is understood and is a routine occurrence, of course, but you still need to acknowledge it as part of your Other Support information. Hopefully congratulations will be in order soon.
Sine said
Thank you Writedit for the prompt reply.
Priyadarshini Kachroo said
Hello Writedit, I recently applied (AO) K99/R00 application (October 12, 2020 deadline) and got the impact score of 32. I started postdoc in June 2017 so my 4-year postdoc eligibility ends June 2021. I still have not received the summary statement so have no clue so far and plan to contact the SRO and PO once I receive the summary. Do you think I could use the covid 2-cycle extension to resubmit in July (as this is the closest I could resubmit)? And, I was wondering what would be the chance of re-submission in July and funding given the score? I would appreciate if you have any suggestions or insights. Thank you.
Priyadarshini Kachroo said
The application was submitted to NHLBI
writedit said
You are correct to wait until you have your summary statement to contact the PO (don’t contact the SRO – their work ends once they post your summary statement). You should be able to get a COVID extension to allow the July A1 submission if needed. You can either wait and ask your PO about this when you get your summary statement (if the PO advises resubmission), or contact them now about steps to take to request an extension of your K99 eligibility window (and get in touch again about your A0 chances when you receive your summary statement).
anxious postdoc said
Hi writedit
I applied for K99 (A1) in July 2020 (timeline below) and got scored. It was scored 34 and ADRD payline is 35. The start date is listed 4/1/2021 but it’s been pending for over a month. Is it guaranteed to hear something before then or is it likely to take longer. Is it appropriate to contact the GMS or PO? I know of other people who have grants on a similar timeline to me (same start date) that have already gone to “Preparing for award”. Thanks so much!
02/12/2021 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist
01/13/2021 Council review completed.
09/28/2020 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
07/17/2020 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
07/07/2020 Application entered into system
writedit said
Your start date is not an expiration date, and it is not binding to your institute. I just learned that NIAID waits to make all K99 awards until July-September. Since you mention ADRD, I assume you are at NIA, and I see they started making K99 awards in January, so it’s not that they wait until the end of the FY. It could be something as simple as the person who typically reviews K99 applications has been out and there is a backlog. If you haven’t checked with your PO, you could ask if they need anything from you, such as JIT, and if you need to do anything else. It’s likely they will just tell you to wait (POs are not involved in processing awards and don’t know the timing), but at least you would be reassured that you can wait on a positive outcome eventually.
Aaron said
Hi Dear Writedit, thank you a lot for this great resource forum and I have learnt a lot during my anxious waiting. I promised to share my timeline for a K01 application at NIDDK, and here it is:
10/09/2019 Application (A0) entered into system.
10/15/2019 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
03/13/2020 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official. (A0, Impact Score: 37, above fundable score)
04/29/2020 Summary Statement released.
05/05/2020 Phone discussion with PO on resubmission.
05/12/2020 Council review completed.
07/08/2020 Application (A1) entered into system.
07/13/2020 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
10/23/2020 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official. (A1, Impact Score: 28, not much improved but potentially within fundable range)
12/05/2020 Summary Statement released.
12/07/2020 Email PO to schedule a phone call on the next step and received PO’s invitation for a response letter to Reviewers’ critiques.
12/13/2020 Response letter submitted.
01/28/2021 Council review completed.
02/17/2021 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
02/19/2021 Receive personalized JIT request from the GMS.
02/24/2021 JIT documents submitted.
03/16/2021 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
03/17/2021 Application awarded.
Hopefully it will be helpful for other applicants.
writedit said
Thank you so much for such a well-annotated timeline, Aaron! I really appreciate your adding each communication with your PO and the outcome – so helpful to those looking for guidance on what to anticipate and what steps they can and should take. Congratulations on your award and best wishes for success with your project and your career in biomedical research!
SC said
Hi Writedit, We were asked to submit a JIT a while ago. One of the investigators and myself will have over 100% effort if the grant is funded now. But one of my current projects will end in May and our effort commitment should be OK once that project ends (the proposed start date of the project is April 1). The GMS came back and asked us to address the concern of overcommitment. We explained and also adjusted the effort in April and May to avoid any potential overlap if the new project is funded. I am a little bit concerns as we have not heard back from the GMS for a while, and the status is still “pending”. I assume it should be OK? Thank you for your insight.
SC said
I forgot to mention that I also said that to avoid any overlap in April and May I would have to reduce the proposed effort by 20% in the new project in those two months (I cannot reduce the current effort further).
writedit said
The long Pending period is not unusual, and your April 1 start date is not an expiration date, though I suspect your award will be processed by then. I think you could have just asked about delaying the start until May to avoid the overlap and effort problem, but your ability to commit 20% effort during the first two months should be fine, too.
SC said
Thank you very much for your insight, writedit. I wish I knew that we could ask for delaying in start date.
SC said
Hi Writedit, I am getting a little more anxious as the pending status has been a while. Should I just patiently wait or contact GMS? Thanks again for your insight!
writedit said
I agree with SaG. Wait patiently. If the GMS had something to report to you or needed some information, they would be in touch immediately. The delay is not at all bad news – applications can be pending for many months and still receive an award. I think what SaG means is that the IC might just wait until May vs start you in April – but this is not the GMS’s call on their own, so now they are waiting, too (to hear how the IC wants to handle the overlap). It would be different if the overlap ended this summer or fall, but you’re pretty close. If you need to start spending on this project (vs wait until May), you can ask your PO if they are confident that you are within 90 days of award, and then see if your institution will set up an account for pre-award spending.
SC said
Thank you SaG and writedit for the suggestions. I meant the overlapping will end by May 31. I guess it should be ok?
SC said
Thank you so much for SaG and writedit for the suggestions! I meant the overlapping will end on May 31,2021. I guess that should still be OK?
SaG said
I vote patiently wait. The GMS will probably tell you that anyway. If there are problems they will contact you. If there remain overlap/percent effort issues they will send you an email asking you to resolve it before they can award the grant. My guess is they are waiting for the issues to disappear.
SC said
thank you, SaG. Yes, they did come back asking us to address the overlapping problem, and we responded about 2 weeks ago.
stressed_k99applicant said
Dear Writedit,
Can’t believe it’s March already and I’m back with more questions : ) I have recently re-submitted K99 and noticed a secondary IC (NINDS) assigned (primary IC: NCI, which reviewed the grant last time). Does this mean NINDS is interested or it’s more like an automatic process (I propose to study glioma)?
Before submission, my mentor was commenting we should have chosen NIGMS as primary IC (reviewer was concerned about direct cancer relevance). Since it’s re-submission, we are still bound with NCI. I’m not sure if it’s still worth reaching out to the PO at this point and ask whether we can add NIGMS as another secondary IC? Or this is not worth trying (seems like secondary IC funding is pretty rare).
Any inputs will be very appreciated.
writedit said
You could have changed institutes, but the time to do that was prior to resubmission (ie, submit and request new IC, having made arrangements with appropriate PO to accept the application). I am surprised you are at NCI, since NINDS funds most primary brain tumor research, such as glioma (and Jane Fountain is a fantastic PO). I am also not sure how you could be studying glioma but not have a direct cancer relevance though. NIGMS is interested in primary carcinogenesis mechanisms (eg, DNA damage etc.), so your work would need to be very basic, and NIGMS takes itself off any applications to which CSR assigns it as a secondary IC because they do not fund applications as secondary IC (and do not want to give PIs false hopes). I assume your PO at NCI encouraged resubmission and did not raise any concerns about the science (I do recall the PO advised you to change institutions as part of post-submission materials after your mentor moves – not sure where that stands, but hopefully it’s not too chaotic).
stressed_k99applicant said
Thanks writedit for the info about NINDS and NIGMS (didn’t know they don’t take K99 as secondary IC)! After more research on NIH reporter, NINDS does look like a good fit for my proposal (and better fit than NIGMS).
About “lack of direct cancer relevance”, I believe the reviewer was referring to my lack of prelim data in glioma cells/systems (I had more prelim data in non-glioma cells), and also in terms of writing (didn’t provide clear rationale to study this specific mechanism in glioma), which I have addressed in the re-submission this time (fingers crossed).
Thank you for asking! I will move to the new institute in July. I have several first-author manuscripts in the pipeline so those will keep me busy for some time. My understanding (not sure if it’s correct) is that if my move (July) is happening after the scientific review (June), then I don’t need to address change of institute as post-submission material. I did indicate the move in the training plan.
In case it is useful for others in similar situation (change of institute), PO pointed to NOT-OD-19-083: “Adjustments resulting from change of institution [e.g., Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) moves to another university] Materials resulting from change of institution, or change of PD/PI, that occurs between application submission and peer review”. Though I’m not sure what adjustments are allowed (do you know writedit?)
writedit said
This Notice doesn’t really apply since you won’t be moving until after peer review, but the adjustments would be the name and bio sketch of a new mentor (though you will have the same mentor) and the change in available facilities and resources at the new institution (which I assume you covered in your application). Also, if your salary would change significantly due to a different cost of living, the budget would be adjusted.
2021-COVID-FREE said
Dear Writedit, thanks again for maintaining this excellent site. I’d like to just share the timeline for my 2nd R01 at NCI that was just awarded recently. It has been 2 years since I submitted the first version of application.
2019.Feb: A0 submission
2019.June: A0-not discussed
2019. Oct: A0 reformatted to a new A0 submission based on comments
2020. Feb: A0-scored 13th percentile
2020. July: A1-resubmission
2020. Oct: A1-scored 1st percentile
2020. Dec: JIT requetsed
2021.Mar: NOA received
From unscored to the 1st percentile, it has been a long journey to go and I appreciate the great help from Writedit and other colleagues from this exceptional website.
writedit said
Wow – amazing timeline that I thank you so much for sharing and encouraging others! Congratulations on persevering and securing this exceptional score – best wishes for as much success with your research.
MGHer said
Congtratulations! Did you submit your new A0 to the same study section as the previous A0 or not? Thanks!
Gimme$at1nce said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you so much for this wonderful resource! I learned a lot from the answers to my questions and from the other discussions. I thought I would share the timeline of my K99/R00 award from NIGMS:
07/13/2020 Application (A1) entered into system
07/21/2020 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any
questions to the Scientific Review Administrator
11/17/2020 SRG review
11/17/2020 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review
pending. Refer any questions to Program Official (Impact
Score <20)
12/01/2020. Automated JIT request
12/03/2020. Submitted JIT info
12/08/2020 Summary Statement released
12/09/2020 Email conversation with PO (PO didn't ask for a rebuttal,
did not give any indication of findability – just advised to be
patient!)
02/09/2021 Council meeting
02/09/2021 Council review completed
couple of emails to the PO in between requesting updates!
02/19/2021. Phone call and email from PO confirming that my
application is on an approved paylist!
02/18/2021 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to
Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
02/25/2021. Email from GMS for additional JIT and visa info
02/26/2021 Submitted JIT info
03/11/2021 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management
Specialist.
03/12/2021 NoA released!!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂
Hopefully, other applicants find this helpful!
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you so much for posting your well-annotated timeline! Yours is actually an example of how the process goes when everything is on time (i.e., federal budget in place, award within 9 months of application) and the funding decision is clear (ie, no need to wait for select pay decisions). Best wishes for success with your project and your career in biomedical research!
NIAIDPurgatory said
Hi there! Submitted a K23 to NIAID in May 2020 (HIV/AIDS deadline) and received an impact score of 19 in July 2020. Still waiting to hear on funding. Any idea when we’ll see paylines for career development awards?
writedit said
I see NIAID has only made a couple of new K23 awards so far this year, and I recently learned that they make all their K99 awards in the summer (July through September). If you haven’t asked your PO for an update on funding decisions and timing, now would be a good time – and if there is any question about your receiving an award (although I assume not, with your score), then you can ask about resubmission
Jake said
Hi,
I recently got my score back over the weekend for my first R01 as an ESI to NHLBI. It scored a 27th percentile which I am happy about since it is my first. I had a few questions:
1. The ESI payline for NHLBI was 25th percentile last FY which may change or stay the same. Out of curiosity do ESI applications ever get picked as select pay? I am fully expecting to re-submit as an A1 this July but was curious. Obviously I will talk to the PO after summary statement.
2. My ESI ends this July just as when the A1 is due. If my ESI ends in July do all July submission still count my ESI? I did submit an extension for my ESI due to covid and my increased clinical load/no research/etc so hopefully this will not be an issue.
3. Again I will have to wait for the summary state but since I am sort of new at this, is it crazy hard to go from a 27th to lower teens for a percentile? I am just happy it was not a ND but it seems tough to go from 27th to a low teen or even single digit!
Thanks all!
writedit said
First, congratulations on the 27th percentile for your first R01. Not very likely, but not completely out of the question that your PO might advocate for an award. You can contact your PO after you get your summary statement and think about how you might respond to concerns raised. I am not sure when in July your ESI status ends, but as long as it is active as of July 5th (A1 submission), you should be fine, and I suspect the COVID-extension will come through. This would be another question for your PO for confirmation. Finally, it is very common to drop from even higher (even non-discussed) scores to within funding range from the A0 to A1, especially if the reviewer concerns are clear and make sense (ie, are easily addressed). If your PO recommends that you submit the A1, you can discuss your strategy for preparing the amended application, since your PO might have additional insight based on the discussion itself.
I don't speak NIH said
Just a couple of minor things to add:
1) Last year’s payline for NHLBI was 26th percentile, not 25th.
2) On NHLBI’s website describing their “FY 2020 Funding and Operating Guidelines”, they say they honor the ESI status for the duration of the R01 resubmission window. See their site for details.
I don't speak NIH said
What I meant to say that last year’s payline for NHLBI ESI was 26th percentile.
SB said
One of my supplement grant under review suddenly disappeared from the eRA common account from Monday? Does anyone face this and any explanation for this?
SC said
Yes, I have seen that before. Based on my previous experience, it seems that they are doing an administrative review.
writedit said
Interesting – thanks for sharing your experience, SC. SB – you can also ask the PO about your supplement status, since they will be involved in whatever is happening with it.
SB said
Thank you SC for sharing your experience, and writedit for the valuable suggestion. I will contact the PO to get further updates.
pneumosepsis said
Our multi-PI R01 A0 application with NIAID scored 16%. The Contact PI is a new investigator. I understand that NI status is not valid if the MPI is an established PI. What are the chances of funding considering that the Contact PI on the grant is NI and the score is just outside the payline (14 for established and 18 for NI) ?
SC said
Here is some description from the NIAID website: https://www.niaid.nih.gov/grants-contracts/new-investigators
“Multiple PI applications have consequences worth noting for new PIs:
If your application includes an established PI, the application will not qualify for any of the new investigator benefits described below. It qualifies only if all the PIs are new.
Once the multiple PI application is funded, you lose your new PI status.”
SaG said
It also depends on the career stage of the NI. Is this a Full Professor with an endowed Chair who has lots of DoD or NSF money but has never had an NIH grant? Or is this a an Asst. Prof who did 2 post-docs and is just 11 years post PhD? The former would be a no way, the later a maybe.
pneumosepsis said
Thank you SaG and SC. This NI is a junior investigator in 4 years of tenure-track appointment who has not yet had any major grant (NIH or other agencies).
writedit said
Thanks, SC and SaG! I haven’t heard of NIAID splitting the difference if a new or ESI applicant is part of an MPI application. I would think the presence of an established PI would outweigh any new or ESI MPIs. That is, the senior PI should have recognized any problems and overseen the submission of a strong application (new or ESI on their own does not have the benefit of someone else intimately involved in planning and writing the project). I certainly hope the PO gave a stern warning about the loss of ESI status for the ESI applicant (sounds like they are ESI, not just new). If the PO was not contacted prior to submission, it might be a good idea, once the summary statement is available, to have a conversation with the PO about next steps (if this application won’t be awarded), including whether the ESI applicant should stay as MPI or switch to co-I (same level of effort) on resubmission to protect their ESI status for an independent R01 later.
Constance Contraire said
Thanks for the useful forum writedit.
Does the ESI status only apply to R01? Not R21 or R03?
Our A0 submission for a R21 received a score 33 (18% percentile). Best course would be to just resubmit based on the summary statement right? This was to the NCI.
Izlude said
Yeap the ESI status does not apply to a standard R03 or R21. I am not as familiar with NCI payline (I am via NHLBI and NIEHS) but my understanding is that NCI payline for those grants (R03 and R21) are pretty tight so you would most likely need to re-submit. Either way if you haven’t received the summary statement you should wait and then talk to your PO. Obviously an 18% is a really good score!
writedit said
ESI (and New investigator, where recognized) only applies to R01 applications – no other activity codes. You will be looking at resubmission (you would need to be at 9th percentile) – but I would urge you to consider whether you should be applying for an R01 instead (R21s are not starter grants for new investigators – success rate is higher among established investigators because they typically use the mechanism as intended vs as a starter grant, and they typically have preliminary data). When you have your summary statement, maybe talk with your PO about whether there is an R01 opportunity (eg, NOSI, PAR, etc.) that might be appropriate for your science and that you can leverage as an ESI (which should also give you a break on preliminary data, reviewer expectations, etc.).
Constance Contraire said
Thanks!
pom4pom said
Hello,
I am wondering if a regular R21 application allow a small equipment purchase (under $60K).
thanks
napapon
writedit said
I don’t see why not, if the FOA does not include any restrictions on equipment, but it will eat up a significant portion of the budget for one of the two years, so reviewers may be dubious about your using an R21 as an equipment grant (albeit small). Depends on the context and the work planned, though – it could be completely appropriate, and if you need it and have no start up or other funds to use, then you may have no choice. I would suggest you talk with the PO about it for their take on how it will be perceived in review in the context of your aims and science.
Mika said
Dear Writeedit,
I wanted to apply “competing revisions”, it is my first time to try.
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-20-074.html
questions:
1. my Active R01 will be expired on the August 30, 2020, can I apply “competing revision”?
2. what are page limits ?
3. Application will be assigned to Special study section or standard study section
writedit said
The PAR clearly states that you will not be eligible (and this would be true for any supplement, competing or administrative): “This FOA will utilize the NIH Research Project Grant (R01) mechanism and targets currently funded NCI R01 projects with at least two years left at the estimated time of award. Applicants cannot request funds beyond the end date of the parent award.” Although not relevant for you right now, as an FYI, competing revisions typically go back to the study section that reviewed the parent award – if the parent award was reviewed in a chartered study section (vs special emphasis panel – or an SRG that has since been reorganized). In the meantime, hopefully you have been working on the renewal of your R01, which would be a better use of your time than a supplement or any other new application, since renewals have a higher success rate than new applications – assuming the PI has been productive in working toward/accomplishing your aims.
LoveSci said
Hi, I recently got a fundable score for K01 at NIA. I am expecting the start date would be July or August. At the same time, I got a tenure-track position starting in August. I was wondering if it is possible to transfer K01 from a current school to a new school without working for K01 at the current school. Or is there any minimum period that I have to fulfill at the current school to conduct the research? If so, I might need to postpone my job start date. Of course, I will have to ask my PO to discuss this but just curious if there is any case like me. Thank you!
ESI2020 said
Yes, I know people transferred NIDDK K01 awards
writedit said
You won’t need to delay your new position. You can either ask your PO about delaying the start date until after you move (you will need to provide documentation that your K01 can be performed at the new institution, in terms of facilities, equipment, resources, etc.), or you can ask your current institution not to draw any funds from the award (which means essentially that they will not accept it) until it is transferred to the new institution. Your PO will need to approve the new institution, so you can follow their lead on the best approach to take.
LoveSci said
Thank you so much!
BRG-R01 said
Dear writedit – What is the NINDS payline for [PAR19-158] – Bioengineering Research Grants (BRG) (R01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed)? Is it the same as their payline for parent R01 (14%)? Thank you!
writedit said
I would assume so, though there may be more programmatic discretion, too (for higher scores). As usual, your PO can give more specific advice.
>
BRG-R01 said
Dear writedit – Following our your suggestion, I contacted my PO back in April, the PO told me that there is a good chance my application will be funded. Now, it is 3 weeks after the NINDS Council, and the online status of my application is still “Council review completed”. Also, I haven’t received a JIT request from the GMS. Should I be concerned? Do I need to follow up with the PO? Thank you!
writedit said
There were probably internal discussions after Council met to rank all funding decisions. You could certainly ask the PO or GMS if you should submit JIT.
SWPsych said
Hello, I noticed no one asks about this, but I was nominated for co-funding with OBSSR for an NIDDK R21. Wondering if you have a sense of timeline and odds of funding. I saw posts about co-funding with the IdeA nigms opportunity butt not OBSSR. Thanks!
writedit said
NIDDK only had 4 OBSSR co-funded projects in FY19 (all different activity codes, including an R21). This could be because they are judicious in whom they nominate (ie, just a few that they really want co-funded) or because few of their projects fit within the OBSSR mission. Either way, it is great news that your application was nominated (ie, NIDDK would not nominate an application that did not have strong scientific merit worthy of funding), and hopefully it is a good fit for OBSSR (good to have your science in front of them no matter what). OBSSR is great to work with, so you should always keep an eye on their funding activities and other opportunities.
SWPsych said
Just heard from the PO, co-funding was approved. Nov. study section met, submitted to OBSSR in March and heard back today for anyone going through a similar process. Thanks a bunch for the advice!
writedit said
Fantastic – congratulations! Thanks for sharing your experience with the timing of OBSSR approval, and best wishes for success with your research.
SC said
Hi Writedit, I have a R01 grant proposal pending in administrative review since Feb (maybe due to some overlapping effort concern as I posted previously). I noticed that the application ID has switched from R01 xxxx to RF1 xxx yesterday, and then today I received an automated email saying that “application assigned to a study section”. In the email, it starts with “there has been a changing the assignment of your grant application entitled xxxxxx” and then it says “a roster of the membership of the scientific review group can be accessed 30 days prior to the meeting….” What does it mean? My application will be reviewed again? I logged into my account, and I did not see any changes except the switch of application ID from R01 to RF1. Thank you.
writedit said
My guess is that the scientific review group meeting message was an automated response to the new ID number (ie, system thinks it has just been assigned a number and now needs a review assignment). The RF1 is an all-purpose multi-year award activity code, so you will essentially still get your R01 project award, just with a different activity code. It could be they needed to do this to accommodate the delay in award (until the overlap no longer exists), or it could be the IC is preferentially switching R01s to RF1s (can’t remember the IC – NIA uses RF1 a lot). You can certainly ask your PO for clarification. You don’t need to worry about undergoing a second review, though.
SC said
thank you so much for your insight!
SaG said
They must have money (alzheimer’s $$) burning a hole in their pocket….This way they can fund the whole 5 years in year 1. They don’t have to worry about paying you in the out years. I hope you budget well….
SC said
Thank you, SaG:) Yes, it is ADRD related….hopefully the application will be awarded soon.
AMC said
Happy Sunday!
We are applying to a Phase II SBIR grant that will include GLP NHP tox studies that will be done by Charles River. Is Charles River considered a subcontract? How would we add this to the budget? Also, for indirect costs, would we have to exclude the Charles River total (-$25,000) to our indirect cost base? Thank you in advance!
Art said
I have a phase II, I put it as fee-for-service. I did that for phase IIb, too.
writedit said
Thanks for jumping in with your experience, Art. I cannot provide any advice, AMC, other than to suggest you work with your PO on budgeting questions. They know all things SBIR.
AMC said
Thank you Art and Writedit!
established PI said
Hi WriteEdt,
It would be great to hear your feedback on handling “evil” study sections. Well, let me explain.
As everyone here knows, no applicant is happy with a bad or unscored grant. Every person submitting a grant believes their work, and will naturally disagree when reviewer’s criticize their grant.
I am an established PI, and by this time I’ve experienced a fairly large spectrum of grant reviews, including very positive, neutral, negative but fair, and negative but very unfair (what I call ‘evil’).
Recently two of my grants (variants of the same novel methodology applied to different diseases) went through a study section 6 times over 2-1/2 years. It was unscored 5 of 6 times. Every review had completely new criticisms that were unrelated to previous comments, despite our addressing each and every review thoroughly. The reviewer concerns ranged from mostly trivial to extremely unfair comments that, for example, state the opposite of what the grant says (deliberately misquoting the preliminary results, etc.,). There was hardly anything positive from the 6 reviews that was constructive in improving the grant…the grant improved on its own because we kept collecting new and more promising data to support the hypothesis.
Now, having been an NIH reviewer myself, I know that under most circumstances (excluding cases where the reviewer was openly personal or racist), the reviewer is God. The reason for this is understandable. The NIH system is so vast that no one else other than the assigned reviewers are supposed to have the expertise to judge the grant, and the natural approach to give the reviewers the benefit of the doubt (who will they believe in, the reviewer or a disgruntled applicant?). This is the life we have chosen, so living with bad reviews is part of life as a NIH applicant!
Considering all the factors, I still feel that Ive gone through an unusually rough patch of reviews from a study section that seems patently biased against my proposals, which include results so strong that we could even show them as part of a third or fourth year progress report if the grant were funded. My take on this (which I would like to think goes beyond a mere disgruntlement from bad reviews) is that the reviewers do not want my grant to succeed since they are developing competing methods (I can identify many in the standing study section who work on the same area as my proposals).
I managed to ‘steer’ away one of these grants to another study section, and lo and behold….it got a 20 percentile!
The problem however, is that there are many more grants (new disease applications) that I plan to write, which unfortunately all fall under the ‘expertise’ of the aforementioned IRG.
So my question is, in your experience, is there a way to make a formal request to the CSR NOT to assign my grants to a particular IRG because of serious conflict of interest?
Sorry for the very long post.
Best
writedit said
I am so sorry for your experience (& for my delayed response). Since you are an established PI and reviewer, I assume you are confident that you are in the right study section and know whether it is being/has been adjusted as part of the CSR ENQUIRE initiative. If you haven’t asked your PO, you could ask if there is a better place for your applications (focused on disease vs methodology). Often a unique approach stands out in a domain study section, whereas it might get a yawn or even slammed by scientific peers in your field who are not concerned with the application of the methodology (ie, they don’t consider it might be game-changing in this specific context) – or, worse, as you suggest, who are in direct competition. Your PO sits in on many more study sections than you could have experienced and might have some good insight. You can also try the Matchmaker (Reporter) and ART (CSR) tools to confirm you are not missing a new or recently reorganized panel that might be a good alternative. With this, you might again want to focus on the discipline/domain in which your methodology will be used vs experts in the methodology (ie, send your two proposals to two different study sections based on the disease target). I see this as a good strategy for algorithmic/machine learning type proposals that get no love at NLM but receive outstanding scores in the clinical-scientific domain groups (novel methodology – yeah!). You can send your aims to potential new SROs to ensure they are on board with accepting your application for review (so it doesn’t just get kicked back to where your prior submissions have languished). If you really don’t want to leave your current albeit unhelpful study section, perhaps take a hard look at standing members (and recurrent ad hoc members) for direct competitors whom you could cite (not to review your application) in the PHS referral request form, so long as you can provide publications and/or grant applications that objectively demonstrate the direct nature of the competition. And finally, you can take a hard look at how you are communicating significance. If a study section doesn’t think the work is important, no matter how novel or likely to succeed, the score will never change. Sometimes it is a matter of telling the right story to hook the reviewer on why the work is genuinely significant vs just another gee-whiz method that does not improve much above what already exists. You might need a naive reader to catch this – someone not in your lab or even field. If the work doesn’t sound exciting (and its importance is not clear), then a new narrative approach might be in order.
struggling midcareer PI said
Wow, amazing response. I’m not the established PI, but am mid-career who is languishing on and on with R01 renewals/new submissions. That disease vs. new methodology is quite eye opening, and something I haven’t thought about. Will keep that in mind as I prepare another submission for this June. Thank you always for all your help in maintaining this outstanding forum!
established PI said
Yes I agree, Thank you for the great response. At the moment I am just thinking of abandoning the ‘evil’ study section and finding another. This strategy has already worked with two grants that I diverted that both consistently got decent scores although not yet fundable.
The lesson here I guess that the system is far more malleable than what one might think. Nothing is set in stone, and much can be changed by doing some research about panels, calling the SRO, tailoring grants to suite particular study sections…etc., Unfortunately there is a lot more to science than just great ideas or papers, it has to do with sociology of dealing with actual people.
writedit said
Thanks for chiming in, established PI. Yes, once potential SRGs have been identified, look at who are chartered members, where and what they publish, and how you could convince them that they will want to read your studies and hear your presentations on the results of the work being proposed.
k01stress said
Thank you for sharing your experience
established PI!
SM said
Hi! Great information. Is there any insight on when NHLBI may be posting 2021 paylines? I have a grant that was reviewed 1 point below last year’s payline that’s been sitting (status: Council review completed, JIT provided) and am hoping to make plans for next steps; have been in touch with PO.
writedit said
I can only assume that NHLBI is waiting for all their applications to be reviewed before publicly updating their paylines, which is also probably why you haven’t heard from your PO yet. I would expect an update by mid-April. You could certainly ask your PO if you should plan for an A1 in July. You should know well before then whether you will need to actually submit, but your PO’s response could be informative.
Payline News said
NHLBI FY2021 paylines were posted today – https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/current-operating-guidelines
writedit said
Thanks so much for the heads up!
NewPI123 said
Hi Writedit,
I have a R15 grant proposal with Council Review Completed since Feb. It was a resubmission reviewed in October last year. I got a decent score 30 (no percentile). I talked to the PO after receiving the comments and she seems to be enthusiastic and supportive. I recently contacted her again and was told that my application has not been selected for award, but it can change as the year proceeds. In the meantime, I also submitted it as a new application back in Feb. But my questions is if the previous re-submission still has possibility of being funded? I know NIDDK only funds very few R15s each year. Is there anything I can do at this moment? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
writedit said
NIDDK can still fund the A1 (score 30), even after your February A0 is reviewed (and even if the score gets worse). I suspect NIDDK won’t make a decision on your A1 until the end of the FY, when it knows how much money is left (and how well all the Cycle III applications score). Your February A0 is for FY22, so no matter the score, nothing will happen with that application until next year; if your score improves significantly, your PO might push to have your A1 (30) awarded so you can start your research sooner (summer-fall 2021) than later (winter 2022), or – if money is tight in FY21, they might just wait to award the Feb A0 next year. It depends on the other R15s in the pool and how much money is available.
NewPI123 said
Thank you so much!
NewPI123 said
Hi Writedit,
I wanted to follow up on my previous question. If you recall, I had an R15 A1 (scored 30) that has been pending under NIDDK since January. I submitted a new A0 in February and recently got the impact score (10!). So my question is should I contact the PO now or wait until the summary statement, which will be another 3-4 weeks. Hoping this can be selected for funding. It still makes me so anxious when there is no payline set for R15 and the fact that NIDDK only funds very few R15s every year, even though the score is great. Any advice or input is greatly appreciated. Thank you!
writedit said
Congrats on the perfect score! With a 10 (assuming no regulatory concerns), you could contact the PO now about whether the A1 (score=30) might be considered for funding (in light of this new score), or whether there might be any chance of the new A0 receiving an award in FY21 (ie, before Sept 30, 2021). NIDDK will definitely fund the perfect score application, and they may be willing to do so this FY rather than make you wait until 2022. They could just fund the A1 (score 30), or they could try to approve the new A0 (score 10) at the Sept 9-10, 2021 Council meeting for a quick award turnaround before Sept 30. But – at least you know you will eventually receive an award, even if you need to wait until FY22.
Lillygan said
Hi Everyone,
I have a question about contacting the PO after receiving the summary statement. Do you just email the PO and ask them to schedule a call to discuss the application or do you need to state specific questions in the email.
SaG said
EIther is fine. But, specific questions or topics of discussion is better. It will make the call more fruitful.
Peach said
I included both. Waited for one week without response. What’s the best strategy to move this forward? Shall I wait a few more days or do something ASAP?
writedit said
You need to wait more than a week. POs typically have 100-200 applications in their active portfolio, plus another 100 or so PIs in various stages of application (planning, submitting, post-review, negotiating award) – plus the rest of their job at the NIH (ie, lots of meetings and trainings). Your PO needs to triage requests that are not urgent to take care of the highest priority items in the queue. You didn’t mention if your score was below, close to, or well above the payline, but that and a number of other factors could contribute to when the PO will get back to you. Asking repeatedly will not speed up the response. If you haven’t heard back in another week or two and need clarity on whether to submit in June or July (depending on whether this application was A0 or A1), you could ask just that question (should I submit?) – and if you have not received response on that direct question (or your prior email) within a week or two, you can then ask for guidance on resubmission from the PO’s supervisor (branch/division chief).
SaG said
writedit is correct, but I would hope for more responsiveness from a PO. They could write back and just say, I’ll setup a meeting in the next week or two.
SC said
I agree with writedit. POs are very busy and sometimes not very responsive. I would not probably not bother too much if my score is far away from the funding line ( I tried before and I never heard back from them). Indeed, POs are not present in the study section, and they would not have more information than what is described in the summary statement.
writedit said
Well, I agree with SaG that it is the job of POs to support extramural investigators, including by being responsive. I am not sure it is realistic to expect a response in a week (though it would be nice to at least get an acknowledgment), but if you have ever not heard back from a PO, SC, you should definitely get in touch with someone else in the branch or division for guidance. There might be a reason the PO is not responding that you can’t know about (ie, health or family issue) – or their supervisor may not realize they are struggling with their load (POs need mentoring and support, too). Also, POs can and often do attend study section meetings (especially now via Zoom – was harder to do in person); while they cannot contribute to the review of any application, they can, if they attend and listen, later give PIs some feedback on what seemed to be driving the discussion of their applications.
Peach said
Thank you all for your input. As you mentioned there are different seasons a PO does not respond. I just want to avoid one possibility: my email was missed and the PO never read it (though I will never know the actual reason of no response). I understand that the PO may feel unnecessary to respond the PI’s inquiry if the score is above the payline (indeed my case). But their insight and interpretation of the review are very helpful to plan the next step. I will keep patient and wait another week. Thank you again!
writedit said
Your score above the payline should not be a reason for a PO to put you on the back burner. Even if this is not an application they would consider putting forward for select pay (above payline), they can definitely provide insight and help as you plan for your next submission. Good luck with this moving forward.
SC said
thank you Writedit for your advice! Will keep that in mind.
NewPI68 said
Hello,
I am trying to figure out the value of being a ‘new investigator’ when I resubmit a R01 to NIAAA. I have an opportunity to take over someone else’s R01, which would end my new investigator status. Should I push to make sure that my biosketch says that I am PI on this other R01, is being reviewed as ‘established’ more valuable than being reviewed as a new investigator? Previous reviews have said that I am a well positioned new investigator. I am getting conflicting advice from my local mentors. Thanks for any insights!
writedit said
I am not sure I understand the question. I think you are saying that you are about to submit your own R01 application (an A1, it sounds like) – and that you have also been asked to take over another R01. You absolutely want to maintain your new investigator status, since NIAAA provides a payline break, and your application should be reviewed with other new/ESI applications (so reviewers have that mindset during discussion). There should be no conflict about whether it is important to keep your new investigator status. Conversely, there is no benefit to “looking established” on your biosketch – this will not improve your score or give you a payline break. Now, as far as I know, taking over an R01 should not disqualify you as a new investigator since you did not submit the application that received the award. You should definitely contact your PO about whether taking over another R01 will affect your new investigator status at NIAAA. I think you should be okay. However, in case this policy varies by IC and NIAAA disqualifies the new investigators if they take over R01s, then you need to decide if it is more important to have funding now (also depends on the science and whether it benefits your career – and whether the funding is sufficient etc.) – or preserve your new investigator status for your own future R01.
NewPI68 said
Thank you very much. To clarify, the other R01 that I would take over is in my field, interesting work and relevant to my interests though different clinical setting. Acc to POs, I would be disqualified as new investigator at NIAID but would preserve new investigator status at NIAAA since I did not compete for it myself, so policy does seem to vary by institute. The mentor says benefit of being PI on another R01 is that this demonstrates capacity and experience. While I’m happy to do the work and delay taking over as PI, the mentor has to offload FTE to accommodate new grants, so ultimately not sure how much choice I have on timing.
writedit said
I am not sure I understand the relevance of NIAID, unless that is where the R01 you would take over is funded. More importantly, the NIAID specifically states that taking over an R01 does not change your qualification as a new investigator: “That said, if your institution assigns you to become a principal investigator (PI) on an existing grant that you did not apply for, you still qualify as new.” (https://www.niaid.nih.gov/grants-contracts/new-investigators) This is an NIH policy, so it should not vary by IC, and it doesn’t vary between NIAID and NIAAA – both allow you to compete as a new investigator after taking over someone else’s R01 (because you did not compete for the award). With regard to the advice on demonstrating “capacity and experience”, it probably depends on how long you have been PI when you next submit. If just a year or two, you probably won’t have a publication or any other evidence of “capacity and experience” in terms of successfully leading the research project. It certainly won’t be a negative, but reviewers probably won’t have much to judge whether you have been a good appointed PI (other than both your institution and the IC thought you were qualified). However, it’s a moot point, because you are free to take over the R01 and not risk any change to your new investigator status when you submit your next R01 application.
FN123 said
The payline for NHLBI is released today. The paylines for R and K are all cut.
Lillygan said
A sad news for all of us who scored around 30s. Does that mean they are unlikely to fund Ks that are above that 28th? (my k99 scored 31).
FN123 said
Seem like it is. Did you talk with your PO?
writedit said
Yes, unlikely unless of very compelling interest. I suspect they had a large number of very competitively scored applications (and not enough budget) and so, unfortunately, had to go with lower paylines for FY21.
Lillygan said
Yes, I emailed PO.
NervousR21PI said
Hello,
Thanks for the great resource and information.
My ADRD R21(A0) was submitted to NIA last July and received a score and percentile, which is below payline. The council meeting was mid January, and GMS (a human) requested JIT at the end of February. About two weeks ago, my PO requested to revise the data sharing plan and I submitted the revised version the next day. I believe this is very positive. The current status on eRA commons is still pending. Given timelines posted here, looks like many applications received NOA about a month after JIT submitted.
Should I still wait for the final decision or is it okay to ask PO/GMS whether the application is funded or not? If so, when would be a good time to ask, early May? I proposed my project start date is July 1st.
SC said
I am in the same boat with you…received an JIT later Feb, and still in pending status.
writedit said
The Pending is good news, and since your application should have a start date of April 1 (not July 1 – that start date is for Oct-Nov applications), you are still on schedule (start dates are not expiration dates, either). If you scored below payline, there is no need to as “if” you will be funded – that is a given. You don’t need to do anything, and there is no need to ask the PO (who is out of the application processing loop) or the GMS (who needs to hear from higher authority and is busy processing other applications) anything. They will have no information, and your only role is to wait and think about how you will get this project underway. If you need to start spending money (to order supplies, hire someone, etc.), you can ask your institution about setting up a pre-spending account (NIH is not involved in this); you are allowed to spend in advance of award up to 90 days – if your institution/university allows this.
NervousR21PI said
Thanks for your response! I finally received NOA this morning with May 1 start date.
writedit said
Woohoo! Congratulations and best wishes for success with your research.
R15 PI Eligibility said
Dear Writedit,
My question is about R15 PI Eligibility. I am currently a PI on R03 grant which will be ended in Nov 2021 and I plan to request no-cost extension to Nov 2022. Am I eligible to submit a R15 grant in this June?
The RFP states
“The PI may not be the PI of an active NIH research grant at the time of a R15 award, though he or she may be one of the Key Personnel for an active NIH grant held by another PD/PI.”
Thanks.
SaG said
SInce your R03 would be in an NCE, if it looks like they might award you the R15, you can end the R03 early…Just spend whatever money is left ASAP. When you end the R03 NIH will want any unspent money back.
writedit said
What SaG said (thanks, SaG!). The key point is “at the time of a R15 award”. You can submit with the active R03, but it will be in NCE at time of award next April, and, as SaG said, the R03 can be terminated to allow the R15 award (assuming you score within the funding range).
Brittany said
Hello! I received a JIT request for an F32. My degree won’t be conferred though until this summer, and I’d like to start the postdoc (if awarded) in September. Do you know if there are any issues with awarding an F32 before the degree is conferred, if the activation of the grant would happen after conferral? This is NICHD.
Thanks!
writedit said
You should communicate with your PO. I am not sure about the policy on F32s, but I assume the award will not be issued until the doctoral degree is conferred. The FY ends in September, so I suspect NICHD will issue the F32 to start in the summer soon after your doctorate is confirmed, but again, that is a discussion for the PO.
FN123 said
Hi Brittany, you will receive NOA on time. But your F32 won’t active until you sign Activation Notice and Payback Agreement. I remember you can work with the grant office to enter the exact date on duty. I can’t remember how long you can delay the activation date, 6-month or 12-month, you’d better check it.
Hopeful said
Hello, my R01 scored 2% above the Payline. The PO asked for rebuttal of 3rd reviewer’s comments which I provided. He said he will talk to his program superiors. I received a response in 2 business days saying “I am not optimistic about end- of- the year funding being available at this time but I will put this forward for consideration. I hope it will work out”. How should I interpret this response ? Thank you
Magic 8-Ball said
“Chance of funding small but not zero. Resubmit”
writedit said
Ha! Magic 8-ball is correct, as always (of course). 🙂 Given that ICs are already operating on tight budgets due to a minimal increase in appropriation (and what I suspect is a jump in applications), it’s possible but not probable that you will get a select pay award in August or September. Your PO will not know anything before then, so you should submit this summer and then withdraw the application if the current R01 squeaks through with an award (you’ll know by Sept 30).
Hopeful said
Thank you both
Lillygan said
Dear Writedit, can you please comment on how does the change in paylines affect k awards. Does application submitted during Oct follow 2020 or 2021 paylines? thank you
writedit said
Applications submitted to standard receipt dates in Feb-March, June-July, and Oct-Nov are (almost) always funded in the next FY. That is, any applications submitted in 2020 are considered in FY21, applications submitted in 2021 are considered under FY22, etc. Applications submitted to PARs, RFAs, PASs, some NOSIs, etc. could have different review and funding time frames, but these are listed in the FOA. If the FOA says “Standard receipt dates”, then you can assume anything you submit in one calendar year will be considered under the next FY (which straddles two calendar years). Occasionally, ICs will include some Feb-March applications in their end of FY spending frenzy, especially if they received exceptional scores, and the PO does not want to delay the start (in anticipation of a federal budget battle brewing that could delay the NIH appropriation by several months).
Lillygan said
Thank you very much for the detailed answer
R01-JIT said
Dear Writedit,
I just received an email from [email protected], requesting for JIT information. It says in the email that “This is a standard notice and request for information from all principal investigators with grant applications receiving an impact score of 30 or less”. Should I submit the JIT in response to this request, or wait for one from the GMS? For your information, my grant is scored within the payline and the current online status is “Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.” Thanks!
writedit said
Congratulations on the competitive score! You could submit now, but you should wait, in case anything changes in the interim or your PO or GMS has any specific questions. They won’t review your application any sooner if you submit before they ask (around when Council meets).
Chloe said
I submitted three separate and unrelated grant applications for the April 5 SBIR deadline. I filled out the assignment request form for each based on the application area. For some reason, all three applications were assigned to the same SRG (two of my requests were not honored). There is no overlap in the applications. The SRG that was chosen is also (at least somewhat) appropriate (though I think my original suggestions were more appropriate).
Will the review panel punish a PI for submitting three proposals simultaneously? We spent a lot of time and resources preparing the applications, and I am concerned multiple applications will be frowned upon by the panel. What should I do in these circumstances?
writedit said
There is a reason your requests were not honored. You could ask the SROs involved, if you really want to know. There may have been some expertise shift, the number of applications in your other SRGs could have been especially high (so yours and other applications were shifted to related SRGs to more equally distribute the numbers for review), or the SROs could have jointly decided they would all receive the best review in the one SRG. If all the SRGs are in the same IRG, you could contact the SRO in charge of the IRG for clarification on why all 3 applications ended up in the same review group. However, if this one group is qualified to review all 3 of your applications, then you don’t need to worry about not receiving fair reviews just because you have more than one application. It is not up to the panel to decide whether you are worthy for 3 awards in the same cycle – that decision is left to the funding IC(s). The SRO gives strict instructions to review each application on its own merits (not in consideration to others), and during the meeting, no reviewer can refer to another application during the discussion, since some reviewers could be in conflict with one (ie, they should not hear the application mentioned as part of another discussion). No reviewer will mention that you have any other application under review. I don’t know how the SRO will handle it, but I suspect you will have different reviewers for each application to ensure no one reviewer subconsciously lets one application influence their review of another. And for each application, the assigned reviewers will need to clearly lay out what they see as strengths and weaknesses, which is what will set the scoring range. Finally, if all 3 applications stay in this SRG and there is someone on this panel who should not review one of the other two applications (whom you didn’t cite because you thought the applications would reviewed elsewhere), you could communicate with the SRO about this. If the SRO agrees to consider the do-not-review names, they will need objective evidence supporting your concern (eg, publications, grant awards, conference presentations, company statements/products, etc. in the same area of work – in direct competition with yours).
Chloe said
Thank you; I feel a bit better!
SaG said
WOW! 3 SBIR apps submitted for one deadline. That is hard core. They should give you a grant just for the effort. Good luck.
Sci12 said
Dear Writedit, is it possible to delay the start date of the award after receiving NOA? Thanks
Magic 8-ball says.. said
Outlook not so good.
Izlude said
I love the Magic 8-ball thing. Once the NOA is issued the listed date usually stands. I had a NOA for a grant and asked my PO to delay but he told me that it is easier to do prior to the NOA being issued. I had the feeling it could be done post NOA but it seemed like it had to be for a compelling reasons. Curious to know if there is some official policy. I also want to delay for a grant that was reviewed and may get funded later but definitely will request prior to the NOA. I guess it is hard to ask since I always thought the NOA is the only definitive thing that the grant is actually awarded.
writedit said
If/when you receive the JIT request for this pending application, talk with your PO then about delaying the award. Asking for a delay will not imperil the decision to fund unless this is at the end of the FY (no start date can be delayed after Sept 30). Keep in mind, too, that most ICs will want routine application start dates in August or early September at the latest due to the last-minute award-processing and FY-end bureaucratic stress in August-September. If you ask for a start date that isn’t workable, your PO will tell you – and yes, you’ll need solid rationale for the request.
SaG said
And, most ICs want to minimize actions in the fourth quarter of a fiscal year (anything after July 1). So asking to move your start date after July 1 can be a problem. Too much stuff gets bumped to the end of the FY for various reasons and this causes big workload issues for grants staff. For example having to do 6 months of work in 3 months.
writedit said
The Magic Eight Ball has spoken. If your reason for wanting to delay is that you will be changing institutions, you can ask your current institution not to start drawing any money from the award (ie, not to accept it, essentially), so the entire award can be transferred to your new institution – assuming this is acceptable to your current institution and your PO/IC. Even if you are not changing institutions, you can simply not draw salary or other costs until you are ready to do the work (and then have carryover each year), but the start-end dates will be the same, so you don’t want to get too far behind, or you’ll have trouble with the renewal, if this is a renewable award. If this is a milestone-driven or cooperative (conducted as part of a consortium) mechanism, then you should talk with your PO if you will be delayed in getting started.
Sci12 said
Thank you for all the responses.
K99Faculty said
Dear Writedit,My K99 will very likely get funded and start July at current Institution A. However, my primary mentor will move to a different university B this summer. University B offers me to relocate there with a tenure-track AP position. I am worried that if I accept this offer, does it mean my K99 will be automatically renounced? Thanks!
writedit said
Correct. You cannot hold a K99 with a tenure-track position. However, if University B is offering you a tenure track position, then take the faculty position and apply for an R01 with the same project. An R01 would be a MUCH better way to start your career (R00s are not a great deal). I assume University B also understands that you cannot bring the K99 to a faculty position and is willing to invest in you and your salary-start up to help you secure the R01. If you think University B is only interested in you if you bring the K99, then you would need to see if University B would allow you to come as a mentored postdoc for the K99 portion and then offer the faculty position to activate the R00. However, again, if they are offering you the faculty position with no K99-strings attached, fantastic – you do not want to delay the faculty position just to get the K99/R00!
K99Faculty said
Hi writedit, I want to update my K99 and the University B.
First, the GMS finally requested JIT. However, this is before the council meeting (June). how should i interpret this ?
Second, for the new institution, after a month of interview and negotiation, University B gave me two different packages with and without K99, and they are significantly different.
My real question is if i want to take the K99 to university B with my mentor together, what is a good time to talk with the PO ?
Thank you very much for advice!
writedit said
My advice remains that if University B is offering you a tenure-track assistant professor faculty position that includes a competitive start-up package, you should skip (withdraw) the K99, take the faculty position, and use your start-up to expand your R00 project into an R01 application. If you are suggesting that University B is offering you a better deal if you arrive as a postdoc with a K99 (and then apply for faculty position when it is time to activate your R00), then that may be the route to go (keep in mind that the R00 is not a great deal for you though – especially if University B expects you to charge your salary to the R00 – after your salary and indirects, you’ll have little left for actual research). However, as SaG hangrily points out, the PO could well withdraw your entire application if they knew you had been offered a faculty position already – even informally – since K99 is intended to fund postdocs who need a bit more mentored prep time and a peer-reviewed seal of approval (ie, K99-R00 funding) on the job market (ie, their mentor’s institution won’t hire them, and some institutions only look at applications from K99 awardees ready to move into their R00 phase). Knowing how many postdocs genuinely need the K99/R00 to help them land a job, I hate to see the system gamed to save University B some money (I still don’t see a benefit to you – but I don’t know what’s on the table). But … to answer your actual question, you want to talk with the PO ASAP. It’s a lot of work to move an award, and the PO needs to assess University B to ensure it has comparable or better facilities and other resources than University A (which is what the reviewers were going on when they critiqued the science and scientific approach/candidate development) before approving the change in institution. They would also prefer to know about this before issuing an award to University A, so, if you are definitely moving no matter what, University B information should be part of JIT. You can ask your PO, but I’d suggest letting the GMS know at the same time, so they know there will be a delay.
SaG said
What the F…??? Since Program staff will request a copy of your offers you should send both. There is no way you should be getting 2 different offers depending you you getting a K99. I skipped lunch so now I am hangry.
K99Faculty said
Hi SaG, My bad. To be clear, I don’t have an official offer from University B yet.
ESI_mom said
This forum is fantastic, thank you for this amazing resource. I’m ESI and had a grant application scored seemingly outside the payline upon resubmission (score received in March from Nov 2020 resubmission). This institute doesn’t publish paylines but my first talk with the PO suggested I would have to submit as a new application. My PO reached out last week to say she has questions and wants to speak— if there is interest in possibly funding would I have received a JIT by now (for May Council)? I am in the midst of scheduling that follow up call. Should I prepare JIT materials now just in case? I ask because some of the documents could take some time to gather and I have started to put effort into a different grant instead for June submission. Thanks!
SaG said
For most institute JIT isn’t need for Council just for making an award. So, it depends how important the info is in the JIT to make an award. If you have an Animal or Human subjects concern attached to your app then they can’t make an award until those are resolved. If you need IACUC or IRB approval then they could make the award but put on a bar on the work until you get the IACUC or IRB approval. But, that causes more work for grants staff so they prefer not to do that. It is still early in the fiscal year though so you might be OK. These are exactly the questions you can ask the PO when you speak to her.
writedit said
Just what SaG said about JIT – wait until you talk with the PO. I suspect she will want a rebuttal to the summary statement before she wants JIT. You will want to look at the Summary paragraph and be sure you can respond to specific questions she might have about weaknesses raised. You don’t need to worry about individual reviewer critiques (except for those that elaborate on weaknesses cited in the Summary paragraph). Your science must be of interest, so if you have any new data (and definitely any new publications) that help support your application, you could mention this, too. Your start date would still be July 1ish, so no rush on the JIT, but as SaG said, after the call, you’ll know whether to submit protocols for IRB/IACUC approval.
ESI_mom said
Got it, thank you and SaG for the advice!
ESI_mom said
Hello, was hoping to ask a follow up question on this discussion with the PO. As an update, the PO had only a couple minor questions and said no need for a response to the critiques. The guidance was to wait for AC and not submit another application. That all sounded good but Is there still a decent chance AC won’t recommend funding?
writedit said
No chance of that happening. Council assesses the quality of peer review and the application’s fit with the IC’s mission. For applications sent to Council for approval en bloc (including yours), Council is approving the applications for consideration for funding. Council does not make funding decisions – the IC Director does. Your PO is confident about an award. If you haven’t received a JIT request yet, you probably will soon after Council meets (if not before) and be on track for an award by July. You’ve got a great PO!
SaG said
You would need a majority of Councilors to vote No to prevent funding of your grant. I would hope you haven’t ticked off that many people in your scientific career. Keeping in mind the number of major jerks who still get NIH grants, the odds are 0.
ESI_mom said
Thank you very much to both of you for your replies!
SC said
The pending status of “award prepared” has been a week. Is there anything I need to worry about? In the past, it usually took 1-3 days to go from “award prepared” to “awarded”. Thanks!
PostDocLife said
I just had mine awarded after the pending status of “award prepared” was there for 9 days. I think you should be fine.. It has been taking at least a week to 10 days from the award prepared to receiving NOA.
SC said
Thank you!
writedit said
PostDocLife is correct – no need to worry. The award would not have been prepared if there was a problem. The IC Director needs to sign off on the award, and there must be quite a line and/or something else unrelated to your award causing the delay.
SC said
Thank you, writedit!
AnxiouslyWaitingNews said
I have an application for a special program that received a 7-percentile in August 2020. I contacted the PO at NICHD in mid-March 2021 when the application changed status to “pending administrative review”. She responded that although not guaranteed, funding looked “good”. I have not heard anything since; no formal JIT request, no response to further enquiry. Should I be worried that this application might not be awarded? Seems like NICHD is really slow compared to other Institutes. Is that a fair perception? Thanks in advance for any advice.
writedit said
NICHD is definitely slow – and looking into another blog query, I discovered that several leadership positions are “acting”, which cannot be good for efficiency there. You shouldn’t assume the worst. If the application is Pending administrative review, you should have a GMS assigned, so you could ask them about submitting JIT. If you are not getting a response from the PO or the GMS, your next option depends on whether you really need to know about this award so you can make other plans for the application if needed, sustain your lab (if you are looking at laying anyone off without the award), etc. If so, then you want to try contacting the Director of the Division of Extramural Research for advice on next steps. If this would be a nice award to have but you have other applications you can work on and/or already have funding, then you might as well just wait. I just checked RePORTER – 145 out of 183 FY21 awards have been issued since March 1, with 62 of these since April 1, so clearly there is a tremendous backlog there, but an application reviewed last August should be coming up for consideration soon.
New PI said
What is your general advice for talking to the PO after receiving a summary statement? Is it something we should do every time? When we speak to the PO, should we have specific questions? Are there any general questions we should always ask the PO when discussing a summary statement?
Thank you so much for this invaluable resource.
writedit said
If you are within the posted payline or have an obviously competitive score, there is no need to talk with the PO about the summary statement. You’ll just want to wait for a JIT request, since the PO will be busy helping those who are on the bubble or who need to submit again. If you are unsure about your funding chances, then you would want to talk with your PO a short rebuttal, possibly for them to use internally in advocating for your application and/or as the introduction to a revised application (if the current application was an A0). Your PO may not know about funding likelihood yet, especially during the first 4-6 months of the FY, but they can always provide guidance on whether you should plan to submit again, which should always be your first question (not, “Will my application be funded?”). If you are looking at resubmission, your PO’s insight on the study section discussion and their IC priorities (ie, what science would make them advocate for your application internally) would be valuable as you revise the application, which could be framed as “Do you have advice based on the study section discussion to strengthen my next submission? What work is of highest priority to ?”.
Syyd said
Hello. Thanks for this great platform. I am wondering when the 2021 nibib payline may be released. Should I wait until this info is available before submitting materials for the JIT request? Any info would be greatly appreciated.
writedit said
You don’t need to wait to see the NIBIB funding plan, but you do need to wait until you receive a direct JIT request from your PO or GMS (not the eRA Commons email). If one of them has specifically requested your JIT, then you should respond – but not before.
Syyd said
Thank you! That’s helpful. Do you have any idea when the 2021 NIBIB funding plan may be released? I am wondering when it is usually made available compared to previous years.
writedit said
There is no set time (usually after all 3 cycles of applications have been reviewed), and there were some years that NIBIB didn’t update their funding policy. It probably won’t be different from 2020 (hopefully not worse). If you have your summary statement and are unclear about whether to expect an award, you can ask your PO if you should resubmit – but it sounds like you are expecting an award, since you were asking about when to submit JIT.
Syyd said
Thanks for the quick reply and info provided. I’m a new investigator sitting at an 21th percentile ranking for an R01 application (2020 NIBIB payline for new investigator is 23th). That’s the reason I am anxious about the new 2021 payline. What is the likelihood to get funded? I don’t really know how to stand at this point with NIH. Thanks!
writedit said
Aha – well, if you have your summary statement and have not contacted your PO yet, I would suggest first asking for advice on whether you need to resubmit. Even if your PO cannot confirm funding likelihood, they can tell you whether to sit tight or get ready for a June-July submission (whether out of necessity or for insurance in case the payline drops). If they tell you to wait, then you can be cautiously optimistic and just wait for your JIT request. If they advise resubmission, you can then send your 1-page Introduction (rebuttal) and ask if they feel you have addressed the concerns discussed at the meeting.
JIT question said
I have an R21 application scored below payline. I just noticed that the council review had been completed for this application. But I still haven’t received an official JIT request. I am a little worried. Please advise.
writedit said
No need to worry. JIT is not required for Council approval. I assume this is for a July 1 start date, so you have plenty of time. Wait for the JIT request from your PO or GMS, but if you need any regulatory approval still, be sure to get that completed so it does not hold up your application review.
JIT question said
Thank you!
Hopeful said
Is there a difference between funds used for select pay and end-of-the- year discretionary funds ?
writedit said
ICs set aside a certain percentage of their appropriation for discretionary awards, whether they are made earlier in the FY (“select pay” awards in each cycle) or in July and August (applications from all 3 cycles are ranked for consideration until funds run out) to use up all the IC’s appropriation by the end of the FY. Some awards at the end of the FY are made possible because planned awards earlier in the FY required less money or were skipped for some reason, leaving additional funds to spend before September 30.
Hopeful said
Thank you. Does it mean that the chances of end-of the year funding are lower than the select pay ? My PO nominated my R01 for end- of year consideration.
writedit said
This means your application will be on the ranked paylist of applications that will receive awards until the funding runs out. You want to be absolutely sure, if you haven’t already submitted JIT, that it is ready and that there are no questions you will need to address (for which you don’t have ready answers). These end of year awards get almost no time to respond to requests for information, and if you cannot respond in time, your application is passed over for the next one on the list.
SaG said
Also, NIH sometimes gets money back from HHS (HHS can take a certain percentage of NIH’s budget for emergency uses). Usually the money comes back in the Summer, but no one wants to count on it until it arrives. Given the issues at the border HHS might keep the money and use it there. So surprise money can appear.
Hopeful said
Thank you Writedit and SaG for clarifying these concepts.
newPI said
Thanks to writedit for maintaining this wonderful website. I have learned so much here and today finally got my first R01 funded as a NI not ESI from NIGMS. It took more than 15 months since A0 submission and information I got here has helped me feel not too stressed. Just want to share the timeline as a return to this great resource:
A0
04/28/2021: NoA issued
04/16/2021 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
04/14/2021 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
09/21/2020 Council review completed.
06/22/2020 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
02/19/2020 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
02/05/2020 Application entered into system
A1
04/28/2021: Withdrawn by IC – Other Version Encumbered
02/08/2021 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
11/20/2020 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
11/05/2020 Application entered into system
writedit said
Woohoo – congratulations and thank you so much for sharing your timeline, especially the A1 submitted for insurance (subsequently withdrawn). I suspect some folks here might like to know the percentiles of the A0 and the A1, since often PIs are worried about the A1 score affecting the outcome of the A0 decision. Best wishes for success with your research!
newPI said
Thanks! A0: 32% and A1: 33%.
writedit said
Excellent – everyone who is concerned about not having their A0 funded if the A1 score goes up, please take note (I have also seen A0s funded after the A1 is not discussed, but nice to have a current peer experience shared here). Thank you so much, newPI.
newpijrm said
Dear Writedit,
Recently my R35 received a score of 30 and the summary statement comments are very positive. For a R35 I think it is decent score because I know many people with scores 35 and 45 received it before. I also currently have an R00 which lasts up to Aug 31st 2022. When I contacted the PO says that NIGMS may not fund my grant just because I have R00 funding for one more year. I have spoken to the R00 PO and she is okay with reducing effort, if the R35 is funded. Given how much power POs have, and how opaque NIGMS is deciding who they fund, I am wondering if you could suggest what I should do. I am worried that there is no guarantee that next time I will receive any better score or it may be even reviewed.
SaG said
Sounds like a score of 30 puts you in the grey zone for now. If the PO has to choose between funding you, with a years worth of money, versus funding someone with the same or slightly worse score who has no money they will choose Dr. No Money. Not much you can do except hope the grey zone is over a 30. The PO has probably given you as much info as they have.
newpijrm said
Thank you for your quick response. If after the objective review, the final decision is based on who has money or not, then they should request only with no money to apply. Why waste people’s time if ultimately a subjective decision takes priority? I thought the process is fair.
writedit said
The final decision is not made on whether someone has money or not – many factors are taken into consideration, starting with scientific merit and programmatic priority. Plenty of PIs have multiple awards – having funding is not a disqualifying factor in final decisions and in fact does not prevent a PI from receiving 2 R01s in the same cycle. At the same time, ICs don’t like to see good PIs forced to shut their labs or abandon a career in research due to lack of funding – especially if the pandemic research shutdown played a role at all – if their science is meritorious and of high interest to the IC (unproductive labs are another story). In FY20, appropriations were lower than anticipated (though not an actual cut in funding), so more discussion of funding decisions has probably come into play to ensure the best science and scientists can succeed.
SaG said
What makes you think any grant review is objective? And how do you define fair?
writedit said
Thanks, SaG! If you would submit to the R35 again, you will know the outcome of your current application before the October submission date (probably well before). If you are trying to decide whether to submit a new R01 next instead (i.e., in June), the R01 application would not be scored before the R35 decision, so that is not an issue either.
smukherji said
Dear Writedit and SaG – thanks so much for your insights. I’m curious about what funding probability you’d associate with the “grey zone” (mostly at NIGMS I suppose since there are no defined paylines). Here (https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/2020/07/funding-trends-mira-applications-and-overall-impact-scores/) it says that ESI MIRA applications with a score of 30-35 were funded at roughly 90% probability in the past (I’m in the low 30 part of the range myself, hence my interest in this). Would you consider that the “grey zone”? Just looking for how to interpret these terms of art – thanks again!
writedit said
Some of what makes the higher score funding possible is the number of “skips” at lower scores (because the applicant received another award at the same time, such as a DP2 or R01). The grey zone is hard to set until the outcome of the lowest-scoring applications becomes more clear (these are administratively reviewed first, and withdrawn if another award is accepted instead). It also depends on the number of applications, and in FY20, the pool of money for MIRA awards may have been affected by the final appropriation to NIGMS (I don’t know – just one possibility to keep in mind whenever the federal appropriation is delayed and lower than initially projected). NIGMS is great in being transparent about their data, though now all funding trends (ie, number of applications and awards at each percentile) for each IC are available in RePORT (but not all activity codes). You can see R01 and R56 (bridge) applications/awards by percentile for the entire NIH and each individual IC here: https://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/category/23
SaG said
The problem is that what the “grey zone is” can only be known for sure after all the grants have been funded. 90% funded still means 10% not funded. What the PO might say is that there is a 20% chance you will not be funded. You should decide if you want to spend the time writing and submitting other apps or are you comfortable with an 80% chance of being funded? You might waste time writing those apps but will then have a Plan B or C if Plan A falls through. So, to quote Dirty Harry, “You’ve got to ask yourself a question: ‘do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya…?”
pkatuw said
Dear Writedit – I have a general question about Notices of Special Interest (NOSIs) that I can’t find information on and was wondering if you had any insight into. Specifically, is it of any advantage to the grant writer to respond to a NOSI? As far as I can tell, the NOSIs were introduced as an efficiency for NIH, which makes sense for NIH. For the applicant, however, a NOSI is not the same as an RFA, RFP, or even a PAR. As far as I can tell the only place responding to a NOSI that might make a difference is if your score ends up in a ‘grey zone’ for an institute, and it is considered responsive to a NOSI, then the program officers might suggest it for funding (subject to higher-level review in the institute). In other words, there may not be much value in responding to a NOSI, all things considered. My concern is that our faculty are regarding NOSIs as similar to RFAs, RFPs, PARs, etc,. where their effort might be better spent elsewhere. I’d be appreciative of any insight or other information.
writedit said
NOSIs will gradually replace PAs since they allow the NIH to quickly solicit applications targeted to a specific topic for short periods of time. PIs should absolutely pay attention and apply to NOSIs – they reflect where ICs are investing for programmatic priority, and they demonstrate an interest on the investigator’s part to support the IC’s special interests (while still pursuing an investigator-initiated project). The instructions and review criteria can be (often are) different, and they do get extra funding consideration at the ICs (ie, IC will make extra awards in this area but only to NOSI respondents). I focus on NOSIs when helping any investigator find funding (ie, when they know the activity code/PA of interest, check for NOSIs, or search the NIH Guide for appropriate NOSIs), and I think they are indeed worth pursuing if they are appropriate for the investigator’s science (conversely, though, can’t force an inappropriate project to fit, just as you could not for an RFA or PAR).
SaG said
Like Writedit, I would say to take the NOSIs seriously. You still have to get a good score from review. But, they will be more willing to fund your app out of order. Writing and publishing a NOSI is work and no one wants to do it just for kicks.
pkatuw said
Thank you Writedit and SaG
Joseph Backer said
After the funding decision is “deferred”, how long the application will be still under consideration?
writedit said
Deferred funding decisions are made through the end of the fiscal year (September), though an application is capable of being funded until it is administratively removed from the system (usually after a couple of years if not funded sooner) – but funding in a subsequent FY is rare.
Indirect cost of subaward said
Dear Writedit,
I have a dumb question regarding R15 subaward budget. If I would like to allocated 25% budget to a subaward, how to calculate indirect cost? Let’s say if total budget per year is 100k direct cost. 25k will be the subaward. This 25k means total budget from subawaree’s institution or just direct cost? In other words, does the indirect cost of subawardee’s institution count as the total direct cost of 100k?
SaG said
The indirect costs of a sub are part of the Direct costs of the grant. The 25% would be total costs (direct plus indirect). The part of the direct costs that are subaward indirect costs do not count count towards the overall Direct Costs Budget cap. The better way to think about it is how much money do I need to send the subwardee to get the work done? Add to that the indirect costs of the subawardee and that all comes from your direct costs. Your grants office should be able to help.
writedit said
Not a dumb question at all, since it makes a difference to how much money you have for research. SaG got the answer for you (thank you for rapid response!!) and gives good advice in asking your grants or sponsored programs office for budget help. The NIH has help outside the formal grants policy statement (e.g., https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide/format-and-write/develop-your-budget.htm) You can also google to find NIH budget templates (Excel documents) and examples available from various universities and ICs. NIAID has lots of great tutorials and information (https://www.niaid.nih.gov/grants-contracts/apply-grant) and 2 annotated R15 applications with their summary statements from funded projects (https://www.niaid.nih.gov/grants-contracts/sample-applications#r15).
Hopeful said
Hi writedit,
For how long after the end date is an R01 eligible for renewal ? Moving the lab in the middle of a pandemic has taken a toll on plans.
Thank you
writedit said
There is no time limit on the gap between the conclusion of a Type 1 R01 and submission of the Type 2 application to renew the R01, but you want to be sure it’s not so long that the science is no longer relevant to the original Type 1 project. You need to check your target FOA to ensure it accepts renewal applications as well. You’ll also want to weigh whether any renewal budget caps make a new Type 1 application a better option. Hopefully the pandemic move won’t result in a gap in funding, though I assume the downtime translated into more carryover (and/or NCE). You are probably thinking of the time limit of 37 months between A0 and an A1 applications for the same project, but I’d be surprised if many PIs could wait that long (without the science changing so significantly they might as well submit a new A0).
Hopeful said
Thank you ! I was thinking more like a gap of 6-7 months after the end date :). The grant is in NCE with sufficient carryover to complete the proposed studies at new institution.
writedit said
Glad to hear your carryover will get you through. I suspect for the next few years, it will be common for study sections to receive renewals with gaps (even if folks don’t move, their ability to publish may have been delayed).
doggeroo said
Hi Writedit,
My first R01 will expire in 2023. When is the appropriate time to submit a grant to renew this so that there is no (or very little) lapse in funding? Given that it takes eight months to a year or longer for the R01 to be funded should I think about applying in 2022? This would mean that I had 6 to 10 months of funding left on the original grant and I’m wondering whether the program officer or a study section will frown on this?
I have an adequate cushion to tide over a lapse in funding but not one that will cover my lab for a year so I want to make sure I time the re-submission appropriately.
I’m sure there are many strategies to do this and I would love to hear your thoughts .
Thank you
SaG said
I suggest having the renewal start in the same Fiscal Year that the current grant ends. If the grant ends in 2023 (and isnt in NCE) that means the renewal, at the earliest would go to Sept. 2022 Council (FY2023 funding). To go to that Council you are looking at the Feb./March 2022 receipt dates.
doggeroo said
Thanks SaG, that makes sense!
AnxiousESI said
Hi Writedit community,
Anxious ESI applicant in the process of submitting my first R01 to NHLBI. I have proposed some techniques that I cannot show feasibility at this point of time. Would providing support letters from experts in the proposed techniques (expert consultants on the grant) help to address potential reviewers concern in this matter. Are 3-4 such letters considered too much or look bad on the PI? Thanks in advance for your answers.
writedit said
I assume you are citing articles in the literature that support the rigor of these techniques applied in the manner that you intend to do. If you are proposing to do multiple techniques with which you have no prior direct hands-on experience, reviewers will be concerned no matter what your consultants write in their letters. What reviewers want to know is that you have experience with the techniques and will be able to determine whether unanticipated results are due to operator error (& fix these problems in subsequent repeated experiements) or novel findings. Since this is an R01 (vs a K) and you do not have to do all the work yourself, why don’t you make some of your consultants co-investigators who will perform these techniques in their labs? Or if the work is central to your project, then co-PIs (but then you risk your ESI status). It’s hard to know what is actually involved from this brief query, but please remember that an R01 is not formally mentored and is not meant for on-the-job training (ie, “some techniques” sounds like more than one, especially with 3-4 consultants involved). If these unfamiliar techniques are the right ones to answer your specific questions (again, I am not sure if you mean feasibility in terms of the feasibility of you performing them or the feasibility of their use to answer your desired question), then it’s better to have them performed by someone who knows what they are doing and how to interpret the data (and maintain rigor). That said, in general, more letters of support do not look bad. I often recommend that ESIs consider a general letter of support by the department chair or institute director (at their institution, not the NIH) conveying their commitment to the applicant’s successful development into an independent researcher through the provision of space, resources, support, mentoring, etc. and their confirmation of the applicant’s ability to perform the work proposed.
AnxiousESI said
Thank you writedit for your detailed answer.
ChemBioST said
Hi Writedit
Thank you so much for this wonderful resources. Like many others, I have learned a lot.
I have a timing question. I have a R21 that will expire in May 2022. In the past year, we have generated enough data I feel that this project is ready for a R01. I wonder when would be the best time to apply, June or October? I have manuscript ready, and would not be too difficult to write the R01.
Many thanks for your insights.
ChemBioST
writedit said
If you can submit in June, you won’t have a gap in funding (if funded), and you’ll be able to submit an A1 sooner (hopefully not needed). If your manuscript is accepted prior to the review, you will be able to send this news to the SRO as well, so there is no need to wait until October for the paper (assuming it can be in press by fall).
ChemBioST said
Thank you very much, writedit. I need your nod to make up my mind. Appreciate it greatly.
Cautiouslyoptimistic said
Dear Writedit
My PO told me last week via email that my grant will be selected for the paylist, which is of course fantastic news to me, but my Research Director insisted that I should not begin working on the proposed experiments till I get my official NoA. I was told that many PO are very conservative, so if my was telling me “in writing”, is there any chance that (s)he could be wrong?
writedit said
Being on the paylist does not guarantee an award – the playlist always has many more applications than an IC can afford to fund. If you are toward the end of the paylist, the funding could run out before your application gets to the front of the line. The question is where you are on the paylist and if your PO thought it likely you would receive an award (eg, “cautiously optimistic”).
Cautiouslyoptimistic said
Dear Writedit,
Thanks for the insights. Below are what the PO said in the email:
“Your grant should be on our paylist to be funded. This is excellent news—congratulations!”
writedit said
Aha – clearly you are in the section of the paylist that will come up for funding before the IC appropriation is spent. You are correct – a PO would never say this unless you were in line to receive an award … but you won’t actually receive your award until July 1-ish (maybe a little early, maybe after July 1). eRA puts all Cycle III applications in “May Council” – your IC website date is when Council will actually meet, and the IC Director must still approve NOAs after that (so, again – your Research Director is correct that nothing is certain until you have the NOA in hand, since unanticipated issues could arise (however unlikely) during the administrative review or in the IC DIrector’s office).
Cautiouslyoptimistic said
Dear Writedit,
Thanks for all the guidance and insights into this process. I will hang tight and hope that everything pan out all right.
Keith said
The chance that the PO has to rescind is zero. Do you mind sharing your timeline? I am waiting for my R01 decision that is supposed to come out of the May council meeting.
Cautiouslyoptimistic said
Hello Keith,
Thanks for your encouraging insights and hope Writedit will share the same conclusion. Good luck with your R01!
Below is the timeline, which hope you will find it useful for you:
Oct 2019 – Application Submitted
Feb 2020 – Application reviewed, scored, but past funding range.
April 2020 – Summary Statement received (for some reasons, I did not get the Summary Statement within 30 days). Began to work on addressing the criticisms.
Sep 2020 – Spoke with PO about plan for resubmission
Nov 2020 – Application resubmitted
Feb 2021 – Application reviewed, priority score significantly improved.
March 2021- Summary Statement received (no major issues)
Tried to contact PO in March and April, but did not hear back till last week.
Now waiting for May Council, although it said in the IC website that it will take place in June. Hopefully, everything goes well and wil get the NoA shortly.
Keith said
Indeed the council meeting is in June (June 14th for mine). Luckily, out of nowhere, without being contacted by the PO, I received NOA from GMS ahead of the meeting.
mlnet said
So, I am cautiously optimistic about the NIAID DP2 that I had posted about earlier (it went through expedited NIAID Council Review last month and the PO said that they had obtained “prelim leadership approvals” & things were “looking good for my application”). However, I had also participated in a NHGRI U01 that is in the “zone of funding consideration” according to the PO. It is going to NHGRI Council next week. For the U01, I had participated as a co-I to preserve my ESI status (but my role is significant and essentially that of a co-PI). Is there any way to request that my role be changed to co-PI for the U01 in case & only after the NIAID DP2 goes through (the corresponding PI for the U01 is very supportive of such a change)? If so, what would be a good time to bring this up? Or is this a bad idea? Thanks again for keeping such a wonderful community so active!
Just_tenured. said
Congrats on your DP2!
On the U01, I assume you mean changing your role to MPI (there’s no real distinction between Co-I and Co-PI). Such a change is considered significant and will likely require the a new review, since it will involve changes in the management plan, and the reviewers will also likely need to explicitly consider your effort in a more leadership context. If the U01 gets awarded, great – leave it be. If not, the roles can be updated on the resubmission.
writedit said
Just Tenured (thank you for chiming in!) is correct. Reviewers need to judge you as PI, which they weren’t looking at you in that role with the original application. As Just Tenured noted, you can certainly change to MPI in the A1 if needed, and certainly, if funded, when the award comes up for renewal. After both awards have been made, you could ask the U01 PO and GMS about a subsequent change in status from single to MPI in the NOA. This requires strong scientific justification – especially since you will essentially be doing the same thing as was already proposed. I do not know how NHGRI will look at changing to MPI just because you were trying to maximize your chances of dual funding from different ICs and different mechanisms in the same cycle. I would probably suggest waiting until renewal – or as part of a subsequent type 5 noncompeting renewal, after one or two RPPRs have demonstrated your MPI-level contributions, and your request looks less like you were trying to game the system. (NIH Policy Statement: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/HTML5/section_8/8.1.2_prior_approval_requirements.htm?Highlight=PI#Change)
mlnet said
Thank you very much Just_tenured and writedit – your feedback is extremely helpful! Yes, I meant change to MPI for the U01. The only caveat is that there won’t be an A1 for the U01 as it was a special one-time RFA (so either the A0 is funded or it will be an A0 submission for a different RFA). So, in case I am fortunate enough that both go through (don’t want to assume anything till it is official), I will either stick to my current role as co-I for the U01 or have a discussion with the PO only after everything else is finalized. The NHGRI PO is already aware of the fact that I was a co-I and not MPI because I was trying to preserve my ESI status (we had a discussion with him prior to submission). However, your point regarding the SEP reviewing the grant with me as co-I (and not MPI) is indeed important, so probably sticking to the original role is the most likely outcome (if the U01 were to be funded).
writedit said
If you talked with the NHGRI PO in advance, you could probably revisit changing your status on the NOA later (after one/both awards issued), especially if that would be important for tenure package planning ($ would be the same). Again, if you wait until the first U01 RPPR, your MPI-level contributions could be featured, which would make the case easier for changing the NOA (and eRA) status. You’re going to want to focus first on launching the DP2 project, so it would be nice not to have U01 MPI responsibilities right off the bat at the same time as well.
mlnet said
Thank you very much writedit. If the U01 were to go through, changing to MPI after the first RPPR is indeed a very clever idea – thanks so much for suggesting it. My key consideration was indeed how co-I vs MPI would look on my CV for downstream tenure package planning (as $ is the same). I am early in my second year as an assistant prof, so I still have a little time (and a potential change after year 1 would be great for the reasons you outlined). In any case, while I am a little more positive about the NIAID DP2, the outcome of the NHGRI U01 is still up in the air – so will keep my fingers crossed!
Syyd said
Hi Writeedit. I have a question related to support in relation to a JIT request. I have submitted a proposal “status: pending” and the science for a sub-aim is somewhat related to a sub-aim of my NIH grant application. Should I mention there is an overlap or not in the “Support Form”. Please advise and looking forward to hearing from you soon. Best.
SaG said
Yes, you should.But, since it hasn’t been awarded it shouldn’t be an issue. Now if the second app is awarded you will need to remove that subaim and use the money for something. NIH gets cranky when they get double charged,
writedit said
As SaG notes, you want to report the overlap, whether it’s a subaim or a whole application (e.g., an application submitted previously but not funded – but still active in eRA Commons). Your GMS will find out eventually, so it’s better if you tell them up front. I was having trouble following the two applications, though. Are both applications “pending”, or is one just submitted and the other pending, or is one awarded and the other pending? No matter the situation, though, you want to report the overlap, and if both applications receive funding, you will also explain how you will adjust the second awarded application to eliminate the overlap (or if you already have an award, what you will do instead for the second application).
Syyd said
One is pending and the other one just submitted. Thank you both for your feedback. That’s very helpful!
Valentina Gilda said
Hello, I have a question. I got a score above the funding line and a good percentile ranking for an R01, and my council meeting was last week. How long does it take for my era commons status to change from ‘Council Review Completed’ to, for example, ‘Pending Administrative Review’? How long after the council meeting is it appropriate to contact my PO to ask what the status of my R01 is (e.g., how long after the council meeting should I ask my PO if my R01 will be funded)? Thank you!
writedit said
I assume you mean your score and percentile are below the payline. The payline is what matters, and these are usually based on percentiles, so your percentile needs to be at or below the payline. Your status will change when the GMS or PO requests your JIT. You don’t need to contact either of them – they will contact you when your application is next in line for processing. If your percentile is at or below the payline, you can be cautiously optimistic for an award, which would only be at risk if there is a problem with your JIT (not likely). Now, if your percentile is above the payline, you could contact your PO for advice on next steps (should you plan to submit again? does the PO need any information?).
gabe88 said
Hi! Are NCI K22 paylines known? I just received a score (33) which I don’t know if it is in the realm of fundable.
Thanks!
writedit said
NCI still only has interim funding strategy information, but I don’t think they typically provide any information for K awards. That score could be close but seems a little high. When you receive your summary statement, check in with your PO for advice on next steps (e.g., prepare rebuttal, plan to resubmit, etc.).
gabe88 said
Thank you writedit! I’ll check with the PO
womply said
Did your grant get funded? I was wondering what was your strategy and if that worked. I received the score of 30 for my NCI-K22-A0, without percentile, and the PO is not responding. I have no idea where I stand in the field and what are my chances and what I should do next.
writedit said
You can check the NCI personnel to identify an alternative contact, such as the branch or division chief, for guidance on next steps, especially if you need to know whether to apply again in July.
Researcher said
Hi Writeedit – I received an A1 R03 impact score of 28 at NHLBI. I noticed there are no percentile scores listed. I was curious if you could help explain a couple things:
1) Why do some IC’s give percentiles and others do not for R03s?
2) Since this is an A1 application, that means I can’t resubmit again? I’m cautiously optimistic it’ll be funded, but just wanted to double check.
SaG said
Percentiles can be misleading especially for apps that come in via RFAs or NOSIs. The R03 would be percentiled against all other apps in that study section over the last 3 rounds. If it is new area of research that could be problematic. This is also a problem with hard payline/percentile driven ICs. A score can give more flexibility for funding than a percentile. Good luck on the funding.
writedit said
As SaG notes (thank you!!), a lot of R03 FOAs are targeted so don’t have enough submissions to permit the calculation of percentiles, and the ICs usually want to be flexible on funding since the mechanism is small and the science could be more appropriate for the requested task than a study section score suggests (if reviewers were looking for more than could be accomplished with $50K/y x 2y). Assuming the FOA is still active, you can submit again as a new A0. You just don’t mention the existence of the A1 (or prior A0) and provide no rebuttal (Introduction), though you can and should revise according to the A1 critiques. It’s up to you whether you want to change the title, though it might need to change to reflect additional data or progress (and slight shift in emphasis, as appropriate).
R03curious said
Have you heard anything yet about your R03? What was your unfunded A0 impact score?
StillWaiting said
Hello, still waiting on a Cycle 1 (Feb 2020) submission NOGA (JIT submitted several weeks ago). Can you help me figure out how to look up what/how many grants have been funded by a specific institute from a specific cycle? Thanks in advance.
writedit said
Wow – that’s crazy, though I do recall some ICs issuing all of their K99s in July or later (for entire FY), so this could occur in other IC/mechanism combinations, too, if the IC wants to pick from among the top applications across all 3 cycles before making awards. The JIT is positive news for a July award – several weeks (or months) can pass between JIT submission and pending/NOA. If you want to check, go to https://reporter.nih.gov/advanced-search and search by FY21 (fiscal year) and enter your activity code (eg, K99, R15, U24, etc.) and IC (2-letters, eg, CA, AG, HL, DK, etc.) in the project number ID section. If this is in response to a PAR or other limited FOA (with repeated application/award dates), you can put the FOA # in that box (lower right).
InquisitiveResearcher said
Hello, I wonder about what exactly are the rules on recycling components/sections of grant. Specifically I wonder about non-research portion (e.g. AIMS) rather about the introduction/background sections. This grant is a new grant submitted based on continuation of prior NIH grant. Thus as you can imagine the intro is essentially near identical. How much do I really need to rewrite all this only to reflect the same information?
I am not finding on NIH website clear rules. Sincerely appreciate your time and help
SaG said
Although not recommended, there is no rule keeping you from submitting the exact same grant that you previously submitted. If this is a renewal your Aims will have changed based on the accomplishments from the previous period. If they haven’t changed reviewers might raise a concern about productivity. That said you can’t submit someone else’s grant, that would be plagiarism.
writedit said
As SaG noted, there is no NIH rule or policy preventing you from submitting the exact same text again. I am unclear as to which section you mean, since you say “non-research” (which to me means Facilities & Resources, Resource Sharing Plan, etc.) but then list both the Aims and what I assume you mean to be Significance (Introduction is only for A1 applications, “Background” is not a formal component of NIH grant applications). No matter which narrative you mean, since the material is now probably a year or so old (if you are submitting an A1), the state of the science has surely advanced in this time – including your own work in this area. And if you are talking about a renewal application and recycling Significance paragraphs from your original application (now 4-5 years old), then I am even more puzzled, since surely you want to use the Significance section to lay out how your current project period results establish the premise for your new (renewal application) aims. I can’t imagine much of the text written 3-5 years ago still being current/relevant (even standard disease incidence etc. data must need to be updated), especially after the completion of your prior aims.
Anxiouslywaiting said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you for this wonderful resource. I have a quick, but probably naive question for the Other Support Page (required for the JIT). I recently got a fundable score for an R21 grant and the PO told me that it will be funded after the May Council. The Univeristy official got a JIT request 10 days ago from an NIH Grant Management Specialist and as a result, I am required to submit the Other Support Page among a couple of other things. While I currently do not have any active NIH grant, I do have some other support, including considerably large contracts from US-based botech companies on NON-OVERLAPPING projects. Will the information affect my chance of getting an approval for the R21 from the Council?
writedit said
Not at all. The NIH only wants to make sure you are not being funded for the same work twice, and that you have the time to commit to the level of effort documented in your budget.
stillwaiting said
Is there still a chance to get end-of-the-year funding for R01 ? I haven’t heard anything regarding JIT/any status update after she wrote last month that she recommended my grant for end of the year award. Should I check with her ?
As always, thank you so much for this incredible resource !
stillwaiting said
My apologies.. I meant I heard anything regarding JIT/any status update from my PO and it has been a month since our last communication regarding this.
writedit said
Awards will be made through September (FY ends Sept 30). The Cycle III awards are issued in July, so ICs won’t look at final end of FY awards until after that. Your PO still won’t know any more (so no need to contact again about status), and they won’t ask for JIT until they get closer to a decision. However, when they send the JIT request, you will have almost no time to turn it around (as in, a day or two), so I suggest you have everything ready, especially if you need any regulatory approvals. If you can’t get the JIT back quickly, they will move to the next application on the list.
Stillwaiting said
Thank you for clarifying. My institutional grants office has already completed the compliance review in anticipation of JIT. We’ll just wait patiently now !
AnxiousOne said
Dear writedit,
First, thank you so much for providing this wonderful resource.
I applied for a diversity supplement at the investigator level (parent award is R01) for NIAAA. Submitted for their Nov 1 2020 deadline with a delayed proposed start date to coincide with the renewal of the parent grant scheduled for June 1, 2021. The PO reviewed my supplement app before I submitted and thought it was great and encouraged me to submit. My concern is, the supplement is still “Pending Administrative Review,” and has been that way for months. The last sort of update we received was a JIT request in March from GMS to submit IRB approval documents, which was encouraging. However, now I’m getting a bit concerned because the parent grant received a NoA for renewal a few days ago, and we thought that the parent grant NoA would include the diversity supplement award notice as well. We were told by our university grants office that supplements usually get their own NoAs, so that was to be expected. However, the proposed start date for the supplement is June 1, and it’s still pending (and the parent grant has already been renewed). We were told by our grants office that it’s not terribly uncommon for award notices for supplements to arrive just before or even after the proposed start date. Still, my question is: should I be concerned or should I just sit tight and find something else to do with my time other than obsess over this supplement?
*FYI, our institution does not allow us to directly contact POs once grant apps have been submitted. If we want to get in contact about our grant app, we must do so through our institution’s grants office who will contact NIH and relay information back to us. So, needless to say, this has been a frustrating process.
writedit said
Wow – first of all, that is one crazy policy at your institution to require PIs to contact POs through the grants office (even if it’s only after an application is submitted). I assume your PO can contact you directly. Anyway, you don’t need to worry about the supplement delay, and eRA status often stays pending for many months. They needed to wait for the parent award to be processed (at NIAAA) and accepted/activated (at your institution) before the supplement could be processed. If the parent award NOA was sent within the past week, then the supplement is probably just coming up in line to be processed as well. It’s not simultaneous, nor is it instantaneous after the parent award is issued. It depends on what else that GMS has on their plate and then whether the supplement award notice sits for awhile waiting for approval at the Director’s office. If your PO was positive and you received a JIT and the parent award was just reissued, you can definitely find something else to do with your time and mental energy than worry about this supplement. Enjoy the holiday weekend!
AnxiousOne said
This is super helpful. Thank you SO much. I will definitely direct my energy towards enjoying the weekend as opposed to worrying about the supplement. I hope you have a wonderful holiday weekend, too!
KH said
Anyone hear anything about paylines for F31s for NINDS for 2021? The advisory council just met last week and I’m eager to learn if I’m in the running. I cannot find the information anywhere. I got an IS of 22, which is the top 15th percentile on my first submission. Any info would be great! The waiting is killing me!
writedit said
At this point in the FY, you can ask your PO about funding likelihood and/or whether you should resubmit. That score and percentile should be pretty competitive, so hopefully the news will be good.
KH said
Thanks Writedit! It has now changed to “pending administrative review.” Wow so many review levels! Thanks for your input and hopefully the new will be good. Fingers crossed. 🙂
writedit said
Fellowships are discussed internally (ie, they don’t go to Council for the second level of review, which is review of peer review quality), and the administrative review is in preparation for issuing your award. While I never say congratulations until the award is issued, you can be cautiously optimistic about celebrating soon.
KH said
Hi – just wanted to update you that I GOT IT!!!! I was awarded the F31 through NINDS!!! I’m so excited! 😀
writedit said
Woohoo! Congratulations and best wishes for success with your doctoral program and career in biomedical research!
KH said
Thanks! Actually, I’m a social and implementation scientist in Social Work, so getting the fellowship through NINDS hits a bit different for me. 🙂 It’s exciting!
KeepItGoing said
Hello, the status for my first R01 application changed to “Award prepared” today (yay!). I am submitting another R01 this cycle (in a few days) and am wondering if there is any way to include this as part of my biosketch or other support? Or is it a non-starter unless NOA is officially in hand? Showing this funding would be helpful. Thanks in advance!
writedit said
Woohoo – contratulations! Award prepared is good enough to include in your new application. The IC Director just needs to sign off on the award. The NIH is starting to transition away from including Section D Research Support from the biosketch, but you can still include it until 2022. You can cite the grant ID number (i.e., R01CA123456 – you don’t need the “1” on the front or “-01” at the end) anywhere that it might bolster your narrative, too. Best wishes for success with your newly funded research – and this application.
KeepItGoing said
Thank you so much. This website has been invaluable to me and I look forward to sharing a detailed timeline once the NOA comes through.
I have transitioned my biosketch to the new format and plan to include this grant under my personal statement as allowed. My main question since I don’t have the NOA yet is– what dates do I use when I list the grant? The original start date was 09/20 🙂 so should I assume it will be 7/1/21 start? Or is it ever backdated (hopefully not?).
writedit said
They do back-date start dates, but not that far back. If your Award prepared notice was yesterday, June 1 should be the start date on the notice, and you can use that.
Syyd said
Hi writedit: I have a question for you. About 2 weeks ago, my institution submitted a JIT. A few days later, the PO contacted us to request further information which was submitted last week. My application is still “Pending”. I am wondering what’d be the next step and how long the administrative review may take. Thank you.
writedit said
The span of Pending between submitting JIT and Award prepared can range from days to weeks to several months, so it is impossible to say. The long delays occur when ICs don’t have their appropriations yet, but even once they can start spending, administrative review can be delayed by staff shortages, missing information (as in your case, apparently), and the number of applications being processed at any one time. No matter how much more time passes, you should not assume there is a problem (especially if you are in line for a July award) and just wait until they contact you again or until the status changes to Award prepared and NOA issued.
KeepItGoing said
I can fully and wholeheartedly attest that it can take several weeks. My percentile score was in the single digits and my JIT was submitted 7 weeks ago. My application just transitioned to Award prepared yesterday. Writedit is spot on (as always). I’ll share my timeline when the NOA arrives which should reassure a lot of people 🙂
Syyd said
Thank you both for your quick responses. This is a long and stressful process and I am glad we have this platform to get more information and be reassured.
@writedit: Thank you for this wonderful resource.
@KeepItGoing: Congratulations! Good luck with your new submission.
AE said
Dear writedit, Thank you very much for this wonderful resource.
I had applied for K99R00 grat in June 2020, When I talked to my PO in December 2020 she advised sit tight but have not heard till March. I again contacted my PO in March and she said that I should consider other options as I can not resubmit the K99 and she was not positive. As my contract was over by end of March, I am no more at the University. Last week I heard from my PO that my grant is selected for funding. When I contacted my mentor regarding availing of the grant, my mentor refused to reinstate my position. The official JIT request had sent yesterday. I am very interested in availing of this opportunity. Please guide me on what could be my possibilities with this K99R00. Thanks in advance.
writedit said
I am so sorry for the delay in responding sooner – I thought had had replied last week. The University may have already told the NIH that you were no longer there, so I would suggest you first get in touch with the PO and ask if you can still receive the award if you can get hired back (you can explain what happened – what you wrote here). If the answer is yes, and if you had a co-mentor or other advisors on your application, you might ask them for help. If you needed access to your primary mentor’s research for your K99 training and project and your R00 project, then you might try contacting the Department chair, who probably won’t want to turn down an NIH-funded postdoc. I am a little worried that your former mentor said no because they had already submitted your R00 project as their own R01, which would be problematic for both to be funded. There is no way for you to accept the award and take it elsewhere – the reviewers based their score on your mentor, training environment, and research (which I assume was based on your mentor’s projects).
AE said
Dear Writedit, Thank you so much for the reply. You were absolutely right, the University had contacted the NIH. I contacted the University and PO and there is still the possibility that I can try to get the award by changing the mentor. According to my understanding change of mentor is relatively easy but the change of institute that involves type 7 institutional change process, is difficult. I contacted a collaborator on my grant (He is in the same University but in a different department/school). I am confused that this change of mentor would come under only change of mentor or it would also be a change in the institute. Can you kindly guide whether the change of department within the same university is considered a type 7 institutional change or not? Can you kindly guide the change of mentor process in the K99R00 award?
Thank you so much for all your time, efforts, and input.
writedit said
If your new mentor is at the same University, you don’t need to change institutions just because the collaborator is in a different department. Your PO does need to approve the change in mentor. You will need to send the new mentor’s biosketch, and your university office of sponsored programs – which will submit this information (not you) – will know what else will be needed (possibly a letter from the new mentor, for example). You and your new mentor might want to talk with them (office of sponsored programs/grant administrator) together about what is needed, so you are on the same page. Your PO can provide guidance as well and should be happy to do.
AE said
Thank you so much for the quick reply. Hopefully, it would work out.
I have one more question, Is it a possibility that one selects a new mentor at another University, but gets hired in a co-mentor lab in the same University where the grant is offered. Or is it essential that one gets hired at mentors lab to avail the K99?
Once again thank you so much, this is a very complicated process and your help means a lot.
writedit said
You can have mentors on your mentor team who are at another university, but it is more difficult to have your primary mentor at the other university (and some ICs may not allow that). However, given your convoluted situation already, I don’t think the PO would be willing to allow you to have a new primary mentor who is also remote, since that is not what the study section reviewed when they scored your application. Your IC needs to stick as closely with the application that reviewers evaluated and discussed as possible. If you want to work with a mentor at another university, you would probably need to apply again from that lab (and be hired there as a postdoc first) – assuming you would still be eligible.
TheWaitIsKillingMe said
I have two proposals, an R43 (SBIR Phase I) and an R44 (SBIR Phase II), that were both assigned to NIA and reviewed in March. The R43 received an impact score of 36, and I was asked to provide a rebuttal to the summary statement in April (which I did). The R44 had an impact score of 25, but I was not asked for a rebuttal (each was assigned to a different PO, as they are not related science). The council met on 5/11/2021 and both have said “Council Review Completed” since 5/13/2021. I have not heard anything about either application since the one e-mail from April asking for a rebuttal of the R43.
I suspect the R43 with the worse score of 36 is only under consideration in the instance that there is extra money at the end of the fiscal year. However, I’m now getting nervous about the R44 with the pretty decent score of 25 (typically in the fundable range for a normal year), as I’ve heard nothing 3 weeks after the council has met. Should I be concerned that we’re still at “Council Review Completed” and not “Pending” by now? We have not received a JIT request, other than the automated one.
writedit said
You don’t need to worry about the delay since Council met. Your award start dates will be in July, but this is not an expiration date either. You are correct that you were asked to provide a rebuttal for the R43 because your PO needed to justify further consideration of an award at internal meetings. I assume you were not asked about a rebuttal for the R44 because none was needed – the score was good enough for funding. You can certainly contact the R44 PO for advice on next steps, including whether you should resubmit (you can also ask the R43 PO about this). If you need to get any regulatory approvals for either application, you might want to work on that – or ask the respective PO(s) whether you should proceed with any regulatory review/approval.
TheWaitIsKillingMe said
Thank you for the information and advice. I contacted the PO for the R43 with the 36 and I am putting the response here in case it is of use to others:
Council provides a second level of review but does not make any decisions on funding of NIH applications. At NIA, applications are selected for funding following a post-council funding meeting about a month after the NIA council meeting. Thus, it isn’t until late June that we may have some information about likelihood of funding. Additionally, decisions on SBIR funding may also be postponed until later in the fiscal year in order to allow for consideration of all of the FY 21 applications.
For everyone reading this forum anxiously: don’t be concerned about council meeting dates passing with no new information.
writedit said
Thanks for sharing your intel and glad you got some peace of mind on the waiting. I could have mentioned that Council does not “fund” applications. They review the quality of peer review and the appropriateness of applications for the IC mission (mainly) and approve applications to be considered for funding. The decision to fund is made by the IC Director (following internal meetings of Division leadership – for example, at NCI, they call them SPLs, Scientific Program Leaders). I am not surprised they put off decisions on SBIR applications until closer to the end of the FY – some ICs do this for other mechanisms, too.
Sherry said
Dear Writedit, I applied K99 from NIAID in Feb 2021 and got a impact score of 20. I was wondering how much likelihood of funding with this score? The K99 successful rate in NIAID was very very low but seemed to be increased to 19% and 22% in FY2019 and FY2020 respectively.
writedit said
You can’t go by success rate, really, but you are correct to notice the relatively low likelihood of funding. Your impact score is within the payline for other Ks and seems like it should be good for a K99, but with only a 1-in-5 chance, obviously the scores are quite competitive. You won’t be up for funding until FY22, so you have a very long wait ahead of you since I believe NIAID issues all their K99 awards in July and August (no matter when you apply). When you receive your summary statement, you should get in touch with the PO and ask if you should resubmit (if you are eligible) as insurance or sit tight (for a year).
Sherry said
Dear Writedit, thank you so much for reply and provide the valuable information! I will definitely contact my PO about next steps as you suggested. I think I am eligible for a re-submission, but not quite sure about the re-submission mechanism. My question is: would the impact score of a resubmission be worse than the original impact score? Or it will only be less/better or equal to the original impact score? Thank you!
writedit said
A resubmission could result in the score going either way. Hopefully your PO will be able to set your mind at ease, but if they advise resubmission, that is what you should do. I have seen some people post on here that their PO told them the current score is no longer considered once a resubmission is reviewed, but that is not NIH policy, and I don’t think that is IC policy anywhere, though I am not privy to all IC policies in this regard. If your PO advises resubmission, for peace of mind, you could ask for confirmation that your application with the score of 20 will still be considered for funding no matter what happens with your next submission.
AngryOpossum said
Hi – I received a K99 from NIAID last year; I received my NOA in August 2020. My application received a 15, but even with that score, I didn’t know for certain that it was going to be funded until a few months before the NOA. My PO even told me to submit a K22 as backup (I submitted my K99 on my last eligible date).
I know someone who received a K99 in 2019 with an 18 score. I’m also aware of someone (via Twitter) who received a 16 in 2018 and did not get funded. I know these are limited data points, but I thought I’d offer them. I know the waiting game is tough!
On the bright side, NIAID seems to fund K22s more generously.
Sherry said
Hi – thanks for the response and the data points are helpful! I also heard about the 16 score in 2018 via Twitter. I didn’t know anyone around me who successfully got an NIAID K99 before. May I ask you when (which month) did you get some certainty of funding before your NOA? I just wanted to know a bit more detail of the waiting time window here. Really appreciate!
writedit said
NIAID makes all its K99 awards in July or later, so the waiting time depends on in which cycle the application was submitted. You could search for NIAID K99 timelines on this and my timeline page (sorry – I am waaaay behind in updating it) to get an inkling of timing between pending and award, but I suspect once NIAID figures out which applications it wants to fund and ranks the list, the processing and issuing of awards moves along fairly quickly.
Janet said
Dear Writedit – The amount of information in what you’ve built here is amazing. Thank you for that. I submitted an R01 to an NIDDK SARS-CoV-2 RFA in December. Impact score 29 (no percentile). PO asked for rebuttal before Council and after Council told me that my grant was “recommended for funding. You should be receiving JIT and requests and we will have to successfully complete the administrative review before funding is made.” Status switched to “Pending Administrative Review” before Council meeting on 5/10 (so I know, thanks to your resource that it was approved en bloc before mtg). However, still no personalized JIT request yet (only the automated). Should I be worried or contact my GMS? Or just be patient…Many thanks!
SaG said
If you haven’t already, reply to the automated JIT request. Not everyone sends out personalized ones. Pending admin review means they are probably looking at stuff in the JIT. After your school uploads it send a note to the PO and GMS saying you did it.
writedit said
I know the status can change to Pending before a JIT request is issued, so this isn’t surprising, especially given the communications from the PO. As SaG suggested, you can go ahead and submit your material (if you contacted the GMS, that is probably what they would say). The ICs are also starting to process July 1 award applications, so the PO may have wanted the RFA applications in the queue quickly, especially since these are SARS-CoV-2 projects.
R15 AREA said
My R15 submission in June 2020 was scored 27 and the PO suggested to resubmit, but also to hope for select pay (decisions for select pay will be made in July). Now my A1 submitted in Feb 2021 was scored 20, with council review Oct 2021. My question is, should I ask the PO to push for my A0 for select pay in July and then withdraw A1, or to wait for A1 council review. Also, if I wait for A1, with council in October, when will the funding happen? This year or next one? Lastly, because the fiscal year ends in Sept 30, should I worry about funding for A1? The current cutoff for NCI R15 is 25. Thanks.
writedit said
Given your excellent score on the A1, your PO might well push for the A0 to be funded so you don’t have to wait until 2022 to receive an award (ie, NCI will be funding you for this project – why make you wait a year?). You don’t need to “push” the PO to do this, but if you receive your summary statement by the end of June, you could contact the PO to see if this might be possible. You definitely do not need to withdraw anything. If the A0 is funded, NCI will withdraw the A1 automatically (and having the A1 sitting there with a score of 20 won’t make them ignore your A0). You are in a good position either way since you know that you will (almost certainly – nothing is guaranteed until the NoA is issued) be funded – hopefully sooner rather than later.
R15 AREA said
thank you very much for the reply, writedit. I really appreciate it. I do hope for the A0 to be funded, but I will leave it to the PO, as you suggested. She was supportive until now, so maybe (given the score on A1) she will be support my A0 even more. However, if I will have to wait until 2022, I will just wait. At least I know that the R15 will be funded. Your posts are really useful.
R15 AREA said
Hi writedit,
Thank you for your suggestions over time. It is not time to give something back: my timeline of my grant. I thought that it may be helpful to other PIs.
Submission 1:
02/25/2019: Submitted
02/25/2019: Scientific Review Group review pending
05/23/2019: Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending
09/09/2019: Council review completed.
Impact Score: 36
Re-Submission 1:
10/23/2019: Submitted
11/04/2019: Scientific Review Group review pending
04/02/2020: Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending
06/16/2020: Council review completed.
Impact Score: 45
Submission 2:
06/24/2020: Submitted
07/02/2020: Scientific Review Group review pending
09/17/2020: Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending
02/16/2021: Council review completed.
Impact Score: 27
Re-Submission 2:
02/18/2021: Submitted
03/08/2021: Scientific Review Group review pending
05/27/2021: Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending
09/03/2021: Council review completed.
Impact Score: 20
11/04/2021: Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist
12/13/2021: Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist
12/22/2021: Grant awarded. Notice of Grant Award issued
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you for posting such a detailed timeline, especially your perseverance throughout fluctuating scores and a global pandemic! Best wishes for success with your research.
Alyna Chien said
Super helpful
ReaderX said
I am submitting an R01 in response to parent R01. The project will have an Alzheimer’s disease component. If scored will it be considered in AD payline, or regular payline? I heard that to be considered for AD payline, the application should be in one of the AD PAs.
writedit said
No, the NIA PARs have their own payline, but applications submitted to any FOA with an AD/ADRD focus will be eligible for their AD percentile paylines. What you should do is review all the NOSIs carefully. If there is one that is applicable to your work, then it would probably be good to respond to that NOSI (ie, you apply to the parent FOA still but cite the NOSI as instructed and address the priorities and any special review requirements described in the NOSI). But – even without responding to a NOSI (which provides an extra level of consideration and often set-aside funds), your AD-related application to the Parent R01 FOA will be considered under the NIA AD paylines. Now, I am assuming, of course, that you are sending the application to NIA vs another IC. If you are sending your application to another IC, then NIA AD paylines do not apply (even if there is an AD component). NIA must be the sponsoring IC for the application.
victor li said
Hello, I have a question regarding my NCI R01. I got the 6%, the current status is council review pending. There are two council review dates in the era, one is 2021/5. another one is advisory council meeting at 6/14/2021. My previous R01 received emails regarding the award weeks before the advisory council meeting. I am wondering usually what these two council meet dates mean? and usually when people will get award notice if they are within the payline? weeks before the advisory council or most are after the meeting? Thanks.
SaG said
THey are the same meeting. “May Council” is a generic term. Councils can meet in June. Same for October Council, they meet before October. Any award notice won’t be until after Council meets on June 14. More or less. Some exceptions.
victor li said
Thank you for the reply. So, usually what status it will be after the advisory council meeting date if the proposal is within the payline? will the GMS contact the PI? thank you.
writedit said
You should get a JIT request soon – either just before or after Council meets on the 14th. Given your 6th percentile, you can ask the GMS now if you should submit JIT, or just submit to the automated link, if your institution allows you to do so.
victor li said
I have submitted the JIT one month ago since I received an email sending from the NCI Office of Grants Administration to my university and myself. The email said the grant is considered for funding by NCI and asked the JIT. I am not sure is this so called automatic JIT request?
writedit said
That was a direct request from NCI (not automated), which is a positive indicator. ICs generally do not ask for or process JIT unless they are seriously considering making an award – which I certainly hope will be the case for your application. Not a guarantee at all, but positive news. You can sit tight until you hear from them again – and you can be cautiously optimistic.
R01Trying said
Dear Writedit and SaG,
Thank you so much for maintaining such a useful website, on which I have learned a lot. I have questions about my R01 applications.
I have submitted my R01 application three times. First time, not discussed, but the reviews were supportive; Second time, scored as 44, 36%; Third time, not discussed again, the reviews were disastrous. One reviewer gave the Innovation a 7 because of “unsupervised machine learning has been applied to this type of imaging data”, though there are tons of unsupervised machine learning methods to use and picking up one working for the data with clinical utilities is not trivial.
I am a bit baffled about where is the real problem with my application under the water. The first two R01 submissions were during my K99 stage. My institute gives K99 awardees an Instructor faculty title so that the awardee is eligible for NIH grant applications. Now I figure that maybe that I submitted to the wrong study section. The study section is very engineering orientated and my proposal is more about clinical innovation to develop useful clinical tools. I am thinking about requesting the next resubmission to be reviewed in the study section with more clinicians. Actually, my first R01 submission was diverted by the NIH to the more engineering oriented study section from the more clinical study section. In the next two submissions, I chose to stick with the more engineering oriented study section.
Your comments and suggestions will be highly appreciated.
Keith said
As a reviewer, my take is that in some of the engineering-oriented study sections, over 50% of the applications are ML/DL. It is easy to lose the sense of innovation in the pool of similar applications. Simply selecting an ML method from existing ones may not help you stand out.
R01Trying said
Dear Keith,
Thank you for your comments. That is what I have clearly sensed now. The engineering background reviewers were look for technical innovation and significance, which my proposal lacks. My proposal is more about developing diagnostic and prognostic tools for a disease.
writedit said
Picking the right study section (even before you start drafting the proposal) is critical, because you need to write something that will excite those reviewers (ie, after reviewing and discussing your application at the SRG, they will want to see your posters/talks at meetings and read your results in the literature in 3-5 years). Think not so much about the innovation but the significance of what you are proposing. Often, this is the score that doesn’t budge and sinks an application because no matter how good the methods and study design are, if the reviewers don’t think the work is important to do, your score will never be in the fundable range. The clinical significance of what you are doing will be lost on data scientist reviewers, who are looking at the maths themselves rather than their implementation. You can use both the RePORTER Matchmaker tool and the CSR ART tool to identify the best study sections based on your abstract, specific aims, or other chunk of text that captures what you want to do and how your work will be applied. you can send a short version of your Aims to the SRO to confirm your application will be accepted in that SRG (so you don’t get punted elsewhere again). Your PO can also weigh in based on their experience sitting in on potential study sections. Speaking of which, you haven’t mentioned a PO – or an IC. If you have found a funding home for your work with a PO who is excited about what you are doing, that PO can provide guidance on how to frame your research (basic advice, not actual help with the narrative). If you have not found such a PO, then you might want to start there. When you finally get a good score, you don’t want to discover only then that your science isn’t a high priority for the IC. If you have a helpful PO, great. If not, Matchmaker is another option to help find one. Getting back to the study section, when you narrow down your choice, search RePORTER for currently funded projects that were reviewed in that study section. Some might be select pay awards, but you can assume the list of awards coming back represents the type of work that got the reviewers excited. If your project doesn’t look anything like those, you might want to try searching other possible options – the NIH provides lots of good tools and data to help get your application to the right people.
R01Trying said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you very much for your extremely detailed suggestions. You have totally got the point. My proposal did not excite the reviewers as most of them are from engineering background while my research and proposal would be more interested to clinicians or people with clinical background.
I will meet my PO next week. I will discuss the study section issue with him and see what advices he will give me. I did not realize the study section can have such a huge impact on the review. Now I have learned my lessons.
Again, thank you for your help. I have learned a lot stuff from this website since I was preparing my K99 application until now.
StillWaiting said
Have to the change my username..fortunately not waiting anymore!
Today I received my Notice of Award for my 1st R01 (A0; NICHD), that was submitted in…..February 2020. Yes…16 months from submission to award. So wanted to put that out there for those who are still waiting.
First, I have to start by thanking Writedit and all of the people who post here for this priceless resource which has helped me in so many ways not the least of which is maintaining my patience and sanity. My NIH funding journey has been filled with disappointment but has now culminated in the ultimate reward.
As background, I joined faculty at my institution in 2011 on an Institutional K12, a clinical researcher with a heavy clinical load which was lessened thanks to the protection of the K12 for two years.
I unsuccessfully applied for a K23 FOUR times (twice at NICHD and twice at NHLBI). Four. 2 A0s and 2 A1s in between 2014 and 2017 to two different institutes. That was pretty demoralizing. Was an MPI on 1 R21 with 2 other PIs in the middle of all that which helped light a tiny spark of hope. Fortunately I had the support of incredible mentors and was able to cobble together grants from various foundations to keep my own personal passion project going and keep publishing. Finally at the end of 2019 I decided to take the plunge and just go ahead and submit my first R01.
The timeline below is a reflection of 1) Cycle 1 submission; 2) A global pandemic; 3) Continuing resolution; 4) Outstanding PO who communicated expeditiously whenever I reached out. Of note, NICHD does not publish paylines hence there is a bit more ambiguity.
11/2018 Initial phone conversation with PO about Specific Aims.
02/04/2020 Status: Application entered into system.
02/19/2020 Status: Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
06/24/2020 Status: Scientific Review Group review completed (impact score 19; percentile: 5.0): Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
07/16/2020 Summary Statement available.
07/23/2020 Post-review conversation with PO; great score, nothing specific to address in rebuttal, funding chances lookk promising but can’t guarantee anything.
09/10/2020 Status: Council review completed.
10/20-1/21: Pandemic. Continuing Resolution. Ongoing reassurance from PO that things are promising but nothing official until it’s official.
01/2021: Request from PO for Clinical Trial milestones document
02/11/2021: Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
03/10/2021: Personalized JIT request from GMS
03/18/2021: JIT submitted
05/27/2021: Status: Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
06/08/2021: Status: Application awarded.
Thanks again to writedit and all. What an amazing community of scientists.
writedit said
Woohoo! Congratulations at last! Thank you so much for sharing both you experience (including the 4 K23s) and your very detailed and informative timeline. I know all of this will be tremendously helpful for investigators struggling with unfunded applications and concerned about delays (it looks as though everywhere a PI could have possibly experienced a delay, you did). I am so glad you rode this all out (so well). Congrats again and best wishes for success with your research and your career in biomedical research.
StillWaiting said
Oops was too excited, please modify the 2020 dates at the end to 2021!! Sorry about that!!
writedit said
Done, and no worries. 2020 felt like it lasted 16 months (and at the same time, like it never happened), so I know how easy a mistake that would be.
vbjourni said
Dear @writedit,
Thank you for this wonderful resource.!
I will try to extend my ESI status due to COVID, to help with an R01 I am preparing for the October 2021 deadline, to NINDS :
https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2020/04/09/can-esi-status-be-extended-due-to-disruptions-from-covid-19/
Has anyone here pursued the extension (either successful or not successful).? Any insight is much appreciated!
Sincere thanks
SaG said
You can only ask for time that your institute was shut down. If you also need time to care for yourself or sick relatives ask for it at the same time. If you have reasonable requests I have heard that they are given.
vbjourni said
Thank you SaG for this advice
writedit said
SaG is exactly right, as always, and yes, I have heard of extensions being given. You can check with your PO if you have any concerns about whether the basis for your request is allowable.
vbjourni said
thanks @writedit, my ESI extension request is submitted.
some helpful links I found for anyone else that may find it useful:
possible to submit up to two requests in some cases:
https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2020/04/09/can-esi-status-be-extended-due-to-disruptions-from-covid-19/
writedit said
Excellent. Glad to hear of your extension, and thank you for sharing the links.
vbjourni said
Dear @writedit, I was only granted a 3-month extension which will not help my R01 going in in October. I was wondering if New Investigators have a relaxed payline at NINDS or NIDA? Many thanks
writedit said
NINDS does not recognize New Investigators as part of their payline break (NIA does, though gives more weigh to ESI status) – but NINDS has a much larger budget (ie, NIDA very competitive, so a lower score may be needed even as NI). I would suggest you talk with POs at each IC to determine who is most enthusiastic about your science and therefore is more likely to advocate for possible select pay, if you are just over the payline. You could also see if there is a FOA or NOSI appropriate for your science with a submission date within your ESI eligibility window.
R15-cofunding said
Hi Writedit,
Thank you very much for maintaining this resourceful forum! My A0 R15 was scored 31. NCI is the primary IC and NIDCR as secondary. What is your thought about “Exceptional” pay by NCI? If not, what should I do to contact with NIDCR? Ours is an IDeA State. Is co-funding by NIGMS possible?
writedit said
The payline will probably stay at 25, so it is possible your PO would consider pushing for select pay. However, you don’t indicate when your application was reviewed. If you submitted in February 2021, then you’ll need to wait until 2022 to learn the outcome, and if you have just been scored, when you get your summary statement, you can ask the PO whether you should submit an A1 application (and, if so, tips on strategy for the resubmission). If this is an application that was submitted last year for FY21, it will depend on how excited the PO is about the project – they probably would have asked for a short rebuttal at the time your summary statement came back. The PO needs to initiate both the promotion of your application for select pay consideration and the nomination for IDeA co-funding (which happens if NCI decides to fund the application – they need to commit to the award first). You would only contact NIDCR if NCI confirms they will not fund the application (again, the timing of this might not be until 2022, if this is a February 2021 application). However, ICs with secondary assignments almost never fund applications unless they have very strong interest in the research (and probably should have been primary IC in the first place).
R15-cofunding said
Thank you very much for the excellent suggestions. The proposal was submitted in Feb. 2021 and was scored in May.
Anxiously_Waiting said
Hello Writedit,
A Grant Management Specialist contacted my University for JIT about 2 weeks prior to Council Meeting, which I supposed is a very good sign. However, I realized that my IACUC protocol was expired and I needed to re-apply. The Council Meeting took place yesterday with most of my JIT information except for an approved IACUC protocol, which is currently under review. Will this affect the funding decision? What can I do to properly address this?
writedit said
Hopefully your IACUC renewal will not take too long. Your award might be delayed, but it won’t affect the actual decision to fund. Depending on how long it takes for IACUC approval, the IC could also issue the award but not fund animal purchase/research – not sure if it is all animal work or if some research can begin without any animal studies. If your IACUC decision will be delayed beyond July, you should contact the GMS with an estimated date for approval (they may contact you about this, too).
K22-NIAID said
Dear writedit,
Thank you for this amazing forum! I previously obtained a one year extension (based on personal event that preceded COVID) which allowed me to submit a K22 application to NIAID in Feb 2021. My extension expired shortly after the first submission.
The A0 received an impact score of 25. In FY2020, the NIAID payline for Ks was 20, but they no longer appear to have a published payline for the K22.
As it stands, I am no longer within eligiblity to resubmit. Would you happen to know if the COVID two-cycle extension is applicable to people like me who are already on borrowed time?
writedit said
This would be a question for your PO, since you can discuss details specific to your situation (and the PO can comment about the possibility of an additional extension), and this will also alert the PO to the fact that the A0 might be your only shot, in case they are interested in seeing your award funded. If you submitted in Feb 2021, this will be for an FY22 award, so you wouldn’t have an answer about funding any time soon (ie, not until late this year or early next year), but your PO can give you advice on next steps in the meantime.
K22-NIAID said
Thank you for the reply, writedit. I plan to reach out to my PO as soon as I receive my summary statement.
NIHnewbie said
Hello! I’m new to NIH (NSF previously). My SS date was listed as 6/9, and googling the SS, it looks like a two-day meeting so they are wrapping up today.
When are scores usually posted for an R01? I have aged out of ESI already, if that matters. Should I only check business days/hours?
writedit said
Your ESI status doesn’t matter (scores all go up the same time, summary statements are issued as they are completed), and you can check any time, day or night. Usually I suggest people wait about a day after the meeting (it can take longer but usually not much, depending on the number of applications reviewed) and then start refreshing their eRA Commons page every 10 min. ; )
Diversity said
Dear writedit,
I am a nursing PhD student whose mentor recently received R01. I will like to apply for the Diversity Supplement under her R01, however, I am at a different institution than my mentor. Do you know anyone with similar scenario. Any information/resource will be greatly appreciated.
writedit said
I personally know of a diversity supplement issued to an awardee who is at a different university (in a different state) from the PI of the parent award. Although NIH policy allows this, it can be at the discretion of the awarding IC, though, so you would want to ask the PO for the parent award about what they allow. The example I gave is of a junior faculty member who is being supported rather than a student or other trainee, so that might make a difference as well; the IC is NIMHD, so that might make a difference, too.
NIAIDbridge said
Thanks for a great resource! I received a good, but not fundable %-ile for an NIAID grant.
This website shows some R56 for my %-ile https://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/category/23. Any insight into eligibility or prioritization for R56?
I have another R01 with multiple years left from a different institute, if that is relevant. Have an anxious month ahead waiting for reviews!
writedit said
The R56 decision is up to the PO, but you won’t have any word on that until August 2022 (or so), since I assume all R56 decisions are made at the end of the FY. POs take various factors into account when deciding whether to push for an R56 award, and the availability of other sources of funding to keep the lab going is one of the factors (ie, will the lab shut down if no award is made). Research of high priority to NIAID would weigh in your favor though. You should certainly apply again in the meantime and hopefully bump your score up into funding range.
NIAIDbridge said
Thanks! I didn’t realize it would be do long, but that makes sense.
wishfulthinking said
I am in a somewhat similar boat. My grant application (DP2 specific to NIAID) scored 29 and was told by my PO that I am in the grey zone. On 4/20, the status changed to “council review completed” ahead of the 6/7 advisory council meeting. Prior to 6/7, I asked PO what it means and whether I should take it as an indication to move forward with resubmission (sometime in the fall). PO replied with “The Advisory Council performs a grant review in advance of the face to face meeting. It is just them authorizing the Institute to support any grants within our fiscal means. It would be best to start thinking about a new submission. Though nothing has been finalized with the DP2 awards, the preliminary discussions have your application outside of the immediately fundable and awaiting the availability of funds. We are still waiting on our Budget Office to discuss the availability of funds, but rather than wait it would be advisable to consider other options while hoping for the best with this one.”
Nothing has changed with my eRA status since. I know that last year (the first year this award was made) they already let applicants know they were approved as early as first week of May. So I am assuming that my application did not make it to the initial number of spots for this PAR – especially based on the PO’s email. However, the line “awaiting the availability of funds” suggests that they might award other applications later (maybe it’s wishful thinking on my part). Will there be a date where I can safely say that is not going to be funded at all? (I should probably move on but can’t help!)
writedit said
NIAID only made 1 award in FY20 (September 2020) and has made 3 awards so far in FY21 (March, May). The PAR indicates up to 10 awards per year, so you could be funded any time up until Sept 30, 2021. You will know before the next DP2 deadline (Oct 13, 2021), though you would need to have an application ready in advance. You should probably decide whether to go back in on the DP2 or move to an R01 instead for the October deadlines (but definitely be working on an application to submit in October).
mlnet said
@wishfulthinking – I was very fortunate to recently receive confirmation from my PO that “funds have been released” for my NIAID DP2. I had also gone through Expedited Council Review (4/20 – changed to Council Review Pending), and the grant status changed to Pending Admin Review on 5/21 (my understanding is that this is the standard pre-award status). So, while you may be in the gray zone, I think you should still have a reasonably good shot.
In terms of number of awards in 2020 and 2021, I was also curious as to why there was only 1 award on NIH Reporter in 2020 and 3 in 2021 when last year’s PAR indicated that NIAID would make 10 awards. I had spoken to my PO about this, and the PO confirmed that NIAID actually made just over 10 awards in 2020. Only 4 of them have been activated (these are the ones active on NIH Reporter, all 4 currently on NIH Reporter were actually awarded in 2020). This is because last year’s PAR was only open to postdocs, and the NIAID DP2 could be activated once they had secured a tenure-track faculty position. My PO confirmed that NIAID intends to make around 10 awards this year too. However, the eligibility criterion for this cycle is postdocs and faculty in their first year at the time of application (I actually fall in the latter category). So, this year’s awards may show up on NIH Reporter “faster” as those in the second category can activate the award right away.
wishfulthinking said
@mlnet – congratulations! I think Pending Administrative Review is a pre-award status.
There are now 6 awards on NIH reporter from last year’s PAR. These are the ones that have been activated because the awardees have secured tenure-track positions. I think last year they had to send successful applicants a notice that they were approved for the award around May and prior to advisory council but this was not the actual “notice of award.” So I am assuming that those who are in the immediately fundable for this year but do not have tenure-track yet have received such “provisional” notice already. For those who have tenure-track like you, there’s no need as you can activate the award anytime. I still belong to the postdoc category and I am basically torn whether to improve my application for the next submission date or focus on my upcoming tenure-track job applications instead. But that’s something I’ll need to decide on..
writedit said
wishfulthinking, with a score of 29, you might consider focusing on your TT applications. You can use the score to demonstrate promise (ie, once hired, you can work on a stronger DP2 faculty version of your application), and once hired, you can also start on R01 applications. The DP2 award is not renewable, so if you have a solid foundation for launching your independent research program, you might want to start with the R01 (though I realize the DP2 is prestigious). Universities know how few awards are made and often still look favorably promising scores by study sections (ie, someone else has done some of the peer review work for them in terms of vetting your science and qualifications). I guess it depends on your summary statement, too. Your publications (and mentor) will be critical, too, of course, so if you need more publications, that might be a reason to stay put for another year.
mlnet said
@wishfulthinking – Thank you very much! My PO had mentioned that they funded >10 applications last year (“more than initially anticipated”). So, I think you still have a reasonable shot of getting funded this year even if your application isn’t in the immediately fundable group for now. Best of luck with your TT job applications, and hope you get good news on this front too!
writedit said
Thanks for this great intel, minet – and congratulations on your imminent award (assuming all goes well with the administrative review)! Best wishes for success with your research.
mlnet said
Thanks again writedit for maintaining this fantastic resource. Will post a full timeline (there was a typo in my above post: 4/20 – it changed to Council Review Completed not pending, before changing to Pending Admin Review on 5/21) once the admin review is completed and everything is finalized.
wishfulthinking said
@writeit thank you for your reply. i feel like this is something i should do (focus on TT first) but just need somebody to tell me that! my summary statement was actually not bad (resume says exceptionally good application with minor weaknesses) and i already know how to address those for a resubmission. but obviously, the ones who were in the immediately fundable group scored way better than my application.
that’s a good point about mentioning/highlighting my DP2 application impact score in my TT applications – thanks for the suggestion!
in general, thank you so much for this wonderful resource @writedit.
writedit said
It sounds like you can also use the summary statement to bolster your potential for success on your first R01 application (ie, as part of application and interview process – reviewers liked your science). Good luck with everything!
demhi said
Hello — Awesome site! My NIAID K99 got an impact score of 19. I see they say their payline is an impact score of 30 for all Ks except for K99. I assume K99 has a lower payline. Does anyone know what the payline is approximately for an NIAID K99 award?
Thanks!
demhi said
Sorry for all the typos! Their website says “an impact score of 30 for all Ks except for K99.”
writedit said
I think you should be in good shape with a 19, but if you were just scored, you have a long wait, since NIAID issues (or has been) its K99 awards all at the same time in the summer. When you get your summary statement, you’ll want to check in with the PO to confirm whether you can sit tight until next July or should be proactive in some way.
K99 Purgatory said
For reference, I submitted my NIAID K99 application in July 2020 and was just told by my PO they are planning to meet soon to discuss all K99 applications from the 2020-2021 fiscal year. I should be hearing a decision by the end of this month or early July, which is almost a year out (yikes). I know they fund only about 10 applications/year, so the competition is high. I know someone last year got a 14 and was funded, and the year before that someone who got a 16 and wasn’t funded. I think it depends on who you are up against in the pool. If I get more info, I will come back here and share it.
writedit said
Aha – thanks for all the insight and intel, K99 Purgatory. Everyone is citing the 16 that didn’t get funded. Unless the person who posted this addressed these possibilities, the lack of award could have been due to an administrative reason not to fund the application (ie, K99 applicant applying for faculty jobs already), or it may not have been of significant interest to NIAID (ICs have been known to skip even lower scores for any mechanism if they just don’t want to fund science in that area any more – always best to confirm with PO). In other words, it’s usually not a random or vicarious skip, but I am not familiar with this case so of course cannot comment authoritatively.
AnotherNIAIDk99 said
I can add some data points as well. My October 2019 NIAID K99 application was funded with a 15. Another applicant in the same cycle who received a 15 was also funded.
My PO was mostly optimistic after I received my score, but still suggested I submit a K22 as backup (I had exhausted my eligibility after the Oct. 2019 deadline). So I was still sweating it until I got the NOA!
writedit said
Thanks so much for this additional data, AnotherNIAIDk99 – and congratulations on your award. Best wishes for success with your project and career in biomedical research!
optimistic2021 said
Hi Writedite,
After council meeting, my application status changed to “Pending”. I see everyone posting “Pending Administrative Review”, what is the difference between the two?
Thank you!
writedit said
No difference – something is happening with your application (possibly waiting for the JIT review, possibly waiting for something else). Both are positive signs though not guarantees of anything.
Lee Jenny said
Hi Writedite,
I just received the score for my NINDS R21 application. It is 15%. The payline for NINDS in 2021 is 14%. How do I find out if I need to resubmit or not? Thanks!
SaG said
That will be up to you whether to resubmit. But, given their hard payline I suggest you do. If if they might reach for it a final decision won’t come for weeks.
Lee Jenny said
Thank you very much!
writedit said
I agree with SaG on resubmission. You might not know about the 15th percentile until this time next year, if they put off select pay decisions until the end of FY22. You definitely don’t want to risk losing a cycle, especially since you are so close.
Victor said
Hi, what is ‘pending’ mean after council review date (6/14)? Thanks
writedit said
Pending means your application is being reviewed at some level (usually in consideration of funding, but not always). If you have not submitted JIT yet, you should get a request soon, if your IC decides to move forward with the administrative review. If you have been asked for JIT already (or submitted it on your own), then they could be looking at that now.
F31 Hopeful said
Hi writedit! Do all applications receive JIT requests? I am at the same status- ‘pending’ after the 6/14 council, and my PO said that my application is at OGA for review.
Mariana Murea said
Good morning,
In June 2020 I submitted a MPI grant to NIA with budget >500K/year, got 8th percentile, dont know the final answer yet. I am a New Investigator but that status was lost because of MPI structure. Payline at NIA for non-NewInvest and >500K non-ADRD this year is 5th percentile. Yesterday I received an email asking to send Other Support for Key Personnel.
My questions are:
1) Is there a chance that the committee will look at the submission differently with contact PI being NewInvest even though it is MPI, or not really?
2) Is being asked to send Other Support a good sign, or not necessarily?
Thank you so much for your time!
writedit said
Apologies for the delayed response – and hopefully you have since had good news. The contact PI being a New Investigator won’t make a difference, but it is good news that they asked about Other Support, since it means they are looking at the application for a possible award (nothing guaranteed of course).
A future applicant said
Dear Writedit,
If my collaborators and I want to include clinical trials of an experimental therapy developed and owned by a private biotech company in an R01 grant application, how should we prepare the application? For instance, does the private biotech company needs to successfully file an IND for the treatment? Can we still apply without an approved IND? Furthermore, will NIH permit funding of clinical trials for a therapy developed by a “private” Company using this or other grant mechanism?
Thanks!
SaG said
Yes, NIH will fund a therapy developed by a private company. If the Trial is to get approval by the FDA then yes, you need an IND. But, NIH is very very picky about the trials they fund. So you better talk to a PO before starting.
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/html5/section_4/4.1.16_investigational_new_drug_applications-investigational_device_exceptions.htm
writedit said
Big thanks so SaG for responding quickly – I will just add that if you are planning a multisite clinical trial, then you probably want to talk with your PO (or find an appropriate PO if you are not already working with someone) about whether to start with an R34 (multisite RCT planning award), which many ICs now require before they will accept an R01 with a clinical trial. And if you need pilot data to plan a larger trial, then look at the R21 FOAs for your target IC (and, of course, talk with the PO).
Mika said
I think about submitting an r01 proposal as Competing Revision. My initial R01 from 2020-2025. what are the differences between Competing Revision r01 and renewal ro1
SaG said
A competing revision is for expansion in scope of a currently funded app, more money. A renewal gives you more time and money.
Mika said
standard structural R01?
SaG said
I am not sure I understand the question. A competing revision versus a Renewal is the same for any type of NIH grant. See this page for a detailed definition of a competing revision. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/competing-revisions.htm
writedit said
As SaG notes, a revision is completely different from a renewal. You would never be in a position to chose between them. The revision can only be submitted while the R01 is active with at least a year remaining, whereas the renewal will not be submitted until year 4 of the R01 award (ie, 2024). You should talk with your PO about what you want to do for guidance on the best funding approach.
R25Q said
Hi! I submitted in January an R25-Research Experience for NCI. I just got my impact score and summary statement. I got a 19 impact score. I have been searching for the Paylines for R25’s for NCI but could not find one. I emailed my PO last week but no answer yet. Also, if I submitted in Jan, which is cycle I, will this be in the new FY funding? Thanks!
writedit said
Not enough R25s are issued to warrant their own payline, but I think a 19 should be competitive. Your PO is busy with applications related to FY21, whereas your application will not be considered until FY22 (which starts Oct 1). However, even on Oct 1, your PO probably won’t know about funding likelihood, unless the federal budget is signed into law or close to passage in Congress. If you only asked about funding likelihood, you probably want to change your query to whether you should plan to resubmit or take any other next steps (but probably wait until after the July 4 holiday).
R25Q said
Thanks for the response. My PO finally responded and told me that the payline for R25 for NCI is 20. Therefore, I made it with the current payline but not sure for FY22. I have to wait until the new budget passes. I have a schedule with my PO to discuss on July 9. I will definitely ask if I need to resubmit. Thanks!
writedit said
Well, that’s very good news that you are a point under the current payline. NIH funding will not be reduced any time soon, so assuming NCI does not significantly rejigger how they allocate their funding (and they don’t get a big jump in competitive applications), you should be okay for FY22, since the payline can drop to 19 and still result in funding. A larger drop would be a problem – your PO may still suggest you apply again for insurance, but I wouldn’t necessarily take it as bad news. They just wouldn’t want you to miss a cycle if the federal budget is delayed, and they don’t know until later in 2022 that you won’t make an unexpectedly low payline.
Andrew R Coggan said
Anybody know what the fundable range might be this FOA? Are such applications percentiled, or only given an impact score?
https://neuroscienceblueprint.nih.gov/training/nih-blueprint-d-span-award-f99k00
writedit said
I assume these use an impact score, since it’s an RFA (albeit one with recurring submission dates). If you are waiting to hear about a Dec 2020 submission, your PO would give you the best feedback (including whether to plan to resubmit, if you are still eligible); if you are waiting to hear about an April 2021 submission, your PO probably won’t have any guidance until August (but again, assuming you have your summary statement, could comment on whether to submit again or look to other FOA).
K99_hopeful said
Hi,
I applied for a K99 though NIAID for the Feb deadline. I received my impact score this week, and its 10 so I would assume fundable (yay!). Assuming there’s no hiccups with Admin Council, I’ve heard rumors that NIAID only approves K99s at the last council of the fiscal year, which means that the earliest NOA I should expect is summer 2022? Any insights on this?
writedit said
Sadly, yes (check out all the discussion about this year’s K99 applicants). With a 10, when you get your summary statement, you might ask your PO if there are any exceptions, since there should be no question about whether your application will receive an award (and hopefully no need to make you wait). Kudos on the perfect score!
K99_hopeful said
Thanks for the quick reply!! I will ask, hopefully that’s an option. More than a year wait seems a bit ridiculous but I guess I shouldn’t complain too much. I’ll wait for summary statement for now.
SciLover said
Hi,
I am working as a postdoc with K01 (2nd year) and now looking for a faculty position. I was wondering if I can reduce my effort for K01 (now 100% effort) after I start my independent position. This is very important because I need to apply for other R grants as a PI. Any advice or comment would be appreciated. Thanks!
writedit said
There are over a dozen K01 awards, so you need to talk with your PO about the level of effort required (usually at least 75%). All Ks allow a reduction in effort in the latter years to permit the transition to independent R01 funding, usually from the third or fourth year on, which would be the right timing for you. You don’t need to reduce your effort until you are being considered for an R01 award – this adjustment is made as part of JIT, not in advance. You can prepare and submit R01 applications with your K01 support, so you don’t need to reduce your K01 effort to apply.
establishedPI said
Hi WriteEdit,
I am established PI and have served on study sections. But one question has irked me all thee years. What determines time time when the score is available after an IRG meeting?
When I was a reviewer myself, I recall that the final scores need to be submitted right at the end of the meeting and cannot be changed beyond that time. The review system would remain open for a couple of days to allow us to update the reviews based on the meeting discussion. However the scores are final at the meeting. So that would mean they should in principle be available right then.
From the point of view of an applicant however, it is unclear to me why scores are not released until the third business day, and at quite random times. There have been several occasions when I have indeed received my score by the evening of the day of the meeting. But in a majority of cases the score is only released several days later. Another annoying thing is that the notification email that the score has been released only gets sent a day after the actual score was released.
I was wondering why this might be and if you had any insights about this. Is this just dependent on the SRO when they choose to release it given the official time limit is 3 business days?
While this is not an issue, I’ve always been curious as to why this happens.
Thank you
Keith said
I do have insight that helps answer your questions. In the majority of cases, you are right that the scores are finalized at the end of the meeting. However, it happens not infrequently the reviewers made a mistake in scoring. For example, the reviewer intended to give 5 to grant number 32 but instead gave it to number 31, which should have gotten 2 from the same reviewer. In such a case, the reviewer would email the SRO to make the correction. Some SROs are more cautious to wait for a longer time to finalize the scores before notifying the PIs. Compared with having to wait for a couple of days, it is a lot less unpleasant than seeing your score being lowered.
establishedPI said
Thank you for the clarification…that’s interesting. I always had the impression that reviewers forget about the reviews the moment they step out of the meeting so its surprising that some actually go back and check their scores.
SaG said
I think SROs also look at the scores for outliers that either weren’t mentioned at the meeting (is anybody scoring outside the range?) and also scores that don’t match the SROs notes..i.e., mistakes. These things happen more than you might think. I think some panels still score electronically and have reviewers fill out a score sheet too.
writedit said
Thank you Keith and SaG for your insights! I just assumed the delay was both to ensure all scores were correct (and allow time to confirm out of range scores etc.) and that the SRO might have other items on their plate (which could delay final check on each score). For panels with a lot of applications, this can run into some serious time required (even with more than half not discussed). Really appreciate the additional information (and thanks for the question to stimulate all this, establishedPI).
F31 Hopeful said
Hello!
I applied for an F31 in December through NCI and found out it was under the payline via my PO. I was informed recently it has completed programmatic review and is currently under review by OGA. My council date was 6/14 and my proposed start date is 7/1/2021.
How long does the OGA review typically take? Is it possible that a NoA would come after the proposed start date? I also have not gotten a JIT request yet but I’m understanding that not all applications receive this request.
Thanks for any insight you can provide!
writedit said
If you have not had an update on your F31 yet (I apologize for the delay in responding), you do not need to worry at all. The start date is just an estimate and is not an expiration date. You can receive an award any time up until September 30. Fellowships don’t go to Council, so that isn’t particularly relevant, but NCI is busy cranking out hundreds of awards, so delays are not unusual. You can sit tight and wait for word from NCI. If you haven’t heard anything by August, you could check with the PO as to whether they need anything, but I am sure you will have news before then.
F31 Hopeful said
Thanks very much for this resource! I ended up receiving the award so I wanted to comment back with my F31 timeline.
12/7/20 – Application entered into system
12/7/20 – NCI assigned as primary institute
12/8/21 – Application due date
12/18/20 – NCI assigned as primary institute
12/23/20 – Scientific review group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
12/24/21 – via era-notify: Application assigned to study section
3/26/21 – Scientific Review Group review completed. Refer any questions to Program Official.
4/5/21 – Summary statement available.
4/6/21 – Informed that I was under the payline by PO.
4/27/21 – Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
7/1/21 – Original proposed start date
7/9/21 – Personalized JIT request from PO and OGA.
7/14/21 – JIT materials submitted.
7/15/21 – (again) Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
7/15/21 – Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
7/16/21 – NoA via email
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you so much for sharing your timeline! Best wishes for success with your doctoral project and career in biomedical research.
PonderingStatus said
Hi! Thank you so much for the resource provided here. It has been great to follow and learn from everyone’s experiences.
I had a general eRA commons status question. My recent application has has the status “Council Review Completed” since early May after council met. If the grant is not selected for funding, will it just continue to have this status for the duration, or can I expect anything more specific noting that it will not be funded, etc.? Thank you!
One of the applicants said
Hello, I have exactly the same question. Any comments will be greatly appreciated. (This website is amazing. Thank you everyone who contributed.)
SaG said
Yes, unless funded (or withdrawn) the app will retain that status for up to ~37 months I think. Some details are in this PDF (https://era.nih.gov/docs/era_status_codes.pdf). Council has given them permission to consider funding it. At this point it is up to Program whether they want to fund the App.
writedit said
Thanks for jumping in, SaG!
>
One of the applicants said
Thank you SaG for your explanation. It helps a lot. It seems that the status finally changed from “Council Review Completed” yesterday.
Akbar said
Hi,
I got my impact score of 34 for my K01 application though NIA (ADRD) for the Feb deadline. Regarding the information mentioned above (NIA: K applications at impact score of 21 (non-ADRD) & 35 (ADRD)), will my proposal possibly be funded?
NIA_K01 said
Same here. I got my IS of 20 (Non-ADRD) at NIA which is within the payline (21) in February. My current status is “Pending Administrative Review”. I submitted JIT two weeks ago as GMS requested. I was wondering if my application is funded. Thanks!
writedit said
Assuming no issues are raised by the administrative review, you (NIA K01) should be pretty confident – you are within payline, and they are reviewing your materials to process an award. The July 1 start date is not an expiration date, so don’t worry about timing.
writedit said
You are within the FY21 payline, but your application will be considered in FY22, and those paylines will not be known for many months (possibly not until early in 2022). When you have your summary statement, you should check with your PO about whether to submit again in November for insurance to be sure you don’t miss a cycle in case paylines drop in FY22 (I would not expect them to, but it’s impossible to project, especially the AD/ADRD boost, without the federal budget in place).
FA said
Dear Writedit and all,
We have an A1 R21 with NICHD that just scored at 10 percentile (28 impact score). What are the chances it will be funded?
writedit said
If your PO is enthusiastic about the project, there is always a chance. NICHD does not post hard paylines, but usually the R21 payline is about the same or even slightly lower than the R01 payline. If this is a big jump in score and your PO is enthusiastic, though, they can push your application for consideration. However, this won’t happen until early next year, since the FY22 budget won’t be known until the end of this year or early next. As usual, when you get your summary statement, contact your PO about next steps and whether to submit again (plus any advice for the new A0 based on the study section discussion).
NeuroSam said
Hello, just wanted to comment that I ended up getting my F31 fellowship at NINDS. Thank you for the words of encouragement. Good luck to all. Onwards and upwards.
writedit said
Woohoo! Congratulations and best wishes for success with your doctoral project and career in biomedical research!
>
uso said
Hi – thanks for this great site. Looks like many of these recent posts are sharing happy news – congrats to all! Submitted an application a few years ago as an R21 and scored 29%. I resubmitted, and got back a ND. I got more data, and resubmitted as an R01 twice and both times ND. Clearly, Im doing something wrong! Ive spoken to PO (twice). Clearly there is a fatal flaw but I can’t figure out what it is. I have gone through the summary statements very carefully, have tried to be very responsive but its a no go. I really thought the most recent resubmission would at least get discussed because I thought we were pretty responsive and had notification of publications that we submitted before meeting date. I was wrong. Any chance that there is an effect of COVID? Just a lot of applications flooding the system? or maybe our application just stinks. 😦
SaG said
Last I heard applications were actually down a bit this year. My guess is you are not getting reviewed by the appropriate study section. They just don’t get your science. Are the members of the panel in your field? That is do you reference their work? Is there an Aim or two that they really liked? Maybe expand those and drop any aim(s) that are holding you back.
Keith said
It is possible because what you propose is just not exciting or too incremental in the eyes of the panel. No amount of preliminary data can save a staid idea. Many reviewers are too polite to say what they really think. Instead, they look for tiny things to pile up enough weaknesses to justify non-fundable scores. These tiny critiques then send the PI to run in circles. I have had a similar experience with a particular R01 like this. My reviews were bouncing between ND and 30% several times until one time there was a particularly brutal, honest, and sharp review telling me what was wrong with the idea and why it would never get funded. It took me a month to realize that the review was correct. I gave up that idea, moved on to other topics, and have been quite successful.
I thank that reviewer.
R1 said
Agree with this. It took me four submissions to realize that my idea is just not that exciting for the reviewers to give me a fundable score. But they were very polite and provided constructive feedback. What made me realize to change the research direction is when I shared this woe with a senior scientist on a subway ride home, and he basically told me “hasn’t that problem been basically figured out?” Sometimes the mentors or your colleagues really give an honest and straightforward answer, so take the opportunity to send around the application to get some feedback.
writedit said
Huge thanks to SaG, Keith, and R1 for this fantastic input! All spot on. If reviewers are not citing fixable fatal flaws in the approach, then your research is sound, but the problem you are addressing is not important (significant). If you have gone to the same study section each time, then it’s probably even worse, since they quickly see that your idea is the same (and not of interest). Sometimes, too, what is boring in one study section is novel in another. In another discussion here, we talked about how a machine learning algorithm panned by a bioinformatics panel might be embraced as innovative in a clinically focused SRG (ie, well-established ML tool applied in new way to address a clinical condition in need of fresh ideas to make progress in treatment).
R15-cofunding said
Does anyone propose RNA-Seq? How was it criticized? In my case, one reviewer mention “RNASeq analyses in Aim 1 were underdeveloped”. What is the best approach to defend this critique?
Thanks!
Former F31 said
This one always can be a bit of a challenge. If you are an expert in RNASeq this may mean that they weren’t sure what question you were trying to answer. If you have limited experience here (or they perceive it that way), it may mean that they are not convinced you know what you are talking about. If it is the latter, I usually try to add (an unfunded) colleague on the grant who will provide technical expertise (and have them read through that section). Sometimes the reviewers are too polite to be helpful.
Art said
In a study section, I have a PI will do a RNA-seq when he/she does not understand the process without proposing an hypothesis. I was like…”maybe you should do it first and tell me what you hypothesis is…” I think the reviewers want to know what your thinking is and the hypothesis behind it.
R15-cofunding said
Here is the proposal-any suggestion to modify this section will be appreciated.
C1.2.8 Whole transcriptome expression profiling to identify novel genes modulated by XXX: Based on the expression of XXX targets and effectiveness (IC50 and apoptosis), XXX (malignant), YYY (premalignant) and ZZZ (normal) cells and two drug concentrations (0.5 and 1 μM) will be used. Cells will be treated with XXX for 24h. Library preparation, sequencing and DE-Seq analysis will be completed by the GABC (Genomic Core). Libraries will be sequenced in a 2 x 50 bp paired end method to a depth of 40 million reads per library on an Illumina HiSeq. Differentially expressed genes will be identified using DESeq2 with a False Discovery Rate threshold of 0.1. Cytoscape software will be used to identify pathways that stem from differentially regulated sets of genes. Dr. X (Core Director) will provide PI and his students training in the use of Cytoscape pathway analysis software. To determine if XXX has equivalent/universal effects, a subset of ten DE-Seq genes (common for both cell lines) will be assayed in additional cell lines by qPCR. The subset will be based on either JAK-STAT3 genes or genes from the highest ranking pathways identified by Cytoscape.
writedit said
I agree with SaG – this should not be the focus of Aim 1. I suspect the reviewer wanted to know how you would interpret and use the data (vs more detail about how you would run the RNA-Seq). If Aims 2 and 3 depend on what you discover here, and you discover nothing here, then what? They give you the full amount for all aims and want to be sure you will be able to obtain useful data for each aim, no matter what happens with the others (it would be different if subsequent funding was driven by meeting milestones in Aim 1, but that is not how (most) NIH awards work). If you really need the RNA-Seq data for the rest of the research in this application, then you should submit an R03 or R21 application to run the RNA-Seq and then use those data to apply for your R15 (I assume, based on your handle) or an R01.
R15-cofunding said
Thank you all for the discussion. The RNA-Seq is a complete independent experiment proposed in aim 1 to identify additional novel genes. None of the aims are affected by negative outcome of this experiment. Discussion was mostly favorable with A0 scores 31 (pay line 25). I am seeking advice to revise the proposal to ensure 25 in revision. Should I keep the RNA-Seq and modify the plan of analysis or delete from the proposal?
writedit said
This is a perfect question for your PO. They heard the entire discussion, and they know your science, so they can give you the best advice – including whether the IC would like to see this RNA-Seq work done. As SaG said, whether you need to address that concern depends on whether it was included in the Summary of Discussion paragraph or just listed in one of the individual critiques. If the latter, it means the concern was probably addressed during the discussion (ie, not an issue), but the reviewer didn’t take it out of their critique. If it is in the Summary paragraph, then you need to address it. Again, this is where the PO can offer customized advice, including what they would like to see in their portfolio.
R15-cofunding said
Thank you very much! The PO seems supportive. She told us to wait until the final score line up. The PO has three options-support exceptional funding by NCI, support IDea-cofunding with NIGMS, funding by NIDCR. Since we have a long wait, we are planning for revision too.
SaG said
To me this reads as classic “Discovery Science” AKA Fishing Expeditions. If you have some preliminary data of interesting genes you have already identified (and a hypothesis about why they are interesting) then make that the 1st and 2nd AIMS. Aim 3 can be more fishing. Gene bashing in the hope of finding something new and cool is always a hard sell.
SaG said
It is hard to say without seeing the Resume and Summary Statement and your app. And please don’t post it. If you just need a slightly better score focus on the major criticisms in the resume. FIx what they dinged you for. Don’t get distracted by minor weaknesses in the critiques. I would not suggest reorganizing things as I first said. Cross your fingers that you get the same reviewers and you get >5 brownie points for your response to their “insightful” and “inspiring” critiques. Sucking up to them/flattery should get you a better score. ;-). Yes, reviewers are human with larger than average egos.
R15-cofunding said
Thank you very much!
Khan said
Hi, I just received an impact score of 44 and 28 percentile under the PAS https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAS-19-392.html (NIA). Just wondering whether NIA go by published payline which is 28% for ADRD. Anyone has experience of getting funded under this PAS. Whats the chance of getting funded with this percentile? Thanks
writedit said
I apologize for the delay in responding (too many grant deadlines!), but I answered your query above. Here is my response again: The 28th percentile would be funded in FY21, but I just realized that both you and Achilles mention being reviewed this summer, which means both applications will fall under the FY22 paylines – which will not be set for several months (and possibly not until early in 2022). My guess is that the PO will recommend submitting again for insurance in case the federal budget is delayed. The NIH will likely receive the same or more funding, so paylines in general probably won’t be different from FY21, but individual ICs may adjust their priorities, and I am not sure what the AD/ADRD boost will be for FY22, so NIA may not have as much funding for applications in these categories.
K99 applicant said
Hi Writedit and all,
Thank you for having this amazing site. I submitted my K99 application to NIAID in October 2020 and received an impact score of 10 in March 2021. The PO also told me that my Summary Statement has no major weakness, and I can just wait for the council meeting. Since April 20th, my eRA common status changed to “council review completed”, however, the status has not changed until now. After the Advisory Council meeting (June 7th), I contacted the PO, who told me that “just sit tight until GMS contacts you shortly for JIT submission”. However, it has been more than 2 weeks, no one contacted me yet. I am wondering if anyone is in the same situation as me? Can someone share their experience of how long it usually takes for GMS to contact you after the council meeting?
K99 Purgatory said
Hi K99 applicant – it looks like you and I are in the same boat. I submitted to NIAID July 2020 (impact score 11) and council review was in January 2021. I just emailed the PO yesterday and they said that applications are currently being considered for funding. I know last year, the earliest NoA went out around mid-July, so we still may have some waiting to do, but hopefully not too much longer.
K99 applicant said
Hi,
Thank you for sharing your experience. It looks like the only thing we can do now is just waiting. Hope it would not take too long for both of us.
Thanks.
writedit said
Several NIAID K99 applicants have been posting here (with scores ranging up to 20). Everyone is concerned about a past-year application with a score of 16 that did not receive an award, but both your 10 and K99 Purgatory’s 11 should be in line for awards. Unfortunately, NIAID waits until summer to make all their K99 awards, though at least yours will be roughly on time (versus someone who submitted in February 2020 and has been waiting 17 months). The start date is not an expiration date (for any NIH application), and the award can be made any time before September 30. Based on prior years, NIAID should start processing applications for awards soon – but your PO’s reassurance should be reassuring. You can sit tight knowing the request will come, and, assuming no issues with the administrative review, so will a NOA. Congratulations on your exceptional perfect score!
K99 Purgatory said
Speaking of which, I just got my JIT request. Fingers crossed!
writedit said
Awesome news – and congratulations on your exceptional score of 11!!
K99 applicant said
Hi Writedit,
Thank you for your encouraging words. I have seen my eRA commons status changed to “Pending administrative review” two days ago. Hopefully, the JIT request will arrive soon. Will keep you and others updated.
Thanks.
K99 Purgatory said
Thank you Writedit and thanks for offering so much support!
K99 applicant said
Hi writedit and K99 Purgatory,
I received my JIT request today. Yeah!!!
However, I am a bit confused about one request, which the GMS asked that “Current Other Support – Provide active and pending support information for individuals designated in an application as key personnel only [NIAID only considers those to be named in the NoA to be key (PI/MPIs)]”. I am wondering do I need to provide the “current other support” for my K99 mentors, or just myself? Also, what if I do not have any “current other support”, just leave that section blank?
Thanks. I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Best.
writedit said
Great news, and K99 Purgatory gave you a perfect response! (thanks so much!) Your grants administrator or sponsored program office will submit the JIT, and they are happy to work with you on this. For you, you would just put “None” under Current Other Support. The NIH is interested in your mentors to be sure they have active funding to support your research training and to be sure, as K99 Purgatory notes, that no current funding overlaps substantially with what will be funded in the K99 portion. As an FYI to everyone, NIAID has the best grant application and management guidance (pre and post award), so you can probably find guidance there, recognizing that your IC might do things a little differently – but not much for items and processes dictated by NIH Grant Policy.
K99 Purgatory said
Hi K99 Applicant – I am sure Writedit has more detailed insight into this but I can share what I just did. For the “current other support” you need to provide all active and pending grants for the people listed on your grant as key personnel which for our case (K99 applicants) includes yourself and your mentor and/or co-mentor. Both my mentor and co-mentor provided me this list for their grants which I compiled into one document. You should also have an overlap section for each key person to address if there is any overlap between their funded research and the aims in your proposal. I did not have any overlap, so I put none. Overlap can also mean things such as effort and support, not necessarily budgetary. Check out NIAID’s info on JIT requests here: https://www.niaid.nih.gov/grants-contracts/pre-award-requests
Regarding myself, I am on an institutional career development award, which according to our grants office and NIH website, is not required to be listed on other support. Therefore, I did not include any other support info for myself.
Our grants office/pre-award was very helpful in making sure I followed the guidelines so hopefully yours can provide you assistance as well. Good luck and fingers crossed!
K99 applicant said
Hi K99 Purgatory and writedit,
Thank you guys for these perfect information. The link you provided is super helpful. Indeed NIAID has excellent guidance for JIT submission.
Thanks again for answering my questions.
Best.
Toulouse said
Hello,
I just received a 9 percentile for my NIAID R01. It is set for Fall Council. I am confident it will be within the payline for 21-22 FY.
So, I am wondering how common (% of time) that applications within the payline at NIAID are not funded?
Their websites are so detailed and informative!
Regards.
Toulouse said
As a follow up, I also found this:
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/grants-contracts/funding-decisions-next-steps
“At NIAID, we fund all applications that rank under the payline bar. For example, if the R01 payline is at the 8 percentile you would get a grant if your application ranks at the 8 percentile or lower assuming it is not held up by administrative concerns.”
They actually bolded the “all”
MtE said
Can you share your impact/priority score?
Toulouse said
9 percentile
Toulouse said
31. impact score is not relevant for R01 selection from NIAID.
writedit said
Not common at all, and always due to considerations that would be known to you, such as well-funded PI (>$1M in NIAID funding) or duplicate work (with another source of funding, including an award made between original application and NIAID funding decisions). NIAID sticks with the hard payline unless there is an objective reason not to.
Toulouse said
ok thanks!
Toulouse said
When you say “duplicate”, does it mean that all aims are basically the same? i can imagine that many projects have some similar methodology.
writedit said
Correct – the wording of the aims doesn’t need to be exactly the same, but the science is intended to generate similar data.
Researcher said
Hi – I submitted a NHLBI R03 application for K awardees (impact score 33) that was reviewed last year during the July 2020 SRG & October 2020 Council meetings. I just received a status update that it’s now “Pending administrative review”.
In the meantime, I resubmitted a A1 R03 application (impact score 28) that was reviewed very favorably at the May 2021 SRG meeting.
Does the status update of my A0 application mean that it’s being considered for funding because it’s the end of their fiscal year?
Researcher said
I just found out from my PO that my A0 R03 will be paid!
writedit said
Congratulations! Yes, the Pending administrative review means they are considering your application for an award. Either they had intended to wait until the end of the FY to fund these K-linked R03 awards, or they saw your score on the A1 and decided to fund you sooner (vs make you wait for the A1 to come up for an award in FY22). Either way, great news, and best wishes for success with this project and your career in biomedical research!
Syyd said
Dear Writedit,
I checked the status of my A1 R01 application with NIBIB and it seems that my application has been awarded although I do not have received an official email from NIH yet.
However, based on their administrative budget restriction, as an early-stage investigator when I applied (this is acknowledged in my application as well), I should have received a 10% budget reduction and an award limited to four years. However, while an award limited to four years was expected, they applied higher reduction rates: Year 1: 15%, Year 2: 16.22%, Year 3: 17.56%, and Year 4: 18.85%. Could you please let me know why a 10% budget reduction rate was not applied for my application per their guidelines? This is significantly reducing the requested budget and as a result, this may impact what can be accomplished for each aim of the proposal.
Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks for your consideration!
Former F31 said
Are you still ESI? Your statement is ambiguous.
Syyd said
Thanks for the quick response. I am not an ESI anymore but I was when I applied. I thought this is what mattered. Although I am not considered ESI anymore, they still applied a higher reduction rate than the suggested 15%. Am I missing something here?
Former F31 said
ESI was lost due to time limits or due to funding?
Syyd said
ESI was lost due to time limits.
SaG said
Could be a mistake. You would have to ask the PO. Some Institutes (e.g., NIGMS) do 20-25% reductions.
Former F31 said
I agree with SaG (they are smarter than me anyways). NIBIB is pretty clear when outlining funding that ESI only gets a 10% reduction.
Syyd said
Thank you both for your responses. I will contact the PO to double-check whether they made a mistake.
writedit said
Thanks to SaG and Former F31 for jumping in! Your status at application determines whether you are eligible for ESI payline etc., and this is usually only affected (negatively) if you are no longer eligible due to another award. Especially with COVID, there should be a little slack. You can definitely ask the PO about the reductions, and even if it wasn’t a mistake, it does not hurt to point out that since this is your first award as an ESI, a strong start to your independent research career (including sufficient funding to achieve aims) is critical.
Syyd said
Thanks, writedit!! My institution is reaching out to the PO. I believe this is a mistake and hopefully, they will be able to reconsider their reductions.
R15-cofunding said
Thanks SAG! The RNA-Seq is only a piece of proposed experiment in aim 1 to identify additional and novel JAK-STAT3 target genes. Aim 1 focuses on JAK-STAT3 pathway. Aim 2 is different (AKT pathway) and Aim 3 is in vivo. Overall hypothesis is dual targeting by drug XXX.
SaG said
Just identifying new target genes might be important and necessary but isnt innovative or sexy. For instance, what is the evidence that there are any new genes to find or that the genes found will be meaningful? You might be better off reframing your app as, “Look at these cools new genes we found!” We focus on them in vitro in Aim 1, do in vivo work in Aim 2 and look for more in Aim 3. Also, you should probably focus on one pathway for the app. Two pathways raises the specter of over ambitious/unfocused.
FK said
Hello again,
I would appreciate any input regarding the chances of an R21 application with NICHD that scored at 28 (10 percentile) for funding. It is an A1 by the way.
writedit said
R21s are tough – often they have a lower payline than R01s, and NICHD doesn’t give a clue for either. The A1 status doesn’t matter – you can submit again as a new A0 (it’s not like a K99 or other mechanism with finite application window). When you get your summary statement, you should ask your PO if you should plan to submit again in October and, if so, if they have any advice on the resubmission that would help address the concerns discussed. Your PO will have no idea about funding likelihood for several months, depending on when the federal budget is signed into law, but they can let you know whether you should submit again for insurance.
Zhuoli Zhang said
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/rfa-ca-20-004.html
Regarding this announcement, what the application dates this year are
SaG said
Unless a new version has been published there are no dates this year. The RFA expired November 18, 2020.
KPI said
I just received an eRA notification that the K A0 application I submitted in October 2020 had been assigned to a study section. That was after I had received an impact score in the mid-30s. Council meeting was in early June and my eRA account still reads “Pending Council Review”. I am slightly confused as the Council meeting date in my eRA account has also changed from 05/2021 to 08/2021. I contacted PO but there is no response yet.
writedit said
The review assignment change is odd and probably nothing you need to worry about (I.e., nothing that will affect the outcome of your application). It could be that the IC’s career development panel changed somehow, so prior applications need to be reassigned in the system. I assume you didn’t change ICs. The delay in Council is a little more concerning, but they can still issue FY21 awards in August. It might be they pushed back discussion of some applications due to a lot of COVID-related applications earlier in the year. Your PO will be able to clarify and take any necessary action.
>
KPI said
Thank you for the swift response. This particular K has dual ICs: a primary IC is supported by some secondary ICs. PO of one of the secondary ICs got in touch (by email and phone) and requested a response to SS weaknesses late May. I am a bit confused about the recent change in Council in my eRA from 05/2021 to 08/2021. Does this mean my A0 will not be funded?
writedit said
Aha. You are changing ICs, which is why the study section assignment and Council date changed. I assume you sent the PO at the secondary IC the requested response to the summary statement, since it seems they are picking up your application (hence the need to go to August Council). You should contact the PO at the secondary IC for an update and clarification.
SaG said
Strange that the Council date has changed. As a secondary it should have already passed through the other IC’s Council. Was the new IC a secondary back in May? Is this a K99? In any case they wouldn’t go through the trouble unless they wanted to fund the app.
KPI said
The PO of the Primary IC replied that my application was taken to the (primary) IC’s council earlier in June but final funding decisions could take some time. PO added that applications could also be taken to the councils of other partner institutes and they suspected I received notification of assignment to a council round (not assigned to another study section). They added that it was not indicative of a funding decision and no further action was needed on my part at this time and I would receive further communications if an award was likely. PO also said If my application was ultimately not selected for award, I could consider a resubmission. I don’t know what to make of this.
SaG said
Still strange. If the other ICs had secondaries before May, then it should have gone to their May Councils too. Wait and see I guess.
writedit said
Well, no matter what, you will know by September whether you need to resubmit in November. It would have been nice if the PO had provided guidance as to whether to submit in July so you hadn’t missed a cycle. What else is odd here is that a secondary IC would consider the application before the primary IC had definitely passed on funding it, which is apparently not the case here. It’s definitely good to have two ICs interested in your work, which will be helpful with RPG applications, so you are not reliant on one IC for all your support.
KPI said
Thank you Writedit. I should know my fate in September. There is actually only one cycle/year – the November cycle.
NINDS IS30 said
Hello, I submitted an SBIR R44 grant to NINDS in Sept 2020 and received an impact score of 53 (no percentile given). I resubmitted in April 2021 addressing the feedback and just received an impact score of 30. Any thoughts on funding possibility at the NINDS with this score? I know I’ll learn more with the summary statement but was curious to get thoughts.
writedit said
That’s probably close, could be just a tad high, but it’s hard to say, especially since this is for FY22, which is still an unknown. When you do get your summary statement, your PO will not know about funding, so your question should be whether you need to submit this as an A0 this fall (even if just for insurance, since federal budget could be delayed).
NINDS IS30 said
Thanks for the thoughts!
CluelessPI said
Hello,
In early June, one of my students received an email from his PO that said his F31 (A1, mid-teens %ile) is one of the fellowships under consideration for end of fiscal year funding. As of today (6/30/21), his commons status is still on “SRG review completed.”
Should we be hopeful that a NOA is around the corner or is there still a decent chance that his proposal will not get funded? I do not want to get his hopes up.
Thank you in advance!
writedit said
You can be cautiously optimistic, especially with a mid-teens percentile (which should be competitive) – the PO would not have reached out otherwise. Fellowships do not go to Council, so the next change in eRA status will be some sort of pending. End of FY means August, probably, so you shouldn’t assume there will be any immediate action or worry if there is not. I assume no regulatory approvals are needed (eg, IACUC, IRB), but if so, you should get protocols approved so review of JIT can proceed quickly.
SaG said
When an IC says end of the year funding they are talking about money left over in August or even early September. So not hearing anything yet doesn’t mean much. If you haven’t heard anything by early-September the odds of funding drop rapidly.
Abraham said
Hi, I have two R01 re-submissions (A1) in this round. One will go to the old study section. The other will go to a new study section (evolved form an old one with the same PO, the old one is did not exist anymore). I am wondering whether most of reviewers sames as A0? If there are new reviewers, can they see review comments from old reviewers?
writedit said
The reviewers of both your A1s will all be able to see the prior summary statements. You can check the CSR page for the roster of the updated study section (https://public.csr.nih.gov/StudySections/StandingStudySections) and compare this with the list on your summary statement to see if anyone from that panel migrated to the new one. If so, the SRO will probably assign them to your application.
Abraham said
Thank you so much!
MIRAorR01 said
Hi, I have two pending submissions at NIGMS, one is a R35 MIRA (Submitted Oct 2020) and the other an R01 (Submitted Feb 2021), both as an ESI and on two independent projects. I recieved a not so great score for my MIRA (45) and so I just assumed that it won’t get funded. Meanwhile I received the scores for my R01, which are much better (12th percentile) and would probably be within the range of funding. In the meantime I came to the conclusion that maybe an R01 would be a much better option, as it would allow me to submit another R01 or be a collaborator on another grant to NIGMS, which is the most relevant institute for me. BUT, now I received an e-mail that my MIRA was selected for funding, which is of course great but somehow I am a little concerned. Mainly because the MIRA really would restrict my funding opportunities with NIGMS and I am not sure how I would pay the people that are currently working on the “R01” project for the next few years without being able to obtain additional funding from NIGMS. I know there are other funding agencies but it would probably be complicated to tailor the R01 towards those…
Now, I was wondering if there is a possibility to choose the R01 instead of the MIRA if the R01 was going to be funded or if the message that my MIRA (came from the PO) was funded means that my R01 is automatically withdrawn. Has anyone been in a similar situation? Generally I was wondering what the thoughts on the R35 MIRA are, do you have good or bad experience with this funding mechanisms?
Former F31 said
I think this is a question for your PO and I am intrigued to hear writedits thoughts on this. My impression has been that NIGMS is trying to spread wealth out and fund researcher’s programs broadly as opposed to specific projects. It seems they are trying to shift a lot of the funding from R01’s to R35’s when presented with the opportunity (as in your situation of a fundable R01 and gray zone R35) and encouraging established investigators with multiple R01’s to pursue R35’s.
MIRAorR01 said
Yes, I agree. I did ask my PO but I am still waiting for a response. I figured out that it is possible to not accept the MIRA but then this is very risky as there is no guarantee the R01 will be funded.
SaG said
It is very unlikely you will get to choose. Also,the R01s from NIGMS tend to be less money than the ESI MIRAs. And there is no guarantee you would get a second R01. So you could be stuck with less money and constantly writing grants to get more money. Also, if you just got the score for the R01 that means it will not be funded until next FY. Probably December or later. So, you can take more money from the MIRA now and spend more time writing papers and doing science and less time stressing about whether your R01 will be funded. Plus, according to NIGMS’ Blog site the renewal rate of R35s is higher than R01s. A bird in the hand…….
writedit said
As always, SaG jumped in with the best advice about MIRA vs R01. I am not sure how you are paying the R01 project lab members currently, but while a competitive revision is not allowed for ESI MIRA, you could use a diversity or re-entry supplement for salaries, if any of your team members are eligible. However, the R01 project work should be covered by the MIRA – I guess I am wondering how it could be completely out of scope for the MIRA (ie, outside GM mission) but not able to go to a different IC. As a reminder for all, the NIGMS Feedback Loop is a goldmine and should be essential reading for anyone seeking or currently receiving funding from NIGMS. https://loop.nigms.nih.gov
MIRAorR01 said
Thank you for the responses. I am currently paying everyone in the lab from start-up money. The “R01” project is not out of scope for the MIRA but it is a very different project that was not part of the MIRA. I could of course use money from the MIRA to pay the person(s) on the other project, but at the end with having to cover my salary as well it is not enough. I think the diversity supplement (I assume you refer to an F32 or similar) would probably be a good plan, I totally forgot about this! I got a lot of mixed feedback within my department but interestingly there seems to be a tendency towards the R01. This made me wonder about the pros and cons and if anyone has any experience they would be able to share.
writedit said
What if your R01 doesn’t start until spring 2022 due to federal budget delays? The MIRA R35 would start no later than September, allowing you to save almost a year of start-up funding for other purposes. You note changing the IC on the R01 would be challenging – but not impossible, apparently, so you could also use this extra time to start tailoring the initial experiments to obtain preliminary data that would set you up for an R01 to a different IC (or to NSF, if it is that basic). I’ll just add that it probably doesn’t look good if you apply for a specific grant award (ie, MIRA R35) – particularly a competitive opportunity considered prestigious inside the IC – and then turn it down when offered, especially if you plan to turn to NIGMS for a good portion of funding throughout your entire career.
CuriousApplicant said
Hi MIRAorR01, Congratulations on getting the NIGMS R35 MIRA. I have a question for you. May I ask you when you received the notification? My status in eRA Commons has remained “Pending administrative review” for about 10 days. Thank you.
MIRAorR01 said
Hi CuriousApplicant, thank you. I received an e-mail from my PO on July 1st and an official request for the JIT yesterday. My colleague, who had a better score (around 30) was notified by the PO about a week before me. I am not sure about the JIT. My status in eRA is also “Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist. “.
CuriousApplicant said
Hello MIRAorR01! Thank you for sharing the information. That is encouraging, since my score (44) is very similar to yours. I guess I will receive an email from my PO soon. In early April, I submitted the JIT upon request. (It was even before the Council Meeting.) No additional JIT has been requested since then.
greyzone said
I am ‘grey zone’ at NIAID for a Feb2021 submission, and wondering the timeline. If I understand correctly, paylines are usually set around April, is that right? Any way to get early insight into whether the current 14% for 2020 might increase by a point or two for 2021?
writedit said
If you submitted this past February (2021), then your application will be considered in FY22, and those paylines won’t be available until the fall (starting with interim paylines, which will be lower at the outset). Although the federal budget is an unknown right now, I suspect paylines for FY22 will be similar to this year and probably not more than a percentile higher. When you have your summary statement, talk with your PO about next steps, including (especially) whether to submit again in November, since you probably won’t know the status of the A0 by then. You can ask for advice on the resubmission, too, based on the study section discussion.
Viru said
I submitted my A1 K award in summer 2020. It was scored just above the funding line for FY2021. I received a JIT in January but was informed by my PO that it would not be funded. I was obviously disappointed but ‘moved on’ and ended up submitting a new K award in June 2021.
A few days later, I got a second JIT request for my original K. The status on eRA has now gone from ‘Council Review Completed’ to ‘Pending Administrative Review’. I haven’t heard from the PO yet.
Does this mean that the original grant might still get funded?
National_Institutes_of_Suspense said
Sure does but nothing is certain till you get the NOA. I’m in a similar situation — I had written off my first K99 as it got a borderline score and did not get funded initially, but I got a note from the PO a couple of weeks ago saying its now on the paylist — guess they had funds to award a few more applications toward the end of their fiscal year.
You getting a second JIT request is a good sign — I’m guessing you’re going to hear from the PO/GMS soon. Good luck!
Viru said
Thanks. I hope so. Trying not to think about it and go back to ‘move on’ mode! Either way I’ll circle back and post my experiences. Reading the posts above has been been really informative.
writedit said
Thanks for sharing your experience, National Institutes of Suspense! I agree – the second JIT (they would only ask for this again if your application was being reviewed for an award) and change in status means they probably have enough funding left to pay some additional awards (these are the end of FY decisions). Your PO is out of this decision loop, so wouldn’t know off hand how to reply. It’s not guaranteed until you have the NOA, of course, but these are all positive developments. Thanks so much for sharing your experience, too, Viru.
Viru said
Just some quick follow-up: still no word from GMS (or PO).
Status change and second personalized JIT was June 14 (5 weeks).
Scrolling through similar situations above, it sounds like this stage can last anywhere from 2-3 weeks to 2-3 months, with most being around 4-5 weeks.
I was debating emailing the GMS, but felt it was maybe premature and would only be bothering them. Any benefit in emailing them or should I just keep waiting?
writedit said
The GMS will contact you if they need anything, and they are all frantically busy until the end of Sept, so there’s really no need to contact them. The pending period can last weeks to months due to the backlog of applications being processed, so you should keep positive in the meantime (waiting really is the hardest part).
Viru said
OK got it. Will hold tight! Thank you.
Viru said
One more follow-up. Still no word from GMS/PO. However, when I check the status section for my grant there is no GMS listed any more (there used to be) – just PO and SRO.
The GMS who requested the first JIT in Jan 2021 was different from the GMS who contacted me in June 2021 – but until recently there was a GMS listed.
Again – not sure what else to do except to sit tight but was wondering if this would be common (to have no GMS listed while in the Pending Admin Review stage).
Viru
writedit said
The loss of the second GMS could explain the delay – they could be struggling to maintain adequate staffing. Some of these folks might be contractors who get moved around, too. If you haven’t tried to reach out to the PO in a while, you could check in to confirm that your application is still under consideration for an award. Your PO is out of the award processing loop, so they won’t have any idea on timing, but they should be able to confirm that you are still in the queue. You definitely want to know if you should be working on an application for October, so the PO should respond. If you don’t hear anything (one way or another) by mid August, you might try one level up with the PO’s boss (branch chief or division head, depending on the IC) – not to complain but just to seek guidance on whether to prepare for the fall cycle.
Viru said
OK that makes sense.
I’ll email the PO and see if they can shed any light on things. I had held off on contacting him about all this so we haven’t spoken in several months.
I already submitted a new A0 in June – just before the second JIT came through.
writedit said
Ah – glad to hear you submitted in June (which makes sense, due to late second JIT). You could touch base with the PO for an update … or just wait, since you do have an application in for insurance if needed – though hopefully not.
Viru said
I got my NoA this week! Wanted to share my timeline. This site has been a great resource in understanding the funding process, and in guiding me for what to do during the very long waiting period.
July 2020: Submitted A1 K23. Original A0 had scored in the 40s.
November 2020: Summary statement and score available: scored 30 with a funding line of 32 in FY2020.
January 2021: Received personalized JIT request.
February 2, 2021: Council Meeting.
March 5, 2021: Informed by PO that application won’t be funded. Later that month, funding line of 28 announced for FY2021.
June 10, 2021: Submitted a new A0 application.
June 16, 2021: Second personalized JIT request. Status changed to ‘Pending Administrative Review’. No other communication.
June 21, 2021: Submitted JIT paperwork.
August 16, 2021: Status changed to: ‘Award Prepared’.
August 24, 2021: NoA received.
Thank you again for the guidance on this site.
writedit said
Woohoo – congratulations! Thanks for sharing a great summary of your complicated path to funding. I am glad you didn’t have to wait for the new A0 to be reviewed (though it would have been nice to know about the course reversal in terms of funding decision before preparing the application). Best wishes for success with this project and your career in biomedical research.
Disappointed said
Thank you for this great forum. I submitted an R01-A0 in Oct 2020 which received % score in 30s. The comments were relatively minor, discussed with the PO, who was kind enough to guide through the response to critiques and was positive about the resubmission doing well. I submitted A1 in Feb 2021, requesting the same (standing) study section that had reviewed A0. The Program Chief instead assigned it to a SEP (despite my emphasis that the standing section had the right mix of expertise and had reviewed A0), providing the reason that the standing section had seen a surge of applications in that cycle, hence the need for a SEP. The SEP roster was not made available until 10 days prior to the meeting. I recognized a competitor and potential conflict on the roster, but it was deemed too late to bring to attention of the SRO.
I am not sure how much of all these factors played into it, but I received review results yesterday and the application was not discussed 😦
Obviously I am waiting for the summary statement to discuss with the PO next course of action, but my question to this forum is can I/should I discuss with the PO/Program Chief/any one else at NIH the anomalies that played into the review of this A1, and will it help in any way going forward with a new A0 (which I plan to submit to the same standing SS) ?
Thanks
writedit said
I am very sorry about your experience (b2grantdaya reports a similar negative experience with SEPs). I am surprised, if there was a surge in applications (which does happen), that the SRO did not keep all the A1s at least in the SRG to ensure continuity of review, but it is impossible to know the breakdown of applications. You don’t want to formally complain, because that will prevent you from moving forward with very low likelihood of a better outcome after a year or more delay. You would not want to mention what happened in your next A0, obviously, which cannot refer to prior applications (and this unfortunate cascade of events is not relevant to the science itself). What you can do is list anyone on the SEP and standing SRG as a reviewer you do not want – and provide objective rational (competition evident in publications and grant awards) – and list the required expertise … all this goes in the PHS Assignment Request form. Your PO can also provide advice once the summary statement is in hand, and their input will be important.
Disappointed said
Thank you for your response, which is spot on. I actually mentioned the continuity of the review to which their response was that it is not NIH policy to ensure continuity.. only relevant expertise. I thought it was odd, since my study section (I am a standing member) had to form a SEP for the same reason but SRO made sure to keep A1s in the standing panel and also had some members serve on both panels. I did not want to fight/ argue with the Chief and trusted the process. Sadly, it failed.
writedit said
Very frustrating – but you absolutely did the right thing not arguing with the Chief.
>
Disappointed said
Correction to my post above: A0 was reviewed (not submitted) in Oct 2020. Thank you
b2grantdaya said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you for your help.
I am an established PI and also have a continuous submission. I had a RO1 reviewed last Oct which scored 33%. I submitted my resubmission in April. I answered all the comments which reviewers had but grant was submitted to special emphasis. I requested too to CSR they said it is late and hard to get the reviewers. It was just reviewed and I have the score now of 18%. I feel it would have got better chances if reviewed in the same study section. My question and advice needed from you is: Could I just submit now without waiting for summary report back with a request that it goes to the original study section. Hopefully it is not too last since July 5 is any way resubmission deadline. We had a high impact paper too last year and I spent too much resources to get that paper. Now this delay is making me nervous. My goal is to get it reviewed in Oct in the original study section. Somehow, I feel these special emphasis panel do not work well. I have seen always grant writers unhappy. NIH has them to help the study section panel members. But most of the time it goes opposite…no continuity, not enough reviewers with right expertise…
b2grantdaya said
Just to add to my previous comment. I feel if NIH should clearly say on their website that proposals submitted after a certain date will not be reviewed in the standing study sections. They will go to special emphasis panels.
writedit said
Thanks for sharing your experience, though I am sorry it is not a positive one (others will learn from this, though). The NIH Continuous Submission Policy does include a statement about the possibility of going to a SEP, which I agree is suboptimal in most circumstances (unlike in the distant past): “Depending on the timing of the submission and the number of other similar applications received during the Application Receipt Period, NIH staff will decide if the application will be reviewed in a standing Study Section or in a Special Emphasis Panel (SEP).” https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-20-060.html Your application is considered under review until the summary statement is issued, so you would not be able to submit by July 5 no matter what. You could contact the SRO of your CSR study section to see when the latest submission would be allowable for review there – my guess is that later in July should still be okay (assuming you have your summary statement). Of course, now you will be submitting a new A0, so you will not include an introduction or mention the prior review. However, if you feel confident that the panel composition will be about the same, your being responsive to the first A0 concerns (and perhaps anything relevant raised in the A1 review) should be well received.
b2grantdaya said
Many Thanks for your quick response. Oh, I did not realize that I cannot submit even as an A0 if the summary statement for previous A1 is not released. That is a revelation. I feel instead of helping the panel members special panel are a penalty. Since I was reviewing in Feb, I conveniently thought I will work on my resubmission after my panel responsibility. I requested CSR but was told that SRO will find apt reviewers. NIH should think whether it is realistic to find a whole panel which is apt. So many times in study section meetings someone who is nonreviewer argues about a case with reviewers and then study section voting changes. This happens because all members have similar focus. When we write a grant we write with a certain focus…that cannot happen in special emphasis panels. I could be wrong. Maybe others had good success, but i checked with so many and they all said the same…these panels are random. Maybe it is a time that NIH rethinks about them…at least the one made to help standing members.
writedit said
I agree completely about SEPs, but if you want to take advantage of known CSR panels, apply on time. It’s that simple – choice is yours (submit late at your convenience and risk worse review, apply on standard date for review by known quantity). It would be impossible for CSR to accommodate every late reviewer, and it’s not fair to the study sections (ie, reviewers getting additional applications to review with not much time). As I said, the SROs should be able to say when it will be too late to accept a continuous submission application for review in a standing SRG, so you can plan accordingly in the future (vs wait until the last possible date to submit).
bgrantsdaya said
Thank you Writedit.
I did learnt the lesson…will not wait till last min
Keith said
What I learned is that it helps to let the SRO know that you will be submitting a revised proposal late pushing the continuous submission deadline. The SRO can pre-allocate the reviewers for you. A wonderful SRO has helped me a few times in the past.
writedit said
This is awesome intel, Keith – thank you so much for sharing your experience. I suspect this is at the discretion of the SRO, but it’s great to know to ask at least, in case they can accommodate their reviewer/PI (it is in the SRO’s interest to keep good reviewers happy).
lshinjc said
Hi, I have received an impact score of 26 for an Early K99/R00 application with NCI. I haven’t received my summary statement yet but wondering if anyone knew my chances of getting funding ? Thank you in advance.
Ab said
Hi! Have you asked your PO?
writedit said
You can check with your PO about next steps after you receive your summary statement. This will be for FY22, so your PO won’t have any idea of funding likelihood until the federal budget is passed (hopefully this fall), but they can gauge whether you will need to prepare a resubmission in the interim. Hopefully others with experience in this NCI award will post their scores and outcomes, and you might search the comments for some insight.
John Morgan said
Dear Writedit:
I applied for the RADx-UP NOSI last year for COVID testing in FY2020 funding as a competitive revision to my existing P42 grant. I was not funded last year. These grants are reviewed by the NIH OD, and no scores or percentiles are accorded. However, my eRA commons shows the status (updated 7/2/2021) as ‘pending’. In my experience, when eRA commons statues changes from pending IRG review or pending council review to ‘pending’ means the application is going to be awarded. I am a correct in my thinking? I emailed my PO but she replied saying that she did not receive any notification that my application has been selected for funding. She told me she will find out and let me know. I am thinking that, since these applications are selected for funding by the big NIH director, she may have not yet been informed. Please let me know your thoughts. Is it possible for NIH to fund a FY 2020 application in FY2021?
Thanks a lot!
John Morgan
SaG said
Yes they can though they like to tie their own hands and say they can’t. NIH could do lots of things but they are an old conservative bureaucracy who live in fear of audits. That is why folks don’t want NIH to take on ARPA-H.
writedit said
As SaG notes, it is possible. Sometimes a status changes because an administrator is doing something on the application, not necessarily related to funding consideration. However, since this is a one-time payment, it could be the OD has some money left to spend (and didn’t want multiyear commitment), and your revision was on the list of possible awardees.
flyguy said
Hi writedit, thanks for this incredibly helpful resource! I’ve found other timelines helpful so I’m posting mine:
06/11/2020 Application (A0) entered into system.
06/19/2020 Scientific Review Group review pending (A0). Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
11/17/2020 Scientific Review Group review completed (A0): Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
Impact score of 29 received.
12/09/2020 Summary statement available.
01/26/2021 Email exchange with PO expressing optimism and requesting a response to reviewer comments.
01/29/2021 Rebuttal submitted.
02/03/2021 JIT submitted.
02/09/2021 Council review completed (A0).
02/17/2021 Email exchange with PO saying that funding is still uncertain and recommending resubmission before K99 eligibility runs out.
03/11/2021 Application (A1) entered into system.
03/19/2021 Scientific Review Group review pending (A1). Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
06/09/2021 Pending administrative review (A0). Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
06/14/2021 Phone call with PO saying that the A0 application will be funded.
06/28/2021 Award (A0) prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
06/29/2021 Application (A0) awarded.
Application (A1) withdrawn: previous application funded.
writedit said
Woohoo – congratulations, and thank you for posting such a detailed and helpful timeline! Best wishes for success with your project and your career in biomedical research.
sloth said
Thanks for sharing your timeline, may I ask you what is the NIH institute you are referring to?
Grace said
Dear Writedit,
Do you have any idea about the final NIA pay line for 2021? It seems they are still using the interim pay line now, 8% for non-ADRD R01. Is it still possible to go up towards the end of this fiscal year?
Thanks,
Grace
writedit said
Hmm. That is unusual, so I am not sure if they just have not updated the numbers on their website, or if they are keeping the low interim paylines to allow more select pay awards. Your PO will be a better source of information, and they will know by now (since Cycle III awards should have been decided in time for July awards) what the plan is.
Grace said
My PO just replied and said there was still no change for the payline. NIA is really tough for non-ADRD grants now 😦
writedit said
Bummer. They must have received a large number of very competitive applications and/or need a reserve for select pay applications. Thanks for sharing what you learned.
Geoffrey said
Dear Writedit,
I recently got a fundable score on my application and the summary statement. All comments are good. But what concerns me is an administrative note at the end of the statement, which states that “page limit for one section of the application may have been exceeded by including excess text in one or more application sections without specific page limits (e.g., Vertebrate Animals Section). The NIH has the authority to withdraw noncompliant applications from review or
consideration for funding. I did some quick search and it seems this is more like a warning thing. My questions are how serious it will be during administrative review process and the chance of being withdrawn at that stage?
Thanks for your time and feedback in advance.
writedit said
Your application could still be withdrawn (applications can be withdrawn even after undergoing administrative review any time up until the NoA is actually issued). Council could be concerned about this, since it sounds as though you circumvented the Research Strategy narrative page limit by shifting required details to other application uploads (e.g., Vertebrate Animals). They may evaluate the extent to which discussion of material in your Vertebrate Animals section contributed to your competitive score (Council reviews the process and quality of peer review and the fit for the IC). If they feel you had an unfair advantage during peer review by using more than 12 pages (or whatever your page limit was), they may not recommend the application for funding. The IC Director can make this call, too. This is the sort of violation that can only be uncovered at peer review (vs initial submission), and the IC has the discretion to determine whether it was enough to impact review. I have no idea what the likelihood of the application being withdrawn is, but it’s not zero.
stillwaiting said
Is there still a likelihood of receiving R56 for an R01 that was reviewed in March this year and missed the payline by 2 points ? The council review was completed in April.
writedit said
Yes, FY21 applications can receive R56 awards any time until September 30. Most ICs wait until after the Cycle III awards are made, which usually means later in July. Your PO is the one to advocate for R56 consideration (it’s not automatic), so you should check with them to see if you are even on the list and, if not, for advice on resubmission (if you didn’t put in an A1 this week).
Sean said
Similar situation, here, but for an A1. I revised as a de novo R01 and the PO knows. Any advice on how to approach the PO for select pay for the A1? My PO oversees two R01 submissions back-to-back 2% off the payline.
writedit said
Just ask if there is any possibility. Hopefully the PO provided a little insight on what might help push the application within funding range when you were preparing the new A0, too.
Stillwaiting said
Thank you. I plan to resubmit by Aug 10 deadline.
SaG said
I never understood the need for the R56 mechanism. The PO can just award your R01 for 1 or 2 years as a lower budget if they want. Why move it to a new mechanism?
Syyd said
I Writedit,
I have an important question. Based on your previous answer and what I read on the NIH website when the ESI status is flagged at submission, it should be taken into account at the award. I have recently been awarded an R01 but the reduction was much higher than expected. On their website, NIBIB states a 4-year funding + 10% reduction for ESI (the reduction being 15% for non-ESI). That being said I received 4-year funding as expected but ~15-19% reduction (each year is different).
My PO said that although the ESI status was active at the time of submission, it expired by the time of the award. That seems unreasonable, especially for new investigators getting their first major grant and establishing their research platform. As I am getting mixed signals, I would appreciate it if you could clarify this point? Should the ESI reduction be applied in my case? If not, why I am getting a higher reduction rate compared to their highest 15% reduction rate? Note that I have no other overlapping funded projects.
Also, I never received a notification from NIH that I was awarded the grant. Although online it says I was awarded (but also pending at the same time which confused me), NIH sent an email to my institution through a generic email that was unnoticed. They had to dig in to find out. Is this their normal process? If so, that seems a bit impersonal.
Thanks for your feedback.
writedit said
Each IC can handle ESIs in their own way. ESI status at application determines how it is considered during review (CSR applies the same policy to all ESI-eligible applications). Whether the ESI payline and/or award protection apply vary by circumstance and IC. You don’t mention if you got another R01 award in the meantime, but that would change your ESI status at the time of the NIBIB award. Even if you did not receive another R01, NIBIB can handle your award however they feel is appropriate – there is no overarching NIH policy requiring them to give you the full budget amount, so there is nothing to formally appeal. If you are getting a 15-19% cut, then established PIs could be getting higher cuts. The spending “plan” they post on their website does not obligate them to stick with the stated level of cut. I assume they are trying to spread their appropriation to as many applications as possible. While you cannot demand or expect a reduced cut in budget, you can talk with your PO and explain what modifications you would need to make to the research plan to accommodate the cuts – and what amounts restored would be used for. It’s best to directly show how the science will be affected by specific cuts than to simply ask for more money because you should get it as ESI. The email with the actual NOA does go to your institution (sponsored programs or similar office). Your eRA status will read “Notice of award prepared” when the NOA is complete but pending sign-off from the IC Director, but I’m not sure if that’s what you mean about pending (and there can be a gap of several days between the NOA being prepared and issued).
WomanInScience said
Dear writedit et al,
Do you know when the end-of-year funding decisions will be made? I also have a R01-A01 that is 2% off the payline. The PO is very vague about the possible outcome, however, she has copied the GMS and branch Chief in her recent emails to me. Any information would be greatly appreciated.
writedit said
Any time from now through early September. The ICs have a ranked list, and they pay in order until the money runs out. If an application ahead of you has an administrative problem or conflict of some sort, it gets skipped since there is no time to address these concerns.
WomanInScience said
Thanks so much Writedit. Here is the reply from the PO “So far your application has not made any list of applications to be funded. I cannot say for sure that it will not be funded this or early next fiscal year, but chances are very low.” Does this mean “hopeless”?
writedit said
Not hopeless but not likely. You should definitely be working on next submission, if you haven’t already (and your PO could give advice on that, too).
WomanInScience said
Thanks so much again! Will start to work on next submission.
NewESI said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you very much for this very useful forum.
I submitted an NIH-NCI R21 (Ao) in Feb 2021.
Impact score 27, percentile 10. My PO told me from the discussions it seemed to him I would be funded. However, given 10 percentile (NCI cut off FY2021 is 9 percentile), he is not sure and I should discuss with him once the summary statement is available.
I have sveral questions:
1. What are the chances of my application getting funded?
2. I have been suggested to try to convince the PO to fund my application , I am not sure whether my discussion with him when I get the summary statement should be about listening to what he suggests as the next steps or to convince him?
3. I have been offered a new position in another lab , different department but same institution. I have to join in October. Will that go against my chances of getting funded? Is this something I should discuss with the PO when I discuss summary statement?
Thanks
writedit said
Your application is for FY22, so your PO will have no idea about funding likelihood (and will not be advocating for any applications) until after the FY22 federal budget is signed into law – I assume by the end of this year. When you have your summary statement, talk with your PO about next steps, including whether resubmission (for insurance) is recommended and whether they would like a rebuttal (usually ~1 p) to the concerns raised in the summary paragraph. If the PO does want a rebuttal, they will use this for internal discussions of ranking applications that are above the payline. Your PO cannot fund your application – only the NCI Director can do that – and it is up to your PO as to whether they want to advocate for your application or any of the other many (dozens) of applications submitted for consideration in their portfolio. Your job is to prepare a compelling rebuttal that your PO can use to convince other NCI leadership of the merit of your application. I don’t think the change in position should make any difference, so long as you still have access to the required facilities, equipment, and other resources needed to complete the research as proposed.
Toulouse said
Positives: My NIAID R01 scored a 9%
Weaknesses: 31 impact factor; Summary statement includes phrases like “moderate high impact”.
I think I need to speak with my PO and discuss how I can address any weaknesses and get him excited about it.
Should I still “feel good” about the 9% or worried about how the impact factor and summary statement could impact my chances?
writedit said
NIAID sticks closely to the hard payline by percentile, so you don’t need to worry about the impact score or the comments. I assume this is for FY22, so your main question for the PO is whether you need to submit again. Because the NIAID payline was only below the 9th percentile during one gloomy sequester year (2013) over the past two decades, I suspect the answer will be no, in which case you don’t need to worry about addressing weaknesses.
Toulouse said
Thank you! Such a great resource here. You should get paid for this. 🙂
Toulouse said
As an update, I just received a JIT request from the NIAID GMS assigned to the proposal. Kind of surprised since it was slated for FY 22 consideration. However, I wonder since it is SARS-CoV-2-related that they might be trying to get it in as end of year funding. I assume that it is still looking positive (they don’t usually reach out for a JIT unless they plan on issuing an award)?
writedit said
Correct – they would not be asking for JIT unless they planned to consider an award in FY21. ICs will start reviewing extra applications to be sure they can spend down all their money in time, so it’s not a guarantee, but it’s also likely that NIAID has leftover COVID-19 funding to spend.
HockeyFan said
Hi,
I submitted a revised K01 application to the NIMH and received an impact score of 20. Council met in late May and my application is still pending administrative review. Is this time frame typical for kawards in 2021?
writedit said
The time frame is fine – an application can be pending for a while, and the July start date awards get interrupted by the Fourth holiday and vacations in general. If your application is pending administrative review, you can be cautiously optimistic, especially with a score of 20, which should be competitive. You don’t want to interrupt the busy GMS for an update, and your PO won’t know (not involved in the award processing itself), but at least you can wait hopefully, especially if your PO did not recommend that you submit a new A0 in June.
HockeyFan said
Also do you know what the paylines are (approximately) for NIMH k awards? Thanks
MaxxY said
Dear writedit – I just re-submitted my R01. Its prior version is still technically under funding consideration of NIGMS, but the chance is low and I was encouraged to resubmit due to its bordering score. The scope of this work fits well with NIGMS mission , so the resubmission was assigned with NIGMS correctly, but got switched to NCI a couple of days before its study section meeting, for some reason I could not tell (likely due to short of staff). Even the NCI-PO I talked with agreed that it better fits with NIGMS. Because of this fit (and a better funding rate), I would like to have it considered by NIGMS but facing this dilemma. On one hand, the initial PO at NIGMS who requested the switch to NCI does not want to take it back, insisting it should go to NCI. On the other hand, a recent good news is a new PO has arrived, and this R01 would fit well within his portfolio, compared to the initial PO. I have not talked with this new PO yet, but encouraged for resubmission by a new branch chief at NIGMS. Do you have any suggestions on how to navigate this complicated situation since there are potentially 3 points of contact at NIGMS (two POs and branch chief)? Thanks in advance!
writedit said
You should contact the Branch Chief, since they recommended resubmission, especially if both POs are in this same Branch (but even if not – POs would need to go to Branch Chief about this anyway). You can simply lay out the history of what has happened: you (Branch Chief) recommended resubmission, but the original NIGMS PO sent the application to NCI, yet the NCI PO agrees that the A1 should be back at NIGMS. Can you (Branch Chief) please assign the application to new NIGMS PO or someone else with an appropriate portfolio who is willing to take the A1? You (MaxxY) don’t need to mention paylines or anything else – just that the science fits the NIGMS mission and the Branch Chief’s previously conveyed interests. POs and Branch Chiefs have hundreds of applications to track, so you should not assume the Branch Chief remembers all this, and you should not be discouraged about contacting the Branch Chief just because they did not intervene originally. When you point out the email exchanges and remind them of their interest, they should be happy to help.
MaxxY said
Thanks much writedit! This has been very instrumental.
MaxxY said
Thanks again! I got a quick reply from Branch Chief with a simple sentence by saying the original NIGMS PO made the decision and the assignments are handled by CSR DRR. I am in a deep rabbit hole now.. should I contact CSR? My feeling is that it is out of the CSR’s control and it was the NIGMS PO made the switching request. Any suggestion on what to do next?
writedit said
Hmm. It is true that CSR does the assigning, but they don’t tell ICs which applications to take, they ask (IC can say no, as in the case of your original PO). You cannot go to CSR to request a change unless you have someone at NIGMS willing to accept the application. At this point, that leaves the new PO. I couldn’t tell if you had contacted this person already, but you can reach out to explain that original PO sent the application to NCI, whereas NCI thinks the application should stay at NIGMS. I would take the Branch Chief’s response as a sign that they are agnostic and give their POs autonomy, so if the new if the new PO is interested, the switch should be possible (through CSR). I assume the SRG is what you requested/expected and is appropriate either way. Now, if the new PO is not interested, then you are in a pickle, since NCI has already indicated they feel this application is better suited for NIGMS. If you are within the NCI payline, they should make the award still, but if you are in the gray zone, your application won’t get a lot of love there. If your application needs to stay at NCI, you might anticipate this possibility (need for advocacy) by communicating with that PO about how your work could be tailored to NCI (so they know you are willing to work to address their mission). And if the application isn’t moved back, you should communicate (separate from this R01 assignment) with the new NIGMS PO about what you can do to tailor your science to be a better fit for the NIGMS mission and priorities. Either way, you should separately communicate with current NCI PO and new NIGMS PO about how to adapt aspects of your research program to each of their interests and funding priorities. The ideal situation for any NIH-funded investigator is to have concurrent awards from different ICs, especially if reviewed in different SRGs (POs can make suggestions there, too), so they are not always going back to the same place for funding.
MaxxY said
I have not reached out to the new PO, but will make an appeal based on your suggestion. Ironically, the NCI PO’s name is now gone from my eRA commons page (likely due to his temporary role). Yes, the SRG is appropriate. Thanks much for explaining and I will email the new PO with the specific-aims page.
MaxxY said
Dear writedit – I got the reply from the new NIGMS PO, who is wiling to accept if it is sent to NIGMS. That is encouraging, but it is a big “if”. Would you recommend me to contact CSR right away? Or I should get the explicit permission from the new PO to request the IC transfer? I would like to be careful here since it is something positive I have been long waiting for and I do not want to blow it away. Please advise and thanks a ton!
writedit said
You rather than NIGMS need to request the change. You can contact CSR about sending it to the new PO at NIGMS – they will ask the PO directly no matter what, so you don’t need to supply explicit permission. You can point out this is a different PO than the one who rejected your application, that the new PO is willing to accept the application, and that your request is also based on the advice of the NCI PO (ie, more appropriate for NIGMS) – and that in fact the NCI PO has also dropped off.
MaxxY said
Thank you writedit for walking me through this process. I am happily reporting that It is now back to NIGMS. I would never think I need to try this hard, even at this very early stage of IC assignment, something I have previously taken for granted. The PO of my previous R01 was sincerely willing to help but unfortunately retired a couple of years ago. You have been filling that gap unofficially … deeply appreciated!
writedit said
Woohoo! Glad you got it squared away – everyone is happy. A lot of ICs are short-staffed, and July-September are crunch times, so I am not surprised the Branch Chief sent only a brief reply – but fantastic that they did so right away. I’m glad you did persevere and take the time to make all these connections. The NIH wants to fund good science, which means not sending applications to dead ends, so it was in everyone’s interest to get this right.
MaxxY said
Hi writedit – I checked my eRA commons today. After it is back to NIGMS, it went back to the original PO, instead of the new PO who agrees to accept. I am worried that it may get pushed away days before the study-section meeting, as happened previously. Should I request the assignment to the new PO? Please advise on how to proceed. Thanks!
writedit said
Wow – this assignment adventure just won’t end. I would suggest you contact the new PO, since they can contact the prior PO and CSR about the PO assignment. If they tell you that you need to contact CSR, you can forward the exchange so CSR knows the new PO is on board (though they already did, I thought).
MaxxY said
Hi writedit -just an update. despite all of these twists and turns, a previous version is now under ‘Award prepared’ as of today. It seems a happy ending, even though the process is much less so. In any case, thank you very much for many advices!!! And I am moving on the other one which received a fundable score, but was not funded (likely due to two applications under the same IC, inferred from another PO’s email before her departure). Btw, should I try to avoid the same IC for submission by any means, even if the IC is appropriate?
writedit said
Woohoo – congratulations (finally)! I usually suggest investigators develop parallel projects that can be reviewed in different study sections and funded by different ICs, though ICs often fund more than one application for a given PI. At NIGMS, the issue is total of all your direct costs (too high and they won’t make any more awards no matter the score, which is why you would want to look to other ICs). Best wishes for success with this and all your research.
MaxxY said
btw, I just noticed that the NIGMS is now primary while NCI is listed as dual… does it make any difference? Not sure what it implies given their sharp difference in funding rate. Thanks!
writedit said
The secondary assignment doesn’t matter at all. In fact, NIGMS now takes itself off every application as a secondary IC to avoid raising false hopes about funding if the score is outside the primary IC payline. Having NCI there won’t affect review or award decisions.
grantnewbie said
Hi writedit,
I have some questions about K01 timing and I don’t want to bother the PO or GMS with them because I’m not even sure I know the timing of when I should ask them about timing.
My K01-A1 was reviewed June 10/11 at NIA. It got an impact score of 20 and the payline for ADRD-related Ks is 35, so a fundable score! (Though I know nothing is guaranteed and, believe me, I’m a pessimist who is not celebrating until I get NOA!) Council meets September 14th. I haven’t received my Summary Statement yet, which is what I was waiting to get before reaching out to the PO. But I know even then, there may not be a reason to reach out to them, since it has a fundable score. But I was going to see what the Summary Statement said and then ask if she thought I should prepare anything for a rebuttal to take to Council. I got the automated JIT request and I am working to pull those things together.
So my questions are:
1) Should I make contact with my PO before Council, given the score is fundable? If so, when should I make that contact with them? Should I wait until I get the summary statement?
2) If Council meetings September 14th, what is the range of when I might expect to get the NOA? The grant had a start date of 9/1 but I know that doesn’t mean much and things can come way later than that, can be back-dated, etc. I am just wondering how soon or how long I might be waiting after Council to breathe a sigh of relief? My grants admin said I could get the NOA as early as end of September or maybe as late as November, but he didn’t think it would be later than early Nov. Others have told me it might not be until December or January. I know it’s a range but knowing the shortest and longest options will help me plan a bit.
Thank you!
JJ said
I haven’t received my summary statement either for an R03 reviewed 6/16 (it is 7/16 now). I received a good score but worry I am on the cusp of funding. Just commiserating!
writedit said
Summary statements can take 6-8 weeks to be issued, so it’s not late yet. The September Council is mainly for Cycle 1 applications (start date Dec 1), though they can approve in advance some applications for funding in the current FY (ie, before Sept 30). You might have requested a start date of Sept 1, but NIA sets the start date (it’s not an expiration date either). You could ask your PO (now) if your application might be considered for FY21, just so you know if this might be possible – though if you don’t need to know for a specific reason (eg, job-related), you might as well just wait. This would happen based on score, so you shouldn’t need a rebuttal to the summary statement, though NIA will need to see the summary statement before making a funding decision. If you need to wait until FY22, the timing will depend on when the federal budget is signed into law, since most ICs won’t make routine new awards during the continuing resolution.
grantnewbie said
Thank you, writedit! Just so I make sure I understand, if my K01 resubmission went in during Cycle 1 (I resubmitted in March 2021, it was reviewed in June 2021, Council is September 2021), it should likely be considered in the September Council? It had a September 1 start date, though, not a December 1st start date. I know the start date is arbitrary but just putting that out there because it sounds like you’re suggesting Cycle 1 applications have December 1st start dates, but mine was a Cycle 1 with a September 1st start date. So should that be up for consideration at the September Council? Thanks!
writedit said
You can ask for a Sept 1 start date, but NIA does not need to honor that, and most Cycle 1 awards have Dec 1 start dates (even with the Sept Council). They have a Sept Council to approve late FOAs and some Cycle 1 applications for awards before the 30 FY ends (if the IC has $$ left to spend before Sept 30), but this is the exception, not the rule. As I said, if it’s important to know whether you should plan for a start in September FY21 or sometime in FY22, you can ask your PO if your application will be funded in FY21 or FY22 (even without the summary statement, since PO will know whether NIA typically funds any Cycle 1 K01s before Sept 30). Your asking about it won’t make it happen, though – that’s an internal decision based on how much of their FY21 appropriation remains. If they don’t have any FY21 monies available, you’ll wait for FY22.
Tron said
Hi writedit,
I am in a bureaucratic pickle. I am an NIAID DP2 awardee, which allows for $300K in direct costs per year for 5 years. Unfortunately, my grants office was unfamiliar with some NIH rules, and told me to budget cost-of-living increases and the true tuition costs for GRAs in the out years. To get to the $300K budget limit, I reduced my supplies budgets in those years, assuming I’d use other sources for that.
I now know COL is not allowed and total GRA support is limited to 0 year postdoc support. In which case, they cut all that out, amounting to a budget cut of $150K over the next 4 years. If I’d done it right, I would have just kept my supplies budget stable, and got the full amount.
Do I have any recourse to get back the $150K towards supplies? The out years have yet to be awarded. This severely limits my ability to do the work, as I’ll have to let people go in the out years.
writedit said
You can talk with your PO and explain exactly what happened. This does not affect the science itself, since you will be extending the duration of salary for people working on the project and buying already described supplies, so there’s not a problem of introducing changes that didn’t undergo peer review. I am not sure what all they can do in this situation, but they can’t help if you don’t ask – and it’s possible they could adjust the future year award levels.
Tron said
Thank you for the response. I actually did reach out to the GMS and PO, but they seem to be purposefully misunderstanding me, or acting as if there is nothing they can do. I thought perhaps I approach them again shortly before the next years budget award. Would it be easier then to adjust award amounts?
writedit said
It could be that there is nothing they can do, in which case this is a tough lesson to learn (for you and your grants administrator). If they can’t adjust the NOA now, they won’t later. Since your institution made the mistake, you could ask your mentor, department chair, or trusted senior faculty colleague about whether there might be any chance of the university picking up some of the lost funding. Neither of the issues you cited are new policy (eg, no NIH funding mechanisms has allowed COL increase in out years for over a decade – maybe closer to two).
Verytroubled said
Hi Writedit,
I have learned so much from this forum!
I, established PI, have got IS: 31, 18th% on an NIMH R01 A1. A weak score, but the summary statement clearly states that the weaknesses are “addressable”. I initially worked with a “project manager”, who was a contractor and is now on leave, which I learned this last week. I reached out to the superior (program director) and was introduced to a new project manager, who’s also a contractor. Yesterday, the project manager told me to resubmit.
my concern is that I do not feel the program is good fit for the proposed research and the program is not really interested in the research. Instead, another program in the same branch is really good fit. Would it be wise to reach out to the director of this other program. Would I offend the current program director by doing so?
Many thanks for your advice!
writedit said
Yes, you can certainly reach out to the other program about your application, especially if you’ve identified a PO (project manager, I guess) whose background and portfolio looks appropriate. If you have a specific individual in mind, you can check their portfolio on RePORTER (search by the PO’s name in the Program Officer field). Otherwise, you can use the NIMH staff descriptions and RePORTER Matchmaker (you paste in your Specific Aims or abstract to search for POs with matching interests) to narrow down your choices. The current program won’t be offended. Everyone there wants the science to be in the right place.
Verytroubled said
Thank you for the very helpful advice!
R01 Established PI said
I have an R01 submission that was recently scored at the 12th percentile (impact score: 28). The application was submitted with funding assignments to two institutes: NIA (primary) and NHLBI (secondary). Based on current paylines, the application falls outside of NIA’s payline (8th percentile) and within NHLBI’s payline (15th percentile). How will this application be handled? And is there anything I can do to help improve the chances of being funded? Thank you!
writedit said
If your application was assigned to NIA, you will be subject to their paylines, which likely will not be much higher for non-AD/ADRD applications next year. Secondary ICs almost never pick up applications, so you shouldn’t give much thought to NHLBI (NIGMS now removes itself as secondary IC to avoid raising any false hopes). If your science meets a top priority there, you could ask if your NHLBI PO would consider picking up the application after NIA turns it down, but that might not happen (ie, NIA relinquishing the application) until the end of the FY. If the application doesn’t receive an award and is more appropriate for NHLBI, you probably wanted to talk with your PO there about accepting the A1 application as the primary IC and use the PHS Assignment Request Form to request this.
R01 Established PI said
Thank you, this is very helpful.
doggeroo said
Hi Writedit,
I submitted a new R01 to GMS that was not discussed. I can address the reviewer comments. However, the revised grant would be a substantial re-write and we have a lot of new data for many of the studies we proposed. My question is, should I re-submit this as an A1 or am I better off sending it in as a new submission? I emailed the PO to see if he can chat, but no response (Im sure he is busy talking to people who got scores!)
Thanks as always for your insight.
writedit said
I usually recommend that PIs submit a new A0 that incorporates relevant points raised in the ND review. This seems especially true in your case, since you have new data and perhaps new ideas based on these data.
zhaoj817 said
Hi writedit,
I just received an impact score of 22 (2%) for my R15 with NIA(primary) and NIAID. The council meeting will be held this Sep. I saw my score is within the payline (8% for less than 500k) on the NIA website. Is this mean I should get funded for sure? I am a very new faculty and never got even a score for my all other NIH applications. Is there anything I need to do now? Many thanks.
writedit said
Congratulations on your exceptional score! You don’t need to do anything at this point. Your application will likely be awarded for the December 1 start date, unless NIA has some FY21 funding available for late (Sept) awards. You many not hear anything for a few months, or you might get a JIT request later in September – and then not hear anything for a few months. If you have any questions, you can ask your PO (after you receive your summary statement). Always welcome to stop back here, too, but your PO should be happy to help you.
Maria Soledad said
Hi, does anyone knows what are competitive impact scores for SC3?
Maria S said
Hi writedit,
Do you know what are the usual funded scores for SC3?
writedit said
I don’t, and I can’t remember if others have posted their experience here, but you can search this page and the archived pages for SC3 to see if there are any threads with scores and outcomes. When you have your summary statement, your PO can give you advice on next steps, which will also give you an indication of funding likelihood – but they won’t know about funding until late this year or early next (not until the federal budget is signed into law).
postdoc_in_Boston_K99 said
Dear Writedit
I resubmitted my NIGMS K99 in March, and just got a score of 24 (A0 was 40), no summary statement yet, council meeting would be in Sep. I am very anxious as this is my last shot including the one cycle extension due to the pandemic. I am wondering if this would be a safe score for NIGMS based on previous experience (NIGMS does not publish)?
My mentor recently gave me an “instructor” title. I am also wondering if this would be a problem or should I specifically mention this to PO? Since I have listed it in my biosketch in the application, my thought is if he/she does not ask, I will not say to avoid complications. (I think I am still a postdoc, just with maybe a little more salary than others in the lab).
Another question I have is whether I should ask the PO if it is ok to apply independent positions this fall/winter? I do hope to try the job market, but I am afraid they will not give me the award if I ask at this stage.
Many thanks!
writedit said
A 24 is on the high side but also represents a significant improvement (and no additional chances), so when you get your summary statement, ask your PO about next steps. Your PO may not know about funding likelihood for FY22, but you could ask if that score is competitive (ie, worth waiting) or if you should pursue other options. If you start looking for jobs, you will (almost certainly) be dropped from consideration for an award, but if your PO suggests that you pursue other options, then get those applications out – and cite the K99 with a score of 24; even if not funded, it shows you and your science competed well in peer review. To be honest, if you are competitive for good jobs now, you would be better off skipping the K99 and (once hired) converting your K99 project into an R01 application as a new tenure-track faculty member (budget is much better, award is renewable). You can scroll up or search this page to see prior discussion of NIGMS K99 scores,.
postdoc_in_Boston_K99 said
Thanks for the reply. I remember during my last talk with PO in Dec 2020 (for A0, not sure if it would be the same PO this time), he mentioned if I submit A1 in March and got it, I could search for jobs at the end of 2021. However, I read through prior discussion in this page, it seems even trying job search may invalidate the candidacy for K99. Since neither K99 and job search is guaranteed, and my score seems to be not on the low (good) side, I don’t want to give up both chances and want to maximize the possibilities.
I am wondering when would be the earliest time point that I could start search jobs without invalidate being considered for K99 or an awarded K99? I am hesitating whether to ask PO about this, is it wise to ask this?
BTW, I am not confident to be competitive for good jobs now without the K99, and I do think additional training, especially the proposed courses, will be very helpful to my career (but perhaps ~1 yrs rather than ~2 yrs).
writedit said
Your PO said you could start job search later in 2021 if you got the K99. When you start looking for a job, you are signaling that you don’t need any more training – or the K99.
WW said
Hi writedit: “get those applications out – and cite the K99 with a score of 24”. How does this work? In what section you could mention a score in a different funding mechanism?
writedit said
I was referring to job applications for faculty positions, in which case you would list the application number, title, and score (with brief summary sentence) in the research funding section of your CV and possibly in letters or research statements, if it seems appropriate in context. You would not refer to the K99 score in other (non K99) NIH applications, since you wouldn’t want to confuse reviewers into thinking you have previously submitted, still pending award in conflict with the one currently under review.
SaG said
I think the philosophy is, “If you are looking for a job you don’t need any more training…the k99 portion.) Most parts of NIH expect you to spend at least a year in the k99 portion. If you are job hunting you should be thinking of applying for an R01.
SaG said
Especially, a Katz R01…https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-21-038.html
K99/R00applicant said
Dear writedit, I have submitted my K99/R00 through NIGMS. When I checked on the eRACommon, NIGMS is listed as (Primary), and NIDDK is also listed. I assumed that NIDDK is secondary. What does this mean? Can my proposal be considered for fundings in both ICs? Thank you!
writedit said
No, especially not for a K99/R00. The application is reviewed by the primary IC. NIGMS doesn’t review applications for NIDDK. If you haven’t worked with anyone at NIDDK and your science might be of interest to them, you might want to find an appropriate PO there and pursue future applications with them. You always want to be working on applications that go to different study sections for review and to different ICs for funding.
GrantWriter said
Dear writedit and SaG,
My grant status has remained “pending administrative review” since June. Since one month has already passed, do you suggest to contact my PO (in NIGMS) to check the timeline and possibility of getting funded? Otherwise, do you recommend just keep waiting for a while? After reading posts here, I got an impression that things can simply go very slowly especially during this busy season. Am I right?
(This is a great community. Thank you very much for your helping others and sharing your insights.)
writedit said
Yes, you should just sit tight. The GMS (PO not involved with administrative review and award preparation) will contact you if they need information, and they cannot tell you the timing of the NOA (assuming no unanticipated issues are uncovered). They’re busy cranking through hundreds of awards – you can count on an answer by September but probably sooner.
GrantWriter said
Dear writedit,
Thank you very much for your helpful reply. I will keep waiting as you advised.
SaG said
You could check with your grants office too. If there is an issues with the award (Animals or Humans for instance) NIGMS might be waiting for a response. Otherwise yes, as writedit said… the waiting is the hardest part..
GrantWriter said
Thank you SaG for sharing your insight.
Keepingthefaith said
Dear Writedit,
I have just received the summary statement on a resubmitted R01 (NINDS, 17th%). The “largest score-driving weakness” is actually a misunderstanding by one of reviewers of our pilot data, which can be easily clarified. Our score missed the payline by 3 pts. Would you kindly advise as to how to address this unfortunate error?
Many thanks.
writedit said
If the misconception was in the Summary of Discussion, it means the entire panel agreed with that weakness. If the weakness is only listed in one critique, then it was not score driving (ignore the individual criterion scores). Either way, you do not really have a case to make, since it is your responsibility as PI to be clear in presenting all data and methods. It is always a good idea to have fresh eyes look at your application for insight into how a new reader will interpret what you write and present. Appeals are never a good idea, so if you talk with your PO, it should only be in the context of asking if they want a rebuttal (for possible select pay consideration) in which you clarify the data. Otherwise, you know what you need to do to improve the score in the next A0 submission.
Keepingthefaith said
Thank you very much for the very helpful suggestion.
Henry Chen said
My R01 was scored at 10% in July 2021. While we do not know the 2022 NIA payline yet, the current one is 8%. I am yet to get my summary statement, but I hope either the payline will increase a bit or I can explore the possibility of selective pay. Any advices?
writedit said
You should plan to submit again and discuss the strategy for doing so with your PO after you receive your summary statement. The payline will not be final until 2022 (I would not expect it to go up though, especially by 2%), and you don’t want to wait that long to find out that you are not getting an award. You cannot explore the possibility of select pay, but your PO might bring it up if your application is of high interest – and select pay decisions are typically put off by IC leadership until the end of the FY, which is another reason you would want to have another application submitted in the meantime.
Fellow NIA applicant said
Would you mind sharing your impact score?
Blue_Bottle_Top said
Dear Writedit,
Two questions.
(1) Has the Mosaic K99 payline for any IC been Impact Score<20? I just got my score (20) and appreciate any insight.
(2) When the council meets in a fiscal year that is different from the fiscal year a grant was reviewed, how much can a payline change? I.e., if the payline is typically Impact Score=20, would it drop as low as 15 while NIH waits on Congress?
Thanks,
Blue_Bottle_Top
SaG said
Usually for K99s an IC has X number of slots to use for the whole year. So Paylines can be less helpful. That said, a 20 sounds like a strong score. Since K99s have relatively small budgets and ICs don’t fund many I wouldn’t anticipate an interim “payline”. But, they might want to see how many good scoring apps they get for next Council round before making too many awards. Unfortunately since the NIH budget years starts Oct. 1 it will be many months before even POs have any idea how many they will fund.
writedit said
What SaG said. Paylines are always more conservative at the outset of the FY until the federal budget is signed into law and the final appropriation received by each IC, but when paylines are raised later, this is retroactive to all applications for that FY. When you have your summary statement, you can talk with your PO about next steps (ie, plan to apply again, sit tight, send the PO a short rebuttal to the review, etc.).
K99ishard!!! said
I’m in the similar situation— Feb (cycle I) application and just got the score. I assume that ICs won’t issue any awards for the cycle I applicant until new fiscal year starts. When would be the earliest timeline that cycle I applicants can be awarded? Early next year? Thanks!
writedit said
ICs can award Cycle 1 applications in September, but that is the exception rather than the rule. Even if the federal budget is signed into law in October, awards are not likely until January 2022 (an efficient IC can make awards in December though). If the federal budget is delayed much beyond October, you will definitely be looking at early 2022, with the timing based on when the federal budget passes (add about 2 months after President signs the bill, since it takes that long before ICs receive their final appropriation).
Oversubscribed? said
Hello, I find myself in a situation I’ve never been in, and could use some advice. I have four grants where I am PI. Two of them are in an NCE status due to COVID (both now ending in 2021). Two others are on the verge of starting (in “administrative review”). I just received notice today of a smaller 1-yr grant NIH also wants to fund as a “before end-of-FY” award (just went to “pending” status). Can I re-allocate my time on my existing grants (e.g., move more time to other key persons) so that I am not fully subscribed and can still receive the new grant? How is a situation like this generally handled? Official change of PI? Do we have to turn down the grant?!?
writedit said
If you mean that the R56 award is in addition to the 2 currently pending applications, then you need to reshuffle some effort to free up time for the 3 new awards. You should be able to reallocate some time from the NCE awards (assuming neither of those are pending renewal). You can talk with your fiscal/grant administrator about where to make changes in advance of being requested to do so (though, I assume that request will come soon in the form of JIT for the R56). Your fiscal/grant administrator will know what is feasible without requiring prior NIH approval.
SaG said
You could terminate your 2 grants that are in NCE early. You would lose any money left in them.
lonelygoldfish said
Dear writedit,
thanks for the great forum I found it very informative. I recently applied NIDDK K01 for the first time and got an impact score of 29. I know this is a boarderline score but really not sure how likely it is going to be funded. I am also running out of eligibility, so this might be my last shot. If I do have chance to submit an A1, will it be reviewed by the same reviewers?
writedit said
A score of 29 is a little high, but could be within consideration at NIDDK – your PO will be a better gauge, once you have your summary statement. No matter what, your PO will probably recommend resubmission for insurance, since the payline won’t be known until next year (probably) and you don’t have much time left, and most though not all of the reviewers will be the same. If you were hoping for a different panel, you could ask your PO if NIDDK has multiple career development review panels from which you could choose, but I suspect it is one per Division.
hoagies said
Hello. I just received NoA of my F32 couple days ago (applied in Dec 2020). I have been funded by a T32 program at my institution since March. Does it look bad for someone to leave the T32 program so quickly? If so I was told I have the option to activate my F32 as late as January. But if not, then I think I’d rather activate as soon as possible. Any insights?
writedit said
T32 programs cannot purposefully and knowingly appoint someone for less than 9 months (ie, you started the T32 before your F32 had been scored), but I assume they are not penalized when a trainee secures their own fellowship funding. This is all NRSA, so the payback requirements are not an issue. You could just ask the T32 director if it will be a problem to terminate after 6 months (ie, activate in August-September – this gives T32 time to find new trainee), or if it would be better for their reporting, renewal, budgeting, and/or avoiding penalties (if at risk) for you to stay for 9 months (Nov-Dec). I assume, too, that you are confident about moving on to a faculty position within the time frame that you are supported by the F32. That is, you are sure that you don’t need 9-10 months on T32 plus your F32 period to secure enough data, publications, networking, and experience to succeed (if you have any doubts, you might want to take more time on the T32).
SaG said
You must live in, or be from, Pennsylvania. I would say stay in the T32 as long as you can. Then your F32 will last longer. You get 6 months to activate your F32.
Toulouse said
Hello,
My NIAID R01 received a 9 percentile. I just checked eRA Commons and the status changed to “Council review completed”. However, it was due to be reviewed at the next council meeting on September 13, 2021. I hope it wasn’t skipped. Any thoughts?
Toulouse said
Also, I should have mentioned that my project is on SARS-CoV-2 but was submitted through the general parent R01. Is council meeting sooner for SARS-CoV-2 projects?
writedit said
Aha – then more likely you will receive an award in FY21, since NIAID probably still has SARS-CoV-2 funding to use up. I assume you used a NOSI with the parent announcement? A NOSI would almost certainly bump up the timing, but the content matter could on its own, too (and make it more likely for an award during the continuing resolution).
writedit said
This means your application was approved electronically en bloc ahead of the Council meeting. That is, you were on a list of applications within the payline and with no need for special scrutiny by Council that could be approved as a group (vs individually). It could be that NIAID wants to make some of these awards in FY21 vs FY22. You’ll know if you receive a JIT request and/or your status changes to Pending. However, if your R01 stays at Council review completed for the next few months, that is not a bad thing – you’ll just be waiting until NIAID starts making FY22 awards (timing based on FY22 federal budget status).
Toulouse said
No NOSI. It was the parent R01 (PA 20-185). We missed the deadline for the NOSI. I looked back through my eRA Commons list and even my unfunded proposals also had “early” Council review completed dates so that is my reason for concern.
writedit said
Yes, the IC sends Council a much longer list of applications than can possibly be funded. The IC cannot make awards to any application that has not been approved by Council, so IC Directors make sure they have large paylists for each cycle and no chance of being stuck with unspent money at the end of the FY. It’s not a guarantee by any means, but it does indicate that you cleared the first hurdle (your application was sent to Council for approval to be considered for funding). Now, I have always thought only applications sent for electronic approval in advance had their status update in advance of the Council meeting date (ie, applications not sent for advance approval stay at “Council review pending” until after the meeting date), but I do not know and could well be wrong in this assumption (and would happily be corrected here!).
Toulouse said
Yes, in fact, I had two NIAID R01s earlier this year (22% and 27%) receive “Council review completed” status several weeks before the council meeting date and not get funded. That is why I remain a little nervous about this new one and its early status.
waitinginvain said
@toulouse, could it be that your two R01’s are still being considered for end of year funding? Did NIAID tell you it’s not going to be funded? I’m curious because my application also received “Council Review Completed” many weeks ahead of the June council meeting but PO told me it did not make it to the immediately fundable but they are trying to find funds for it.
Toulouse said
@waitinginvain, thanks for the reply. With a 22% and a 27%, I am not very optimistic. However, my 27% was re-reviewed and received a 9% which is my inquiry above. I am confused by the eRA status “Council Review Completed” as sometimes it seems to be good news and sometimes nothing ever happens (not funded). I wish that NIAID would use “Council review completed: Application not recommended for further consideration.” if the application is not to be awarded.
waitinginvain said
@Toulouse, agreed. Gives one some hope only to realize nothing happens later. But with the new 9 percentile, you should be confident to get the R01! 🙂
writedit said
The “not considered” status cannot be issued until the FY completely passes, as any scored application could be pulled out of the heap for last-minute funding. Folks regularly post that their PO said the application wouldn’t receive an award (told early in FY) and then learn the application was picked for select pay (surprised PO, too). In your case, the 27th percentile could be funded so you don’t have to wait for the 9th percentile application in FY22, for example (no idea if this will happen, but just an example of what can occur).
COVID R01 said
I had an R01 for a COVID NIAAA RFA reviewed a few weeks ago, impact score = 31 (no percentile). I’m ESI. I sent my PO a rebuttal to the (minor) reviewer critiques. Status has changed in Commons to “pending,” but when I asked my PO about the likelihood of funding, he told me funding discussions are starting soon and it’s “safest” to assume it likely won’t be funded. Council is in August. Any thoughts? It’s the pending status that got me excited, but maybe RFAs are different than other awards?
COVID R21 said
Same, I’m in the same boat. I submitted to the same RFA but with an R21; score was a 39. Status changed to ‘pending’ yesterday but then switched to ‘council review completed’ this afternoon. My PO didn’t know any information about funding yet and I haven’t heard back from the GMS. Sounds like NIAAA plans to fund a set number of R01s, R21s, and R03s. Good luck to us both. 🙂
writedit said
If funding discussions have not begun yet, then the PO really doesn’t know about funding and will use the standard conservative recommendation to pursue other opportunities. The score is really not a good gauge, since all the scores could be 30 or above, and the science of an application scoring 43 might be of more interest to NIAAA than one scoring 23. You should certainly be thinking about how else to spin your application for another FOA, but you should be ready for a JIT request (if one hasn’t already come in conjunction with the Pending status). Because it is so close to the end of the FY, ICs process extra applications to be sure enough are ready for awards before September 30 – especially true for late FY RFA awards.
kingdaddy2010 said
Dear Writedit,
Our NIH SBIR Grant proposal was assigned to review group ZRG1 RPHB-Z (10). I can’t find the payline for that group, does it fall under one of these? https://sbirland.com/2020/08/06/paylines-for-national-institutes-of-health-nih-sbir-sttr-grants/
Also, is there a format for Rebuttal letters? The PO agrees with the reviewers that the research is important and the strengths outweighed the weaknesses. Our impact score is above the payline. We hope to get it funded this round rather than resubmitting and waiting, as the resolutions to the critiques are really easy.
Greatly appreciate any insight you can share!
Former F31 said
Not WriteEdit… But you need to look at your institute, not your study section. If you look at your grant in the Commons account, you can see which institute is Primary for you SBIR.
kingdaddy2010 said
Thank you. I’m in ERA Commons, anywhere specific to look? Is there a specific section of the page?
kingdaddy2010 said
I think I found it – thank you. Apparently it’s not one that publishes their payline.
writedit said
Thanks, Former F31! You are exactly correct, and it seems kingdaddy2010 figured out how to identify the IC and their potential payline (or lack thereof) as well.
K99 score question said
Some IC publish paylines for career development awards, but why do they often say “K except K22 and K99”? Is it because of sample size of K99? Do K99 usually tends to have higher or lower scores?
writedit said
The K22 and K99 are transition awards for which applicants are postdocs rather than faculty. While the fundable scores may end up being similar among all K awards, I suspect ICs like to ensure these transition awards have more wiggle room – both because they probably have more applicants and because the considerations are slightly different.
emulatesm said
Dear Writedit (and fellow friends):
does anyone know the NHLBI R21 payline? I searched everywhere but could not find it. thanks in advance!
Toulouse said
@emulatem, It looks like NHLBI does not participate in the parent R21 mechanism (see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-20-195.html).
emulatesm said
thanks much for your reply! this is the PAR:
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-20-078.html
i know there are very few … perhaps explains why no clear payline?
writedit said
Correct (and thank you, Toulouse!). Many ICs only issue their own R21 FOAs on a limited basis (secondary data analysis is a common use of this activity code), so the score is not necessarily representative of funding likelihood, though many ICs tend to be pretty conservative due to the strong competition (ie, single-digit percentiles, impact scores below 20-25). Your PO would be the best source of insight, but if you were just scored, your question – once you have your summary statement – should be whether you should plan to submit again (not whether you will be funded).
Toulouse said
“NHLBI may fund up to eighteen awards per year” Just get in the top 18 and you have a good chance!
WomanInScience said
Are you saying 18 R01 awards per year at NHLBI?
Former F31 said
I think they are referring to the NHBLI R21 PAR that someone else posted. It states that they will fund up to 18 awards, which could mean less.
WIS said
18 R01 awards?
SaG said
18 R21 awards that are submitted to this specific FOA. This is separate from all of the R01s, R21s, R03s etc they fund via other notices.
kingdaddy2010 said
What does it mean when the post above says there is no payline?
Our grant proposal shows as R43 falls under NICHD, and the post above says:
NICHD ($1.56B): FY21: no payline for R01, R03, R21, R13/U13, R41/R42, R43/R44; impact score of 29 for R15; 23 for most Ks, 30 for K99; 21 for R24, R25, & U24; 28 for F30; 22nd percentile for F31, 30th for F31 diversity & F32
How does one interpret that?
kingdaddy2010 said
I found the following statement that provides a little more, but I still don’t fully understand what that means.
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) (R41, R42, R43, and R44):
There is no fixed payline for SBIR (R43, R44) and STTR (R41, R42) applications. NICHD will consider scientific merit, program priorities, the NICHD Strategic Plan (PDF 2.3 MB), portfolio balance, and availability of funds in making funding decisions.
SaG said
It means that even if you score well, if you are an SBIR mill, they won’t fund you app. Or if you have a history of never getting beyond Phase 1. Or if you have 4 overlapping SBIRs currently. They do not want to be forced to pay an app in those situations.
kingdaddy2010 said
Thank you. This is our first submittal, and we scored a 35, with only minor weaknesses. The comments were extremely favorable. The PO is allowing us to submit a rebuttal, but also recommending a resubmission.
SaG said
With that score those are pretty standard suggestions. From my experience your app does have a high likelihood of funding. I have heard of apps in the 40s getting funded. But, it varies a lot by NIH IC. Good luck.
writedit said
Yes, as SaG (thank you!) notes, your score and your PO’s interest are both good signs of possible funding interest. Your PO will also be able to give advice to help with your resubmission, if that is necessary – but hopefully not.
Newbie said
Hi Writedit,
Does every scored application gets a GMS assigned?
SaG said
Yes. Apps should be assigned a GMS before they are reviewed. Though the person can change over time.
[email protected] said
My application was scored and in my commons it has an assigned GMS (although GMS probably does not know anything about likelihood of funding but I could be wrong).
SaG said
That is a question for your PO. GMS will have no idea about funding. Is this an IC with a defined payline for your type of grant?
MidlifeCrisisPI said
Hi Writedit,
I submitted a R01 application to NHLBI this June and I just saw that the application has been assigned to a different SRG than what I requested. I do not feel the physiological significance of my proposal will be appreciated in this SRG. Is it too late to do anything now? or can I request someone with expertise in my area to review the grant? However, the PO seems to be the same as my previous funded application. Do you think he might have picked up the application?
SaG said
YOu can ask CSR to move the app to a different SRG. BUt yo uhave to demonstrate how the expertise of the current panel is lacking and exists in the preferred panel. I am not sure that “will be appreciated” is a good argument. PO and SRG assignments are correlated but independent of each other.
MidlifeCrisisPI said
Thank you for your inputs, SaG. I decided to see what happens with this review and then decide for the resubmission based on the comments.
writedit said
As SaG notes, the PO assignment is completely independent of the SRG assignment. Since your PO knows your research, you could ask them if this new SRG is appropriate. Sometimes CSR picks an alternative SRG because the one you requested has too many applications. Your PO, who is probably familiar with all the SRGs relevant to your science, will know whether you are okay to stick with this new SRG or if you should ask CSR to move your application to the more appropriate SRG.
K99_applicant said
Hi Writeedit,
I submitted a K99 being on a J-1 visa with the 2-year home residency requirement. As I am funded by a European country and my funding agency is willing to provide me with a no-objection letter, obtaining a waiver at a certain point is a formality. Was any of you in such a situation? If yes, did you have any problem when the PO asked you for proof of visa, or they simply care about the K99 phase first, and then if you obtain a waiver before the beginning of the R00 phase and switch to, e.g., H1B, you are good to go? I wonder how strict they are. Maybe submitting the no-objection letter from my funding agency would do the job?
Just to be clear, I am still waiting for my score, so it might be I will never have such a problem 🙂 However, I started to worry that even if I am lucky with the score, the 2-year home residency will jeopardize all the efforts.
writedit said
For the R00, you will need to have accepted a tenure track faculty position, and your new university (or the same one, if they offer you a faculty position) should help with any visa requirements as part of the job offer. Hopefully someone who has been in your position can share their experience, but I would also think an extension would not be an issue once you are funded by the K99 (again, your current institution should be willing to help, if needed).
SB said
I submitted my K99 as a J1 visa holder. I took the waiver before the grant got scored. The institutional support letter by the departmental chair assured the H1 visa processing. After I got the NOA, the department submitted an expedited H1 visa processing and got approved within a week. On that I still had a year left for the J1 but the department changed it to H1. I never got any question from PO about the visa status. I applied for green card 6 months after the K99 funding.
writedit said
Awesome – thank you so much for sharing your experience with visas and K99 funding. I know all these details will be helpful and reassuring for many investigators.
NIH_K25 said
Hi, I am happy to find such a wonderful place here for NIH grant information. I applied for K25 at NIA last year and got a score of 20 in February, which is within the payline (I believe 21?). After the May council meeting, GMS asked me to submit a new JIT in mid-June. I submitted it again and my status has been changed to “pending administrative review” since 6/23. I asked my PO around the end of July about the funding possibility and he just said that “May council applications typically get paid around August 1st.” August 1st has already passed and so I am a bit worried about it. Do you think this is a typical situation? Or do I need to contact my GMS? Thank you very much for your any help!
writedit said
No need to worry – the start date is not an expiration date, and your PO was referring to all Cycle 3 applications, not just yours. They will contact you if they need additional information, but NIA has a lot of applications to process, between their usual appropriation, their extra funding for AD/ADRD, and some COVID-related projects as well. They will get all the applications processed for awards by Sept 30, so you can sit tight.
NIH_K25 said
Thank you, writedit! I will wait and sit tight as you said.
mlnet said
Thanks again writedit for maintaining such a wonderful resource! As promised above, posting a detailed timeline for my recently awarded NIAID DP2 (same award structure but different FOA from the OD/Common Fund DP2).
07/29/2021 Application awarded (Notice of Award posted).
07/16/2021 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
05/21/2021 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
04/20/2021 Council review completed.
03/04/2021 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
11/10/2020 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
11/02/2020 Application entered into system
On a different note, I had also posted earlier about an NHGRI U01 that I had participated in as a co-I (to preserve ESI status for my NIAID DP2). I recently found out that the NHGRI U01 will be funded (with a significant budget cut). My earlier post discussed the possibility of “upgrading” to MPI from co-I should the U01 be funded after my DP2 is awarded. Since that is the case now, I am exploring this possibility with the PO. Will post updates/a timeline once I know more. Hope it will be useful for other junior PIs in similar situations. This community is fantastic – thanks again!
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you for sharing your timeline! Thank you, too, for keeping us posted about what happens with your request to become MPI on the U01 (sorry – but not surprised – to hear about the budget cut), which would be very useful. Best wishes for success with your DP2 project and your career in biomedical research!
mlnet said
Thank you very much writedit for your kind words. I will post an update once the U01 details are finalized. I believe writedit and I are both at the same academic institution, and I am very grateful for departmental support of my research endeavors.
writedit said
Ha! H2BICO! (an acronym born many years ago … BICO = Baby, It’s Cold Outside) Please feel free to get in touch directly with questions, too.
mlnet said
Will do – thank you very much writedit!
MG said
Dear Writedit,
My R01 was scored at 6 percentile in June 2021. This was assigned to NCI and I am an established investigator. Any idea when this will be funded?
Thanks!
writedit said
You probably have a bit of a wait. This will be for FY22, so the earliest would be December, but that never happens. Depending on when the FY22 federal budget is signed into law, probably early 2022 (or later, if budget negotiations drag on … but it shouldn’t be too late for FY22).
K-hopeful said
Dear Writedit,
A K22 grant that I submitted in Feb ’21 went through expedited council review (NIAID) in August. According to the NIAID website,
“We use this expedited process for applications that meet both of the following criteria:
Rank within their payline.
Have no concerns (e.g., human or animal codes) from the study section.”
My question is this: since my application will be considered for funding only after an FY22 budget is passed, should I not read too much into the expedited review?
writedit said
The expedited review applies to all applications that fit this description and were sent to Council for electronic approval en bloc in advance of Council meeting. This happens before every Council meeting, not just the one in August/September. There probably will be a few last-minute FY21 awards made to some of these applications (eg, RFAs and special supplements), and an IC with extra money to spend at the end of the FY sometimes also dips into the best applications for the next FY to fund early. Assuming NIAID makes K22 awards throughout the year, then you could anticipate your award in December or January (or later, if the federal budget is delayed). I added “assuming” because I only learned this year that NIAID waits to make all its K99 awards (for all 3 cycles) in July-Aug-Sept. None earlier. In a quick check of K22s, I do see some made earlier in the FY – but also as late as Sept 20 (which could either be a very late FY20 award or an early FY21 award, like yours). You can always check with your PO if you need to know sooner, but otherwise, you can just wait – if you don’t get a JIT request in Aug or early Sept, then you can assume that your award will be processed later this fall-winter (2021-2022).
K-hopeful said
This was super helpful. Thank you so much for the detailed response!
Stillwaiting said
I received JIT request for my R01 from the GMO on July 29 which my Grants office submitted on Aug 02. The Commons current status still shows Administrative review pending. How long of a wait am I in for till I receive award notice ( assuming of course that the GMO doesn’t need anything additional) ? Also, does the status change each time the GMO accesses the Commons to review the JIT ?
Thank you for this incredible resource for newbies and veterans alike !
writedit said
Your status won’t change again when they start to process your JIT (probably won’t – every once in a while, someone new does something that changes the status to just Pending, for example). However, even when that is done, your application waits in line for review by the IC Director’s office, which is totally out of the GMO’s hands. This is usually during the “Award prepared” status (which can last up to a week – or more), but sometimes there are interim approvals (as part of “Administrative review pending”) before your application can move forward, too. You could be waiting a couple of weeks – or into September. They are all scrambling at this time of year, so any delay won’t be due to neglect, and you don’t need to contact anyone (will just cause further delays).
Stillwaiting said
Thank you so much for clarifying the process. I’ll sit tight..
CSTEW said
I received a 13 percentile for my R01 (A1) submitted to NIDDK in March 2021. Payline for 2021 is 16 percentile. However, this application would fall under FY 2022. Strategy Question: submit anew for October, or wait to see how the 2022 congressional budget looks, with hopes that the NIDDK payline stays as 2021 (or improves)?
writedit said
You are probably okay – but you can check with your PO as to whether they recommend resubmission. Since 2008, the general payline has only been below 13 twice, in 2013 (11) and 2017 (12): https://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-funding/funded-grants-grant-history/funding-trends-support-core-values
CSTEW said
Thanks! I checked with my PO and they said that resubmission “is really up to you”. Cryptic! I might just need to sit tight.
Great site BTW – has been really helpful over the years (K01, R03, and R01s). All the best.
writedit said
Well, POs are so conservative, anything less than “you should submit to be safe” is positive news. If you have another project you’ve been thinking about getting ready for submission, that’s probably a better use of your time this cycle. Or manuscripts in press that support this or other projects.
Susan said
Need to decide whether to appeal. My A1’s summary resume of discussion cited its sole major flaw as “PI needs X to do the work but doesn’t have access to one, so feasibility is very dubious”. In the A1, I clearly state that while prelim data was collected on X, I will use Y to do the proposed work. All experiments are described using what Y does, not the different quantity that X measures. Only one reviewer made this mistake, and did so after acknowledging that I wrote I’d use Y, not X, but talked themselves into thinking about X anyway. This is not an issue of X being better than Y, and reviewer did not make that case. It reads to me like that reviewer steered discussion towards not having X, and no one corrected him/her, just took that at face value. All other resume comments were supportive, I was responsive to previous review, etc. Score was 1% better than A0.
I called my PO to say “what do I do with this” and they raised the possibility of an appeal, since this is a major factual error, and appears score-driving. It’s not clear that an appeal is favorable to me. It would preserve A1 status and response to previous review. But it would delay a next submission substantially. Do you have input here on the timeline, or likelihood of success based on similar cases (of factual error, not just objections)? I understand the general process of SRO, Council and re-review.
SaG said
I dont see this as a factual error. It is a scientific disagreement. The reviewer thinks you need X and you think Y is better. Plus, if you appeal the only result is a re review of that app (which could take months) with no changes . While it is under re review you can not submit the same work as a new application. You are better off submitting a new app adding any new data.
writedit said
I will be interested in the experience shared by anyone who might want to jump in, but I’m surprised your PO raised the possibility of appeal, especially if your score was close to the payline (ie, push for internal discussion of select pay based on problem with review and near-miss in score as a result). Do you know if your PO was present for the discussion? If so, they could further comment on whether this was in fact score-driving to the point of pushing you out of contention for an award based on initial and final scores and the actual discussion points made. You only say “appears score-driving”. Watching the discussion unfold, it should have been obvious to the PO – and also whether reviewers were enthusiastic about the rest of the application. The problem is this: your application will go back to the same study section (unchanged – you can’t update at all, add a rebuttal, etc.) for review again as an A1. The SRG won’t be told but will understand implicitly that you appealed, since they are getting the exact same application back unchanged, which means you weren’t happy with the prior review. (Something to consider if you need to go back to this same SRG with other applications.) I assume the SRO will assign all new reviewers, but I also assume the original reviewers will still be part of the panel (ie, not in conflict), unless they happen to be gone that cycle or have completed their regular service. Someone with more experience from the SRO side of appealed applications might be able to chime in. However, before the application even goes back to study section, first your institution (AOR – not you) submits a formal letter to the IC (NIH Notice provides details on process) appealing the review and asking to send the A1 and its summary statement to Council for review, and Council decides whether the review was not fair. If Council decides your review was fair and/or the ultimate outcome would not be changed (ie, application still likely would not have fundable score), the process stops there, and you need to start with a new A0 after losing a cycle (ie, not submitting in October). It is not a given that Council will approve your appeal – it’s a fairly tough bar to overcome, since they have to be convinced your application would have been funded (not just given a slightly better score) without this error introduced. If your score was well above the payline and may have only gotten 5 points better (not the 20 points better needed for funding), then Council will not send the application back for review again. If Council concludes the peer review was not optimal and you did just miss getting a fundable score due to this error, then your A1 goes in for the NEXT submission cycle after Council, which I think would be the March 2022 date for review next summer (2022), assuming your appeal is considered at the August-Sept Council. If the 2022 A1 review still comes back with an unfundable score for other reasons (including the science becoming out of date), then you are looking at a new A0 submission in Oct 2022 after losing a year or more.
Now, completely separately from the reviewer error, if the other summary of discussion comments were positive, and your score was only 1% better, you might need to decide whether the reviewers will ever give you a significantly better score with this A1 application. That is, if the approach was fine but the overall enthusiasm for the significance was mediocre (not always stated clearly in Summary paragraph), then the score probably won’t significantly improve. It seems unlikely that reviewers would be so easily swayed by equipment confusion if they were really excited about the rest of the project (a point that might also be raised by Council when considering your appeal). Very hard to say without knowing the A0 and A1 review comments, but your PO might have more insight as to the general mood in the SRG about your science (outside the issue raised). You could also ask the PO about the outcomes of past appealed applications following re-review. I have no idea, and I am not aware of any NIH statistics on this. OER has very little information about appeals beyond how much time it takes to get through the process (and really, how unlikely a good outcome is).
Brian said
I agree with the others, I would NOT appeal, but rather submit a new application.
I also want to share my experience during a recent conversation with a PO. He said if you get a reviewer who did a really sloppy, poor, or incorrect review of your application, but you don’t want to pursue a formal remedy, you can cite specfic examples to the PO, and he/she can get in touch with the SRO, if warranted. That person might be removed from future review of your application (e.g., a resubmission), or possibly asked not to review anymore at all (if, for example, they receive many such complaints). I personally would not do this unless it was an egregious example, though–no one wants to get a reputation as a whiner. There is also a formal process, but he recommended following this more informal process first. Bottom line is that the POs realize that reviewers are also human and therefore prone to mistakes and bias like the rest of us.
Susan said
Just to reiterate, the reviewer did -not- make the point that I need X, not Y. Y is a component of X, and my work does not use the non-Y parts of X; it is not a disagreement in that sense, that someone else knows what I need better. Please trust me here, I understand that it -could- be read as that, but it is not.
Susan said
The score was 10% above funding.
If an appeal gets to a Sept. council meeting, it could possibly be re-reviewed with Oct cycle submissions in a January SRG meeting. Would that allow me from submitting an A0 in Feb., or does that overlap too much with the re-review? If I’d be prevented from submitting until next summer, then this is all rather moot.
The reason I say score-driving is that it is the only negative comment in the summary of discussion. I understand that some things don’t make it into that.
writedit said
No. You cannot submit an A0 while the A1 is re-reviewed. You would have to wait until the summary statement is released, which would mean June at the earliest. Based on your additional input, I would recommend skipping the appeal (likely to be denied by Council) and going with an A0 in October 2021. I would also recommend taking a hard look at the Significance comments and getting some advice from trusted colleagues on the science. In my experience, when there are no methodological complaints but a score stays at about the same level well above the funding level, the reviewers just aren’t excited about the science (and you’re right – this often does not get written up formally). You might also consider another study section (with input from your PO), although if these reviewers have the right expertise, then you should stay here.
BudgetQ? said
I have a question about budget justification – does percent effort equal percent salary support, or are they not necessarily coupled?
On a single PI RO1 for example and you put 20% effort on a grant, do you need to have 20% salary support? Can it be lower?
SaG said
NIH doesn’t care. You can have 100% effort and claim $0 salary. Many/most schools won’t let you do that. Then they try to say it is an NIH policy. But, you can’t claim more salary than your percent effort. NIH does care about that.
writedit said
Thanks, SaG! BudgetQ, if you are trying to stay within a budget limit for your application, you need to be sure your institution will pick up the cost of your salary. However, sometimes this can run into cost-share issues (which puts the F&A rate at risk), so you need to communicate with your grants/fiscal managers at your institution about what they will allow you to do with regard to the budget. They won’t submit the application if they don’t approve of your 20% effort with no salary requested.
SaG said
You can also rebudget a portion of your salary after you get the grant. Again, your school/Dept. Chair might not like that.
Two R15s submission said
Dear Write edit,
Can I submit two R15s to two different ICs at the same time (one will be A0 to NCI and one will be A1 to NIEHS)? I know you can only have one R15 award. Thanks!
SaG said
As long as the science doesn’t overlap then yes you can.
Ali said
Dear Writedit,
Many thanks for providing such an informative and useful platform!
After getting my impact score =34 in June regarding my NIA/ADRD K01 application (submitted in Feb 21), I contacted my PO asking whether I am in the payline or not! She replayed “We will not know the paylines for fiscal year 2022 until sometime after October.”
6 weeks ago I got my summary statement and emailed my PO again to discuss possible next steps, But I did not receive any responce. 2 weeks ago I sent a follow up email, still no responce!
Any suggestion or thoughts on that!
Appreciate it
writedit said
It could be your PO is waiting to see what happens with FY22 funding bills currently working their way through Congress, since the outcome could affect the likelihood of the ADRD K payline staying at 35. The good news is that you would be submitting in November, so you could have some clarity in September about what to do. If you think you would need more than 6-8 weeks to prepare the A1, I would suggest you reply (all) in late August to your last email sent with a new subject line, “Should I submit A1? (K01AG #####)” – filling in your grant number and perhaps copy the generic NIA training email, [email protected] You could wait on the cc, and if you have no response again in a week, then forward your message to the NIA training email address and perhaps copy the Division of Extramural Activities director, Ken Santora. Between summer vacations, short staffing, back-to-school busyness, and the rise in COVID-19 infections, it’s good to ensure someone else in the office is aware of your need for feedback on whether to prepare an A1 application.
Ali said
So helpful! Thank you so much for the detailed response!
Ali said
Dear Writedit,
Finally I got an answer from my PO asking me to provide a brief response (1-2 pages) to the reviewers’ comments in the summary statement, in particular for the ‘Resume and Summary of Discussion’ section, before October. I hope this is a good sign!
writedit said
Very good news – they might even want to push it up for an FY21 award, so you should get the response in ASAP in case that is a possibility. Even if you do not get an FY21 award, it looks likely that the appropriation bills will be passed on/almost on time, so FY22 Cycle 1 awards should be roughly on time for a change (assuming no debt ceiling issues).
ESIR01 said
Dear Writedit,
I really appreciate you and this site. I submitted R01 in June and DP2 this week. I am considering to submit another R01 this coming October. Two NIH ICs replied positive to submit R01 back in January. So I submitted one R01 in June with topic AAA. I submitted DP2 this week with topic AAB. They share 1.5 aims and 1.5 aims are similar. I will change a little bit more for R01 submission in October. October R01’s topic will be AAC. Goals are all different but aims are shared between two R01s and DP2. Do you think that is it OK to proceed to submit the second R01 in October? Do you have any suggestions in this case? i.e., wait until summary statement or just go ahead or contact PO or SRO to share my story and get some comments.
Thanks
Former F31 said
I am interested to hear from writedit. Is there any concern about overlapping aims causing the grants to be returned without review? I am very ignorant on this topic and am eager to find out more.
Not Writedit said
Overlapping apps could be a problem. If they share Aims they are overlapping, independent of the “goals”. One aim might not be a problem but 2 would be. See..number 19 in this list. https://commonfund.nih.gov/newinnovator/faq and this description of how NIH defines overlapping…https://public.csr.nih.gov/ForApplicants/SubmissionAndAssignment/DRR/evaluationofapplications
writedit said
No. If all the applications share AA, then they share too much. You might have one of your current submissions administratively withdrawn due to the overlap (the DP2 would be withdrawn). Unless each application is in a different disease (eg, 3 different types of cancer or a computational approach applied in cancer, heard disease, and diabetes) and/or different experimental models (significantly different, not just different cell lines), then it sounds like you are just updating the application with each submission to add something new, perhaps based on new data since the last application. This is not allowed. It’s hard to say for sure from your description, but you would definitely want to talk with your main PO – I can’t tell if these are all going to different programs or what. The NIH will use software to discover the similar applications, so applying to different ICs at different times won’t matter. A conversation with a PO will confirm whether you are okay or if you need to start thinking of entirely new lines of science to pursue.
R15-cofunding said
Which IC has better pay line for R15, NCI or NIDCR?
I submitted an R15 in which NCI was listed as primary and NIDCR as the secondary. The score is slight outside the NCI hard pay line. I contacted a PO in NIDCR. The PO replied-
The grant application is usually not allowed to transfer to another IC after review. She suggested to submit another NEW application and sign NIDCR as the primary or submit it as the A1 application, and then email her to ask transfer to NIDCR after submission but before the review started. This way, I can contact NCI PO to initiate transfer process.
Which is the best option for me? Please suggest.
SaG said
My guess is that NIDCR has a better payline for R15s than NCI but since they don’t publish one it is hard to know. I suggest resubmitting as an A1 and have it transferred to NIDCR if necessary. Also, reframe the aims so that it fits NIDCR’s mission better than NCI’s.
R15-cofunding said
Thanks for your input! The proposal is on chemoprevention of head and neck cancer and NIDCR Director, Oral and Salivary Cancer Biology Program is interested. The A0 score is 31 and my guess is that it might not be funded by NCI. So, I contacted NIDCR and I got the above response.
writedit said
Thanks, SaG! I would have had the same advice, since I’ve had good experience with NIDCR with regard to head & neck cancer. I’m glad you’ve been in contact with the program director, who can give you great guidance moving forward. They might be interested in a brief rebuttal to the A0 (if NCI relinquishes it – this is not impossible for other activity codes, but maybe there is an issue with R15 applications), but if not, they can give strong input on improving the A1 application and accepting it as primary IC. You would need to make this request on the PHS Referral Form and include a cover letter with name of the NIDCR PO who requested the application be assigned to NIDCR as primary.
R15 Expectant said
Hi writedit,
I have questions regarding this R15. After discussion with both POs at NCI and NIDCR, I resubmitted this proposal in September 29, 2021, with NIDCR as the primary IC. On October 1, 2021, Marshall University lost its R15 eligibility. The score was slipped to 46. The NIDCR PO was still interested and advocated for funding in 2022. Unfortunately, it did not go through. She met me at AACR this year and informed me that she again recommended this proposal for 2023 funding. On June 16, the status changed to “Pending”. I contacted the PO and she confirmed that the proposal has been selected for funding by NIDCR and you should receive an NOA near future. My question is regarding institutional eligibility. Marshall is no longer eligible for R15 (was eligible during submission). Will this pose any problem? I am seeking your comments. Secondly, our genomic core director was a member of advisory panel as the proposal contains whole genome sequencing. He will retire on June 30, 2023. How to add the new director in the advisory panel? Because, I have to prepare “Other Support”.
Thanks.
R15 Expectant said
Hi SaG and writedit,
I have questions regarding this R15. After discussion with both POs at NCI and NIDCR, I resubmitted this proposal in September 29, 2021, with NIDCR as the primary IC. On October 1, 2021, Marshall University lost its R15 eligibility. The score was slipped to 46. The NIDCR PO was still interested and advocated for funding in 2022. Unfortunately, it did not go through. She met me at AACR and informed me that she again recommended this proposal for 2023 funding. On June 16, the status changed to “Pending”. I contacted the PO and she confirmed that the proposal has been selected for funding by NIDCR and you should receive an NOA near future. My question is regarding institutional eligibility. Marshall is no longer eligible for R15 (was eligible during submission). Will this pose any problem? I am seeking your comments. Secondly, our genomic core director was a member of advisory panel as the proposal contains whole genome sequencing. He will retire on June 30, 2023. How to add the new director in the advisory panel? Because, I have to prepare “Other Support”.
Thanks.
writedit said
I apologize for the delay in responding (grant deadline on my end ;). You should probably confirm that your NIDCR PO knows that Marshall is no longer eligible for the R15. It could be that your eligibility at the time of application is enough, but I do not believe you would then be able to renew the award. However, she could be thinking, if you are eligible for one R15 award period, that this will afford you the time and funding to develop a competitive R01 application when the R15 ends. I assume you did not pay your advisory board members, in which case you can change the board membership after the project gets underway (NIH only needs to review and give approval for change in key personnel).
R15 Expectant said
Thank you so much! In fact, I reconstructed the R15 and submitted it as R01 which was also discussed. I think this helps.
mecassa said
Just got my NOA for my R15 from NCI. I was sweating it for the last year since I’ll be going up for tenure soon. I wanted to make sure that I have active funding during the tenure process and my first R15 is set to run out August 31st. I submitted two consecutive R15s, first one for NCI and second one for NIDDK. NCI got an impact score of 24 and NIDDK got an impact score of 18.
Here is my time line for the NCI R15 (start date 09/01/21):
08/20/2021 Application awarded.
08/11/2021 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
06/16/2021 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
02/19/2021 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
12/03/2020 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
11/05/2020 Application entered into system
writedit said
Congratulations (on both applications – a shame you can only have one award) and thank you so much for sharing your timeline and experience! Best wishes for success with your promotion with tenure, your project, and your career in biomedical research!
mecassa said
Thanks writedit. You provide a wonderful resource! I hope my timeline can help someone out there.
WhichFYpayline said
This is such a helpful resource! I apologize if I missed someone else asking this question, but I am wondering if you could help clarify how you know what FY your award falls under. Specifically, I submitted in March 2021 as ESI to NCI and received summary statement in June 2021. The listed Advisory Council date in Commons is 8/31/21. I have been told differing opinions. Does my submission date (Cycle I) or my advisory council date determine which FY pay line I fall under? For reference, I am ESI and grant scored at 18th percentile/27 Impact Score.
SaG said
You are in FY2022. The Federal Govt FY starts Oct. 1. So, October Council is always for the next FY. But, ICs have the option to pay your grant in FY21 if they want too and have the time and money to make an award.
WhichFYpayline said
Wonderful–thank you for the clarification!
Should I interpret the Advisory Council Meeting Date of August 31 listed in Commons to mean anything (rather than October as noted in the NIH timelines)? Or is this just administrative? Thank you!
SaG said
That is Early Oct. Council. Doesn’t usually mean much unless the ICs want to spend some of end of year funds on Oct. Council applications. Some do and some don’t.
R56 wannabe said
I have an A0 application to NIA going to council in October. The impact factor and percentile are 32 and 17, respectively. The reviewers really had only one criticism, which my PO felt was a bit unfair given the POA. He therefore suggested the possibility of R56 bridge funding. My questions are: 1) how would the timing of such an award play out (e.g., only after the council meeting) and 2) how are R56 budgets determined?
R56 wannabe said
FOA, not POA (it was a PA-R).
writedit said
I assume this is non-ADRD research. You can ask your PO if they mean an FY21 R56 (vs FY22) – but either way, taking the R56 will be beneficial (you definitely don’t want turn it down to file a formal appeal). The funding is typically on par with the R01 first year budget (unless this is unusually front-loaded with equipment purchase or some other unusual cost) and is designed to allow PIs to collect additional preliminary data to address reviewer concerns, publish additional data, and make the application more competitive. Looking at RePORTER, NIA is generous with their R56 awards, so you could probably assume a full or nearly full year of funding.
R56 wannabe said
Thanks, and you are correct, it is non-ADRD research (so needed to get to 10th percentile). The PO’s comment about unfair criticism was really more of an aside, so I wasn’t contemplating an appeal, just planning on resubmitting. The timing of the latter would depend in part on a possible R56, though, which is why I asked. If a year of support is offered, I’m definitely going to take it, just to keep the ball rolling.
Toulouse said
As an update, I just received a JIT request from the NIAID GMS assigned to the proposal (9% R01). Kind of surprised since it was slated for FY 22 consideration. However, I wonder since it is SARS-CoV-2-related that they might be trying to get it in as end of year funding. I assume that it is still looking positive (they don’t usually reach out for a JIT unless they plan on issuing an award)?
writedit said
Yep – as noted above, while ICs could start extra administrative reviews this late to be sure they don’t leave any unspent money on the table (ie, if a last-minute application hits an administrative glitch, they have one already administratively cleared waiting in the wings), the JIT request is positive news – especially with the SARS-CoV-2 focus (NIAID could have extra COVID-19 funding to spend).
Izlude said
Hi,
I just received a request for information for a R56 consideration via NHLBI. I submitted an R01 as an ESI last fall and was 2 pts above the ESI payline. I already re-submitted the A1 this past July which is cooking. I had a few questions about some of the information they wanted and also just to R56 in general which I did read about on the NHLBI site:
1. They basically wanted a revised aims/approach/budget for 1 year worth of work. Do I basically just cut off about 4 years of work and rework the aims/approach for one year? Is the goal just to get prelim data for a resubmission? Even though I already submitted an A1 I was little lost as to how to best approach this. I am meeting with my mentor tomorrow to see what he thought.
2. Budget: I am running into a gap with my K08 ending in Dec and our department goes by the academic year so this is much welcome. Can I just keep the budget the same for year 1? I plan to make sure the approach and aims would support this.
3. I guess my question is an R56 really just year 1 for an R01? Let’s say my A1 which was submitted this July gets funded for say Spring 2022 and I am about 6 months into the R56, I read “If a revised competing application is funded while an R56 award is active, the balance of the R56 Award will be deducted from the total approved amount of the competing award.”
This makes sense but I guess this would reduce my R01 by that amount of time?
Hopefully this will come via, I just wasn’t sure the best way to think of what the R56 is. Sort of a R21 to get more data for resubmission vs just year 1 of the R01 which I guess I would approach little differently for both.
Thanks!
writedit said
R56 awards typically cover the budget and work proposed in Year 1 of the R01. You could modify the original plans to get additional data (to satisfy reviewers) that might not otherwise have been part of your original Year 1 plans, but it sounds like your R01 A0 first year budget and work planned would be fine without modification. The R56 would be awarded in September, and, yes, if your A1 is awarded next April, the remaining R56 funds would be applied to the R01 A1 (vs added to it). That is, if you ask for $300K in Year 1 of the R01 A1, and there is $150K left on the R56, you would get get a total of $300K for the April 2022 through March 2023 R01 A1 period, with $150K coming from the R56 and $150K coming from the R01 A1 (you would not get $450K … $300K A1 + $150K R56). If the A1 is not awarded, the R56 would continue through August-September 2022.
sud said
Hi,
long time fan of the blog and occasional poster. Wondering if anyone has a sense of NHLBI emerging investigator R35 paylines? I scored a 39 and dont know if this falls in their zone of consideration.
Thanks
writedit said
Hopefully someone will jump in with some intel, but your PO will have the best insight. You can search the archived pages for R35 to see if there are any past scores posted. It looks like NHLBI makes 4-7 awards per year, so the key is whether they go strictly by score or also consider programmatic interest (to avoid funding 4 awards in the same general research area in a given year, for example).
sud said
Thank you! i will post any updates
Anxious K01 pending said
Hi Writedit,
I have a fundable score (18) for my NIA K01. The award is on hold as I’m waiting to get my green card. I have been in contact with the GMS and PO and they are aware of my situation. In my last communication early August, they mentioned any possible award will have a start date of Sep 1. However, I just learned today from the case status update in the USCIS website that my green card is finally approved and card is being produced. It will take at least a week to get it delivered. Would it too late to get the award processed this fiscal year? Can the award start date be anywhere till Sep 30? Thank you for this wonderful resource.
writedit said
Yes – you’ll be fine. FY21 lasts through Sept 30, and awards can be and are made throughout the month of September, so if your green card is a little late, you should be fine. Just let the GMS know it has been approved and will arrive soon. Congratulations on all accounts!
Anxious K01 pending said
Thanks writedit and SaG for your inputs. I hope the timeline will work out as I have a faculty position contingent upon this grant.
writedit said
Be sure to let your PO know about the faculty position situation, if you haven’t already, though it sounds like they are already on top of getting this award out for an early September start.
Anxious K01 pending said
Hi all, Just want to update on my K01 situation if anyone is interested. I was fortunate to have an awesome PO and GMS who were very patient with me on waiting for the green card. When I finally received my green card in the first week of Sep, they quickly processed the award and I received my NOA today 🙂
09/17/2021 NOA received
09/07/2021 Award prepared
06/23/2021 Pending administrative review.
05/13/2021 Council review completed.
02/01/2021 SRG review completed: Council review pending.
10/28/2020 Scientific Review Group review pending.
10/12/2020 Application entered into system
writedit said
Woohoo – finally! Congratulations and best wishes for success with your project and your career in biomedical research!
SaG said
I think most Federal Gov’t agencies close their books (stop writing “checks”) around the middle of September. The next 2 weeks are spent balancing the books.
Rebuttal_timing said
I am wondering if POs (NCI specifically) are required to request a rebuttal letter if they are considering funding a grant at select pay? And if required, if it is not requested before your council date in Commons, should one assume the grant is not be considered for select pay? Thanks!
writedit said
No, requesting a rebuttal is not a requirement and is not uniformly used. This really only started (regularly) in the past 3-5 years, I think. I believe this started happening at NCI when Harold Varmus asked POs to justify funding individual applications to the SPLs (so POs would ask the PIs for help via a written response to the summary statement). You shouldn’t make any assumptions about funding likelihood based on whether you are asked for a rebuttal, especially if this is an FY22 application (ICs will wait until federal budget signed into law before making funding decisions). Rather than wait and wonder, you can ask your PO about next steps (assuming you have your summary statement and are not obviously within the payline), including whether you should resubmit.
Rebuttal_timing said
Thank you–such valuable information!
Eye_am_hopeful said
How should I interpret the published success rates (https://report.nih.gov/funding/nih-budget-and-spending-data-past-fiscal-years/success-rates) as it compares to percentile scores? Specifically for an F32 from the NEI. Also, when should I expect an update on if I will be funded? Submitted in April 2021 and received my scores in July 2021.
SaG said
“A success rate is roughly the number of applications funded by an institute divided by the number of peer reviewed applications referred to it (excluding resubmissions that occur in the same fiscal year—each application is counted only once).” https://www.niaid.nih.gov/grants-contracts/understand-paylines-percentiles.
SR is usually higher than percentile.
SInce your app goes to October Council, barring a lucky early pay it will be several months before you find out about funding.
Eye_am_hopeful said
Thanks for the response! The PO seemed optimistic about my score and suggested against resubmitting, but I still think I’m right on the line, so fingers crossed for some good news come October!
writedit said
If your PO advised against resubmitting, that is pretty positive, since POs always err on the side of caution (easier to withdraw unneeded application than to miss a whole cycle). SaG is correct that you will not have any news for a while (not until after at least 6 weeks after the federal budget passes). Good that you can wait hopefully, at least.
SaG said
Good luck! But, there won’t be any news until mid November at the earliest.
Eye_am_hopeful said
That’s good to know! Fingers crossed! Thank you!
Kate said
Dear Writedit,
The first year budget period for my award (5 year R01) ended 05/31/21. Our school submitted the RPPR on 04/15/2021, as well as documentation regarding the unobligated balance. During this period of time, our school submitted four email to request Further, yet we still haven’t received the NOA for the current budget period. Also, no reply from NCI either. It has been more than 4 month since we summited the RPPR. What situation can cause this delay?
In the Commons, The status says “Pending administrative review.” Can you please have any comment on this situation? Thank you so much.
writedit said
I believe RPPRs are due 60 days before the end of the budget period, so that could explain some delay, but not why you have heard absolutely nothing about your noncompeting renewal. This is crunch time for grants management, but you want to track down an answer from someone before the end of the FY on September 30. If you haven’t yet, I would suggest you get in touch with your PO. They can’t help with the grants management end of things, but they might be able to let you know what’s going on at least.
Kate said
Thank you so much. Very helpful.
Learningaboutfunding said
Dear Writedit,
Would R21 grants also follow the standard payline? for NIMH, would an R21 of 6%tile be good enough? Also, how soon after the meeting will the PI be notified?
Thank you so much.
writedit said
R21s can have a tougher payline at some ICs, but a 6th percentile application should be funded at any IC. Your application is for funding in FY22, and NIMH won’t know their appropriation until after the federal budget is signed into law (so not until late fall). After you get your summary statement, you can contact your PO about next steps (whether they need any information from you, whether you should plan to resubmit – but I assume this will be no).
Learningaboutfunding said
Thank you very much for the kind reply.
Toulouse said
How late into September does NIAID provide NoAs? I received a JIT a week and a half ago from my GMS but no change to “pending”.
writedit said
They can issue NoAs all the way until Sept 30, but most are wrapped up about 10 days prior to that. School starting and the holiday weekend probably slowed work down. Also, ICs request JIT for more applications than they can fund just to be sure they have enough that are award-ready for last-minute spending. Your GMS needs to wait for the green light from higher up the command chain. You can keep a good thought for another few weeks (no benefit in trying to ask for an update – interruption will slow them down and not win you any bonus points). If you don’t hear anything by Sept 30, you can ask your PO in October whether an early FY21 award will be possible.
New GrantSeeker said
Hello Writedit,
Thank you for running such an informative platform! I have a general question regarding the eligibility for resubmission. In an FOA, if “Resubmission” is not listed in the Application Types Allowed of the Section II, does that mean A1 is NOT allowed for this FOA? For example, in this FOA (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-19-071.html#_Section_II._Award_1), only “New” is listed, followed by “The OER Glossary and the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide provide details on these application types.” I see “Resubmission” listed in the same section in many other FOAs. Thanks!
writedit said
While it is true that you cannot submit an A1 application if the only application type accepted is New, this FOA has an associated Notice that corrects the types of applications allowed: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-AG-20-019.html You should always look at all the Notices associated with any FOA. In this case, please also be sure that your research focus still falls within a current priority area as described in the most recent NOSIs (and be sure any high-priority topics lists in prior Notices have not expired, if your topic was based on a much earlier Notice).
New GrantSeeker said
Thank you so much for reminding me about this, which I have overlooked. For the Notice on which my proposal was based, an expiration date seems not to be specified. So I assume it is safe to go ahead with A1 using the same PAR and NOT, right?
writedit said
All FOAs have an expiration date, but you wouldn’t be able to apply electronically to an expired FOA. I would suggest you communicate with your PO about how to proceed since they know your A0 application and the current situation with the FOA and related notices.
kingdaddy2010 said
Hello Writedit,
Our first submittal scored a 35, and appeared to be very well received (with statements like: On balance, strengths outweighed weaknesses. The project will have high impacts on the quality of life of individuals with high-level spinal cord injuries, concluded the panel.) with minor comments. We submittal a rebuttal letter, and received the following in response:
“I discussed your application and rebuttal with my superior. Unfortunately, we are unable to reach for the application over other meritorious applications addressing equally significant problems in NCMRR’s populations of interest. Additionally, we have had to support ongoing research projects and investigators that have adversely impacted by COVID-19, thereby putting further strain on our budget.
The best course of action is to resubmit and aim for a score that at least brings the application within NICHD’s discretionary funding zone. That’ll provide a stronger basis to make the case to fund it over potentially higher scoring applications that are similarly in the discretionary zone. ”
Yesterday we resubmitted our application, having thoroughly addressed all comments and added new additional letters of support. Should I notify the PO and let him know some of what we’ve done and that we’ve resubmitted? Or just wait and see?
writedit said
Your PO will know you have resubmitted (application will be referred to them by CSR), but they will have nothing to do with the A1 application until after the summary statement is released. Sounds like you have a great PO, though – best wishes for a good outcome with the resubmission.
peprof said
Not sure if it’s the right place to post, but wanted to provide my award timeline for those who may find it useful…
R01 from NIA
A0 Submitted: 12/10/20
A0 Score released: 3/3/21
A0 Summary statement received: 3/9/21
Request for A0 rebuttal from SRO: 3/20/21
A1 resubmission submitted: 4/10/21
NIA council meeting (for A0): 5/20/21
Just-in-time request from grants specialist (A0): 6/11/21
A1 Score released: 6/16/21
A1 summary statement released: 6/21/21
Internal NIA funding meeting: 6/22/21
A0 eRA status changed to “pending administrative review”: 6/26/21
A0 eRA status changed to “pending award”: 7/26/21
NOA received for A0: 8/4/21 (A1 withdrawn by IC)
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you for posting your timeline (yes, this is the right place – when I have time, I am moving them to a stand-alone page, but thank you for posting here so more people can see it!). I will just note that your PO rather than the SRO would have requested a rebuttal (SRO involvement stops after summary statement is produced). Even without scores, your timeline demonstrates that gray zone A0s can be picked up after A1s are submitted and scored – though some might appreciate knowing whether your A1 score was better, about the same, or worse. Thanks again!
pepfrof said
Great point. Yes, it was the PO who requested rebuttal. Regarding the A0/A1 timeline, I was certainly worried about the ramifications of a quick resubmission. I guess my case supports the notion that there is no significant risk to your A0 upon submitting the A1.
See also:
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/grants-contracts/revise-resubmit-application#:~:text=Even%20if%20your%20resubmission%20scores,still%20fund%20the%20earlier%20one.
For what it’s worth, the A1 scored a bit better (and proposed a slightly higher budget).
Thanks for this maintaining this fantastic resource for the community!!
writedit said
Thanks for clarifying your situation. NIAID and many ICs will fund a lower scoring A0 if the A1 scores worse (I know of cases where the A1 was ND and the A0 still funded), but this is not universally true any more based on anecdotal reports here (ie, some have reported their PO warning them that a worse A1 score could prevent the A0 from being funded). Even then, I usually recommend resubmitting if there is any doubt about the A0 being funded. The time lost is too valuable, and the A0 might not be funded regardless of the A1 outcome.
K99_SC said
Hi Writedit,
Thank you so much for maintaining this wonderful website. It was very helpful to read through all of the great discussions. I wanted to share my timeline for those planning a K99/R00, I hope they find it useful:
A0 Submitted: 10/09/21
A0 Scientific Review Group review pending. 10/23/21
A0 Scientific Review Group review completed: 3/12/2021
A0 Score released: 3/14/2021
A0 Summary statement received: 4/7/21
A0 Discussion with PO, very positive and optimistic: 5/25/21
A0 Just-in-time request from grants specialist: 5/27/21
A0 Council review completed: 06/09/21
A0 Pending administrative review: 6/15/21
A0 Email from PO, grant to be paid: 6/16/21
A0 Pending award: 8/19/21
A0 Awarded 8/31/21
k99 appl said
Thanks for sharing. Could you also share more info, like score, institute, what year are you at as postdoc?
writedit said
Thank you for sharing the timeline of each step – waiting for your score, your summary statement, your administrative review, and then a big gap until the award. Lots of waiting. Congratulations and best wishes for success with your career in biomedical research!
CheersK99 said
Hi,
Thanks for such an amazing website. I want to contribute my timeline of NICHD K99/R00. Hope it will be useful for others.
02/12/2020 Application entered into system.
02/24/2020 Scientific Review Group review pending.
06/16/2020 Not Discussed
11/12/2020 Application entered into system.
11/25/2020 Scientific Review Group review pending.
03/04/2021 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Impact score: 25.
06/09/2021 Council review completed.
06/29/2021 Pending administrative review.
7/29/2021 Award Prepared
8/9/2021 Application Awarded
It is a long and frustrating process especially since the first submission is not discussed. Cheers!
writedit said
Congratulations on jumping from ND to award! Thank you for sharing your timeline – best wishes for success with your project and career in biomedical research.
NIA/R21 said
Hi, I have a general question re: the NIA council meeting date. I saw two dates in my eRA Commons: one is 9/14/2021, the other one is 10/2021. Does it mean that NIA will make funding decisions on 9/14? Thanks!
writedit said
NACA meets on Sept 14-15 – you can always check dates (and minutes) online: https://www.nia.nih.gov/about/naca However, funding decisions will be made later by the NIA Director (not during Council meeting – Council approves applications to be considered for funding).
Mika said
I think to prepare a Competing Revision of my active NCI R01 (03/15/2020-02/28/2025). General questions:
1. is the Competing Revision period one year? or the same with active R01 =—Five years.
2. I could not find NCI Competing Revision RFA or PAR, please help it
writedit said
Check Section II. Award Information for the FOA through which your R01 was funded. If the FOA accepts revision applications, then you apply through the same FOA; if not, you cannot submit a revision application. Talk with your PO first, though, as they will have good insight on whether NCI will be likely to fund the competitive supplement if it scores well (they don’t have to, so it’s better to confirm in advance and get advice on what would be of most interest to NCI). I believe most revision awards are for 1 year, though you can talk with your PO about this as well.
Mika said
https://provocativequestions.cancer.gov/current-rfas-and-pqs. I could not find 2021 RFA. do anyone know that 2021 RFAs were released or not
writedit said
You can ask Sean Hanlon (contact info at the website you cite) or your current NCI R01 PO about the status of the Provocative Questions program and if/when the next RFA will be released. You can also watch the NIH Guide for Notices about it, but it’s better to ask in case they do not plan to issue this RFA again.
k99 applicant said
Hello,
In my era account, my status is now (Sep 10) is “council review completed” (it’s a nigms k99 with score 24).
The “Advisory Council (AC)” section shows:
“Meeting Date 09/09/2021” (I think this is the date related to my era status)
However, I notice that in the “Study Section” it shows:
“Scientific Review Group: XXXX
Council Meeting Date: 2021/10
Meeting Date: 7/14/2021”
What is the “council meeting” in the “study section” category?
My PO told me no need to contact him unless I did not hear anything till November, so I am not sure I should ask this minor question (which makes me seem unknowledgeable).
I tried to search online, I did not find why there are two “councils”. I do find a nigms “September 2021 Council Roster”, are those peope who decide my award? I am still confused what is the difference between the two “council meeting” .
Thanks for sharing advices.
writedit said
eRA Commons uses a single fall date for all council meetings as a placeholder – it is not the actual date of the NAGMSC meeting, which was September 9th. When applications are submitted, they are be labeled by generic Council meeting for CSR referral purposes (CSR doesn’t care about the exact Council dates). Sometimes, especially for RFAs, it is not always clear which Council meeting period an application will be considered for funding, so CSR labels your application as going to Council in the fall (October is the placeholder month). The meeting date is accurate in the Advisory Council section because it is specific to your IC for your application (added after CSR referral to IC). You don’t need to worry about the dates not matching – it is not incorrect and does not need to be fixed. Lots of people ask about this – not to worry.
k99 applicant said
Thanks for maintaining such an amazing website. For those who are interested in the NIGMS K99 F32, although they do not publish paylines, they have statistics on award rate vs impact score/percentile.
https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/2021/01/nigms-training-application-and-funding-trends-individual-nrsa-postdoc-and-pathway-to-independence-awards/
The x-axis in Figure 7 (K99) should actually be “impact score” rather than “percentile” It is true that (K99). The award rates seem to peak between scores of 15-20. I am curious why there is a very noticeable number of applications with scores of 10 (!perfect!) that did not get funded, e.g., award rates were ~50% for 2015, 2017, and ~70% for 2018?
Are the councils who make the decision after you got the score? Is there anything that applicants can do to increase the chance (after getting the scores)?
writedit said
My guess is that applicants with great scores had faculty jobs before they had awards and so had to decline the K99. Some of those years had incredibly late budget passage (well into the next calendar year), and anyone scoring so well could readily get a job without the K99. Advisory Council approves applications to be considered for funding, but the IC Director makes all final funding decisions. POs can advocate for applications with scores on the bubble, but that is the PO’s decision, not the applicant’s. If your PO is considering advocating for your application, they will probably (but not always) ask for a rebuttal to the summary statement to help them make a case for your application.
K99 applicant said
Hi,
I am submitting a K99/R00 proposal next month and just learned that one of my mentor’s other mentees is resubmitting his K99/R00 to the same institute, which means our applications will be in the same study section (I mistakenly thought he had submitted to a different institute). Our proposals have distinct research questions and data sources, but there is some big picture conceptual similarities, so it is possible we will have reviewer overlap. Was wondering if this situation can be seen as problematic. Specifically, could reviewers perceive my mentor as not having enough time to mentor both of us if they are aware of both of our applications, especially since he is a 4 R01 PI? Also wondering if in a situation like this there is more of a tendency to compare the two applicants to each other. While there is another institute that fits my proposal, the PO was not as enthusiastic and it has a lower payline. Any thoughts/advise would be much appreciated! Thanks!
writedit said
SROs are very careful about ensuring no applications are compared with each other from the same applicant or the same lab. Reviewers will know that a productive PI can manage multiple trainees, so if it’s just the two of you, that’s fine. If his available effort level seems too limited (based on biosketch etc.), they would raise this concern whether or not your colleague had an application in the same group. If your PO at the IC to which you submitted is enthusiastic, you shouldn’t need to worry about the IC not being interested in two similar applications. I assume you and the other postdoc have the same PO (some ICs have one assigned to ask K99 applicants, some have multiple K99 POs by topic area) – if so, the PO is already aware of the situation. Reviewers will only evaluate your application by itself and not think about other applications in the same lab.
Kevin Nead said
Hi all,
Posting my timeline for my NCI K08 application.
Timeline:
10/9/2020: Application submitted (first submission)
2/25/2021: Scientific review group meeting date
3/2/2021: Impact score posted (20)
3/23/2021: Summary Statement Available
6/14/2021: Advisory Council Meeting Date
6/16/2021: Status changed to “Pending administrative review”
9/9/2021: Status changed to “Award prepared”
9/10/2021: Status changed to “Application awarded”
Thanks for maintaining this site!
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you for posting your timeline! They really kept you biting your pending fingernails until the last possible moment. Best wishes for success with your project and your career in biomedical research.
Bob82 said
mine is 29, do u know what is the payline?
Izlude said
Hi all,
I recently posted about a potential R56 from my first R01 that was a couple pts above the ESI payline. I sent the JIT stuff and on eRA commons I noticed that it switched from “Admin review” or something to “Awarded Prepared. Please refer all questions to GMS or PO”. This looks like it happened on 9/10. Can I assume this is a done deal? If so how soon after this it switched to “awarded” with the NOA? I noticed for many people on their posted timeline it occurs within a couple of days so me being paranoid and stuff….
WIS said
It should be between days and weeks. Which institute (IC) will fund your application?
Izlude said
NHLBI. I guess with September coming to an end soon was just nervous. I emailed to see if they needed anything last week since they asked for a few more things after I submitted the JIT and the GMS said I was all set so I assume this status change is as close as one can get before the NOA.
WIS said
You probably will receive the NOA before September 30.
writedit said
I agree – NOA on its way before Sept 30 (probably by next week). The IC Director needs to sign off on each award, and it’s an incredibly busy month for them.
zhaoj817 said
My R15 got 2% (NIAID, Impact score 22). Council met on 9//14/2021. Status changed to Council review completed (Grey text color) today in my eRA commons. The grey text is just like other “Not discussed”. Should I worry/contact the PO or just sit tight? When should I expect to see a further change of the status? Thanks!
Brian said
The status will almost always change to the grey “council review completed” before changing to “pending”. It could stay that way for several weeks and is nothing to worry about. However, it won’t hurt to contact your PO.
writedit said
You can sit tight. The application always goes to Council review completed before switching to Pending. However, I suspect your application is for FY22, which means you probably won’t receive an award until December or January. If your PO were going to try to fund this in FY21, you probably would have already received a JIT request (personal).
zhaoj817 said
Thank you for the reply. I did not receive any personal JIT. I received the automated JIT request which I submitted on 9/1/2021. Will keep waiting patiently.
grantnewbie said
Hi writedit and others!
I submitted a K01 resubmission to NIA in March 2021 and it received an impact score of 20 (ADRD-related payline is 35, so well within fundable range). I received the automated JIT request, which I went ahead and completed. Once I received the summary statement, I reached out to the program officer and asked if I should prepare a rebuttal and she said to sit tight and she would reach out if she needed one. On 9/7, she emailed and said my application is being considered for funding and asked for a 1-2 page response to the Resume and Summary of Discussion. She asked for it no later than 10/01. Council met on 9/14-9/15 but I know funding decisions aren’t made at Council and obviously the response letter had nothing to do with Council because she didn’t even need my two-page response until 10/01 (two weeks after Council).
So my question is – should I interpret her request for the response letter by 10/01 to mean that they are considering funding my application for FY21? Or is it still likely FY22, meaning I won’t get NOA until December or January?
Thank you!!
sinh said
Hi, sorry I’m not sure about the answer to your question but I’m also an applicant for the NIA K01 grant and have very similar scores/timeline to you. I’ll be sure to update if I hear any post-council news. If you would like to compare notes my email is [email protected].
writedit said
Your submission in March 2021 was for FY22, not FY21. The rebuttal is for internal discussions at which your PO will be present and will advocate for your and other PI applications to receive awards. This happens after Council meets because they need to work off the list of applications that Council approved for consideration (for awards). Your PO may still not be able to give you a definitive answer later in October due to the federal budget situation (no FY22 budget until December at least, and the federal debt ceiling needs to be addressed). Your PO will be in touch if she needs anything else, but you should be prepared to wait for a few months before there is any action on your application, unfortunately. NIA can’t make new awards without knowing what it’s appropriation will be in FY22.
R21R01 said
My R21 submitted to NIAID received an impact score of 21 (SRG met on June 17th 2021). NIAID payline for 2020-21 was/is 31, so my score is within a fundable range.
On July 27th, the status changed to “council review completed”. I had not been asked to submit JIT at that time, so I was confused. The PO told to me to wait. Then I received a personal email for JIT which I submitted on August 27th, 2021.
The advisory council for NIAID met on Sept 14-16.
My anticipated start date is October 1st.
When can I expect to get notice of award or some such that will confirm that I am indeed getting funded? The PO did not reply my email from last week asking whether my funding might start on October 1st. I understand that she might be busy after advisory council meeting. What should I expect? Any advice/insights will be appreciated, please!
R21R01 said
Today the GMS replied my email saying that they can not confirm whether I will receive funding on October 1st 2021. Also added that if I am approved, I will receive notice of award. I am thankful for the reply. Based on some of the earlier responses, I expected that both the PO and GMS will be busy and will not have time to reply my email.
So I guess I will have to keep waiting. Any advice is welcome!
writedit said
You just need to sit tight and see if they can issue a NOA before Sept 30. I am sure they are cranking out as many awards as they can for as long as they have money to spend (your award is less and less likely with each passing day). You shouldn’t try to contact them again, because, yes, everyone there is frantically busy. If you don’t get an award by Sept 30, you will receive an award in FY22, though the timing might be delayed due to the current budget situation (ie, the lack of a budget, the debt ceiling, the potential for a government shutdown and default in October, etc.).
J. Y. said
NOA released. Congratulations!
zhaoj817 said
Thank you for the reply. I did not receive any personal JIT. I received the automated JIT request which I submitted on 9/1/2021. Will keep waiting patiently.
Izlude said
Hi,
I had a question about an R56 and R01. Recently I posted about an NHLBI R56 that was pending an award and received the NOA today which is exciting! I assumed this was based on my first R01 submission and I did submit the A1 this past July. When I went to eRA commons I noticed that the A1 submission status is:
Withdrawn by IC – Other Version Encumbered
Wouldn’t the A1 still be reviewed as submitted? When the R56 thing came up this was well after the A1 went in for July which seemed based on my A0 score (2 pts above the payline).
Is this common? I was going to email the PO but wanted to check if this is normal. I guess the point of the R56 is to submit a more competitive A1 but since the A1 was removed I would have to submit in March 22 but I guess I could submit this in November.
writedit said
Yes, you essentially had the A0 funded in part, so the A1 is withdrawn. You can submit again in October (if you’re quick like a bunny) or February – this will be a new A0, not an A1, and yes, the idea is for you to use the R56 funding to obtain more data and make some progress on the proposed aim so you can submit an application moving forward based on progress made during the R56 period.
Izlude said
I was hoping to submit as a new A1 for November to give myself time since I just got the NOA and thought my A1 submitted in July would still stand. Is the logic that the A0 was converted to an R56 so by definition there can be no A1 hence why it was pulled and why I can’t submit a new one for this November? Obviously the R56 is amazing and much needed but also I felt really good about the A1 that went in this past July. I just had a few questions:
1. So if this would go in as a new A0 I lose the benefit of the response to reviewer sheet? It is a small bummer mostly that 2 reviewers really loved it and the third reviewers, while score drove it down was very fair with comments and I felt I responded well to it.
2. New A0: Does it have to be for 4 years since the R56 is year one of the original A1? I guess that if this is a new A0 I can ask for 5 years adding little more work. I am most sure how reviewers view the R56 in the context of the new R01? I am not too familiar with the R56 mechanism and no one in our department has received this so little uncharted for me
So I guess the A0 applications are the ones that get converted to the R56 and it is normal to just put in the a new A0? I guess in one way it is great and in other ways can hurt you little? If the application was on the bubble and gets picked up for funding but if the application was that close you can’t resubmit and lose the benefit of the response to reviewer sheet (although I don’t know how much factor the response sheet has anyway.).
But if that is the case…next week is my deadline:)
writedit said
You’ll be going back to the same reviewers, so even though you can’t refer to the prior review (not relevant any more), they will probably remember the science, and you can refer to what you have accomplished with the R56 funding (having the IC pick you for an R56 – which is an exclusive club – is much better to cite than a prior review that didn’t result in funding). Before you submit in October or next February, I would suggest you clarify with your PO what is allowable in terms of avoiding overlap. Whatever you have in your NOA as the scope of work for the R56 shouldn’t appear in the next A0. If justified by the science, your new A0 can ask for 5 years (assuming your IC typically funds R01s for 5 years – not always the case) and include additional work (again, ideally based on data obtained during the R56 period). On the R56 again, either an A0 or an A1 application can be funded with an R56 award. Some PIs do turn down the R56 if they are confident a pending A1 will receive an award (usually they already have a score though) … but I don’t recommend turning down R56 funding, since the PI has no way of knowing what will happen in the interim in terms of federal budget, IC priorities, competitive application pool, etc.
Izlude said
Thanks! I definitely took the R56 and now aiming to get this back in for October so next week! I guess the thing that confused me about this whole resubmission vs new submission was this on the NHLBI site:
“The ultimate goal of the award is to provide interim, one-year support for investigators to collect preliminary data in support of a resubmission or newly competing NIH R01 application.”
It says in support of a RESUBMISSION which was confusing to me. I am looking at it as the A0 no longer exists (since it is an R56) so by their definition my A1 was pulled and I can’t submit a resubmission (A1) anyways. I didn’t know there was such a thing as an R56 until the NOA and almost everyone I know in my department doing research didn’t know much about it except what one finds on the web.
My plan was to just submit it as a standard new A0 but of course reference the R56, remove any mention that this is a A1 and of course take all the reviewer comments and respond to them in terms of grantsmanship.
Does that sounds reasonable? thanks for such a great resource!
SaG said
NIAID gives a good explanation of what you need to do. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/niaid-r56-bridge-award-sop
After you receive an R56-Bridge award, submit an improved R01 using data resulting from the R56 award.
You must submit either a resubmission (by revising your R01) or a new R01 application.
Do not submit a renewal R01.
The R56 counts as other support if the R01 is fundable.
You may carry over funds from the R56 to the R01, if the R01 is awarded as a resubmission. A new R01 application will not allow for carryover.
Izlude said
Hi SaG,
Thanks for the information, I think the confusing thing for my grant’s office that no one seems to know is:
“You must submit either a resubmission (by revising your R01) or a new R01 application”
I am being told that there is no longer an A0 since it was converted to an R56 so I can’t “resubmit as an A1.” I emailed my PO like 3-4 times mostly since it may have to go in next week to meet the Oct deadline and I emailed some staff at NHLBI to get more clarification since this is not a common mech no one seems to be familiar with in my department.
I guess my confusion is that a “resubmit” means an A1 with the response to reviewer stuff to me. If the A0 is picked up for an R56 one could never resubmit it as there is no longer an A0 to go off. If the A1 is an R56 then the same thing would apply since it would have to go in as a new R01. I just wanted to make sure it goes in correctly and if it can go in as an A1 I can respond to reviewers.
Sorry maybe it is alot simpler then I am making it out to be!
writedit said
No one will likely answer your question before the end of September because they are all frantically busy closing out the FY21 fiscal year before Oct 1. I would not recommend submitting in October – your PO would not have given you the R56 award if they didn’t think you needed to get more data or do more work on the project to make it competitive. They would have just let the A1 go to review. The point of the R56 is to allow you the time and additional research resources to improve the R01 application. Submitting within weeks of receiving your R56 means you did not need the R56 funding and should have turned it down.
WIS said
Dear Writedit et al,
I have a quick question about end-of-FY selective pay. Does the PO need to advocate the application in order to to be considered for selective pay? Thanks so much!
writedit said
There is nothing you can do to request select pay consideration, and generally POs advocate for applications to get on the list for consideration (you don’t always need to provide a rebuttal for this to happen), so don’t worry if you weren’t asked. However, it’s getting very late, and the list of applications under consideration for select pay was set back in July or August … ICs are now working down these lists in order until they spend out their FY21 appropriation.
WIS said
Thanks for the reply writedit. I heard that NHLBI has a wired timeline and they continue to have select pay until October (new FY comes).
Charles said
I have a question regarding my NCI proposal, it was scored 17th so miss the EST FY21 payline by 1 percentile. I am wondering if the application would be still considered in FY22?
writedit said
If you submitted in 2021 (ie, February-March or June-July), your application will be considered for FY22. If you submitted in 2020, then you would have been considered for funding in FY21. Your application will technically remain active – and therefore eligible for an award, but the chances of this happening are vanishingly small. If you definitely had an FY21 application, you should have already submitted again or plan to submit in November (assuming the 17th percentile was an A0). You can check with your PO for advice on resubmission.
Fundthecure said
I am a similar boat in terms of FY21 vs FY22 funding. I got a fundable score on my R44 submission and was requested for personalized JIT as well as other specific questions from my PO at NINDS. Was told that I should hear something after a couple of weeks following the Advisory Council meeting on 9/10. My status has remained unchanged as “pending council meeting” from 6/24 and no other status updates. This seems to be odd from the other posts above where at least it changes to ” council review completed”. Makes me wonder if there is any chance that it will make it through the Sep 30 deadline. There’s a possibility of a delay in FY22 budget due to the debt ceiling debate so will have to wait patiently if delayed.
writedit said
It sounds like your application is for FY22 anyway, and that your PO was trying to squeak in an award in FY21 (first cycle applications can go either way). Still not impossible, but not probable that you will receive an award by Sept 30. If you don’t see a Pending status change soon, yes, you will have to wait very patiently through the whole federal budget snafu. Everyone at the NIH is frantically busy right now (so asking for an update won’t help), but in early October (a week or two in), you can check with your PO about next steps and what to expect.
Aman Mann said
Thanks for the clarification. It does seem like my SBIR application will be not make it in time for FY21. I’m trying to understand the process, so wasn’t the Sept council meetings meant for funding FY21 applications. And does that mean that my application will stay in limbo and get picked up during next round of council meetings again? Or only until the funding is cleared up. Do you see any advantage (time-wise) in putting in a A1 application?
SaG said
September, 2021 Council is for Fiscal Year 2022 $. NIH has the option to pay apps going to Sept 2021 Council using FY2021 $ but does relatively few. Whether you should resubmit depends on your score and the Institute’s SBIR payline.
Fundthecure said
I just heard from NIH stating that they currently do not intend to fund my application. This is after a good Impact score (well within payline) and multiple personalized JIT requests that were timely submitted. So I’m not sure what happened. Could it be due to the CR at the Federal level. This was a large $ Phase II SBIR application. I’m trying to reach out to my PO now.
SaG said
Was this an automated email about a previous version of your app? Those emails can be confusing. Or, they meant that they are not funding it with FY21 money. Might still be eligible for FY22 $.
Fundthecure said
Yes, it was an automated reply but for the current pending application. It did not mention anything about FY21 or FY22. But it would be great if they will consider it for FY22. Does that ever happen like that?
I do have setup a call with PO to discuss. Will report back once I find out more.
Brian said
Hello,
The automated e-mails are in my opinion completely worthless. It was probably triggered by the end of the FY. They will consider your application next year and most likely fund it if it’s under the payline.
writedit said
The April SBIR submissions can be awarded either in September (rare) or December (most). Because of the CR, start dates will be pushed back until Feb 2022 at the earliest (if federal budget passes vs another CR). Any peer-reviewed, Council-approved application can be funded in any FY as long as it is active (not administratively withdrawn), though it is usually awarded in the FY to which it is assigned. Applications submitted in Feb-April 2021 are assigned to FY22 but can be, at IC discretion & with funding availability, receive awards in FY21 (as an example – this is true each calendar/fiscal year).
John said
Dear writedit, I am the PI of an NIH SBIR phase II project. The phase II is 2 years, and I am in the first year of phase II. I had requested that the project starting date be in September, but I was awarded early this February. I thought I could have the bandwidth to make sufficient progress on the project, but due to the pandemic and other projects, I may need more time for this project to accomplish at least 75% of its first year aims. I wonder if there is such a thing as “no cost extension” for the first year of phase II, before I get renewed for the second year. I can try to really rush the project, but a no cost extension would be much preferred, if possible. Your insight will be much appreciated. Thanks!
writedit said
I am not familiar with what is allowed for SBIR awards, but you should talk with your PO about how much carryover is allowed (explain that you were not able to get as much done due to pandemic – PO won’t have sympathy about the other projects).
project-start-date said
Hello! Thank you for this amazing resource! I recently received a fundable score on a K23 with a projected project start date of 4/1/2022. I am wondering if there is any flexibility to push back the start date to 7/1/2021 in order to allow myself some extra time to remove myself from current obligations?
writedit said
Do you mean push the start date to 7/1/2022? If so, you should talk with your PO – but wait until later in October, since this is not an urgent issue, and they are incredibly busy due to the end/beginning of FY and October submission cycle – and ask about delaying the start date. I assume whatever obligations you are referring to are discussed in the application and would be addressed as part of JIT next year. They may not want to wait until July, since the GMS team will be busy with the Cycle III awards, but you might be able to get a month or two delay at least, if not until July. Of course, depending on what happens with the budget and national debt ceiling, all FY22 awards could be delayed anyway.
R15 Aspirant said
Hello All,
I have a question regarding “Biohazard”. My R15 will use a chemical carcinogen (4NQO1). My understanding is that this is not a “select agent”. In summary statement include- Biohazards Unacceptable. Safety protocols for use of 4NQO1 were not included.
I have a safety protocol written. My question is where should I attach this file? If anyone know, please response ASAP.
SaG said
If they are considering funding the application the PO (or GMS) will ask for your SOP in the JIT request.
R15 Aspirant said
Thanks!
RPPR said
Our institute did not submit my final RPPR before the deadline. It was due yesterday and they haven’t turned it in yet. Should I be concerned? Do I need to email the PO? Thanks!
writedit said
Since this is your final RPPR, no award will be affected. Your sponsored programs office might be thinking they have until the end of Sept rather than the Sept 28 deadline. As long as they get it in soon (hopefully by COB tomorrow, to keep it within the right FY), everything should be okay – your PO will let you know if there is a problem.
SaG said
This is on your Institute not you. Since the grant belongs to them, if they don’t turn in the FRPPR they get yelled at. But, a few days won’t matter.
RPPR said
Thank you both so much!
Strange_sitation said
My K99 should be renewed for the second year on August 1st next year, but my next visa might not be ready till the end of September. Is it possible to basically have a gap in the award and push the start date for the second years funding by a couple of years.
This is probably a question for the GMS? Just wondering if anyone has heard of this happening and if it might be possible.
Strange_situation said
I meant a couple of months…. not years.
Matt F said
hi all!
Just a quick question about my K99 NIGMS application. My grant got reviewed and scored. The scores weren’t amazing, and from the reviewer comments, they loved the research, but thought I was too earlier (only 2 years in postdoc and no publications yet…).
It’s been almost 4 weeks since the council review, and no update to my grant application on era nih site. HOWEVER, I noticed they assigned a Grants Management Specialist to my application (this morning), but no other update.
What is the interpretation of this? Does every application get assigned a GMS eventually? Or only ones likely to be funded? Just wondering if this is a good sign?
writedit said
Your PO is the best source for advice, but don’t expect any action on this application until after December – or whenever the federal budget is signed into law (current continuing resolution lasts until December). The priority score is the only score that matters, and based on your comments below, it sounds like your score could be too high. The GMS assignment is irrelevant. Again, you should communicate with your PO about next steps, including how best to address reviewer comments, since I suspect the PO will recommend resubmitting in November so you don’t miss a review cycle. Well, unless you still have no publications – reviewers will want to see one or more peer-reviewed publication, so if you won’t have any manuscripts submitted or in press by November, you might want to wait until March anyway.
K99hopeful said
Hi Writedit,
Thank you for your excellent resource that benefits so many people in our community.
I wanted to get clarity on the time qualification mentioned in the K99 PA:
“Applicants must have no more than 4 years of postdoctoral research experience at the time of the initial (new) or the subsequent resubmission application.”
Does the time count at date of the application submitted to the NIH or at the time of the due date? I ask because on July 1 is my 4 year mark being a postdoc. I was planning to prepare and resubmit the application by sometime in June (within the 4 year mark) for the July cycle. I was not sure if I would still qualify, as my submission date would fall before the 4 year mark but the due date of July 12 is outside of the 4 year mark.
Any indications would be appreciated.
writedit said
You should definitely ask your PO, but I believe it is the submission date for the cycle to which you are applying (though it seems feasible for the NIH to track timing based on submission date). If you can’t submit in July, you could submit a new A0 in June (if your science is strong, reviewers should recognize this whether or not they have the prior review). If you need more time for publications, an A0 in June would be better than an A1 in March – assuming, again, that your PO indicates the July 12 date is used to calculate eligibility.
K99hopeful said
Perfect, thank you very much. One more point of clarification. I keep hearing rumors that they count the 4 year mark from time of graduation. I wanted to make sure that it really is what they say (e.g. 4 years of postdoctoral research).
writedit said
I am not sure what you mean about a “rumor” … NIH policy is that the K99 eligibility clock starts ticking upon conferment of the PhD for applicants who do not need to complete clinical training (https://grants.nih.gov/faqs#/New-Investigators-Program?anchor=question51279). However, it is important to communicate with your IC directly if you have any extenuating circumstances (eg, some of your postdoctoral work was part-time or delayed due to health or family obligations or other allowable causes). Also, please do not forget about the extension granted for COVID-19-related delays (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-21-106.html); NIAID has their own extension as well (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-AI-21-061.html). In general, don’t hesitate to communicate with your PO about your eligibility timeframe and when your application would be accepted.
SaG said
One way to think about it is that the NIGMS K99 requires one year of a post doc. But, NIGMS doesn’t like to fund PDs for more than 5 years.
k99 appl said
“NIGMS doesn’t like to fund PDs for more than 5 years”. Do you mean they don’t like when you apply in the 4th year and start K99 in the 5th year? If so, they should not give the COVID-related extension? Or do you mean that in a non-COVID situation?
TG said
Hi Writeedit,
As we head to CR time, do you sense that paylines should remain stable from 2021 given the modest increase in the budget request for most institutes? Specifically wondering whether an applications that scored a point below the 2021 payline for the IC should be paid in a timely manner, or instead be subject to delays (or not paid = 2% drop)
Thank you!
writedit said
Interim paylines have dropped – NIAID dropped from the 14th to the 10th percentile (established PI R01), for example – but in general, ICs hold off on making new awards until the federal budget is signed into law. They will be operating on 90% of their FY21 appropriation for an unknown period of time (at least until Dec), so they save their funds to pay noncompeting renewals until they have their final appropriation in hand. Applicants with a cycle 1 award (ie, ~Dec 1 start date) should not plan to hear anything about their application and possible award until January or February 2022, assuming the CR is not extended beyond December. The NIH appropriation should support resumption of the FY21 paylines once the federal budget has been signed into law, and all final FY22 paylines will be retroactive to first and (if CR is extended) second cycle applications.
Researcher said
I am in a similar situation. I had a K23 scored that was 1 point above the FY2021 payline. I am hoping that the new payline for FY2022 moves 1 point in my favor. However, I am not sure the chances of that. Any ideas?
writedit said
The payline might move up a point, but that would not happen until later in 2022, so you probably want to submit again in the meantime rather than wait so long for a decision. If the current application does receive an award next spring or summer, your resubmission can be withdrawn.
Waiting said
Any rumors/guesses on when the other institutes may release interim FY22 paylines — specifically the NCI?
writedit said
As I noted below, the interim paylines are not especially useful in making application decisions since they are so low. You can discuss next steps with your PO, and if you can’t afford to lose a submission cycle while waiting for definitive word on an award (due to eligibility clock, tenure clock, funding gap, etc.), you should probably plan to submit an insurance application, especially if your score is above the final FY21 paylines.
Waiting too said
That’s terrible. I am waiting for my K99. It sadly sounds like it would not happen this year.
writedit said
You won’t receive an award in 2021. If you applied to NIAID, you won’t receive an award until the summer of 2022 (the earliest they start funding is ~July). If you need advice related to submitting again, what to do if your postdoc will end before your start date, or other issues related to the timing of award decisions, you should check in with your PO (they still won’t know when you might receive an award though).
Waiting too said
Thank you for your reply.
Hoping to be a K99 awardee, I could not try to test the water of academic job to gain some experience, is that right? I am afraid that if I discuss this thought with PO, I will be disqualified. Even though both are not sure things.
writedit said
A lot depends on your score (eg, were you within the FY21 payline), your timing (eg, was this your last chance to submit), and your current job status (eg, do you have a hard deadline to receive an award or find another job). If your score is within the FY21 payline or close and you have a cushion of time to wait (and especially if you can submit again in November or next February), then you might want to see what happens in December and check in with your PO in January. If your score was above the FY21 payline and you are running out of time to find an alternative situation (either via K99 or job offer), then by all means, start looking. An R01 would be better than an R00 if you are competitive for jobs without the K99/R00 award (good score could help even in the absence of award). From the PO’s perspective, if you are ready and feel competitive to look for academic jobs, then you probably don’t need the K99.
Waiting too said
Thanks for the comments. My score is good but just at about 50% of being funded based on the published statistic of previous years. So, there is non-negligible uncertainty for the k99. I probably would try to apply for faculty, and see whichever comes first.
If I receive k99’s notice of award after I got an offer (not accepted yet), could I negotiate with NIH and the university to stay as postdoc for a few months or a year, and then move to independent?
writedit said
You wouldn’t negotiate with the IC (there would be no negotiation – your application would be withdrawn), but you could potentially ask the institution making the offer if you could postpone acceptance until after your K99 year (you need a full year on the K99). However, again, if you have a job offer with a reasonable start-up package, you would probably be better off taking that position and immediately starting to work to convert your R00 project for an R01 application. The R00 only gives you $250K in total costs (direct plus indirect), and most universities have an F&A rate that is at least 50% (usually much higher), which means you would only have ~$150K in direct costs, and much of that would go to your salary. Finally, an R00 cannot be renewed, so you need to immediately start working on an R01 application anyway. The main benefit of a K99/R00 is to help postdocs secure good tenure-track jobs and provide temporary, limited support through the transition to independence. Again, if you can get a good offer without it (and don’t need additional specialized postdoctoral training), then you might be better retooling the R00 for an R01 at the outset of your new job.
writedit said
The interim paylines only indicate what ICs are willing to consider for funding until later in the FY. The final paylines are retroactive, so while an application may not receive an award under the interim payline, it could later in the FY.
No IC will know what their appropriation is until 6-8 weeks after the federal budget is signed into law. Right now, the earliest the federal budget might be approved is December 3, which means ICs won’t know what their final appropriation is until late January. If another CR is passed, the delays pile up even more. By then, there will be large backlog of applications to process, so funding decisions will be slow.
Anyone whose score is at or just above the FY21 paylines should discuss with their PO whether to submit again (either A1 or new A0) as insurance. POs won’t know until next year which applications are likely to receive awards, and they don’t want anyone to miss an application cycle waiting for clarity.
pluto said
Hi–
I recently submitted an R01 grant. There are really two study sections (let’s call them A and B) that make sense for the application. I requested study section A in the application, for a variety of reasons (better fit with content, better fit with reviewers based on review of the members, and study section B reviewed a similar grant previously and it did not go well and I wondered whether it was the right fit–I did not mention this last part in my request since it seemed counterproductive).
It was assigned to study section B. Ack. I emailed the SRO to ask if they might reconsider and laid out some reasoning about why, but I have not heard anything. I am pretty concerned that the application will be toast if it goes to this study section. Any other ideas? Is it reasonable to reach out to the PO if the SRO never responds, to ask their advice?
I understand it is up to NIH/SRO in the end, and the ship may have sailed, but I was hoping that the SRO would at least reconsider/respond, and I have not heard anything–it’s not been long enough yet that I would reach out to the PO but just wondering about any options. Thanks for any thoughts!
writedit said
I’m not sure which SRO you emailed, so it’s hard to say why there has not been a response, but it could be under discussion. The best approach (for future reference) is probably to copy both SROs and, more importantly, the IRG Chief (who will make the assignment decision) laying out your rationale for the choice of SRG A over SRG B. If the study sections are in different IRGs, then copy both IRG Chiefs. Sometimes the IRG Chiefs know about recent reshuffling of research topics from one SRG to another to more clearly delineate differences and/or a heavy submission cycle for one SRG, which could explain the decision to ignore your request. Your PO has no role in the assignment decision, but you could contact them for advice on next steps (eg, should you reach out again), especially if they personally confirmed your choice of SRG A. As an FYI for the future (and everyone else), if you are trying to decide between SRGs (or identify one from scratch), your PO is a great source of advice, since they likely attend meetings of any relevant panels.
pluto said
Thank you for the reply–
I emailed the SRO of the currently assigned study section (the grant is now listed as having that person as the SRO, so that’s why I went that route). I could find the SRO for the other study section and then email them both (I don’t want to annoy the SRO I already emailed, though).
I had reached out to the PO of the prior application (I’m applying to the same IC and same PA) about their advice regarding switching study sections, but never heard back and went forward. There is now a new PO assigned.
I am not sure what an IRG chief is–is this listed on the PA? The IC’s website? This is probably my 15th NIH application but I have never encountered this situation before so am quite ignorant about the situation!
Jeff
pluto said
Update: I emailed the IRG chief, and they changed the study section. Wow! Thank you so much for your guidance!
writedit said
Awesome!!! So glad they agreed with your rationale. Happy to help you navigate the CSR space – good luck with the review!
JN said
Hi
I have got 16% for my RO1 (NHLBI). I am not an ESI. What could be my chances of getting the grant? Please let me know.
Thanks,
JN
Newly_tenured said
There is a good (read: nonzero) chance that the R01 could be funded, since the payline has been 16% for the last two years and there is an increase this year. You’ll want to advocate with the PO, after the summary statement has been released, and depending on whether this is an A0 or A1, ask whether you should resubmit or provide a rebuttal/response to the summary statement.
JN said
Thanks for your suggestion 🙏
writedit said
Thanks, Newly Tenured – you’re hired! The FY21 payline was the 15th percentile for established PIs, but it was the 16th percentile in prior years, and a PO interested in the science could certainly advocate for select pay. As Newly Tenured correctly notes, when you receive your summary statement, you can ask your PO about next steps. They won’t know the FY22 payline or funding likelihood until next February (assuming federal budget is signed into law in December), but they can let you know whether you should submit again for insurance.
JN said
Thanks, Writedit.
I have two questions. Does the select pay funds only for 4 years?
I read the following: NHLBI ($3.62B): FY21: 15th/25th percentile for established/ESI PI R01 (plus extra 5 percentile points/20th percentile for first ESI renewal/Type 2 or for second new/Type 1 R01 application). The plus extra 5 percentile points for second new type 1 RO1 applies only to ESIs?
Please let me know. Thanks in advance.
writedit said
Correct – only ESI applicants renewing their first R01 receive the extra payline boost (and they only get it on this one occasion for this specific renewal … not a later or different R01 renewal). NHLBI and most ICs limit all R01 awards to established investigators to 4 years as a matter of policy, since the average length of award averaged for the entire IC portfolio (all activity codes) should be no more than 4 years, though the award duration is on case-by-case basis (eg, ESI get 5 years, clinical trials get 5 years, other research projects needing the full 5 years).
JN said
Thanks for the quick reply.
MK said
First of all, this is a great site to learn a lot about grant application and funding scenarios.
I submitted my first R01 (as new investigator) to NIGMS back in Oct 2020 and it scored 30% in Feb 2021. PO (Branch chief) directly requested JIT in June, 2021 but did not guarantee anything. So I resubmitted my R01 (addressing all of reviewers’ comments) in July 2021, as the PO also recommended. Today I just got my R01(A1) score back, which is even worse than A0.
My questions are:
(1) Could my A0 be still considered for funding in FY22? Is there any time window of submitted applications to be considered at a given council meeting?
(2) For resubmitted R01, do the same persons who have reviewed A0 review A1?
Thanks!
writedit said
Applications can receive awards any time until they are administratively withdrawn. ICs rarely go back to fund an application from a prior FY, but it can happen if the IC wants to fund the science but prefers the A0 proposal over the A1 version. Your A1 application likely had at least one reviewer from the past submission, but this is not a requirement, and it might depend on whether your prior reviewers were available this cycle (either because they cycled off the SRG or were skipping this meeting). When you get your summary statement, you’ll have a better idea of whether these reviewers found new issues with prior components of your science (that prior panel did not flag or did not think were major weaknesses) or had concerns with changes you made to the application. It could be, too, that this cycle had more competitive applications, which pushed your score a little higher. You can discuss your summary statement with your PO to decide on next steps. With the continuing resolution, your PO won’t have any insight into funding until next year, but they can help you interpret the two summary statements together so you can plan for what I suspect will be recommended – a third application (new A0 in February), at least as insurance.
MK said
Thanks Writedit for your advise! I will definitely talk to my PO for next steps once the summary statement is available. Given that my A0 is still administratively alive, I wish I could politely persuade my PO to advocate my A0 for funding.
Literally, there is no major difference between A0 and A1 in terms of science. A main concern from prior panel was about my lack of major publication in the field related to my proposal. But my paper (related to that field) was accepted in a high impact journal while I was preparing A1 and I mentioned it (in press at that time) in “Introduction” section. After A1 submission, I also submitted post-submission material to reflect my recent publication. I’m eager to see how the review panel responded in summary statement….
Any comment or advise on how to handle this issue with my PO would be greatly appreciated!
writedit said
Hmm. It seems odd that the addition of a new publication would raise the score, so perhaps one of the new reviewers raised a new concern that swayed the panel. Your PO likely attended the meeting, so if the rationale for the score is not clear from what is written in the summary statement, they might have some insight from the discussion. You can ask your PO if either application might be considered for select pay and advice – I still suspect you will be advised to submit in February, even if there is a chance for select pay.
NutritionOrBust said
Hello, as always thanks for the amazing advice and insights here. We recently submitted a “small R01” to NIDDK and were pleased to received a priority score of 30 and percentile 12.0 (A0, not ESI). Any insights about how this may correlate to the published paylines for all R01s/chances of funding since this is a PAS? Thank you!
Patiently waiting said
I could be wrong, but even though it is a PAS, I believe that it will be judged against the regular payline.
That’s the bad news – the good news is that you’re at least under the 2021 payline (16th percentile), and with funds specifically set aside, may not (or may) have to wait as long as everybody else who is held up by the budget impasse in Congress.
SaG said
The “s” in PAS means they have “S”et-aside money for the Program. Usually they will also say something like, “we intend to fund 2-4 meritorious applications.” So, your score is relative to the other scored apps that came in to that PAS. So, R01 percentiles and paylines are not as important.
writedit said
You have every right to be pleased, since you should be in good shape with that percentile (especially if your PO is enthusiastic about the science, since, as SaG notes, these are set-aside funds that will go to the projects with highest merit and priority to the program). When you get your summary statement, you can check in with your PO about next steps, though you will hopefully be advised to sit tight until Council and award processing next year.
Anonymous said
Hi there – I see published paylines for NICHD FY2021 (F31 = 24th %ile). Does that really mean all applications under that percentile will be funded. For an app that would start in FY’22, do we have to wait for those paylines to be publicized before knowing anything for sure?
SaG said
Yep, NIH still doesn’t have a full year budget. And let’s hope the government doesn’t shutdown in December. That will really delay things. Be hopeful but patient.
writedit said
As SaG notes, we need to wait for the federal budget to be signed into law (hopefully without the drama of government shutdown or default), in which case ICs will know about their appropriations 6-8 weeks later (~Feb 2022). Paylines – which included all applications scored at the 24th percentile and lower in FY21 – should not change significantly unless there is a sudden surge in competitively scored applications, but with fellowships especially (low budget awards), the payline should be the same or within a percentile.
LVD said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you very much for your sharing and kind support.
I just got an impact score of 25 for my K99 resubmission with NIAID (as the primary) and NICHD (as the secondary assigned Institute). I am wondering if the score is unfundable or in the gray zone? If in the gray zone, please tell me what should I do now?
Due to covid19, I failed to update my recent publication and patents application to PO before the deadline (30 days before the Study section). Thus, PO refused to consider/inform the study section about my update 14 days before the meeting. What should I do now?
Thank you very much
LVD
writedit said
You will need to wait for your summary statement to contact your PO about next steps. If you are eligible to submit again, you should plan on doing that, at least for insurance. If you are not eligible to submit again, you can confirm with your PO whether you can extend your eligibility due to COVID-19 (depending on whether you have already requested an extension). If you are eligible to submit a K22 application, you might talk with your PO about that option. Your inability to submit updates on publications and patents to the SRO 30 days before review is unfortunate but does not change your review status. I am not surprised that the SRO did not send out the updates so close to the SRG meeting date. If you are not eligible to submit again, you can ask your PO if the additional publication/patent could be used to consider your application for select pay. However, you will not have any news about award decisions until next August or September, since NIAID doesn’t start issuing K99 awards until July (since they receive so many competitive applications, they want them all in hand before making award decisions). Again, your PO can give you some advice on next steps in the meantime.
LVD said
Thank you very much for your advice, Writedit.
I greatly appreciate your help.
Yes, I am eligible for the COVID-19 related extension.
However, it was my resubmission and I am on a J1 visa now. Therefore, I am not eligible for K22 and another resubmission. It was my last chance.
I followed your recent posts and reckoned that FY21 NICHD (as the secondary assigned Institute) has a payline (impact score) of 30 for K99.
Do you think it is advisable to contact the PO about the possibility of NICHD considering my application?
NICHD was my original Insititute assignment before NIH automatically directed my application to NIAID.
Thank you very much, Writedit.
LVD
writedit said
Aha – too bad about the K22. I assume, if you are eligible for the COVID-19 extension in eligibility, that you mean your visa runs out before your K99 eligibility does. (or perhaps I am misunderstanding, and you have already used your extension) Normally I would say to ignore the secondary assignment, but in this case, you might have a chance. Did you contact the PO at NICHD when your application was changed to NIAID? Usually CSR would sent an A1 application back to the original IC, but the PO at NICHD might have asked CSR to route the application to NIAID instead (based on your science). If your NICHD PO did not request the change in IC, though, then you have a better case for asking NIAID to relinquish the application if they do not intend to make an award. Unfortunately, all this will still be delayed by the lack of a federal budget, and because NIAID does not make K99 awards until next summer, they may not want to relinquish the application before then – though they might under these circumstances. If you did not contact the NICHD PO when your application was referred to NIAID instead of NICHD, I would suggest you first contact the NICHD PO now to see if they are still interested in your science and, if so, if they might consider taking the application. Hopefully they will say yes, in which case you can then explain to the NIAID PO what happened and ask about transferring the application to NICHD. If the NICHD PO is not interested in taking your K99, then you can lay out your situation with the NIAID PO, so they understand what happened and that this is your last chance.
LDV said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you very much. It is really kind of you.
1. I have not used my extension. However, it was my resubmission.
2. I only contacted NICHD PO before and after the K99 submission, and I did not contact NICHD PO when my application was directed to NIAID.
Since POs are handling fundable applications now, I will wait until next week when PO presumably has more time, to email him.
Thank you very much for your help, Writedit.
Best regards,
Luan
writedit said
You can submit a new A0 in February – you can apply more than twice if you are still eligible otherwise. You just can’t “resubmit” or mention the prior applications in the new A0. However, I think it is worth checking with the NICHD PO first. If they cannot take your A1 for some reason, you can ask how you might craft a new A0 to better suit NICHD priorities (in case they turned away the A1 application because it didn’t fit their mission or priorities). I think POs are always busy, and funding considerations will not start until next January or February due to the continuing resolution, but I appreciate your respecting your PO’s time.
LDV said
Thank you very much, Writedit.
You have been doing a great contribution to our communities.
I will contact NICHD PO.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
LDV
R03PatientlyWaiting said
Always appreciative of this incredible resource – thank you!
We’re feeling in a bit of limbo here. Here our the timeline:
March 2021: Submitted R03 resubmission
June 2021: Submitted post-submission materials
August 2021: Submitted JIT (less IRB approval)
August 2021: PI reached out to GMS with scoring info
October 2021: Submitted IRB approval letter
Are we in the patiently waiting phase now or is our funding in jeopardy for some reason? Is the continuing resolution playing a factor? Any guesses on when the NoA will come?
Appreciate any insight you may have. Thank you!
writedit said
Your March 2021 application will be considered in FY22 (cycle 1 applications typically have a Dec 1 start date, though no – or very few – new awards will be made on Dec 1 due to continuing resolution). Did the PO request JIT? You don’t mention the score, but that is not an automatic guarantee for funding even if within the prior year’s payline, so you should not assume a NOA will be issued. Even if the PO was cautiously optimistic about your receiving an award based on your score, they won’t know about timing until next year.
R03PatientlyWaiting said
Apologies. Yes, the most important part – the score was in the 1st percentile for an NICHD application. As far as I know, we only received the automated JIT email. The GMS expressed his congratulations on the high score and the possibility of an award from end of year funding (which unfortunately did not happen). He continued to say that he’d reach out if they hear anything (but this was at the end of August). Thank you!
writedit said
Congratulations indeed! You will receive an award, but probably not until next year, given the continuing resolution. Some ICs will make small, short-term new awards (eg, R03, Fs) during the CR, but you should assume that you will need to wait until the federal budget is signed into law. You’ll probably get another JIT request from your PO or GMS when they are ready to start processing the award to ensure the information is current (since, again, this probably won’t happen until Feb 2022 or later).
Annie said
Hi writedit,
My first submission F32 percentile was 15 (April 2021 submission, Sept/Oct council). According to my PO, FY 2021 payline was 28th percentile. However, now the current payline is 14th percentile and I was told that my grant will not be funded. I am assuming that this is the interim payline. Is it likely that the final FY 2022 payline is similar to that of last year? If so, should I go ahead and resubmit for the coming Dec deadline and withdraw my application if the initial submission score is within the final determined payline?
writedit said
When the payline is raised later in the FY, it will be retroactive; the interim payline just covers awards the IC will consider before the final appropriation is known (which won’t be known until Feb 2022 at the earliest). Since the FY21 payline was 28, even if it were to drop a point or two (which I don’t expect to happen), you would still be good with a 15th percentile. You should confirm with your PO that you are okay to wait (and not submit again) while waiting for the final payline to be set so you can rest easy and focus on your research and publications (vs fellowship application).
Grant Scholar said
Dear Writedit,
I have a question about the proposal submission deadline. I just completed grant proposal review on a special emphasis panel for NIH a few days ago. Now I plan to send my proposal to NIH in February 2022. I wonder … can I take an advantage for the “late submission”? if yes, how many weeks are allowed for the late submission? Thank you.
Your loyal reader
writedit said
As a temporary or ad hoc reviewer, you are not eligible for continuous (late) submission. Only current appointed regular members of chartered NIH study sections (and some other NIH advisory bodies) are eligible for continuous submission, which is indicated in your eRA Commons account. You can learn more about continuous submission for those providing service to the NIH here: https://grants.nih.gov/policy/peer/continuous-submission.htm Thanks for reading – and contributing through your question!
Shu said
Dear Writedit,
I just want to see if anyone know the payline of NCI K99 for the FY 2022.
Thank you so much!
writedit said
Paylines won’t be available until 2022 (probably February at the earliest). If the federal budget is signed into law in December, it takes another 6-8 weeks before ICs receive their final appropriation (a little gets skimmed off at each stop – HHS, NIH), and then some ICs want to see how competitive the first couple cycles of applications are. In the meantime, applicants can ask their POs if they should plan to submit again (out of necessity or for insurance) while waiting for the federal budget process to resolve.
Shu said
Thank you for the reply. Yes, I will contact PO when I get the summary statement. I got my K99 score of 24 last week (it is an A1 and I won’t be able to submit again for K99). I heard NCI’s payline for K99 was about 30. So just want to check.
writedit said
Aha – you should be in good shape, but your PO can confirm.
Grant23 said
Dear Writedit,
My R21 got a score of impact 29, and 13%-tile. It’s an A0 submission in NICHD for a pediatric rare disease. I contacted the PO at NICHD and she said it’s unlikely to be funded at 13%-tile, though the final results will be out next January. She encouraged me to submit an A1 application.
I wonder whether I can ask NCATS if this is fundable, since the FOA is under both NICHD and NCATS.
This special PAR has expired. So should I re-submit to the general R21? Does NCATS have a better payline than NICHD? How can I get it assigned to NCATS?
Thanks!
writedit said
Even if NCATS was assigned as a secondary IC (just sharing the FOA doesn’t count), secondary ICs almost never pick up an application since they are struggling to fund applications with primary assignments, and NCATS does not typically fund R21s (so would only be interested in applications that target their priorities). NCATS likely has a worse payline than NICHD, and they do not participate in the parent R21 FOA. You can ask your NICHD PO if there are other FOAs to which you might submit (current or planned) and apply to the parent R21 FOA if nothing better is available. You don’t mention the type of FOA for your A0: if it was an RFA, you will be submitting a new A0 application, not an A1. If the A0 application FOA was a program announcement (PA, PAR, PAS), you can submit an A1 application to the parent FOA (but it will be reviewed under the parent criteria, not the original program announcement criteria).
Grant23 said
Thank you. It is a PAR, https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/par-18-953.html, but has expired. So it seems that I have no choice but to submit to a parent R21 as an A1, but reviewers will be totally different, and A0 reviews may not count?
Yangming Ou said
Dear Writedit, our R21 was transferred from NICHD to NCATS. We got a notice but don’t know why. I guess this is a good sign?
writedit said
If this is an application that was just submitted, and you did not request an IC assignment in your application package (PHS referral form), then it either NCATS asked to be made primary IC, or NICHD changed their mind on the assignment, so it was reassigned to NCATS. If you have worked with POs at one or both ICs, then you can ask for clarification on why the switch was made. It won’t affect the score, but you want to be sure the science is of compelling interest and a programmatic priority for the primary IC so they are likely to fund it if the score is competitive (neither has an R21 payline). Now, if this happened after the application was reviewed, it’s a little more puzzling, but again, it is usually because either the primary IC decided it wasn’t a priority for them, or the secondary requested the assignment.
Grant23 said
Dear Writedit,
Another R21 of mine got a 26 impact score and 13%-tile at NINDS (A1). This page from NINDS says their R01/R03/R15/R21 has a payline at 14%-tile for FY21 (https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Funding/About-Funding/NINDS-Funding-Strategy/NINDS-Funding-Strategy-FY-2021). Does that mean that we may have a good chance?
Thanks!
writedit said
Yes, you should feel positive about this application and can confirm with the PO whether you can sit tight on that score. Assuming nothing disastrous happens with the federal budget in the meantime, FY22 paylines should be about the same as FY21 (any changes would depend on number of competitive applications and allocation of appropriation to various mechanisms).
Grant23 said
Thank you. I just got a response from the PO that the final decision will be up to the Jan/Feb council meeting, but it’s hopeful that the 14% payline will stay unless there is a big change in the coming months. So I just sit tight and remain optimistic. Thanks a lot!
budgetQs said
any thoughts on if/how the new budget may impact NIAID paylines? all speculation now, but people with more experience may have ideas
writedit said
NIAID won’t know what their final appropriation is until next February at the earliest (assuming federal budget is signed into law in December), but assuming no major budgetary disasters occur (eg, default), paylines should be the same, depending on the pool of competitive applications.
New investigator said
Hi,
I am an ESI and have an R01 under review. It was assigned to srg ZRG1 BBBP-H (55) and one era commons it says the review date was 10/20/21. I still don’t have a score and thought that they have up to three business days to post. When should I contact the PO?
Ps. Love this blog!
SaG said
That is an unusually long time to post scores. There are reasonable reasons for a delay. But, might be worth pinging the SRO in the next day or two. PO wont be able to tell you anything.
ESI? said
Dear Writedit,
I have one question on ESI and Submission date. My ESI ends 01/31/2022. New R01 deadline is 02/05/2022 and resubmission R01 deadline is 03/05/2022.
I would like to resubmit R01 during that cycle but if I resubmit R01 after 01/31/2022, then I may lose ESI. Then, is it OK to resubmit R01 on 01/30/2021 to protect my ESI status? Thanks.
SaG said
Have you asked for/do you need an ESI extension? https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2021/09/17/clarifying-nihs-approach-to-granting-esi-extensions/
writedit said
The date your application is successfully submitted to Grants.gov determines whether your application is flagged as ESI: https://grants.nih.gov/faqs#/early-investigators.htm?anchor=question55081 You will want to be sure everything is perfect, because if there is an error that needs to be corrected or there is some delay in submission, your application may not have the correct Grants.gov time stamp (even if you got it to your university for submission by Jan 31). You should ask your sponsored programs office about the date they recommend uploading and submitting to ensure the correct Grants.gov time stamp.
R15unsure said
Hello! Thanks so much for taking the time to provide all this information and reply to comments.
I applied for my first NIH grant in June – an R15 through NIMH (NHLBI and NICHD both also listed in ERA Commons but NIMH primary). I got scores this week and the impact score is 33 and percentile is 17. I don’t think NIMH provides paylines but suggests many applications in the 10-20%ile range will be funded. What I’m feeling confused about is for the R15 mechanism specifically, will they consider percentile or impact score? I see for some other institutes paylines for R15s are listed as impact scores, but I was provided with a percentile (which I think looks much more promising than my impact score) – so I’m not really sure what to think.
I have a PO whom I met with prior to submitting – but I’m thinking from comments here it is better to wait to reach out to her until after the summary statement is available.
Thank you for any guidance you can provide!
writedit said
Congratulations on the nice outcome for your first NIH application! ICs use percentiles (when available) over priority scores because the percentiles reflect overall competitiveness within that study section (compared with applications from 3 rounds of applications) vs scientific merit as assessed in one meeting. When you get your summary statement, you’ll want to think about how you could address reviewer concerns in the Summary of Discussion paragraph (which reflects opinion of larger panel vs individual reviewers) and then communicate with your PO about next steps, which I suspect will include a request for you to prepare a brief written rebuttal to the summary statement. Your PO can use what you prepare to help advocate for your application during internal discussions to select which applications with percentiles from 10-20 will receive awards. You will be on equal footing with applications that received a 10th percentile, since Program will be focused less on score and more on selecting exciting projects that address scientific priorities from a wide range of perspectives and approaches. Now, because the federal budget delay will postpone discussions, your PO will likely also recommend that you prepare to submit again for insurance, so you don’t miss a funding cycle waiting to hear your outcome, but this is not a reflection on the chances for your A0.
R15unsure said
Thank you so much for this information! So helpful!
Lily said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you for this amazing resource! I submitted an R01 – NIGMS that got an ND but constructive reviews. After addressing them and grant craftsmanship advice from the PO the proposal went from ND to 8 percentile. I just got the summary statement. The PO is cautiously optimistic but said that funding decisions depend on “other support”. A few questions: if a collaborator (not MPI) has a lot of non NIH funding, is that an issue?. My self I don’t have a lot but I got an MPI R01 – NIDKK in FY21 at reduced budget and only 3 years. Then, after a colleague moved overseas, also in FY21, I am the official PI for his R01 but it ends March 2022 and I don’t get any of that for my lab; it is just support to graduate the rest of his students. I worry though cause officially it looks like I have two R01s. And I really want to do the work of this one that got well scored; it’s the main research activity of my lab following up of my DP2 work that ended this year. Any recomendariam on how to tell all this to the PO. Sorry for the long note! As ever, Lily
writedit said
Congratulations on the exceptional improvement in score- kudos! (& congratulations on your prior DP2) Always include as much detail as you need to in laying out your situation – more information is never a problem. You should not bump into the NIGMS or NIH “well-funded PI” threshold. Your well-funded collaborator who is not an MPI will not be an issue. Your inherited R01 ending in March 2022 won’t play a role, since this award will not start until April 2022 (I assume this is a July submission). The one MPI R01 should not put you above the $750K DC (NIGMS) or the $1M DC (NIH) threshold. Your PO may have noticed the 2 R01s without looking at the specifics, but the GMS – who will actually handle all the award processing and negotiating – will absolutely pay attention and recognize these details. It doesn’t sound like you willl need to worry, though you may need to wait for the federal budget to be signed into law for full reassurance (your April award should be roughly on time though). This is all information for JIT – but, again, the GMS/GMO will know all about all these circumstances, so probably will not as concerned about your level of support (any overlap with your NIDDKI R01 would need to be addressed, but I presume this is minimal if at all).
jingdh836 said
Thanks for keeping this informative resource. I had a R01 A1 application just scored 12%tile at NCI. I know the payline is 11 for FY2021 but is there any chance for my grant to fall in FY2022 and hopefully the payline will be a bit higher as proposed (pathway to 15th by 2025)? thanks
writedit said
Your application is definitely for FY22. There is a chance that NCI will raise their payline 1%tile (on their path to the 15th percentile by 2025, as you note), though that won’t be clear until sometime next spring – and your application could be considered for select pay if the payline does not increase. When you have your summary statement, you can ask your PO if you can sit tight (they may request a brief written rebuttal) or if you should plan to submit again for insurance (so you don’t needlessly miss a funding cycle).
A-Bioengineer said
Dear Writedit,
This is an amazing resource; your responses to all the questions are helpful to many of us who are applying for NIH grants. Here is my situation. My NIH R01 A1 resubmission, which is assigned to NICHD, was reviewed in Oct. 2021, with a score of 11% (impact score 25). The summary statement is very supportive. So I checked with the PO. Here is her reply, “Our FY2022 payline would depend on the level of NIH budget (currently pending) and could not be determined at this time. It is my suggestion that that you consider a resubmission.” Do you have any suggestions? Many thanks for your insights. A-Bioengineer
NolongerESI said
I sure hoped your PO would be more supportive! 11th percentile is a quite secure score for most other ICs I guess (NHLBI, NIDDK). I don’t think NICHD posts paylines?
A-Bioengineer said
Unfortunately NICHD doesn’t have a fixed payline. From discussions above, it seems that NICHD payline for FY20 was 12%, then decreased to 9% for FY21.
writedit said
Your PO is being very careful, and everything she said is standard issue and not especially negative. If all goes as expected with the federal budget, the NIH should get a slight increase (6-8%, depending on whether the House or Senate prevail), but ICs won’t know their appropriation until 6-8 weeks after the federal budget is signed into law (they will get more like a 2-3% increase – not a lot). If the continuing resolution continues past Dec 3, then funding cycles will keep getting pushed back, too. If anything goes really amiss with the federal budget (default being the worst-case scenario), then all bets are off. But, assuming the budget is signed into law at the anticipated funding levels, then you could be okay (but, again, your PO cannot know this now). FY21 was unusual in the extra needs not budgeted, such as extending fellowships, career development, and other awards due to last time during the research shutdown in 2020 (straddled FY20-FY21 but were probably mostly absorbed in FY21) and to extra supplements and expanded use of NOSIs plus in some cases higher application rates. Your PO wants to be sure you don’t miss a funding cycle while decisions are delayed, so you should generally plan to apply again for insurance in any similar gray-zone situation (although I agree – 11th percentile should not be very gray zone …). No matter what, if (when) your A1 is awarded, the extra thought into planning a new A0 will help in the eventual conduct of the work.
NolongerESI said
Thank you! Do you know if NICHD follows an internal payline for R01s or they select applications based on “scientific merit, program priorities, portfolio balance, and availability of funds”?
writedit said
Your quoted line essentially applies to all ICs, and they can all estimate which percentiles will serve as likely cut-offs based on prior year experiences (which is what POs use in giving advice whether to submit again), but many do not know their final paylines until after all 3 standard cycle submissions and special funding initiatives (RFAs, PARs, NOSIs, etc.) have been reviewed. The payline is essentially how far the money will go, whether it is set in advance or calculated closer to the end of the FY.
A-Bioengineer said
Thank you so much, Writedit! Your insights are very helpful! Compared to other federal agencies (NSF, DoD, DoE), NIH remains the most transparent agency. From my experience, NIH POs are overall very responsive.
Mid-career PI said
Any intel on grants to NIA that scored below the ADRD payline (e.g. 22% and prior payline was 28%) will be awarded soon, or not until the continuing resolution is resolved?
writedit said
Not until next year – and the timing will depend on when the federal budget is signed into law. ICs can make a few select new awards during a CR, but most wait until the FY federal budget is final and their appropriation is received (~6-8 weeks later) since they are only operating on 90% of the prior FY budget level, and they won’t know their final appropriation until it arrives next year (a little get skimmed off at each step – HHS, NIH).
NewPI said
My first NIH-R01 submission have received 23 percentile at NHLBI as New investigator. The pay line looks 15-16% for established and 25% for ESI. Since I am not an ESI, should IC consider anything for new PI? what is the chance of getting funded. Thanks for your insights.
writedit said
Some ICs, including NHLBI, focus their payline breaks on ESI applicants. When you have your summary statement, you can communicate with your PO about next steps; they will want to know details about your New Investigator status (eg, former industry, NIH, European, etc. established investigator submitting to NIH for the first time vs junior investigator who just aged out of ESI requirements), but you should probably plan to resubmit (for insurance, if the outcome is not clear).
NewApplicant said
Hello! Thanks so much for such an informative forum! I recently received an impact score of 30 for a K resubmission application to the NHLBI (July submission). This would unfortunately not be funded based on FY21 paylines but it would based on all previous years (FY17-20). I was wondering if there is an expectation that paylines would revert to previous year levels for FY22 or if they would stay the same as FY21. I understand there is no certainty about that at this point but I was curious if anyone has insight on what to expect. Thank you for your guidance!
writedit said
When you get your summary statement, you can get in touch with your PO for next steps (which could include advice to submit again for insurance). I suspect (but cannot confirm as a fact) that FY21 was unusual because ICs extended the project period of current K awardees whose research was suspended due to the pandemic. ICs hadn’t budgeted for supporting these investigators for additional months, so there might have been less money for new awards. Another possibility is a higher number of competitive applications (which would drive payline down). Your PO won’t know your funding likelihood until next year (6-8 weeks after the federal budget is signed into law), but they can give advice on what to do in the meantime.
R01orMIRA said
I am an established investigator and submitted a 5-year R35 MIRA to NIGMS and a 4-year R01 to a different institute in June. Both applications were reviewed in October, and received reasonably good scores that are within the funding range of the respective institute but not safe enough to guarantee funding, as neither NIGMS nor the other institute uses a hard payline. I just received the JIT request for the R35. The two grants have a similar annual budget, and there are some overlaps in their scientific aims. Personally, I favor the R01 over the MIRA, as it takes much less effort from me (15% vs 51%), and I have been interested in obtaining R01 funding from the other institute for a long time. My question is what should I expect from this situation going forward, and how should I handle the conversations with the two POs? Would each institute make its decision on its own, and I would have an opportunity to choose, or will these two gray-zone applications get in the way of each other? I worry that once the POs hear about the two applications, each would want the other institute to pick my grant, and somehow both applications could fall through the cracks.
writedit said
When you submit JIT for the R35, they will check for overlap with the non-NIGMS R01, which is when these discussions will happen. You should be prepared to discuss each application and what modifications might need to be made to one or both to eliminate any budgetary and scientific overlap. If each IC likes the science, they will not discount the application just because modifications need to be made to eliminate overlap between the two – but this assumes they are sufficiently different in terms of aims, goals, outcomes, approach etc. to stand alone once overlap is eliminated. If they are too similar for both to be funded as independent projects, then it sounds like, given the R35 JIT request, that you may need to pick one now. You can contact the R01 PO for any insight on funding likelihood and the timing of decisions, though I suspect they will put you off until next year due to the continuing resolution (and possibly/probably recommend that you submit again). Once the review of your R35 JIT information begins, you will need to indicate how you plan to resolve the overlap.
R01orMIRA said
Hi writedit, Thank you for your comments and advice. In my JIT Other Support, I’m going to discuss the partial overlap between the two projects and state that if both projects are funded, the scope of work and budget will be adjusted appropriately in conjunction with NIH staff to eliminate any overlap between the two projects. I hope that is ok.
As both applications have promising scores but are not in the super safe zone, the timing and order of events could be tricky. Will the two ICs communicate with and inform each other as they make funding/budget decisions, or will each IC operate and decide on its own? What if NIGMS makes its decision first, and cuts the budget for the overlapped portion from the R35, but the other institute ends up not funding my R01?
writedit said
Whichever IC processes an award first would fund the full amount, and the second award would be cut to remove overlap. If negotiations were simultaneous, I suspect the R35 could be less flexible and might need to take priority if you wanted to try to keep both. Depending on what other funding you have, the NIGMS cap for well-funded investigators may also come into play.
SaG said
Yes, it will be complicated but his also happens with R01s. The POs should be in communication and will try to coordinate. NIGMS has lots of experience cutting budgets (as others on the board will tell you) so it isn’t anything unusual.
PImom said
This site is so helpful and I can’t thank you enough. For an R01 application to the NCI, I received <5%ile from this current review cycle. Council is in January. Even though I was ESI at the time of submission I recently lost that status (i.e. fortunate to have a different R01 funded). Should I just sit tight or do I need to reach out to the PO and ask about any concerns or further information needed? Many thanks.
writedit said
Congratulations on your exceptional score! Fortunately, with that score, you won’t need to worry about losing your ESI status, since you are within the established PI payline. You also don’t need to do anything in the meantime since your first R01 will be included in the NCI JIT information (which is when it becomes important – to check for overlap, available effort, etc.). Your PO won’t have any funding information until after the federal budget is signed into law – hopefully in December, in which case your award shouldn’t be affected. If you haven’t heard from your PO by January, you could check in to see if they need anything.
LKAP said
Thank you so much for this informative forum. I am ESI. On my NICHD RO1 application (A1) I got 16th percentile and impact score of 30. This is a significant improvement from my A0 application which had impact score of 50 and 45th percentile. Awaiting reply from PO. Given all the budget constraints at NICHD and FY21 paylines for established investigators under 10, I am wondering how much of a bump one can get due to ESI status. What are the chances of this application getting funded? Any educated guesses welcome.
writedit said
When you have your summary statement, you should ask your PO whether you should submit again (even just for insurance). You should also consider how you would respond to concerns raised in the Summary of Discussion paragraph(s). Your PO will not have any idea about funding likelihood until early next year due to the continuing resolution. However, your significant improvement in score weighs in your favor for consideration, and your summary statement and rebuttal could help the PO argue further for select pay (if their ESI payline is not up to the 16th percentile).
Izlude said
Hi I had a couple of questions.
1. I posted about getting an R56 based on the A0 and then they pulled the A1 which was submitted this past July. It was initially pulled since the A0 was converted to a R56 however the A1 did end up back in review. So I just got my score, it scored only 1 pt better 😦 The A0 was a 27th as an ESI so for NHLBI the recent payline is 25. Since the A1 score is now only a 26th, I saw in previous years the payline for ESI was 26. I know with the budget stuff we won’t know about payline but in general when do you think they will release the new payline and do people have any sense it may go to 26th like the previous year? Now with the R56 I do plan to submit a new A0 in Feb so hopefully that will help even though I don’t get the benefit the reviewer comments
2. I do plan to submit another R01 on a different topic/model in Feb. It would most likely end up in the same study section so I was worried that two R01s (although different) would be viewed negatively? My experience with this study section has been quite good and all their comments for the R01 submission have been very fair and insightful. I also had an R21 reviewed by this study section (different IC) that was also reviewed very favorable so I think my work fits in very well with this study section. I was just curious what people’s experience were with having multiple grants in the same study section at the same time. The IC would be different for the two R01s.
3. On the topic of ESI, since I am submitted two R01s in Feb, how does this go in terms of what is counted as an ESI? Since they would go to two different ICs with different pay lines and ESI payline, seems confusing to me. I am hoping the new A0 based off the R56 will hit as a virtual A2 and the second r01 I plan to put in wil not be as mature and I am sure I will get “feedback.”
Thanks! Bummed I only improved by a point but hopefully with the R56 that came in in between will help.
writedit said
Bummer indeed. If your PO is supportive, they may be able to push for an award, and the payline may get back to the 26th percentile. You are correct that the PO won’t have any solid news to give you until February (maybe January, depending on timing of federal budget), and, after you get your A1 summary statement, you can ask to confirm whether you should submit again in February (but I agree, the answer will likely be yes). You won’t be able to formally respond to the summary statement in the new A0, but you will benefit from the comments and suggestions. You don’t need to worry about sending two R01s to the same study section. The SRO makes sure they are all different reviewers (would be required for the science, it seems), and they are very strict in not letting discussion refer to your other application or take any consideration of it. Each application is reviewed and discussed on its own merit. It is up to the ICs, not the study section, to decide if they want to award you two R01s in the same cycle. If both of the February R01 applications score well – and/or if the A1 ends up receiving an award – your ESI status (and payline break) will apply only to the first application that receives an award. For the other one, the established PI payline will apply (even though you were ESI when you applied, which puts your application in a special review spot, your ESI status is reassessed at the time of award in terms of receipt of another R01 award in the meantime).
NewB_Scientist said
Hello, just received my score and percentile (34 for each) of an NCI F31-Diversity submission. Sounds like I may be on the bubble as far as funding goes? Anyone else happen to know what the payline is for the NCI F31 Diversity? Cannot seem to find that information anywhere. This is my first grant and I am pretty unfamiliar with the whole process. A post doc I work with said this is a great score for a first submission and I should just wait to see what the summary statement says (still have not received). Submitted August 9th 2021 and received score just yesterday (11/8/21).
Any input on what to expect would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks!!
writedit said
Your postdoctoral colleague is exactly right. You want to wait for the summary statement and then reach out to your PO (listed on the summary statement, if you didn’t communicate with them prior to submitting) for advice on next steps. The PO needs to see your summary statement before you communicate (by email first, since POs are busy and do not appreciate cold calls but may schedule a phone or Zoom meeting to discuss the summary statement) because the concerns raised will help them decide what advice to give you. They may want you to prepare a short rebuttal to the Summary of Discussion paragraph at the beginning of the summary statement, and they will likely advise you to submit again, even if there is a chance for this application to be funded. This is because the PO won’t know about funding until next year – NCI will not know their FY22 appropriation until 6-8 weeks after the federal budget is signed into law. Hopefully that will happen in December (which means ICs will have their budgets by February), but if not, award decisions will be delayed even further, and your PO would not want you to miss a submission cycle waiting to hear.
Bob82 said
submitted K08 to NCI 6/12/21 and received an impact score of 29, not sure if it is fundable, still waiting for a summary statement, anyone has any insight for NCI k08 pay lines ?
writedit said
You can search for K08 and NCI on this page and the more recent archived pages, since many timelines include the score as part of the application trajectory. After you get your summary statement, you can ask your PO if you should submit again (they won’t know about funding likelihood until federal budget passes, hopefully in December). The good news is that K08s account for ~36% of NCI career development awards, so I assume those scores trend a little higher … though the proportion could just reflect the applicant pool, too.
[email protected] said
I found a comment from the last archive (2018-19) with an impact score of 29 that was funded, I pray that payline is still the same.
writedit said
Glad you found a positive data point – it’s probably pretty stable, and also probably not a hard payline (whatever it is), so it’s good news that your score is at least in the zone of consideration.
bmogh80 said
so finally got the summary statement , generally positive , obviously some weakness , spoke with PO , saying last year 28 did not make it so unlikely that my 29 will make it either , told me to resubmit an A1 , pretty bumped!!
writedit said
Sorry the news isn’t better, but glad your PO could advise you. The last couple years have been a little unusual due to the number of K awardees seeking extensions due to the pandemic (when research was completely shut down), so I think the number of new K awards took a hit in FY21 (ICs needed to spend money they hadn’t budgeted) – but probably not enough to change the likelihood of funding. If you have a new publication in the meantime, be sure to let your PO know (in case they can use it to help advocate for funding the A0). In the meantime, it sounds like you have a good roadmap for strengthening the A1 application.
Abraham said
Dear Writedit,
I am planning to apply for an R01 (PA-20-185) responding to a Notice of special interest (NOSI) of NIA. I noticed some extra requirements on this NOSI. I am wondering whether the IC handles such a response as a regular R01 application or they have a special procedure or police. Do they organize a special study section to review these responses to NOSI? Do these responses have paylines different from regular R01s? applications in NIA?
Thank you!
writedit said
You will submit your application to the FOA with which the NOSI is linked, and the FOA determines the locus of review. In the case of the parent announcement, you will want to suggest an SRG on the PHS assignment request form. There is no special payline for NOSIs, but often these are funded on top of whatever would be funded through the affiliated FOA; the NOSI would indicate if a certain number of additional NOSI-specific applications that might be funded. Some NOSIs have additional application instructions and review criteria on top of the FOA instructions and criteria. You should think of NOSIs as PARs, which is what they are replacing: opportunities for ICs to indicate special short-term areas of high-priority research that they want to fund through specific existing funding mechanisms. The process of creating a new program announcement for each special area of research interest is a lengthy and labor-intensive process, whereas the NOSIs can be turned around quickly and terminated early once the IC is happy with the expanded portfolio in that targeted area – or if a new greater priority arises, a new technology or advancement can be leveraged in this area of research, and so on.
Abraham said
That means the application will be reviewed by a regular standing study section but it will be put in a pool with other responses to the same NOSI. Then, the PO will select fundable applications from this pool, right?
writedit said
If the application is to the parent R01 announcement, it will be reviewed in a regular standing study section, but the locus of review is in the FOA (not the NOSI). Some NOSIs indicate special funding consideration for responsive applications (the scenario you describe – usually there are special application instructions involved beyond citing the NOSI, which is linked with one specific FOA), but the majority serve to advertise priority topics (or to update priority topics) for a FOA without funding set-asides or extra awards for the pool of NOSI-responsive applications (think of them as refreshing/expanding the research scope).
Tom said
Hi, My NHLBI OIA R35 moved from “council review completed” to “pending” on commons. Reviewed in 2019 cycle at 29, in 2020 at 29 and in 2021 at 34. I’m hopeful the pending designation means something good – and have been in the game long enough now that I feel that I should know what this signals without getting all bent out of shape. However, I’m still climbing the wall of worry and would appreciate getting others perspective on the balance of probabilities.
writedit said
The Pending status is good news if it lasts and is accompanied by a JIT request. If you have not received a personal JIT request, you can ask the GMS and/or PO for guidance on whether to submit this information (and if not, why is your status listed as Pending). There is always a chance that someone had to check something or make a couple administrative updates that temporarily caused Pending status, but this would switch back to Council review completed.
Tom said
Many thanks Writedit. I had an encouraging conversation with my PO yesterday. Cautiously optimistic was the advice. Was also advised that I am likely to hear further news in the next week or so. Fingers crossed : )
writedit said
Woohoo! Cautiously optimistic is as positive as a PO can be and convey. Glad third time was your charm – you can probably thank your PO for advocating for your application, too.
Tom said
Personal JIT arrived – yay! Moving closer – indicates a prospective start date of 1 Jan 2022. Not quite done yet – but nearly. Tx again for the useful service you do Writedit.
writedit said
Woohoo! More good news, especially that they will make the award during the CR.
Tom said
Hi, Thanks again for this very helpful website/discussion. The NOA for my NHBLI R35 OIA just posted yesterday. Here is the time-course. Best wishes,
01/21/2022. NOA posted to COMMONS
01/13/2022 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
11/10/2021 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
11/01/2021 Council review completed.
08/06/2021 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
02/19/2021 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
02/16/2021 Application entered into system
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you for posting your timeline! Best wishes for success with your research.
zhaoj817 said
Dear Writedit,
I have a question on resubmission eligibility. We were notified by the school research office that the last date we will be eligible to submit R15 applications will be for the June 25, 2021 deadline. I just got a score (not within payline) from June 25th A0 submission. Is that mean I will not be eligible for resubmission? I contacted the research office yesterday and have not yet received their reply.
Thank you!
writedit said
I think this means your school is no longer eligible for R15 awards due to the level of funding (which is good news for the school, but not good news for R15 PIs and applicants). Eligibility is based on the submitting unit, so you won’t be able to submit an R15 from that school, though other schools at the university might still be eligible, in case you have a colleague in an eligible school. If not, you should communicate with your PO about converting the R15 project to an R01-level project (probably a small R01).
zhaoj817 said
Writedit, Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, I do not have colleagues in eligible schools. After I received the summary statement, I will try to discuss it with the PO to see how to proceed. If I am going to submit it as a small R01, it will be considered as a new submission and not related to this R15 submission, is my understanding correct? Thank you so much!
writedit said
Correct – the R01 would be a new submission (no reference to the R15 or its review).
NIAR21 said
Hi Writedit- This Oct, I just received the review result of an NIA R21, which is AD related. The score is 42 and the percentile is 22. I looked at the NIA payline policy by 2021. Very confused as I can’t see R21 payline on their website. Can you give me an idea whether this is fundable, and will be there a new payline this December? Thanks!
writedit said
NIA lumps all RPGs together, so your R21 would fall under the 28th percentile payline (FY22 should be about the same) if your application was reviewed in a standing study section managed by CSR. If your application was reviewed by an NIA panel in response to an NIA PAR (see the list on the website), the 40 impact score would be the payline threshold (again, FY22 will probably be the same). Whether your application is likely to receive an award depends on where it was reviewed. The FY22 paylines won’t be available until 2022 (if the federal budget passes in December, ICs still won’t know their appropriation until February or so), so when you have your summary statement, you should check with your PO about next steps and whether you are likely to need to resubmit.
NIAR21 said
Thank you so much for the reply! It was reviewed by CDIN. I think it is CSR… Let me talk to the PO to see if any chance there.. Thanks again!
R01Trying said
Hi Writedit, SaG and Friends Who can Comment:
I am an ESI, and I just get my R01 review from National Eye Institute with 28 percentile. I talked to PO after I received my summary statement. During the meeting, his attitude regarding fundability (saying fundability is not impossible) was pretty neutral and suggested me to resubmit it at the next cycle since my score is at the borderline. I brought up that I could prepare a response letter to send it to him before council meeting and he said fine.
Two of my senior colleagues also told me my score is a fundable one but everything depends. National Eye Institute has a relative higher success rate compared with other NIH centers.
I wonder if you have any comments or suggestions about my current situation? This reviewed submission is my 4th attempt and as you can imagine I am kind of exhausted for struggling with the same proposal.
Thank you very much.
SaG said
Percentile doesn’t equal success rate. If the PO says resubmit then you probably should. You are likely very close and have a chance of funding (10%-25%?). You should rely on the PO’s judgement of chance of funding much more than your colleagues. Friends tend to say things to make you feel better; POs tend to be more brutally honest. I sympathize with the grind of resubmitting. But, you are getting close!
R01Trying said
Thanks very much, SaG. I will definitely submit the application again. Holding all hope onto a proposal with a borderline fundable score without resubmitting the proposal is unwise.
writedit said
You don’t mention how the prior applications scored, which could also be instructive. If your score has steadily improved, that could help the PO make the case for funding, especially if the concerns are easily addressed by tweaking your approach (and the aims and significance are strong). If there has been a common concern across all 4 applications regarding significance, though, improving the score much more could be difficult without a fundamental change to your premise since reviewers may never be more excited about the work than they currently are, especially with the passage of time (ie, field has moved on even more). You want to step back from the summary statement to ensure you are not just tweaking the research strategy to address the prior critiques but are also taking into consideration where your work fits in the current state of the science. I assume your next application will be a new A0, so you won’t be able to refer to the 28th percentile application and will want to focus on making the aims and approach exciting to the panel versus more of the same (keep what they liked and incorporate new innovations based on publications and data since the last submission).
R01Trying said
Hi Writedit,
Thank you for your detailed assessment. This is my 4th submission, which is an A1. First submission: non-discussed; Second submission: 36 percentile; Third submission: non-discussed; Fourth submission: 28 percentile.
Reviewers generally agreed with the significance of the project. The fundamental issue I have sensed is that my proposal is more about clinical application innovation, while my proposal is reviewed in a study section full of panel members from engineering. I tried to switch to a different study section, but SRG still insisted that my proposal should be reviewed in this study section.
Honestly, I am not quite sure what to do next. An R01 proposal will need a lot of preliminary data to back up. Drafting a more innovative R01 is feasible but reviewers could say the proposal is too explorative and lacks of supporting data.
The PO agreed that I can submit a response letter to him before council meeting. Any suggestions about how I can best utilize this letter to increase my chance? And actually, the reviewers did not have very major criticisms on my proposal. They mainly commented that I should have made the clinical translation and utility part clearer and added more details in some of the data analysis methods.
Thank you so much for your help.
writedit said
Especially with this A0, you can try a now study section again. Ask your PO for recommendations, and check your updated abstract or aims in RePORTER Matchmaker and the CSR Assisted Referral Tool (ART) and then cite all this as justification for the SRG request (high ranking in Matchmaker & ART, PO advice). I see the problem you cite in a lot of data science-informatics applications. The informatics SRGs don’t see new algorithms being developed and aren’t excited about the application of existing (evidence-based) tools to address clinical problems, while the clinical-focused SRGs will be excited by the innovative application of robust informatics tools to solve a difficult challenge in their field. On the rebuttal for your PO, you will want to keep this to a page or two (if the PO did not give a desired length) and focus on the weaknesses described in the Summary of Discussion paragraph, since those were discussed by the panel (ie, you don’t need to address all the individual critiques that weren’t mentioned in the summary paragraph). You can explain how you will address the weaknesses raised (clinical/translational impact, data analysis) and summarize any additional new data and/or publications since the submission that supports your aims, goals, and overall impact. If you don’t already have an “Overall Impact” closing paragraph or sentence on your Aims page (it sounds like you didn’t, based on the reviewer comments), you should probably write one for this rebuttal (and your next A0 application). That is, how will achieving your aims advance the field, clinical care (public health), and the NEI strategic plan. Including a paragraph or comprehensive closing sentence with this label helps reviewers write their reviews (always make their lives easier) and serves as a check for you that you have clearly conveyed the importance and value of your work on multiple levels.
Avacado said
Hi Writedit
I have a kinda complicated question. My A0 application for my R01 renewal was scored in the ‘grey zone’. Therefore, based on my PO’s recommendation, I submitted an A1 revision that proposed several completely new experiments. In the meanwhile, before the study section met to review my A1 application, my A0 got funded (Yay!). Consequently my A1 was administratively withdrawn.
My question is can I ‘recycle’ the new experiments proposed in my A1 application for a different proposal (either to the NIH or to NSF)? These new experiments are quite distinct from the A0 proposal that was funded…..
Thanks for your advice
Magic 8 Ball said
You may rely on it.
writedit said
Congrats on the A0 being funded! Magic 8 Ball is spot on – you can absolutely rework your non-overlapping experiments into a new proposal for either the NIH or NSF (but not both at the same time). You might talk with program directors at both agencies to see who might be more interested and whether there are current/upcoming FOAs that might be especially appropriate.
LosingESI said
Question about the timing of when you “lose” your ESI status due to receiving another grant (i.e., R01). I have been told that as long as you do not have the NOA (for the first R01) at the time of submission, you are still considered ESI and stay that way throughout the process (i.e., your score for the second R01 will still be considered against the ESI payline)–of course assuming you still need other criteria for ESI. However, others have thought ESI status is again checked at the time of funding (i.e., you may be ESI at submission but if you are no longer ESI after submission, you may be subject to established investigator payline). Greatly appreciate any insight on this!
writedit said
NIH policy is pretty clear: “If an ESI-eligible application is awarded and the same PD/PI has an R01 or R01-equivalent application pending review, the pending application will be reviewed as an ESI-eligible application. However, the status of the pending application will be updated after release of the Summary Statement to acknowledge the application is no longer ESI-eligible” (ie, you only get one application awarded under the ESI payline – ESI payline does not apply to the second R01 application, even if the PI was ESI at the time of submission). https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-19-072.html
LosingESI said
Thank you! If the first award is not ESI-eligible (MPIs include established investigators), does this change anything? Ie the first grant would not be awarded/eligible for the ESI payline but the second would.
writedit said
SaG nailed it. Everyone – listen up: never, ever let an established PI join your ESI-eligible application as an MPI, and do not join any established PI application as an MPI. You will needlessly lose your ESI status. In this case, the mixed MPI application will not be eligible for the ESI payline, and if it is awarded, neither will your second R01 application.
SaG said
Not sure I understand the question exactly but if you are listed as a PI on any R01-type grant you lose your ESI eligibility when it is awarded. This is why it is almost never a good idea for an ESI to be a PI on an mPI grant where not all of the PIs are ESIs. My question is, why did you let them list you as a PI? You could have been a Co-I, collaborator, key personnel and still have gotten all of the same money and resources w/o losing ESI status.
R21question said
Hi, Dear Writedit,
I submitted a grant in October that in the PHS form I suggested 3 study sections and mentioned “please do NOT send this application to the ABCD study section due to potential conflict of interests”. But then I just found that it was assigned to ABCD. Is there anyway I can communicate with NIH to assign it to another study section? Would you suggest me to do differently in the cover letter and PHS form next time I have this situation?
Thank you!
writedit said
You can contact the SRO and the IRG chief about changing the assignment, but you will need more robust, objective rationale than “potential conflict of interest” to move the application if the ABDC panel is the best scientific fit for your application. The ABCD SRO will want to know the specific panel members who might have a conflict and why (eg, cite their grant funding in the same and/or papers in the same topic area). It is more likely the application will stay there but the conflicted panel members will not be assigned to review your application. You can’t ask to move the application just because you don’t like some of the reviewers or they don’t like you. Any SRG requests need to be based on the science and not individual reviewers.
Eye_am_hopeful said
Hello! Back again! I am still waiting to hear on a funding decision for my current F32 application, but I was wondering if I could submit a new F32 application (with different aims) to hedge my bets and not miss another submission cycle? Would submitting a new F32 automatically withdraw my first submission? These new aims will form the base of my future K99 proposal so getting my new ideas together would be beneficial regardless. I just do not want to forfeit my pending application. Thanks!
SaG said
If the Summary Statement has been released then you can submit the exact same app or a different one. Start writing!
PS. If the science is very different you could have probably sent in a different one before the SS was released.
Eye_am_hopeful said
Awesome! That’s great info to know, thank you!
K99 possible this year? said
Dear Writedit,
I had a K99 submitted in March with a projected starting date of December. In July, I got my score, which has ~50% chance based on previous statistic. This is my last eligibility. I have not received JIT email. I just contacted my PO, and was told the consideration of this round is now taking place, and was asked if I applied any faculty positions.
I saw previous comments that due to continuing resolution, possible award notices would be next year. I am very nervous and hope to have some idea if I could expect to hear the news or start my project in December? Since they are considering the cycle I applied (how long does this take?), it looks like this award is not dependent on continuing resolution?
Thank you！
writedit said
The IC is probably discussing the Cycle 1 applications to rank them for funding priority, but they may not make awards until early next year (6-8 weeks after the federal budget is signed into law – hopefully in early December). Your PO might be able to give you an idea of whether you are in line for an award in December (so you can make plans), but you most likely won’t receive funding in December (this is rare even when the federal budget is in place at the start of the FY – they should really change the official start date). Now, if you told your PO that you are looking for faculty jobs, you might not be considered for an award; ICs feel that if you feel you are ready to be on the job market (for faculty vs another postdoc position), then you do not need the additional postdoc training on the K99.
K99 possible this year? said
Dear Writedit, thank you. I am preparing materials for faculty applications, but have not applied. I am not sure I can get a one (or good one) without k99. I hope to get the K99 first, then right away start applying for positions (some deadlines are late) and taking my training at the same time. I still want to take at least one year of training because I proposed courses that I want to take, but also don’t want to completely give up the chance of applying, because none is a sure thing. Is this a reasonable and acceptable plan?
writedit said
Starting to apply after you receive your K99 sounds like a reasonable plan, but you do not want to start actively looking until you know whether you will receive the K99. If you start looking before the application is funded, the PO may not consider you for an award. Many ICs are very strict about not funding applicants who are already on the job market. You want to be sure the PO knows that you are not yet competitive for a faculty position and need to complete your training on the K99, including the courses described in the training plan.
K99 possible this year? said
Thanks! Aha, I did not know that just starting looking, not applying, will also make me be less considered. But I don’t think I have to mention that I am “looking”.
writedit said
Yes, you can certainly keep your eye out, especially since your award is not guaranteed and you need to be mindful of your own future. When your PO asks about whether you are applying, though, which is what the NIH cares about, you can say no.
writedit said
I should add that some K99 applicants with fundable scores try to negotiate to reduce or eliminate the K99 portion of the award because they have a faculty job offer or have some interest in their CV based on their K99/R00 likelihood (many search committees consider the scores as well as actual awards in evaluating candidates). The NIH stopped allowing this (skipping or reducing the K99 time), but plenty of K99 applicants still use the likelihood of award to support their job search. No PO wants to go to bat for an applicant who is, behind the scenes, actively working to get a job, when the PO could have been helping another applicant who is not yet competitive for jobs and really needs the K99 award to get ready for their transition to independence (not just the R00 for start-up funds).
k99 appl said
I see some department list faculties that will join one year later, and I find out those faculties have K99. I guess NIH does not allow K99 phase to be less one year, but as long as you have one full year, it would be fine. Am I right?
Thanks for your comments
writedit said
Correct – if an institution is willing to put off your hiring until after your K99 (which does need to last at least 1 year), that is fine.
kp453 said
Such a wonderful website! Thanks! I am a K23 awardee (5-years started in Sept 2021). As part of my faculty re-appointment I need to submit an R01 in the first 3 years. I want to submit an R01 in February 2022. My current percent effort on my K is 90%. What should I submit along with my R01 application this winter? A statement that my percent effort on my K will be adjusted to 75% if funded (in a very unlikely scenario). I reached out to my PO, but they said I would lose my K23 if I get funded by an R01 in my first 3 years of my K23. Previously, I asked this hypothetical question in a webinar and was told I need to ask for an approval from the NIH if R01 gets funded. What is the typical percent effort for ESIs on R01?
writedit said
Here is the NIH policy on holding concurrent K and RPG awards: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-18-157.html As you can see, your PO is correct. If you receive an award for the R01 application submitted next February, or you will lose your K23. It is not a matter of percent effort. The NIH wants career development awardees to focus on skills needed to establish their independent research programs and obtain preliminary data for their first R01, all of which should take at least 3 years. If a K awardee is in a position to start applying for R01s in Year 1 of their award, they should not have applied for a career development grant in the first place. You can only hold both awards during the final 2 years of your K23. This means you could submit your R01 in the 3rd year of your K23 (ie, 2024), which still meets your faculty re-appointment schedule of an R01 submitted in the first 3 years, and if it scores well on its first submission, the R01 would start in Year 4 of your K23 (2025). You cannot submit in October 2023, because that award would be for July 2024, which would still be during Year 3 of your K23 – though you could ask your PO if there is any wiggle room, such as delaying the R01 start until September, if your first submission receives an award. You are not prohibited from submitting an R01 in February and then relinquishing your K23 if the R01 is awarded. However, you will not engender much good will at the IC that funded your K23, and I assume you will want to go back to this IC for funding in the future (perhaps even the February R01). They have invested a significant amount of time (reviewer, program, Council, grants management), funding (your award could have gone to another applicant), and budget planning in your K23 award, which you are willing to throw away with your R01. Not a good look.
kingdaddy2010 said
Dear Writedit,
I submitted our first grant proposal back in March, and we scored a 35.
We submitted a rebuttal letter, and was informed they have had other adversely impacted projects (COVID) and so I was told “The best course of action is to resubmit and aim for a score that at least brings the application within NICHD’s discretionary funding zone. That’ll provide a stronger basis to make the case to fund it over potentially higher scoring applications that are similarly in the discretionary zone.”
I received an email today from the Scientific Review Officer that the study section review meeting was complete and the impact score would be available later today, so I just logged in and our score for our resubmittal is a 24.
I’m very hopeful we’ll get funded this time, and would appreciate your thoughts.
Also, if funding occurs, what would that timeline look like? I have seen some others here, but I’m not sure how that works with where we are now.
writedit said
Most important point: when you receive your summary statement (and not before), you can get in touch with your PO for next steps. You don’t mention what type of grant mechanism this is, but I assume something other than an R01, since you are talking about impact score rather than percentile. The funding zone will depend on the type of application (R03, R21, R15, etc.), but your significant improvement in score bodes well, and you have a great PO based on the terrific and helpful prior message. However, I do not know what new standard submission applications would have been due in March, so perhaps this is a special program announcement (PAR, PAS), too, which would also affect the funding lines. Again, your PO will be able to gauge your chances after you receive your summary statement. With regard to timing, you have a long wait still. Since you just received your score, you will have to wait until after the next Council meeting (Jan 11-12, 2022), which means your award timing would be around April 1 (unless your special funding opportunity has a different start date).
kingdaddy2010 said
Thank you Writedit, your input is greatly appreciated.
And to answer your question on application – R43. Any insight for that?
writedit said
Ah – definitely closer to (probably within – but I can’t say for sure) the zone of consideration.
nikkigillumposnack said
I submitted an R01 to NICHD in response to a specific Program Announcement. Scored 7% (24 impact). NICHD doesn’t post paylines, but I know it is historically very low (~9%). I do not have the summary statement yet.
Can anyone share their outcome on a R01 grant at NICHD with similar score? Thanks in advance!
writedit said
You should not need to worry with a score like that. Applications with low percentiles are only skipped for a reason that the PI could anticipate, such as a high level of other funding (>$1M), overlap with another award, etc. Since you have a percentile, I assume this is not an RFA (for RFAs, POs can pick applications out of order). If you do not foresee any issues, then there shouldn’t be any problem. When you receive your summary statement, you can confirm with the PO. You will still be waiting until next year for Council and your award, of course, but your PO should be able to confirm whether you can look forward to a positive outcome.
NGP said
Thanks for the quick note. No issues that I forsee. I’ve seen (horror) stories about 9% grants not getting funded at NICHD…. plus unpredictable funding decisions with covid19. Ill remain cautiously optimistic!
writedit said
I think 7th percentile is less uncertain (I agree on 9th not always being safe) – even NCI was pretty safe at 7th or below during the Varmus years of low hard paylines (7th) and huge portfolio of select pay awards.
Tom said
As someone who has a 9th percentile NICHD grant (scored in June 2021, impact score 20, October council), I am biting my nails waiting for the budget…
NGP said
Good luck!! Let me know the outcome 😉 Did you program officer give you an idea of likelihood?
Tom said
Thanks! PO said “cautiously optimistic”. That sounds somewhat promising, but not enough to not save my nails…
writedit said
You can preserve your poor nails – cautiously optimistic is the closest a PO can come to telling you that you are likely to receive an award (pending administrative review).
NGP said
That sounds promising! Keep us updated. A0 or A1 submission?
Tom said
A1. The A0 was previously scored at the 26th percentile. I will let you know! Also, since yours may come through earlier, please also keep us posted on yours!
nerdyscientist said
This forum is such a useful resource, I thought I would try to contribute something as well.
I recently submitted a grant to a PAR that received an impact factor, but wasn’t percentiled due to the mechanism. To try to put the former in better context, I analyzed impact factors and percentiles from some of my other grants and also some that have been posted here (n=25 in all).
Although the purpose of percentiling is to better compare across study sections, this (very small) analysis suggests that it isn’t necessarily critical. That is, based on the impact factor alone you can predict the percentile with reasonable accuracy:
Percentile = 1.4 x impact factor – 28
R^2 = 0.92
SEE = 1.1
I also analyzed an even smaller number of A1 vs. A0 applications, and found that the average improvement in the impact factor was 14 (but with an SD of 10).
Of course, with multiple grant mechanisms, paylines, ICs, etc., you never really know if you’ll be funded until you receive your NOA. However, hopefully the above information will be helpful to folks who might be wondering how they stand in the mean time.
Good luck with your grants, everyone!
pixiegenie said
I submitted an EI R35 to NIGMS in May which received an Impact score of 37. Received a JIT email requiring immediate turnaround. Spoke to the PO who pointed out some concerns raised during the discussion (Summary statement noted that “while weaknesses were minor, some members viewed the proposal more negatively”). PO was largely neutral about probability of funding but did not mention a need for resubmission. The composite funding probability curve for EI R35s at NIGMS gives a decent chance (~80%) but past performance is no guarantee. How to read the tea leaves here?
SaG said
My reading is that without a full year budget no one wants to commit to anything. Let’s just hope the current continuing resolution is extended past 12/5 of the PO won’t be allowed to even read your emails.
writedit said
SaG is correct – until the federal budget is signed into law, ICs don’t even have tea leaves to read. With a borderline score, neutral is pretty good, though since resubmission wouldn’t be until next fall, that isn’t really a significant indicator, unless you asked about moving on to other R01 applications in the meantime. You can search this page and the archived pages for ESI MIRA scores and outcomes to dig up a few data points, and there is an ongoing Google doc documenting MIRA and DP2 scores over the years: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10f1MDXXW57r5pYxwqTnAKM_NRY_SmvC0s0b3joyO_Zo/edit#gid=459915067
pixiegenie said
Thanks, SaG and writedit. If the scores were worse, I could have considered a new submission even as early as January (perhaps May). But yes, given the current situation in Congress with the CR, this will probably drag on for a while.
pixiegenie said
It might be worth mentioning that my current R01 (with NIGMS) has two more years to go as of March ’22. I did stress to the PO that a large component of the R35 is a new project that is currently supported entirely by internal grants. Wonder if that might factor into the PO’s decision.
SaG said
It might factor into the decision about budget or timing of award. But, assuming the internal money can be used for other things, it shouldn’t change the chance of funding.
Rob said
Hi, I just received a 34 on an NIDDK STTR Phase I. There’s not too much information on 2020 or 2021 paylines and 2022 is not posted yet. Can anyone provide insight into where this application might stand ? Best wishes, Rob
writedit said
Might be just a little high, but you can search this page and the archives for additional data points. You’ll need to wait for your summary statement and a federal budget signed into law for more definitive guidance from your PO on next steps (including whether to resubmit).
Rob said
Many thanks writedit. Your insight is much appreciated.
Victor said
Hi, I applied for the K99 award in Feb 2021 (NIAAA). I got the score of 20. Around July I spoke to my PO who said that my application would be unlikely to get funded though adding that funding decisions would not be made till end of the year. I spoke to my PO again last month (Nov) and he said the council would meet on 12/2 to make funding decisions and it looked like my application might get funded. Of course, he added that nothing was certain. It’s been 5 days and I’m a little anxious about what actually happened. Nothing has changed on my status application nor have I received a JIT request. Should I contact my PO again or should I wait? I’m conscious of the fact that POs are busy during this time and this type of inquiries may not be welcome.
writedit said
The federal budget won’t be decided until next spring (or later), and I suspect your PO will not have a definitive answer until the budget is signed into law. The director of NIAAA, not Council, makes funding decisions, and that will happen in the next few weeks, though applications may not be processed until the FY22 budget is in place (again, not until spring or later). Hopefully you submitted an A1 in November as insurance (especially since you didn’t seem likely to be funded as of July). If not, ask your PO if you should plan to submit an A1 in March (assuming you are still eligible to apply for K99).
Victor said
Thank you, writedit, for the helpful response! I did indeed submit my A1 in Nov per the PO’s suggestion. Maybe I’m just new to this whole process but so far it’s been quite anxiety inducing. When I got my impact score, my PI was convinced the application would get funded. The PO then poured cold water on that. A few months later he gave me hope again. Now I just want to know if my A0 is still in the race. But like you said, my PO didn’t seem to have a definite answer due to budgetary matters.
writedit said
Great – glad to hear you have an insurance application in for review even if it isn’t needed (and hopefully it won’t be). POs are usually conservative due to the ups and downs of the federal budget process and paylist decisions and timing.
NeuroNerd said
Hello, My student got an impact score of 38 on a F31 diversity grant. Summary statement is not too negative. Any sense for the typical NINDS pay line?
SaG said
It is an F31 pre-doctoral fellowship. I hope you don’t call it out as a diversity fellowship anywhere else. Unless you want to call out the other F31s as “lucked in to a famous lab” fellowships.
NGP said
This is a specific mechanism – F31 diversity. My understanding is that these do have a different success rate than F31.
SaG said
They do/can. But they are reviewed with all F31s and by mentioning the Diversity part of a fellowship in other places (here is fine) it makes it seem like a lesser cousin. I have heard this story from others too often, ” You are so lucky you can apply for a Diversity Fellowship, they are so much easier to get.”
writedit said
That is probably a little high, even for the diversity FOA, but the PO can give better insight once your student has their summary statement.
MsBeaker said
Hello, we are new to NIGMS (mostly NCI) and received a score of 18% (3.0) on an MPI R01 in October (gray area). We received and submitted an email JIT from the program specialist. In discussion with the PO they said to be patient but since they may not know for sure to probably go ahead and resubmit A1 next March. There are only minor comments to address in the approach the PO said they didn’t need any more info from us that the SS is optimistic about the research. My question is if we resubmit and it gets a better score, fine, however if it is resubmitted and does not improve does that preclude the first submission? Thanks for you input.
writedit said
As SaG notes, while NCI does put more emphasis on the A1 than the A0 (even if score gets worse), my sense is that most ICs will support the A0 if the A1 score drops if the IC is interested in the science being proposed. The PO would have warned you if the IC (in this case, NIGMS) were likely to penalize you for a lower A1 score as a consideration before applying again. I know of cases in which an IC funds the A0 even if the A1 is ND, and you can review timelines posted on this page and archived pages to see similar instances when the IC went back to fund the A0 when the A1 score went up.
MsBeaker said
Thanks writedit and SaG. There was some mention that if the A1 scores higher they would be likely to accelerate the A0 – thus seems like a no brainer to resubmit unless we get lucky before March 5. Given very little to address will not be a lot of work. Will post here what happens in the spring!
writedit said
If the A1 scores better than an A0 that was borderline or unlikely to be funded, the IC can fund the A0 rather than make the PI(s) wait for the A1 to come up for funding consideration many months later. In your case, the A0 decision will probably be made before the A1 is reviewed, so the timing won’t be affected unless the decision is made to pass on your A0 and then the A1 scores much better.
SaG said
It depends on the Institute. NIGMS (an institute of NIH like NCI) probably doesn’t make a difference barring some major issue the second group of reviewers identify. NCI and others it could make a difference. They might go with the worse score. But, I think you should follow the POs advice. They would know best. If your app went to NCI an 18% is unlikely to be funded. While the same percentile at NIGMS probably would be funded.
Lookingforfunding said
Just be curious: does anybody receive NIH grants in the recent weeks? Mine is pending for a while. The current temporary budget will end in Feb next year, but I guess NIH won’t wait till that time to send out funding.
SaG said
Looks like some new grants are getting awarded.
https://reporter.nih.gov/search/SNuQo9EO8UKFoxj1WeKcfQ/projects
writedit said
Usually ICs do wait for the final federal budget to be signed into law because they are operating on a budget that is 90% or less of the prior FY levels and are uncertain about their final appropriation (so don’t want to make commitments in case they receive less than anticipated). However, the FY22 continuing resolution is operating at the full FY21 funding level, and especially now that the debt ceiling stand off seems to undergoing resolution and it seems likely the federal budget will be resolved next February (vs passing another CR), ICs probably feel comfortable making Cycle 1 and RFA awards for at least a portion of their paylists. It is a decision each IC makes on their own, though – not NIH-wide policy – so your results may very. And there is very good reason ICs do wait for the final federal budget, since there have been FYs in which the final appropriation dropped, such as during the sequester years. It is not uncommon (in the past) for Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 awards to be delayed due to federal budget uncertainties – and then there was a scramble to process hundreds of backlogged applications. (ie, yes, the NIH does wait until late spring some years to make awards to applications submitted the prior February)
Argonaut1 said
I have one R01 that was submitted to NIAID, reviewed in last review cycle of 2021, got 15th percentile (FY2021 payline 14th percentile), and one R21 also submitted to NIAID and reviewed at the same last FY2021 cycle that got score of 30. What are my chances for these application to be funded? Please, advise. Thank you.
writedit said
I am not quite sure what you mean by the “last cycle of 2021”. If you mean you submitted in Oct-Nov 2020 (ie, FY21 Cycle 3), then your applications are unlikely to be considered for funding. If you mean you submitted in 2021 (though the “last cycle” would still seem to be Oct-Nov, which would not have been reviewed-scored yet), then you will need to wait until after the federal budget is signed into law in 2022 to learn how much the NIAID paylines shift upward from interim to final for FY22. In the meantime, if/when you have your summary statement, you can contact your PO(s) for recommendations on next steps.
Argonaut1 said
What I meant is that both R01 (re-submission) and R21 (re-submission) have been reviewed in June of 2021. The percentile for R01 was 15th (NIAID FY 21 payline was 14th percentile), the score for R21 was 30 (NIAID FY21 payline was 31). These both are grants for FY22 council review (i.e., after October 01, 2021). I hope this clarifies things.
writedit said
Sure – these are FY22 Cycle 1 applications, and although it is possible the R21 could be funded during the CR, it will more likely to be awarded once the final FY22 appropriation is known and final FY22 paylines are set (they are retroactive), but that won’t happen until March or April 2022. You should plan to submit the R01 again (I assume the PO told you to do so – hopefully you did in October), since the PO won’t be able to advocate for select pay (if they plan to do so) until next spring or summer.
Argonaut1 said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you very much for your advice. I appreciate it.
QuestionsforR01 said
Thank you very much for maintaining this helpful resource. I have two questions.
First, I have an R01 application with a score of 8%. This grant is assigned to NIA and is AD-related. I assume I don’t need to worry much since it is well below the payline (last year was at 28%). I contacted the PO and asked whether I should submit JIT but received no response. Should I submit my JIT anyway, or should I contact the PO again? Is no response from the PO a bad sign?
Second, I have another application with a score of 25% for NIBIB. I plan to resubmit it after including a collaborator. Since NIBIB limits R01 to 4 years, can I ask the resubmission to be assigned to a different institute? For science-wise, the application fits NINDS equally well (or even better than NIBIB after including the collaborator). It also makes sense to request 5 years after having the collaboration. Is there a procedure for asking NIBIB to release the resubmission to NINDS?
writedit said
The NIA application won’t be processed until after Council meets. You don’t mention which cycle your application is, but you do not need to bother your PO asking for a JIT. The PO or GMS will contact you when they are ready to process the information. It is better if you simply wait until they send the request, which they will with that score. It could be months, depending on the submission date, but you don’t need to worry about the silence. They are busy with the crisis of the moment. Regarding your R01 A1, you can contact a PO at NINDS to see if they would take your application as a primary assignment. That is not your call. If the NINDS PO agrees to accept the application as the primary IC, then you can request this on your PHS Assignment Request Form and name the PO in the cover letter (optional, but you will want to be able to name the PO with whom you communicated so CSR understands whom to contact about your application). Now, just because you ask for 5 years of funding still doesn’t mean NINDS will fund all 5 years. The reason many (most) ICs limit most R01s to 4 years is that they are required by Congress to keep the average length of all RPG awards made to 4 years, and R01s make up the bulk of RPG applications. Exceptions typically include ESI PIs and clinical trials.
AwardedEarlyK99 said
Hi everyone! I have been reading this forum for many months now looking for answers and relevant information as for my NCI Early K99 application. I’ve happily received the NoA today and I feel in doubt with you guys so I wanted to share my timeline in case it’s helpful for anyone. I’m aware Early K99/R00 is a relatively new mechanism and there is no that much information out there about it. In my case it’s been like this:
12/10/2021. Application awarded
12/09/2021 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
12/06/2021. Email from GMS asking for visa support
11/18/2021 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
11/16/2021. Specific request for JIT (current other support)
09/03/2021 Council review completed.
07/27/2021. Summary Statement received
07/20/2021. Automatic Just-In-Time request
07/06/2021. Impact Score received
07/06/2021 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
03/02/2021 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
02/25/2021 Application entered into system
writedit said
Congratulations on your award on the first application and thank you for sharing your timeline (some readers might like to know the impact score to gauge their chances). Nice that the SRO got the scores out the same day as study section met and that your award processing was so fast and efficient. Best wishes for success with your final training and independent career in biomedical research!
AwardedEarlyK99 said
Hi writedit, thank you for your kind words!
My IS was 21. BTW, I realized I skipped one event, study section meeting was actually on 6/30, so I got the IS a week after the meeting.
writedit said
Aha – I thought it would be pretty unusual for the SRO to post scores the same day. I guess the July 4th holiday intervening explains the 1-week calendar (though not business days) delay in posting the impact score. Congratulations on the excellent score.
F30 Hopeful :) said
Hi writedit, I resubmitted my F30 in April and received a score of 27 in July. Advisory council date was 10/21, so my grant came under FY22. I applied to the NIA. In the past few years, the final cutoffs was a 30. I read above that the current interim payline was a score of 25. Does this mean I won’t be funded, or do I have to wait until a final payline is established to know for sure?
SaG said
Yes, you have to wait for the final payline. But, given the money that Congress has been throwing at NIA the past couple of years you can probably be cautiously optimistic. Especially if you are doing Alzheimer’s or addiction research.
writedit said
As SaG notes, you will have to wait, but the payline will be retroactive. If your PO is cautiously optimistic about an award (and does not recommend resubmission), then you can be, too.
K01 applicant said
Hi writedit, thank you for this valuable resource.
I submitted an AD related K01/NIA in February 2021 and I got an impact score of 34. The PO did not recommend a resubmission in November, she just asked a brief response (1-2 pages) to the reviewers’ comments to be sent before 9/28 (the program director was CCed in the email). I haven’t received any update after sending the response letter. Recently I emailed PO (CCed PD) and asked for the update and possible next steps. I haven’t received any responce yet! I was wondering should I prepare to resubmit in March or I have to wait!
writedit said
With your score and your PO’s lack of urgency about preparing another submission, you should be fine to wait. If there had been concerns regarding your response during internal discussions, you would have heard back about those (ie, no news is good news). Your PO won’t have news on funding likelihood until the FY22 federal budget is signed into law, which now won’t happen until next February at the earliest. Your score is not within the interim payline but is within the final payline from FY21 and FY20, and FY22 should be the same (final FY22 payline will be retroactive). At this point, your PO may be waiting until after the winter holidays to reply – and/or the recent uptick in COVID-19 cases may have put stress on staffing levels, so only urgent communications are being addressed. If you have not heard from your PO by early-mid January, you could check in again simply to confirm if you should plan to resubmit or if you can wait (no need to ask about your A0 – the indirect way to gauge your award likelihood is to ask about resubmission).
K01 applicant said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you so much for your time and effort answering my question. I really appreciate it.
tonywend said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you very much for this very helpful resource and bear with my ignorance of not knowing how to initiate a new topic. Here I have a question about my pending R01. I got a 36 impact score (18%) for my resubmitted R01 in Oct 2021 with NLM as the primary IC. I communicated with my PO and was told that my score does not fall in NLM’s usual fundable range due to NLM’s restricted budget. However, the PO did notice that there were a number of very positive comments, two reviewers almost gave perfect scores for my proposal and the remaining concerns are very minor, plus my ESI status. Here I have several questions to bother you: 1) should I contact other ICs with a higher funding rate now to check the funding possibility or I should wait after NLM’s council meeting? 2) If I wait till after NLM’s council meeting and it was not funded, may I request to transfer to other ICs for consideration or I should submit a new application? 3) Will contacting other POs be considered as a violation of NIH policy, i.e., I mean I should always go through the assigned PO? Thank you very much and look forward to your advice.
Kind regards,
Tony
writedit said
Because all questions need to be posted as comments, there is no way to initiate a new topic other than simply replying to the main page (IC paylines) or another post, so you are fine. First, often NLM is the only IC assigned because they have their own SRG. If you do not have a secondary IC assigned, it is too late to add one – end of story.
Many ICs do not fund secondary assignments (eg, NIGMS), so if you have a secondary IC assigned, you could contact the PO at that IC to see whether their IC would consider picking up your application. If the secondary IC is interested, you do not do anything: NLM would need to formally relinquish the application, which they may not want to do until the end of the FY, and the PO at the secondary IC would need to indicate an interest in having the application transferred to their IC. Now, NLM goes by impact score, and I have seen applications there funded by exception, including surprises at the last minute, so your PO’s positivity hopefully means they are pulling for you. You can ask your PO (if you haven’t yet) whether you should resubmit in March – and you can ask (if there was no discussion of this) whether the PO would like you to write a brief rebuttal to the summary statement (Summary of Discussion section).
K25 NIA said
I have a K25 resubmitted application. The score is 30 and I contact PO back in Nov, she told me to wait until the end of the Jan and suggested me not to start preparing a new submission. After the interim payline was posted, I email the PO again. She did not response to me anymore. Have you heard anything back after the interim payline was posted. At this point, should I still wait?
writedit said
Assuming this is an AD/ADRD-related application, you should be fine. The FY20 payline was 35, so even if the final FY21 payline were to drop a percentile or two, you would still receive an award. I expect FY22 paylines will end up being about the same as FY21, though, which is why your PO said you didn’t need to submit again. Although it’s no excuse for not acknowledging your recent message, she asked you to wait because in November, the continuing resolution was due to expire in mid-December, which is why she thought she might know something by the end of January. Now, however, the continuing resolution has been extended until February, which means she won’t know about the NIA appropriation until late March or April – assuming the FY22 budget is signed into law in February (ICs get their appropriations 6-8 weeks after the federal budget is signed into law).
R03 NIA said
I have an R03 application to NIA (Percentile 7%, council review completed in September 2021). My PO did not respond to me since last November after receiving my JIT.
No news is good news. LOL
I guess there will be no new grants to be funded until FY22 budget is signed into law. Keep my fingers crossed.
writedit said
You are within the interim payline, so you will receive an award. ICs are making awards during the continuing resolution, but Cycle 1 awards often don’t get issued until January even if the federal budget has been signed into law. Your PO is not involved at all in grant processing, so they won’t have any insight into timing. Now that your JIT has been submitted, your PO is out of the loop. You could contact the GMS for a time estimate, if you need to spend in advance of the award (up to 90 days before the NOA is issued) and want to set up a pre-award account (if your university allows this type of pre-award spending). If you don’t need to know, however, it’s best not to ask. The NIH extramural staff are all working flat out due to their own staffing shortages, so unnecessary questions would slow down application processing. They will contact you if they need any information. In the meantime, you can only hurry up and wait.
R03 NIA said
Thank you very much for the insight!! I will sit tight and wait and stop sending emails to slow down my PO/GMS. 🙂
lovescience said
Hey Writedit,
I got an impact score of 20 for my K99 to NIGMS. I was wondering how much the chance this score would be funded? Should I start preparing my resubmission soon. Thank you!
lovescience said
Forgot to mention that my submission was back in June 2021, and I just got the score early in December, waiting for the summary statement.
SaG said
Looks like a good score. Is it a regular k99 or mosaic k99? Contact the PO as soon as the summary statement is released.
Lovescience said
Thank you, it is a regular K99.
Blue_Bottle_Top said
Dear SaG,
Do you expect a 20 to be more competitive for a regular K99 or a mosaic K99, or is it the same for both types?
I got a 20 on a mosaic K99 and had NIGMS listed as a secondary, and NIGMS PO said they aren’t funding the application.
Thanks,
Blue_Bottle_Top
k99 nigms said
I also have a question. What does it mean, my PO told me my K99 was not selected in the first round of awards but it remains under consideration? I am not sure how many awards they made, it’s not in the RePORTER yet. Does that mean I’ll need to wait until about the end of FY22? PO also says he wants to obtain more clarity about the budget in the new year. Thanks
writedit said
Thanks, SaG! (and Happy 2022) The current continuing resolution ends February 18, 2022. If the FY22 federal budget is signed into law by Feb 18, then ICs (including GM) should have their FY22 appropriations about 6-8 weeks after that (so late March to early April). If the continuing resolution is extended again, you’ll need to keep watching for when the FY22 budget is signed into law – and then add 6-8 weeks ($$ goes from Treasury to HHS to NIH to IC – not directly from Treasury to each IC – with a little skimmed off at each step). If your PO has not advised submitting again, that is a good sign … but if you have not discussed resubmission, you might want to ask if you should plan to do so for March (or February, depending on whether your current application is an A0 or A1) as insurance.
writedit said
SaG is spot on – looks like you can be cautiously optimistic, and once you have your summary statement, you can contact your PO to ask whether you need to resubmit (though I doubt this will be recommended) and whether they need any information from you.
SaG said
Good question about K99 scores. In both cases GM POs have flexibility to look beyond score when making a decision. But they are different programs with partially different goals. Because GM isn’t payline based it is hard to say whether a 20 would have a better chance with one or the other.
GM (and all of NIH) rarely funds apps of any kind where they are listed as a secondary. So, that is no surprise. If your app is with another institute which has a hard payline you should have more clarity about the 20 score and chances of funding.
K99 GM, this means they are waiting for a full year budget before paying all the apps. NIH is operating under a continuing resolution which limits how much they can spend now. So, you might have to wait until congress passes a full year budget before GM makes a decision about your app. It could be months before that happens sorry to say.
lovescience said
Hi all, I just want to update the status of my K99. I emailed POs a page of rebuttal before the status changed. The status was recently changed to “Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.” Is it a good sign? Thank you very much again for all your information.
writedit said
Very good sign. Not a guarantee, but it means they are processing your application for a possible award. You can sit tight – no need to contact the PO or GMS; they’ll get in touch with you if they need anything else.
lovescience said
Thank you writedit! POs asked to submit JIT, “other support” today. PO did not mention when I will hear back the NOA, but will email me if they need anything else. I guess it is another good move.
writedit said
All good indeed, and you can definitely sit tight – however long it takes – until the NOA arrives. The PO or (more likely) GMS will contact you if they need anything else or have any questions.
R01Pending said
Hi Writedit, I received 12th percentile for a NICHD R01, emailed the PO three times after receiving the summary statement, want to know if I need to resubmit. Haven’t received any response yet. Please advise, shall I sit tight and wait for council to meet in Jan? Thanks so much!
writedit said
At this point, you should wait until January anyway (many federal employees take leave in late December); if you have emailed 3 times in December, that could be why you haven’t had a response (though their out of office or a quick response would have been in order). Waiting until Council meets should still give you plenty of time to prepare a resubmission for March 5 (actually March 7). If you haven’t heard from your PO by then, you should copy the Branch Chief where your program officer is located to be sure someone replies with advice on whether to resubmit in March. I suspect your PO might not be sure either, but your application rank after Council should help inform their advice.
R01Pending said
Thank you Writedit! I will wait for Council then. I actually emailer the PO back in early November when the summary statement was posted.
writedit said
Hmm. PO had no excuse for not replying then with regard to resubmission advice. Even though they probably weren’t sure, they could have at least acknowledged your message and said they couldn’t advise you one way or the other yet. In the meantime, you can draft your response to the prior review – both in case your PO requests this after Council meets (it may be helpful for internal discussions) and in case you need to submit an A1 in March (gives you lots of time to polish and think about how to improve the science in case you need to work on the application).
R01Pending said
Thank you! and Happy New Year!
Metabo_Dave said
Just wanted to provide a timeline for a recently funded R01 at NIDDK. This is an FY22 cycle 1 application. Note that NIDDK has made a bunch of awards since December 21 (about 240 by my count) despite the CR.
12/16/2021 Notice of Award received
12/08/2021 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
11/16/2021 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
09/10/2021 Council review completed.
06/28/2021 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
03/17/2021 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
03/09/2021 Application entered into system
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you for sharing your timeline – and award during the CR! Best wishes for success with your research.
William Leonard said
Hi, Wondering if anyone has had any experience with the new Katz R01 mechanism? Experience and tips one could share? Thanks
SaG said
My second hand experience is that 0). Talk to a Program Officer, 1). Read the Announcement carefully; 2) Do NOT include any preliminary data, 3) Make sure your research fits the mission of one of the Institutes listed. For instance, NIGMS is not listed and so apps that would go to NIGMS might be withdrawn, 4). Read the announcement carefully, 5) Talk to a Program Officer, 6) Be skeptical of any “advice” you might get from senior folks at your school; talk to a Program Officer. Hope this helps.
kdl said
Hi everyone, long time lurker but I wanted to thank everyone for their comments and post my timeline for my just awarded NIAID DP2 grant (PAR20-259).
Nov 2019: 1st. submission, not discussed, but I had very constructive comments by the reviewers. I made extensive revisions (dropped from 3 Aims to 2) and tightened up the application. In the meantime, the PAR was reissued making my resubmit a new application.
late Oct 2020: Submitted.
late Jan 2021: Accepted faculty job (grant requirement)
late Mar 2021: Study Section met, good score
late Apr 2021: Council review complete (expedited)
late Jun 2021: GMS emails for JIT submission
late Jul 2021: PO emails that submission was selected for funding
Jul-Dec 2021: Juggle teaching for the 1st time and setting up lab
Late Sept 2021: JIT material submitted
end Nov 2021: GMS needs amendments to JIT budget (FYI: NIAID doesn’t allow cost of living to salaries or raises in the detailed budget)
10 Dec 2021: PO emails needing a Biohazard statement as reviewers thought the description in my app was insufficient and marked it Unacceptable
23 Dec 2021: NoA sent to my uni’s grants office
3 Jan 2022: Uni Grants emails me the NoA
That’s my story, it was 14 months from submission to NoA and the NIAID DP2 is a single submission per year.
Best of luck to everyone and thanks for all the lovely info when I preparing the submission!
writedit said
Congratulations, best wishes for success with your DP2 project, and thank you so much for sharing your timeline! As an FYI, NIH disallowed inflationary increases in FY12 (& FY13): https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-12-036.html – a practice that most if not all ICs have continued, although it is no longer a formal NIH-wide policy (that I am aware of anyway). AHRQ does have a formal policy on this: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-HS-17-001.html
AVD said
Wow, what a phenomenal resource!
Thank you writedit and SaG,
Quick super naive question question for ESI: The NIBIB Trailblazer R21 is for ESI only — if you happen to submit one and an different R01 at the same time, and the R01 gets funded, what happens to the R21 — is it widthdrawn automatically, or somehow moved to a normal R21, or…?
writedit said
Not naive at all. You could confirm with the NIBIB PO, but if the R01 is funded first, you would no longer be eligible for a Trailblazer R21, which would be administratively withdrawn once the R01 NOA is prepared. You would need to submit again to a non-Trailblazer R21 FOA (your application would not converted to a different FOA due to loss of Trailblazer eligibility), but if the science scores well, then submitting again shouldn’t be a problem, assuming you can adjust for the lower budget-project period (Trailblazer provides $400K over 3 y vs $275K over 2 y for traditional R21).
Sean Nally said
Quick question: I put in two R15 applications, in back-to-back cycles. The first R15 got funded, and the second received a very good score. I’ve revamped the second R15 to convert it to an R01 application. But the second R15 is still listed as “Review council completed’ on the eRA website. Do I need to contact the PO to get this second R15 application converted to “Withdrawn by IC – Other Version Encumbered” before I submit the R01 application (a lot of the R01 language is identical to the second R15).
Any advice would be appreciated!
writedit said
No, you don’t need to do anything. You cannot have the same application under review at the same time (not an issue because the R15 review is complete), and you cannot accept two awards for the same research (addressed at JIT). More importantly, though, you can only hold one R15 award. Period. You won’t get an award for the second R15 application. If you receive a fundable score for the R01, you would be allowed to complete the first R15 but I assume not renew it (since you would hold the R01 at the time of the type 2 R15 application and thus be ineligible). You are probably best off discussing your strategy with your awarded R15 PO.
Sean Nally said
Thank you writedit!
K25 ADRD NIA said
I have a ADRD K25 resubmitted application for NIA. The score is 30 and I contact PO back in Nov, she told me to wait until the end of the Jan and suggested me not to start preparing a new submission. After the interim payline was posted, I email the PO again. She did not response to me anymore. At this point, should I still wait or prepare a new submission. Also, since I have already revised once, I cannot submit a revision. Could I mentioned somewhere in my new proposal about my score of the current proposal?
writedit said
I just answered your main question above, but I will add that any time you submit a new A0 after a prior A1, you do not mention the prior review or its score or refer to the last submitted application in any way in the new A0 application (for all types of NIH applications, not just your K25 – which you probably do not need to submit in any case).
K25 ADRD NIA said
Thank you very much. I want to update some information. The PO just reply me and told me that there is a slightly chance that the payline will change. So she still let me to wait. Not sure what did she meant by “slightly a chance”. But at least there is a hope.
writedit said
The final payline will definitely change. It could be they will also raise the interim payline in the meantime (less certain).
northsnow said
Hello, I had two R21s reviewed in June 2021 for NIAID. One got an impact score of 29 and the other got an impact score of 28. They are both above the current payline for NIAID R21s, which is 24. I emailed my PO for the one that is 29, whether I need to resubmit or not and her answer was ” the past few years the R21 payline has been 31, resubmission is up to you…”. So, what do you think? Should I wait? Should I resubmit my grant? When do you estimate any new paylines for NIAID R21s to be released? Any advice would be appreciated!
writedit said
I think you sit tight. Both applications are within final paylines dating back to FY14. FY22 should be about the same as FY21 but certainly not more than a percentile or two different, if anything does change. Your PO won’t know about final paylines until 6-8 weeks after the federal budget for FY22 is signed into law. The current continuing resolution is set to expire in February, so if Congress passes a budget that the President signs into law at that time, you would be looking at late March or April. If the continuing resolution is extended again, you would need to wait until the next budget deadline – but I hope we will have a budget in February. Instead of working on either of these applications again, you might consider planning a new and different (from these two) application for June or October (or a different sponsor altogether – but still different science) or work on journal manuscripts.
northsnow said
Thank you for your response.
NaiveResearcher said
Hi Writedit and SaG,
My question seems to be a bit off the main theme. When a PI should consider to fire a postdoc? Everyone says it is so rare that a PI fires a postdoc and even you two don’t click well and you should just let the contract lapse and otherwise it could damage the PI’s reputation.
For example, whether often refusing to comply with reasonable research-related requests can be a sufficient reason to fire a postdoc? These requests have nothing to do with asking the postdoc to work overtime. While it is a good character to be patient, but being patient in many cases just does not change things.
SaG said
If it is going to hurt your career progression I would say ASAP. But, really it depends on the contract you have with them. I would talk to a school HR person. Also, make sure you document all of the specific incidents of insubordination. And, I think it happens more than you might think.
writedit said
Your chair and, if the postdoc is being supported by a T32 award, T32 director, both have a stake in the success of both the postdoc and you. Neither of you will fare well in the current situation. You could reach out to your own mentor, chair, institute/center director, or other senior administrator (dean-level) or faculty for assistance with mediation. If your lab is not the right place for the postdoc to advance their career, and they don’t know how to change this (ie, they don’t want to quit due to potential impact on their next opportunity), their lack of productivity doesn’t help them either. If this person should be pursuing a career in industry – or completely outside the lab (eg, research administration, communications, commercialization/patents, etc.) – the sooner they can get to where they need to gain relevant experience, the better. Grad students and postdocs often don’t know how to ask for help or communicate their goals (especially if they don’t align with academic research), so they just muddle through – and if they are not motivated to excel, do not really contribute to the project they have been hired to support. If your institution has any formal or informal approach for mediation, this might help each of you to communicate expectations and goals in a non-threatening setting and move on. Now, as SaG notes, if the postdoc does want to be in academic research and is being insubordinate because they want to do their own experiments or not do the work in the manner requested, then this is a different discussion, again probably at the department level (since the postdoc is technically a trainee), to document an ongoing problem and lay out the consequences for the postdoc if they continue to be uncooperative.
Lily said
Thank you for this wonderful resource!
Does anyone know the previous K99 scores that were funded by NIMHD? They don’t have a public payline and I didn’t find any information about it.
Thank you!
writedit said
I think there was prior discussion of scores here, so you could search this page or the archived pages for K99 and/or NIMHD. Once you have your summary statement, you can ask your PO if you should plan on submitting again (they won’t know about funding specifically until after the federal budget is signed into law & Council has met).
Hulo said
Hi writeedit, I have a question regarding R01 renewal. Is this the case that when we renew our R01 we get locked to the direct cost limit of how it was funded for the first time. So if in first 5 years the grant was budgeted to be 225K per year direct, is it the case that the first competitive renewal has to have 225K per year direct or one can budget as needed for the success of the project.
SaG said
You can ask for any amount under $500k. (Over that and you need permission to submit). But, most Insituties limit increases to 3%-20%. Varies a lot so you should check with your PO what is reasonable.
Hulo said
Thanks!
writedit said
As SaG notes, the amount you can increase your renewal budget depends on the IC. You will get the best information from your current R01 PO, who can tell you exactly what the IC policy is.
namilaes said
Dear writedit,
I am a PI on a current R15 grant. The R15 PI-eligibility website says “The PI may not be the PI of an active NIH research grant at the time of a R15 award”. Can I apply for a new R21 grant as PI during the period of performance of the current R15 grant? Will I need to choose among the two grants if the R21 is awarded. Thank you
writedit said
You can ask your R15 PO for confirmation, but I believe you can accept the R21 – but then you cannot renew the R15 (if it comes up for renewal while the R21 award is active). You definitely want to check with your PO before putting a lot of effort into another application and for clarification on timing (ie, is it okay if R21 is active when you apply for renewal but will end before R15 renewal award). If your science might be appropriate for the NSF or a foundation, that might be an alternative second stream of funding. Another alternative would be a supplement, if you need a modest amount of additional funding – another question for your PO.
namilaes said
Thank you!
K99applicant said
Dear writedit and SaG:
Thanks for sharing this great resource! I have a question about how to talk to PO. I got my K99 score from NIGMS, 28, no paylines information, but from this archive, seems it falls to the grey zone. I have got the summary statement and scheduled a call with PO.
My question is what does the conversation usually look like and is there any good strategy to talk to PO? I know it depends, but do they usually lead the conversation and what do they expect to talk about, for example, to go through the comments and expect me to address the primary weaknesses or just answer the questions I have.
Thank you!
writedit said
Whenever you talk with a PO, you want a list of topics, points, and/or questions to cover written down in front of you. Time is limited, so you will want to be sure you don’t forget something or get distracted and miss getting key information. You’ll want to ask first whether you should plan to resubmit. Because the NIH is still operating under a continuing resolution (until February at least), your PO will likely not have any definitive information on funding, especially if your score is in the grey zone. They will be able to comment on whether you should start working on another submission, though. Then you will want to address the key weaknesses raised in the Summary of Discussion paragraph and a brief response to each. This will help then PO gauge whether you will need to submit (ie, you need to change your science, which means reviewers need to see the application again) and whether NIGMS will feel confident in your ability to address these concerns. This discussion will help you with your Introduction if you need to submit again. You can ask for the PO’s opinion on what reviewers want to see if you need to apply again, based on their take from the discussion (if they observed the review session) and/or summary statement – especially if there seemed to be any disagreement among reviewers (eg, some summary statements indicate that some reviewers felt something was a weakness that others did not think was a problem). Finally, you can ask when would be a good time to communicate again, if needed, or check in again on funding likelihood, so you feel comfortable with periods of silence during which the PO may have no new news for you.
SaG said
I agree. 😉
edta450 said
My first R01 is entering the last year of funding (time flies!). How is an R01 funded under an RFA continued for funding (orignal FOA was expired long ago)? Is an application as competitive renewal to parent R01 or other FOA possible? Or should I just apply to a new R01 application?
A related question is-in such case, any chance to get considered for the first ESI renewal (at the same or different IC of original award)?
Thanks!
writedit said
You can submit your renewal to a different FOA (and you want to renew). Your PO can probably point you to the most appropriate FOA, whether it is the parent announcement, a topical PA, or a NOSI associated with an R01 FOA. You can look, too, at your current IC’s funding website, but your PO will have good insight. Also, some ICs do give special consideration to ESI first renewals (not all advertise this), so you can ask your PO about the policy at your current IC. Unless you feel your research has gone in a direction that makes it more appropriate for a different IC, you probably want to sit tight with your current IC. If your science has shifted, this is another question for your PO (is your current IC still the best home for the renewal). And while you’re asking 20 questions, you need some insight on the best study section to target (you want to know your reviewers before starting to write the application), especially since you didn’t need to think about finding an SRG for your first R01 (RFA had its own study section). Your PO will be familiar with SRGs relevant for your science so can give you a few suggestions. You can put your new Specific Aims in Matchmaker at RePORTER and in ART at the CSR website and then search the RePORTER results for each SRG suggested by your PO and highly ranked by Matchmaker and ART (you can search for R01 awards among applications reviewed in each SRG to see what science scores well enough for funding in each).
edta450 said
Thanks for the detailed answer! Yes, as suggested, my best bet would be going with the current IC (NCCIH) and (very supportive) PO with my updated specific aims for renewal. There was a recent PAR, which is very relevant to my work (which, unfortunately, NCCIH does not participate), so I could consider this as the plan B if NCCIH thinks it is too off from their interest.
Regarding the SRG-my work is quite focused, so it is very likely to go to certain study section (most of my other proposals go there too). One question is-is it wise to send multiple applications to the same SRG (each proposal does not overlap, although is originated from similar concept) over time? So far, no two applications are not summited at the same cycle.
writedit said
Sounds like a good plan with regard to IC and SRG. Having two applications at the same SRG will not affect your review. Reviewers consider the scientific merit of each application individually, and no mention of another application by the same PI is ever made during discussion. It is not up to the SRG to rank the two (or more) applications by merit – it is up to the funding ICs to decide if the PI’s science deserves more than one award in a given cycle. ICs will make 2 awards to the same PI in the same cycle, but you want to be sure that your PO considers both applications distinct and high priority, since ICs also want to cover as much different science as possible (not just looking at you but tat the entire portfolio – if there are a lot of awards covering the same area, one of your applications might be skipped – not because you submitted 2 applications per se but because NCCIH wants to spread its money around thematically). If two ICs are involved, this is less of an issue (though they will still check for overlap at JIT to avoid any duplicate funding – which sounds like it wouldn’t be a problem in your case).
Mika said
Dera writedit,
NCI P01 director PI requirements, such as R01 experience……anyway, I could not find detailed requests
Thanks,
Mika
writedit said
Although there is no strict requirement that a P01 PI have experience as an R01 PI, this is pretty much required. In fact, all the project PIs should also be R01 awardees, though they can be paired with a junior PI (with no R01 experience). You need to contact the PO to whom you would submit a P01 application for a pre-application meeting, during which you present the overall program theme and the design of each project. I would suggest you make pre-pre-application contact to discuss with the PO if you would be a competitive PI and if your program theme sounds compelling (and worth developing into an application).
Mika said
I highly appreciated your comments and this resource.
r15maybe? said
Hello! I posted here before and am so grateful for this resource!
I submitted an R15 to NIMH in June, got promising scores but that were in the gray area in October, and met with my PO after receiving my summary statement. My PO had me submit a response to critiques and said she felt everything was addressable and that she was going to recommend the application for funding, but that we won’t know anything for awhile and it would be an uphill battle. Council review is scheduled for 1/31 and today I received a personal JIT request. Does this mean anything in terms of my chances for funding this round? I had been preparing a resubmission for late February – it seems like that’s still the smart course, right? Any advice you can provide is appreciated!
writedit said
If you were asked to submit JIT, this means NIMH is considering your application for a possible award. Has your eRA Commons status changed to “Pending”? This is not a guarantee, but it is a positive sign. You could contact your PO to ask whether you should plan to submit in February (she still won’t be able to confirm award likelihood or timing, but she can advise on the resubmission). Either way, you would know by early February what is happening with your A0 application, so you’ll know before submission whether it is needed.
r15maybe? said
Thank you for this info! No change in eRA Commons – still says council review pending. My PO said I should continue to prepare a resubmission “to be safe” and that she’d let me know when she’d heard anything definite.
Even with the current budget situation, do you expect that we’ll hear results of council review fairly quickly after the meeting on 1/31? Or will the CR slow the timeline of notifications?
Thank you so much for your help!
writedit said
The CR delays making awards to applications that are not clearly within the payine (this year, the CR funding is the same level as FY21 vs a reduced amount, so ICs are making some awards, which is not typical from CR years past), and the paylines will not be adjusted until after the FY22 budget is signed into law. After Council, the IC Director will establish a ranked paylist, but that can take a couple of weeks (and being on the list is not a guarantee of funding), so I understand why your PO is recommending moving forward with the resubmission, but I think you can remain hopeful, and hopefully NIMH will have clarity on the second cycle awards before the end of February.
Eye_am_grateful said
Eye_am_grateful here, formally Eye_am_hopeful. I received my NRSA F32 NOA from the National Eye Insitute and wanted to share my timeline.
A0 Submitted: 12/08/2020
A0 SRG complete: 03/15/2021
A0 Summary Statement: 03/30/2021
A0 Impact Score: 43, Percentile: 58.0
Emailed PO: 3/31/2021, PO recommended resubmission
A1 Submitted: 04/08/2021
A1 SRG complete: 07/15/2021
A0 administratively withdrawn: 07/20/2021
A1 Summary Statement: 07/29/2021
A1 Impact Score: 23, Percentile: 22.0
Emailed PO: 07/31/21, PO recommended waiting and not submitting again
Email from PO: 12/7/21, PO congratulated me that my proposal was picked for funding
Pending administrative review: 12/09/2021
Email from GMS: 12/16/21, asking BO for admin details, including award acceptance, IACUC approval, and a copy of Ph.D. degree
Email from BO to GMS: 01/12/22
A1 Award prepared: 01/20/22
A1 Fellowship awarded: 01/21/22
writedit said
Congratulations on your perseverance and patience in securing your fellowship! Thank you for posting such a detailed timeline – best wishes for a successful postdoc project and experience and career in biomedical research!
K25 NIA said
Just ask PO from NIA K award about the possibility of raising payline after CR. She said “the current pay line is still at 28 for Ks. After CR, if the pay line changes to your score range, your application will be considered. No news before end of Feb regarding decision on your application.”
So the interim payline will not change and I still need to wait for the final payline.
writedit said
Yes, ICs will not have their final paylines until after the FY22 federal budget is signed into law (ICs will have their appropriations about 6-8 weeks later), but the final payline will be retroactive.
K25 NIA said
Last time in the early January, the PO told me there would be “slightly” a chance that payline will change, so she asked me to wait. You have once suspected that she meant there would be slightly a chance the interim payline will change. From current response, does that mean there is “slightly” a chance that final payline will change. It is very hard to interpret PO’s letter and she never responded to my question directly.
writedit said
The NIA payline will change after the FY22 budget is signed into law (NIA will have their appropriation 6-8 weeks after that, so sometime in April, probably). I expect it to be similar to the FY21 payline, not significantly lower.
Tuhina said
Dear Writedit,
We have submitted an R15 application to NIAID (study section ZRG1BST-F (80) that scored 27. We are planning to resubmit but try NIGMS instead. Are we allowed to change our funding agency if we are resubmitting our application considering in our initial submission we had NIAID?
writedit said
Yes, you can absolutely change ICs. Since you were reviewed in a SEP, you should ask your NIGMS PO whether you will be reviewed in the same SEP or if you should target your application for a different study section. If you will be reviewed by a different panel, you can also ask your NIGMS PO if an A0 or the A1 is the better route.
Tuhina said
Dear Writeedit, I submitted a new R15 proposal in Feb cycle and chose NIGMS as IC. But on checking the status I saw they have assigned NIAID instead. Though in the cover letter I had mentioned choice of IC as NIGMS. Should I contact SRO for change in assignment or I cannot do much at this point. Thank you so much for maintaining this wonderful website.
SaG said
The assignment is based on the science you propose in your app. You can suggest an IC. You don’t get to pick. You can talk to your PO at NIAID and explain why it is a better fit at NIGMS. Then find a PO at NIGMS willing to take it. But, you have to convince both of them that your proposal is a better fit to the Mission of NIGMS. And saying it is basic science does not make it a better fit.
writedit said
SaG is exactly right. I will add that the SRO has nothing to do with IC assignment (only contact SRO with questions about SRG assignment). CSR contacts the ICs to find one willing to accept your application. They would have asked NIGMS, but it sounds like NIGMS turned down the application, in which case CSR could have gone to the most appropriate IC based on your abstract and specific aims, which apparently was NIAID. Alternatively, if there was nothing in your abstract and aims that suggested the application was appropriate for NIGMS, CSR would have made the referral based on the science proposed vs your request. The same is true for SRG requests – these must be based on the science, not personal preference. Finally, if you did not complete the PHS Assignment Request Form (part of the application package), CSR may not have checked your cover letter for such a request. I always recommend completing the form and then using the cover letter to name a PO with whom you have worked, in case CSR has any questions.
NIA-R01-q said
Dear Writedit,
As you know the NIA interim payline for non-ADRD (<$500K) is 8%. The last time the NIA payline was this low was FY15. The FY20 and FY21 paylines were 11% and 10%, respectively. I was wondering how likely the final FY22 payline will go up.
Thank you so much.
writedit said
Yes, the final payline, which will be retroactive, will be higher and probably about the same as FY21. ICs need to be conservative until they have their final appropriation, just to be sure. If the FY22 federal budget is signed into law in February, ICs should receive their appropriations 6-8 weeks after that, and paylines could be adjusted in April or May (or later, if the IC wants to wait for the next Council meeting).
K01 applicant said
Hi writedit,
Thank you again for this grate resource.
What will happen if the FY22 federal budget is not signed into law in February? or how long will this budget maraton last?
SaG said
We have had year long continuing resolutions. Basically a flat budget. Given inflation probably means slightly lower paylines. Hard to tell and very NIH institute specific. Directors have to balance keeping a flat payline with paying out year costs for previously funded apps. So, they could keep the payline but cut everyone’s noncompetitive budgets by 5% for instance. NCI has done that in the past.
writedit said
Before the current CR ends, Congress will pass either a bill to continue the CR (& set another deadline), an omnibus spending bill, or a continuation of the CR through the end of the FY (which has happened, as SaG notes). Unlike years past, the current CR is at 100% of FY21 funding levels (vs the more typical 90%), which is why some ICs are making awards to applications well within the payline. Whenever the President finally signs a spending bill into law, ICs won’t know their final appropriation for another 6-8 weeks, and paylines will be more clear some time after that.
> >
K01 applicant said
Thank you so much for your critical assessment.
MG said
Hi Writedit, I received a score of 6 percentile on my R01 assigned to NCI that was reviewed last June. We got a JIT request and submitted on last November. I heard from the PO a few weeks ago that the application is being processed at the office of grants administration at NCI. Any idea when this will be awarded? Thanks!
writedit said
No specific idea, but more on the order of weeks rather than months. Congratulations on the excellent score!
BankruptSoon said
Any idea how often are grants within the pay line but not to be funded? I have an R03 within the interim pay line (council review completed last September) but no updates so far. PO does not reply to my emails after receiving my JIT…GMS asks me to “direct any funding questions to your PO”……It is possible to assign the secondary IC to my grant at this stage? Thanks!
writedit said
It’s pretty rare – probably vanishingly rare for an R03 – and you would be aware of the risk of being skipped for an award. Applications within the payline can be skipped if the PI is too well funded (I’m guessing not, based on your handle), the PI secured other funding in the meantime (or has other funding for the same work revealed at JIT), major changes in PI/key personnel that haven’t been resolved satisfactorily with the IC, and other administrative and/or ethical issues that cannot be resolved. Unless you received some sort of internal or foundation pilot award for the same work proposed in the R03, I can’t imagine it being skipped. Your PO would need to be involved in relinquishing the application to another IC, and most secondary ICs do not fund applications assigned to them. If you cannot get a response from the PO, you might contact their branch or division chief (depending on IC organization) for advice on next steps, including whether you can count on an award due to the score being within the payline and whether you should plan to resubmit. Alternatively, you could send an email to your PO with this same query but simply copy the branch/division/group chief.
BankruptSoon said
Thanks a lot for the advice!! Hope it is not too late to contact the branch/division/group chief (the proposed start date is 1/2/22). Otherwise, I will need to file a bankruptcy for my lab very soon. LOL
writedit said
Be sure to let them know you will need to shut down your lab – that can (though not always) make a difference and is always worth mentioning.
MG said
Great. Thanks again!
PostdocInLimbo said
I received a congratulatory email from my PO that my K99 was funded in the first week of December, but no NOA. I even got an email from the NIH media contact sent to PR people at my university on how to share the announcement, so it seems it will be funded. But, it’s now almost 2 months later and no NOA. I wrote my GMO in early January to inquire and it appears she was out of office for most of December. My GMO said they would be working on my application that week, but still nothing. I really want to write and ask for an update, but I feel that may be too impatient. I’m getting pressured by my PI a lot because they thought my salary would be covered by the grant by now. Any advice? Should I continue to wait and count myself lucky?
SaG said
Have your PI put pressure on your grants office to get this done. Sometimes grants to grants communications can get things done faster. Plus, it is now on him/her to get the award made. 😉
PostdocInLimbo said
Thank you. This is good advice!
writedit said
As SaG recommends, having your PI get the institutional grants administrator to contact the GMO directly is probably the best route. If your IC lists the GMS org chart and contacts, you (or your PI) might reach out to the Chief GMO (especially with the NIH media email – not a good look to announce an award that hasn’t been issued) about expediting this award; if the IC does not list grants management contacts, you could ask your PO, who is not involved at all in award processing or management but might be able to contact the appropriate person to let them know this award is quite late. It is not unusual for federal employees to be off much of December due to the use-or-lose (by Dec 31) policy of annual leave, but (IMHO) this does not excuse the grants management branch in allowing a NOA to be more than 2 months late.
PostdocInLimbo said
Thank you so much for this insight! I don’t have nearly as much experience, but I agree that this is taking far too long after the initial emails.
PostdocInLimbo said
Thank you for this insight! I have much less experience, but I agree that 2 months after the initial congratulatory email is quite long.
kingdaddy2010 said
Dear Writedit,
We submitted a grant proposal last March and scored a 35. While it was well-received, the PO asked us to address some of the comments and resubmit because they were having some funding constraints due to COVID, etc., so we resubmitted Sept 3rd. This time, we scored a 24, which fingers crossed will be in the funded zone. The review group is ZRG1 RPHB-Y (12). The resume and summary of discussion concluded that the project is predicted to have a high overall impact on the quality of life for people with severe physical disabilities.
Any idea of what our timeline might look like? It’s rather hard to plan for what seems to be a complete unknown with regard to when it might be funded and we would expect to start working on it.
GREATLY appreciate any insight or thoughts you have.
writedit said
You don’t mention the mechanism, but with a Sept submission date and your review panel, I assume this is an SBIR or STTR application. Your PO probably still can’t give any guarantees on funding, but you can ask if you should plan to resubmit again. If they tell you to sit tight, then you are just waiting for the award process to play out. The September application should have an April start date, which is probably what you can expect, though possibly/probably a bit later due to the backlog of applications from the continuing resolution … and/or if the current CR is continued past February 18. If the FY22 federal budget had been in place, there might have been a chance for the PO to request funding for your A0 sooner (rather than wait until April for the A1 to come up for an award), but in this case, there is no need to expedite the award since the timing would be the same. If the current CR is converted into an omnibus spending bill for FY22 that is signed into law on Feb 18, then your IC will have their appropriation about 6-8 weeks later and can start processing awards in earnest. So, watch the federal budget situation for the best insight into when you might have an award (assuming PO either says you can be cautiously optimistic and/or says not to plan another submission).
kingdaddy2010 said
My apologies for not stating that – SBIR application. Your help is amazingly beneficial, thank you for all you do for everyone.
R01Pending said
Hi Writedit, I asked this question before that I received a 12th percentile for an NICHD A1 R01. I emailed the PO three times after receiving the summary statement in early November but no response. Council meeting completed on 1/28/2022 and still no updates from NICHD. My PO happens to be the division chief. Any advise on what to do now? Thank you!
writedit said
It depends on what you were asking (although, no response is not professional period). If you were asking if you would receive an award, it is very possible they don’t know since we are still operating under a continuing resolution. If you were seeking advice on whether to submit again, they should have responded. Now it is too late, although to be honest, a June submission is likely to have a funding decision at about the same time as the February-March submission since the FY23 budget will most certainly be delayed as well. You could contact the PO again (reply all to prior messages, to remind them you have tried to reach out in the past) for guidance as to whether you should plan to resubmit or if you can sit tight – and possibly copy the Director of the Division of Extramural Research (your PO must be chief of one of the DER extramural scientific branches). You could try asking your PO specifically about resubmission and see if you get a response (the response will tell you what you really want to know, and the PO still won’t know about timing anyway). If you still don’t get a response by the end of February, then try yet another contact and copy the Director of DER … but I am pretty sure you will have heard something by the end of February.
R01Pending said
Thank you Writedit! I did ask, in my 2nd and 3rd emails, for advise of whether to resubmit.
writedit said
Aha. Then, if still needed at the end of February, probably time to copy the director of Extramural Research in a polite request for guidance on next steps (via reply all to your third email, so context is provided).
NGR said
Dear WritEdit,
I have been an occasional visitor of this great resource. I am a new PI for 3 years now. My initial R01 grant was scored at 30%ile and then a resubmission score went upto 42%ile, despite satisfactorily addressing all critique. Considering the study section may not be interested in the application (not hearing from PO), I then took into consideration all critique and significantly strengthened the application and requested different study section/institute. I thought this was my best grant and so did my colleagues who read my grant. However, it wasn’t discussed. I have had some Co-I, Co-PI, MPI grants discussed, others not discussed, but none funded (in all more than 12 applications over a period of 3 years). I have been a CoV researcher for over a decade, with some seminal contributions. While generally optimistic, I am at loss at this point. Would you suggest prioritizing one or two study sections, over trying to request a different study sections. I believe the science is good, so did reviewers during first two submissions. What would be your suggestion on communicating with PO/s and how can I get good feedback on what to and how to improve? Summary statements/critique have not been clear with contrasting statements, to be honest. I appreciate any suggestions to improve.
SaG said
I think your mistake was going to a different Study Section/Institute and assuming a better outcome. Without reading your summary statement it is hard to know why your apps are not getting better scores. My suggestion is to focus on the science that really excites you in your application(s). Do not try to tailor your app to a specific study section or institute. Once you write the application ask yourself, “who would be most excited about my work?” Are any of those folks on an NIH study section? Whose work do I reference in the app? Are any of those folks on a Study Section? What were the score driving weaknesses in the Resume section of my last app? Did I address them? Finally, try to find another PO to go over the Summary Statement with you. A good PO can zero in on the score driving issues with your app.
As for asking colleagues, my experience is that it is a very rare colleague who will really read your application and tell you it is a piece of crap. FInd the biggest most critical jerk in your department and ask them to review your app. They will be most like a study section reviewer. Asking your friends is like asking your Mom if you are smart.
Finally, getting scored is the first hurdle. Keep pushing forward with that app/study section combo. Sometimes it takes a bit of luck, a lot of perseverance and one excited reviewer to make or break your review.
writedit said
First, some context. A good friend at BICO who is a NAS member has told me about times they submitted what he was convinced was one of his best grant applications – and it didn’t get scored … only to have a causal submission he thought was pretty routine receive a score of 10. Your first task needs to find a PO who is interested in your science and willing to give you some guidance. If you have not heard from the same PO for the past 3 years, you definitely need to find a different PO, and maybe a different IC. You can use the RePORTER Matchmaker tool to help with this task. You paste in your abstract or Specific Aims page and receive back a ranked list of POs with similar projects in their portfolios. You will also get a ranked list of SRGs and even the distribution of activity codes through which similar projects were funded (in case you might need to reconsider the activity code itself). You can then search RePORTER by the PO names that look most promising and check their portfolios and look at their bio pages on the appropriate IC websites. Regarding the study section, in addition to Matchmaker, you definitely want to use the CSR Assisted Referral Tool (again, paste in your title and abstract and/or specific aims). RePORTER returns a list of SRGs based on past performance, whereas ART returns a list of recommended SRGs based on current membership rosters and panel foci. You can see if your most recent SRGs fall in these lists (Matchmaker and ART). You can also search RePORTER by each SRG to see which applications have received awards in recent years, having been reviewed successfully by that panel. Check the current panel rosters, too, and think about whether you see anyone on the roster at scientific meetings you attend and whether they would be interested in hearing your research presented there in 3-5 years. If your work isn’t exciting and of interest to the panel, it won’t review well no matter how good the science is. Your PO (once you have a responsive one) can also give advice on SRG selection, since they typically listen to study panel discussions. For applications that repeatedly score in the 30-50th percentile range, I often recommend taking a hard look at the significance of the work. Even a perfectly designed study with sound scientific premise will have limited impact if other labs are already publishing similar work, or if the clinical findings will not substantially change clinical practice. You don’t mention what specifically reviewers did or didn’t like, but you can have a completely different set of reviewers (and SRG more broadly) from meeting to meeting, depending on how many regular vs temporary members participate and who is rotating on and off, so it’s not unusual for the same panel to produce different reviews of essentially the same application. You want to focus on the Resume and Summary of Discussion – those are the strengths and weaknesses that the SRO took away from the discussion as driving the score. You can find more detail on some concerns in in individual critiques, but you can (mostly) ignore weaknesses in individual critiques that were not incorporated in the Summary of Discussion paragraph(s), which should cut down on the contrasting statements. For applications that were not discussed, the primary reviewer was the one who likely spent the most time on your application, so don’t ignore those weaknesses just because you like the friendly third critique better. SaG suggests finding someone very critical to review your application, which is always enlightening and good advice. Since most people don’t have time to review a full Research Strategy in depth, even their thoughtful input on your Specific Aims page should be helpful – especially from as many different people as possible. Past/current mentors would be another good source of input. If your university has any sort of grant application review service, be sure to take advantage of that.
JJR said
Hi Writedit,
I received a score of 6 percentile on my A1 (RO1) assigned to NIA. Their interim payline is 8 percentile. The council meeting was completed in January, but my PO would not commit to saying anything other than to wait out until the NoA is issued. I am wondering if there is a possibility for an application with the score within the payline being skipped. If there is, then what may be the reasons?
Also, the interim payline of 8% at NIA is for projects requesting under $500,000. I am assuming it is direct cost not including indirect, right?Thank you!
SaG said
First, the grant award paperwork takes time and it has only been 9 days since NIA’s council met. Second, absent Congress passing a bill the Federal Government runs out of money on Feb. 18. So, until Congress refills NIA’s bank account they can’t start on the process to send you a check. At this point the PO probably cant tell you anything because they dont know anything to tell you.
To answer your question, could you be skipped for funding? Sure. Should you worry about that at this point? No. Check out some of the timelines folks have posted on this blog. From Council meeting until a NoA is released can take months.
writedit said
As SaG said, it’s way too early for any action on your application, which I assume has an April 1 start date (and is probably closer to when you should expect an award). Your PO’s comment says it all: “wait out until the NoA is issued”. Once the application moves to grants management for processing, your PO is not involved and has no idea about when applications will be processed for awards, but he has essentially told you that your application will be processed for an award (assuming no issues during the administrative review). Applications are skipped if the PI is too well funded, if the PI subsequent got other funding for the same project (eg, DoD, Foundation, etc.), if the IC is oversubscribed in that area of science (ie, too much of their portfolio already being funded for similar work), or other situations that should be obvious to you – and none of which your PO raised. And yes, the $500K threshold is direct costs, not total costs. So, sit tight and wait knowing you can start planning for this work later in the spring.
Beth said
Hi writedit,
Thanks as always for your insight. I have a K01 to NIA that received a 20 (payline was 35 when it was reviewed in June 2021) and has been very slowly working its way through to funding ever since. On Monday 01/31/22 the status in eRA Commons finally changed to “Award prepared”. I know this is a good sign and NOA should be the next step and, in normal times, it would come within days to weeks. But given there is still no budget passed, I was wondering if it will sit as “award prepared” until the budget is passed plus an additional 6-8 weeks for ICs to get their allocations of NIH funds? Or since the award was prepared, does that mean it is going to move forward and I’ll get an NOA regardless of what happens with the budget?
For reference, this was an A1 re-submission that went in March 2021, study section June 2021, Council September 2021, and it’s been hanging out ever since.
Thank you!
SaG said
Award prepared means the check is in the mail. Still might take a couple of weeks but you shouldn’t have to wait for a budget to be passed.
Beth said
Thank you for the quick and helpful reply, SaG! Fingers crossed that it comes soon because it’s been a long wait and I would like to unclench soon. 🙂
writedit said
You won’t need to wait for the federal budget to pass to get your award. The terms of the award are prepared and sitting in the queue for the IC Director to approve. While the separation between “Award prepared” and “Notice of award” is usually a matter of one or a few days – maybe a week – looking at some of the recent timelines, you might be waiting closer to 2 weeks (or more). Thankfully, you don’t have to wait for Congress to act though.
Tuhina said
Hi Writeedit,
Your website has been so helpful. I have two questions
For one of my R15 (AREA) proposal, I was asked JIT by the PO and yesterday council review was completed. Today in my era commons status it shows as administrative review pending: I am wondering what does that mean?
On the other hand, in this Feb cycle I was planning to resubmit a separate R15 grant that received a score of 27 in June cycle. Can I be a Co-I or M-PI. Can I be a PI of R15 grant and at the same time Co-I of separate R15 grant?
writedit said
Your IC is reviewing your application for a possible award – not a guarantee, but you are likely to be funded. You can only hold one R15 award as PI, but you can be a co-investigator on other applications. Since the timing is tight, you should reach out now to your PO for the pending application and ask whether you should submit your February application as PI or a co-investigator.
SleeplessInNY said
Dear writedit,
Thank you for this invaluable resource–it has provided a lot of incredibly useful info. So, I submitted an A1 for an R01 to NIMH back in March ’21 and received summary statements in July (14%ile). I am a new investigator, so I felt pretty good about this score. But, the PO said I was in the ‘gray zone’, requested a rebuttal to the criticisms and suggested I submit a new application in the meantime. Six months later the status has been stuck on a gray “Council Review Completed”. What do you suggest I do at this point? Thank you in advance for your input.
writedit said
The A0 could be considered any time up until September 2022, and there is nothing you can do to speed up the process. If your A1 gets a better score, there is a chance they could process the A0 for an award rather than wait until July to award the A1, but that would also be out of your hands. The delay in considering your A0 is tied to the continuing resolution the NIH is operating under at least until Feb 18. If an omnibus spending bill is signed into law by then, NIMH will have their final appropriation about 6-8 weeks later (~early April) and will then be able to figure out how many gray zone applications they can fund (and then which ones). You’ll soon know by then the outcome of your A1 application (score and summary statement) and can talk with your PO about next steps, which will hopefully involve JIT n’at. Now, if the FY22 federal budget is not signed into law by February 18, then unless your A1 is at the 10th percentile or below, you will again be in a holding pattern until the CR is either made permanent (eg, FY22 budget is the same as FY21) or a budget bill is signed into law.
SleeplessInNY said
I figured this had to do with the budget. Fingers crossed they get it done soon. Thank you so much!
grantnewbie said
Thank you to writedit and SaG for their extremely helpful insight and feedback through this site! I received NOA on my K01 from NIA today so I wanted to share my timeline for others because seeing the timelines was incredibly helpful in my understanding of the process.
June 2020 – first submission
September 2020 – study section met, application scored but not fundable
November 2020 – received summary statement from study section
December 2020 – had call with PO to discuss summary statement
March 2021 – resubmission
June 2021 – study section met, application received fundable score
September 2021 (pre-Council) – received request from PO to respond to summary statement
September 2021 – Council meeting
November 2021 – eRA Commons status changed to “Pending administrative review”
December 2021 – some additional JIT requests from PO and clinical trials team
January 31, 2022 – eRA Commons status changed to “Award prepared”
February 9, 2022 – NOA received with a February 15, 2022 start date
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you so much for sharing your timeline! Best wishes for success with your project and your career in biomedical research.
pixiegenie said
EI with a MIRA/R35 application that scored 37. PO responded right away but did not commit to much – understandable given NIH is under (yet another) CR. PO wrote just before council asking to address one major and two minor concerns from the reviewers. Given the NIGMS’ own admission that R01/R35 conversions have a success rate of 52%, should I be cautiously hopeful? At what point should I ask the PO whether a new R35 is in order (deadline in May)?
SaG said
You are certainly in a grey zone. NIGMS has said they want more folks to have MIRAs v. R01s. I would ask again in mid-March about a new MIRA app. Maybe more info will be available by then and still give you time to submit a new app.
pixiegenie said
Thanks. As always, this is a great resource. Interesting that an impact score of 37 is in the “gray zone” given NIGMS public data that 80% of established investigator applications with these scores were funded from 2016-2020. I will sit tight until mid-March (or rather start working on the application at some low intensity level).
SaG said
Maybe Grey zone isn’t the best term. More like delayed zone? That is they fund the better ones first as the money rolls in from Congress. They could eventually get past 37 but it might take some time and money from Congress.
pixiegenie said
That makes sense.
pixiegenie said
Having toiled away in the salt mines (i.e. submitted a new EI R-35 application) while waiting to hear about the pending R-35 (Impact score 37), I find myself growing more confused about this mechanism and how NIGMS works. I understand the idea of percentiles and the cliff for regular R01s. I understand the PO-driven funding outcomes at NSF. But what’s the process for a MIRA? How does the paylist get decided – in order of impact score until some indeterminate cutoff and then through some advocacy by the PO for applications scoring beyond that? Or something else – like priority areas getting a bump? I read on this site (R35 thread below) that the PO doesn’t make the funding decision. If not, who does?
writedit said
Thanks to SaG for providing some insight! You can also check the online MIRA/DP2 score spreadsheet & discussion (few years worth of application cycles) here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10f1MDXXW57r5pYxwqTnAKM_NRY_SmvC0s0b3joyO_Zo/edit#gid=967453091
SaG said
Technically the Institute Director makes funding decisions. But, they delegate that responsibility to various Division Directors. I think you answered the question in your comment about how decisions about MIRAs are made. It is more of a holistic approach (thought score remains very important) based on each PI’s situation and also the area of science. A simple example is that they might decide to fund the ESI MIRA of a PI going up for tenure before they fund the ESI MIRA of a PI in their first year as an independent scientist. POs won’t advocate for a PI but they should have enough info to justify why someone should be paid sooner, later or not at all. Of course sometimes the only way for POs to know things is when the PI tells them that they are going up for tenure and might get fired if they don’t get the grant.
writedit said
I see SaG has covered this nicely – thank you! – and I’ll add that it looks like the CR will be extended to March, which will delay decisions even more (GM won’t get their appropriation until April-May), so you might/will probably be looking at a new submission for insurance – perhaps never to be submitted, perhaps never to be reviewed, but ready in case delays and budget quirks mean you need to be back in the queue.
pixiegenie said
Still waiting and no response from PO about the need for a resubmission. Of course, FY22 appropriations just passed, so the wait may be a while long. However, as I start to work on a resubmission (for insurance or perhaps out of necessity) – how does one address prior critiques for a MIRA? Is it NSF-style (i.e. address the critiques in the body of the text without reference to prior reviews?) or like an R01-A1 without the Introduction to the revised application (highlighting new sections that address prior reviews?)
writedit said
The current PAR (19-367), whose last submission date is May 17, does not allow amended (A1) applications, so you would be submitting a new application with no mention of the prior submission. Hopefully the lack of response is good news versus poor communication, but you will want to know whether to submit in May, which means you can’t wait until NIGMS receives their appropriation in 6-8 weeks. I’d suggest you check in again about whether to submit for the last date in 2022 (May 17) or wait and then, if needed, submit later to the next PAR (which you’ll also want to confirm is scheduled to replace the current PAR). Hopefully your PO will reply to this focused query.
pixiegenie said
Heard back from the PO – nothing much beyond that things are still uncertain and it would be a good idea to submit a new application. He won’t know until July and if the current one is funded, then the new one will be withdrawn. Back to salt mines!
SaG said
I hope it is a Himalayan Pink Salt Mine.
pixiegenie said
NGA received! It was in the “delayed zone” as SaG said. I did submit a new R35 for insurance, which will likely be administratively withdrawn.
Funny thing though, the Grants Management Specialist sent an email a few weeks ago mentioning an award amount that took into account the overlap with my current GM R01. However the award amount in the NGA is reduced by ~6% from that stated in the email. This cut is on top of the fact that the non-competing renewal was reduced by 10% (because of the CR). While the amounts aren’t huge, they do add up to support for a student at 50% effort, so not insignificant. Who do I bring this up with and can anything be done?
writedit said
The cuts aren’t too surprising, especially at the end of the FY, when ICs are trying to cover as many applications as they can. You can talk with your PO, of course, but it’s not a significant cut. You might be advised to reallocate other money in the budget if you need additional funds for your student.
SaG said
You should have gotten the 10% cut (due to the CR) back. Not sure what is up with the 6% cut but it is likely, as writedit said, “stretching the dollars”. Not much you can do except write supplement requests for equipment or diversity supp for students or PDs.
Tuhina said
Thank you so much writeedit for insightful feedback. My R03 application scored 30 (stude section held in september 2021: IC was NIAID (jit was not asked).. Contacted PO since interim payline was 24 and was being told scenario might change after the budget and then final payline will be posted. For past 3 years, R03 final payline has been 31. Council was on 31st January 2022. Contacted PO yesterday for any status update but no luck.
Should I wait to hear from PO or prepare for resubmission.
writedit said
Your PO probably doesn’t know – and still won’t know for another month or so now. It looks like Congress is going to extend the continuing resolution until March, which means NIAID won’t have their appropriation until April or May. You should be okay – but no one can guarantee that, so if you don’t want to risk missing a submission date, you probably want to get an application ready for the March submission. But, one more thing to consider: if you submit in March and the application is needed (ie, A0 is not funded … though I don’t expect this will be the case), you will have the same problem as you are currently having: no federal budget in place until spring 2023. Next year, the budget will really be late due to the election, so there is no reason to rush in an application in the February-March cycle unless you need to have a score to show for job hunting purposes. You might also want to be thinking ahead to a new, different application for June in any case (and you can pivot to July A1 if needed, though unlikely).
Blue_Bottle_Top said
Dear Writedit,
The status of my K99 application is now Award Pending, but the Project Begin Date is the same from when I submitted the application a year ago. If I get an NOA, will the Project Begin Date change? Is this something to ask the GMS?
Thanks,
Blue_Bottle_Top
writedit said
The start date in eRA Commons is from your application. Start dates are not expiration dates – and they are not set in stone. Your NOA will list the actual start date on which your budget and project periods begin.
boy_blue said
Dear writedit,
I submitted an F30 application which was scored and went to council a few weeks ago. I just got an email saying that my application has been assigned to a different study section and now my application number is that of an F31, not an F30 application on my grant documents. Is this just an IT error? Does this mean anything?
Thanks!
writedit said
This is an failure on the part of your institution, which allowed the submission of the wrong application, but also on CSR, which did not catch that the activity code and FOA were in appropriate. The F30 activity code is for students pursuing a dual degree (MD-PhD), while the F31 is for students pursuing a PhD. I am not quite sure how your application could have been reviewed without anyone catching this error. I am also surprised they are not simply withdrawing the F30 and having you apply again in April using the F31 FOA and application. Instead, your original application will be reviewed again. Maybe they are taking this unusual route so they can assign it for review in Feb-March (ie, now), but if not, you will need to wait until this summer for the review and next fall or winter for an award, if your score is competitive. If your application will not be reviewed until summer, you might want to ask about submitting a new application in April, especially if you can update any material (eg, publications, new data, additional mentor, etc.). You can ask your advisor and program officer for advice in this regard.
boy_blue said
Sorry, I was unclear. My grant number was correct as recently as last night (when looking over my summary statement). Both changes occured today, so there was nothing for the CSR or my program to catch. I have followed up with my SRO and PO, and am waiting to hear back from them
writedit said
But are you an MD-PhD student or a PhD student?
boy_blue said
I’m an MD-PhD student
writedit said
Okay – that is what I could not tell before – whether it should have been an F30 or an F31 application. Since you are an MD-PhD student, then the application change to F31 and SRG reassignment makes no sense. This would be more than an IT issue in eRA Commons, though – it required human intervention. Hopefully your PO and SRO can clear this up – and hopefully your F30 score was competitive.
boy_blue said
Oops, sorry for not being more clear! I heard back from the PO and SRO, who both have no idea why it happened (?) but are working on fixing it. I hope my score (30, ADRD) is good enough as well!
writedit said
Good news on all accounts, including the score. The continuing resolution is likely to be extended to March, which means the interim payline won’t be updated until April or May (NIA won’t have their appropriation until 6-8 weeks after FY22 budget is signed into law); if Congress does manage to pass a spending bill by Feb 18, then you would be looking at news in March or April. Once the payline is updated, your application should be in line for processing though.
SaG said
Some NIH Institutes won’t fund F30s if the school has an MSTP program. If that is the case they changed it to an F31 to give you a chance for funding.
Chase your dreams said
Hello Writedit,
I submitted a grant this month to a standing NIH study section, however few days ago I realized that this particular study section is reviewing grants for this Feb/March cycle as a special emphasis panel (non-recurring). Does this mean that this study section doesn’t exist after this review cycle? However, I couldn’t find any information in the review branch website that this study section is ending. Appreciate your feed back on this.
Thanks.
writedit said
Study sections do not toggle between chartered and SEP; a small group of regular members of a chartered SRG can serve on a member-conflict SEP for that SRG, but you couldn’t request that SEP for your review. It’s difficult to understand your exact situation without knowing the study section abbreviation, but if the study section you requested in your application is not meeting or is not appropriate (scientifically), CSR will assign your application to the most scientifically appropriate study section based on your abstract and specific aims. If your FOA stipulated a FOA-specific SEP, then your application will go there.
Chase your dreams said
Thanks for the feedback. I submitted a parental R01 grant to intercellular interaction (ICI)study section. My understanding from the website is that ICI is meeting this Feb cycle as a SEP. My grant will be reviewed only in June cycle, what I am confused is since ICI is in SEP this cycle, does this mean that ICI is no more a standalone study section and will not exist from next review cycle.
Thanks.
writedit said
That could be a member conflict SEP for applications submitted to ICI by regular members of the study section, though it seems odd not to have a regular meeting as well. However, ICI has not been part of an ENQUIRE activity (which reshuffles SRGs periodically to address changes in the science), so I assume they will meet in June. It’s always best to get input from your PO and/or the SRO before requesting assignment to a specific SRG, in which case you would understand the situation with ICI. Also, you do not “submit applications to” study sections. You can request assignment to a specific study section, but CSR makes the call and does not need to honor your request. If your application receives assignment to a different SRG, it could either be due to a change in ICI operations or a better scientific fit with a different SRG.
Chase your dreams said
Very informative. Thanks a lot for the feed back.
R01-hopefully said
Dear writedit – The study section review of my NINDS R01 just came out, and it received a 14%ile. Would it be funded? Thanks!
writedit said
In FY21, NINDS was paying applications up to and including the 14th percentile (25th percentile for ESI), so either way, your score looks good. The final FY22 payline will not be known for a while still due to the likelihood of the continuing resolution being continued into March (so NINDS would not receive appropriation until April or May), but I would not expect paylines to change from FY21. Your PO can give you advice on next steps after you receive your summary statement – including whether to sit tight and wait for the federal budget to be signed into law (vs work on a resubmission).
R01-hopefully said
Thank you, writedit. You are right. The NINDS payline under CR is 14%ile (https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Funding/About-Funding/NINDS-Funding-Strategy/Fiscal-Year-2022), same as last year. the webpage says the payline may be adjusted when the FY 2022 appropriation is enacted. Typically, how would that adjustment be? go up or down?
writedit said
Since the interim payline is the same as FY21, I don’t expect it to change. Most ICs have interim paylines that are several points lower than the final payline will be, which means they adjust their paylines up once their appropriation is in hand (and the new payline is retroactive to the beginning of the FY). You don’t need to worry about the payline dropping below the 14th percentile.
smh said
Hi Writedit
Thanks for hosting and monitoring this awesome resource. My R01 renewal at NIDDK scored 19% as an A1. This was a renewal of my first R01, which was awarded as an ESI (this payline was 19% last year). The A0 was 21%. I’m waiting for the summary statement before reaching out to the PO, but do %iles on the payline generally/historically get paid? I’ll be sweating this one out, I guess.
writedit said
The payline percentile is inclusive, which means applications scoring at the 19th percentile in FY21 received awards (assuming no other administrative issues with the application or PI). We won’t know about the FY22 payline for a while, especially if the continuing resolution continues into March as expected (which means NIDDK would not have their appropriation until April or May). However, I wouldn’t expect paylines to drop, and hopefully your PO will have an encouraging word after your make contact after receiving your summary statement. Your PO may ask for a rebuttal, so you might think about this before reaching out, so you can discuss when you communicate with them.
f31hopeful said
Hello writedit,
Thanks for hosting and responding to all questions!
My Cycle 3 FY2021 F31 resubmission scored at impact score of 30 at NIDDK (initially not discussed in Cycle 2 FY2020). Unfortunately a percentile wasn’t provided, and as far I understand, is not provided for training grants through NIDDK. Hence, I’ve been looking at success rates (https://report.nih.gov/funding/nih-budget-and-spending-data-past-fiscal-years/success-rates) and see that 34.1% of F31 applications for FY2020 were funded. Given this, would you expect the percentile to be ~34% again for my resubmission? Trying to gauge whether my application will be funded, at least until the summary statement comes out in a few weeks and I can speak with my PO.
Thanks!
writedit said
I think a score of 30 for an F31 should be reasonable, especially since the A0 was ND. Some ICs fellowship paylines are much lower, but not all. Try not to drive yourself crazy second guessing before the summary statement arrives. Then think about how you would respond before reaching out to the PO (and don’t forget to also ask if you should plan to submit a new A0 later this spring – even just for insurance due to delayed final FY22 budget, which will now get pushed off until March).
f31hopeful said
I’ll try not to, thanks! I was advised by a senior lab member to contact the PO prior to receiving the summary statement. But I’m ultimately deciding not to since the PO is likely swamped right now, as well as unsure about what concerns I can respond to (possibly with JIT documentation). I don’t intend to submit a new A0 due to timing, so this is it for me unfortunately. Thanks for the tips!
writedit said
You always need to wait until after the summary statement is in hand to contact the PO, especially since you are probably in the gray zone. POs cannot provide any insight without the reviewer critiques (they want to see if the concerns are readily addressable or fundamental to the significance and premise of the work), and they do not get to see the summary statement any earlier than you. Be sure to let the PO know this is your last chance, as that can weigh in your favor if they are deciding among a number of close applications and are interested in your science.
f31hopeful said
Followed up with the PO after getting the summary statement. Overall the application was rated as excellent in the summary, with some minor concerns. Submitted a Response to Reviewers as JIT documentation, and the PO said I should not expect to hear about a possible NoA until at least early summer. The advisory council meets in early May 2022, and the project has a start date of 7/1/2022.
Do you think I would hear back between May and July presumably?
writedit said
All good. Fellowships do not go to Council, but the internal NIDDK program discussions of the F paylists probably won’t happen until after the appropriation is in hand in May, so probably June (early summer).
f31hopeful said
Hi writeedit,
My Cycle 3 2021 F31 NIDDK (IS: 30) application was entered in as “Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist” on 4/27/2022, followed by a second JIT request by the GMS on 4/30/2022 asking for citizenship status and IACUC documentation. Interestingly, they requested this second JIT request be completed by 5/10/2022 (presumably since the Advisory Council date was 5/11/2022). Submitted everything on 5/2/2022.
Do you have any idea on timeline of when I would hear back about possible funding, or when it would at least be “recommended for funding”? Project start date is 7/1/2022 for reference. My understanding/reading from your Timeline tab here is that R01 (~months) applications will take longer than F applications (~weeks), but wanted to confirm that thought process.
Thanks again!
writedit said
Congratulations on the pending status and request for JIT. Fellowships don’t go to Council, so the JIT turnaround time was simply to help the grants management stay on track due to the backlog of applications to process (ie, they can’t wait forever for JIT information and prefer to have a schedule to plan workload). I expect you should be in line for an award by July 1, possibly earlier. You can sit tight and assume everything is good – they will be in touch if they need any information, so don’t panic if there is a long stretch of silence.
f31hopeful said
Thanks so much! GMS followed up on 5/26 with a request for some IACUC approval documentation, which I provided on the same day. So that’s a positive sign I guess?
I also logged on to Commons today and noticed that the “Last Status Update” box changed to today (6/13/22), but still states the same status as “Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.” Any idea if this NIDDK going through one last check (“early June internal meeting”) before possibly issuing an award?
f31hopeful said
Looks like I logged on a little early, got the NoA this morning! Thank you so much writeedit for your help and wisdom through the process!
writedit said
Awesome – Congratulations and best wishes for success with your project, degree program, and career in biomedical research!
ChairmanWesker said
I submitted an NIAAA R21 A0 in Feb 2021, scored a 31. A1 submitted July 2021, scored 22. Suitted automativ JIT last month. AC met February 10 2022, but still haven’t heard anything. When might be a good time to reach out to the PO for a status check? Thanks and appreciate the site!!
writedit said
You may need to wait until the FY22 budget is resolved, which won’t happen until March now. NIAAA won’t have their final appropriation until April or May. Because R21s are more competitive than R01s, I suspect your score is on the bubble, so your PO probably won’t know about funding until the NIAAA knows how much money they have to work with. If you have not had a personal JIT request or a change in eRA Commons status by early April, you could check in with the PO as to whether you need to plan a new A0 submission in June or if you can sit tight until funding decisions are made.
Waiting too said
I saw your previous comments that institute won’t know their final appropriation until 6-8 week after it’s signed into law. My question is would institute start gradually fund project, such as between week 1 to week 6?
By looking at NIH Reporter, I feel they just funded not more than half of the normal situation (I just estimated using previous whole year’s #of projects divided by 3).
I am waiting for a training project of last cycle one. It’s so hard to be focused on things during the wait.
writedit said
This year, ICs are funding some projects that are clearly within their interim payline because they are operating at 100% rather than 90% of their FY21 appropriation. In the past, most continuing resolutions only funded at 90% of the prior FY appropriation levels, so ICs were by necessity very conservative in making any long-term commitments. This year, they could start making awards to the most competitive applications without putting existing projects at risk, but they never make any partial awards just to allow a project to get started – the NOA is always for a full year of funding. We understand that the waiting is the hardest part (h/t SaG), but it sounds like you are waiting for an anticipated award, so at least you can do so hopefully, versus those on the bubble who still don’t know if they will need to submit again.
SaG said
Nope, they get the money as one big chunk..more or less. They could start planning on what they will fund knowing they will get the money but they won’t pay anything until the money is in the metaphorical bank.
William Leonard said
I submitted a R01 with primary agency request being NCI and secondary NHLBI. In the past, all my grants have gone to the NCI, irrespective of whether or not I put a secondary request or which one. This one has NCI listed as the primary and NIAID. Wondering if someone could comment on the implication of this? I was under the impression that most grants gets assigned to one institute. Does this mean it will get reviewed twice at both institute? That NCI will have the first right of refusal and if it doesn’t get funded by NCI it will have a chance at a second life at NIAID (not that the payline at NIAID is that much better)? I was surprised that NIAID would consider a cancer grant since I thought it dealt mostly with viruses and infectious diseases and autoimmune disease.
SaG said
Apps only get reviewed once and can only be assigned one Primary Institute. But, they can be assigned to multiple secondaries. Having a secondary assignment is pretty meaningless. If NCI won’t fund it why should NIAID? They have plenty of applications on which they are primary to fund. If NIAID saw something super exciting they could get the application transferred so that they are primary and might pay it. But, that is a Black Swan event.
William Leonard said
Payline for NIAID is higher
writedit said
The NIAID payline is irrelevant except for those applications for which NIAID is the primary IC assigned. If your application deals with cancer viruses or other viral associations with cancer risk, cause, and/or treatment, then CSR might have asked NIAID if they were interested. A PO at NIAID apparently indicated they were, so you might want to track down who at NIAID is involved with cancer viruses or whatever scientific area where the overlap might be and ask how serious they are in their interest. It probably won’t help for this application (since NIAID is secondary), but if you need to submit again and this PO is very interested in the work, you might consider requesting NIAID as primary (cite the interested PO in your cover letter, whether it is optional or required due to budget levels or other requirements) and tailor your study to NIAID priorities.
William Leonard said
Thank you both. I reached out to someone at NIAID and was given this link https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/grants-dual-assignments. Was told if the application missed the NCI payline but ended up within NIAID payline or if NIAID is super interested they might consider funding it. Even if it made the NCI payline they still might consider kicking in money. Will let you know how all this shakes out.
SaG said
IMO they gave you some false hope. You should ask the PO how many times this has happened in their experience. If NIAID is super interested they should ask NCI to make NIAID primary before review.
DivSup said
Any info available on the success rates of diversity supplement? thinking for the PhD level at NIAID and NIGMS.
writedit said
Diversity supplements have a very high success rate. You need to work with the parent award PO in advance, to be sure the candidate and supplement request (parent award, project, candidate work-role) are appropriate, but if the PO approves, you are very likely to receive funding since the decisions are made internally (ie, PO would have said if you were not likely to be funded for that request to avoid submission). I suspect most supplements that are not funded were not discussed in advance with the PO.
kingdaddy2010 said
Dear writedit,
We received a W9 for our SBIR to the NIH which we already responded to. It was followed by a JIT request which we are working to respond to as well. One of the statements included in it was “Unless otherwise specified in a FOA, senior/key personnel are defined as all individuals who contribute in a substantive, meaningful way to the scientific development or execution of the project, whether or not salaries are requested. Consultants are not key personnel – move from Section A – move to Section F – “other Direct Costs #3 Consultant Cost”.
But these are people who have very small businesses, and will actually W2 as company employees who will be helping to create our prototype product that will be tested with human subjects. One will help with the overall design, another with human factors, and the third with the software and electronics design. Therefore, they are key personnel to our success. How should we address this? And what is a FOA?
Also, I asked for a timeframe to respond to the JIT, twice, and received no answer to that question. How much time is normally allotted for that?
kingdaddy2010 said
Dear writedit,
We received a W9 for our SBIR to the NIH which we already responded to. It was followed by a JIT request which we are working to respond to as well. One of the statements included in it was “Unless otherwise specified in a FOA, senior/key personnel are defined as all individuals who contribute in a substantive, meaningful way to the scientific development or execution of the project, whether or not salaries are requested. Consultants are not key personnel – move from Section A – move to Section F – “other Direct Costs #3 Consultant Cost”.
But these are people who have very small businesses, and will actually W2 as company employees who will be helping to create our prototype product that will be tested with human subjects. One will help with the overall design, another with human factors, and the third with the software and electronics design. Therefore, they are key personnel to our success. How should we address this? And what is a FOA?
Also, I asked for a timeframe to respond to the JIT, twice, and received no answer to that question. How much time is normally allotted for that?
SaG said
Think of a academic research lab as a small business. When they submit an R01-type grant they usually list only the lab chief as PI/Key personnel. Grad students, post docs and collaborators are essential for the work but are not key personnel. Yet, they still get paid and still do the work. My question is why do you insist on calling them key personnel? Just do what NIH says and send the JIT back asap. No guarantee they they will fund the app but if you don’t send it back they will definitely NOT fund the app. And keep in mind if you list them as key personnel and they have to leave the project you have to get NIH permission for their replacement..
kingdaddy2010 said
Thanks writedit. The issue is because I’m new to this (but not new to Government proposals – I’ve done many, just not SBIRs) and relying on the help of a consultant. I thought we had to have more than 50% of the budget assigned to company employees who also had to be key.
writedit said
FOA = Funding Opportunity Announcement The small business people making critical contributions to the R&D should be key personnel rather than as consultants if specific individuals bring specific skills/contributions that are not readily replaced (as SaG notes, NIH permission is required to change key personnel). Your PO should be able to provide guidance on addressing the personnel issue. They don’t help with the JIT or award processing, but they understand your project and all the personnel who are contributing and can suggest how to designate and budget them properly for your SBIR. As SaG notes, you don’t want to delay on submitting the JIT. Your IC has plenty more competitive applications they could fund instead. If you need more than a week, you’ll want to let the GMS know and provide an estimated submission date; GMS folks are busy and don’t always have time to respond to generic questions like yours (with no “right” answer) but will make note of your estimated JIT submission date, so they can plan their award processing workload – and they will reply if there might be a problem with your planned submission date.
NIA-R01 said
This is a wonderful resource. Thank you. I had an NIA R01 A1 scored at 10% last July, which should be considered in FY2022. NIA 2021 final pay line was 10%, which was not announced until 8/2021; 2022 interim pay line is 8%. I hope the final one will bump back to 10% again, but no one can guarantee that.
Following PO advice, I submitted essentially the same proposal as a new A0 (with a new title) in Oct and scored 28% in 2/2022. My question is that my new A0 score will not affect the 2021 A1 council review, is that right? Also what is the likelihood the final 2021 will be at the 10% level? Thank you.
writedit said
Correct. These are two completely different applications, but even if they were two submissions of the same application (ie, A0 & A1), the second higher score does not typically eliminate consideration of the initial lower score – though I have heard anecdotes of PIs being told by individual POs (in other ICs, not NIA) that when the A1 is scored, the A0 is no longer considered for funding – which is not NIH policy (but could be in specific ICs or branches). The NIA FY22 payline will be retroactive when it is finally set. The current Continuing Resolution is set to expire on March 11, and signs are that Congress will finally have a spending bill ready. If the FY22 federal budget is signed into law on March 11, then ICs should have their appropriations 6-8 weeks later – sometime in early May – and be able to update/set their pay lines later in May-June.
R01renewal said
I am submitting an R01 application as a renewal application and am wondering what the reviewers see from the original R01 application – is the entire grant, specific aims, other? included automatically as part of the renewal application? If so, how much attention is paid to how the renewal application relates to the original grant? Thanks!
writedit said
They do not get the prior application (renewals can go on for decades). They will look at your progress report and publication record to evaluate progress and impact during the last project period.
lacquerhed said
Thank you for this wonderful resource. I have just submitted a K01 application to NIDDK for the Feb cycle date. What would be the expected window for the study section dates, anytime in May or June? Just wanted to get an idea of roughly when to expect any potential score and/or summary statement down the line? A second question, this is technically my last round of eligibility for the K01 given when I finished my PhD and started my first postdoc, however was advised to submit a petition for (if needed) being able to submit an A1 in Nov 2022. I was told that an email to the PO requesting such an extension was all that was necessary, and I was just curious as to your opinion on this and whether I should do anything additional? Thanks again.
writedit said
Cycle 1 reviews typically occur in the June-August range. Your eRA Commons should be updated with the review assignment and date soon. Regarding your eligibility, the NIDDK K01 COVID-19 extension (NOT-DK-20-054) covers you without any additional documentation needed: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-DK-20-054.html When you receive your summary statement later this summer, you can confirm with the PO that you can resubmit in November if needed without any special extension request needed. No need to ask now, since hopefully you will not need it.
lacquerhed said
Unfortunately given when my eligibility ends that notice does not cover me as it concludes in June 2022. That is why I was advised to write the petition. In terms of the study section it was updated on Commons as an NIDDK special emphasis panel ZDK1 SRC (99) – which I cant find too much online about. Thanks!
writedit said
You should communicate with your PO about the extension. Your panel will not be listed until 30 days prior to review – you can check this NIDDK SEP listing for when the review date for your application is posted in eRA Commons: https://public.era.nih.gov/pubroster/sepRoster.era?ABBR=ZDK1&CID=100547
NIH_K grant said
Thank you for the great information here!
I am the 1st year K25 awardee and am currently looking for a faculty position. I’ve already had several on-campus interviews and expect to get a position this year.
My question is that if I don’t use the money for research support, can I bring this to a new school where I start my position? If it is not possible, I am planning to purchase items here and send them to the new school. Also my K25 currently supports my salary, so I was wondering if I can use this for supporting RAs at the new school.
Thank you!
writedit said
Because K awards are made to the individual, you can take the award with you when you get a faculty position. I imagine you can carry funds over due to delays in the transition period, but you should talk with your PO as soon as possible. They need to know if you are going to transfer an award (takes weeks-months, not just a simple computer keystroke or two), and your PO will be able to give you good advice at this stage so you can plan accordingly. You will also need to identify a qualified mentor at your new institution and confirm they have all the required facilities and resources needed to complete your research as proposed. If not, the award may not be transferred – another reason to confer with your PO in advance, to be sure your IC is on board with your proposed institution change.
NEI-R01 said
Dear writedit, thank you for such a great resource! I recently received a score of 48 but a percentile of 25 for a resubmitted renewal application (R01). We were highly productive during our initial grant period. The funding institution is the NEI which does not publish paylines. Do you think we have a shot to be in contention for funding with a 25 percentile despite our high score? Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
writedit said
That is a high percentile for a renewal, even if this is the first renewal of your first ESI award, so your PO will likely advise submitting the A1. You will want to discuss the summary statement with the PO before submitting again, though, since you only get one more shot at the renewal.
K99 cycle 1 appl said
Hi, thanks for the nice place for information.
I am a K99 applicant from last cycle 1, and I am still waiting. And I see in previous comments that NOA (if there is) wouldn’t happen till May. At that time, cycle 2 has already been reviewed, probably so is cycle 3. My PO told me he can’t do anything now and has no information. I am wondering due to the delay of CR, do NIH usually consider applications in all cycles together, like rank the scores from all cycles? Or I am still compared to applications in cycle 1?
My IC made 26 awards in FY2021 (~20 awards for earlier years), and they made 5 for FY22 already. I happen to know one awardee in my IC in the same cycle has a score of 20, while I have 23…
If I am still compared with cycle 1 appliants, is it reasonable for me to remain high hopes for my application?
Thank you!
Anxious K99 applicant said
Hi, I am a K99 applicant from last cycle 2 and we are probably in different ICs. I got a score of 20 and haven’t heard anything back yet. My start date was set as April 2022. How about yours?
K99 cycle 2 said
What is your IC? If you don’t mind.
writedit said
Some ICs, such as NIAID, make all their K99 awards at once at the end of the year, but I see you note that your IC has already made new awards. I suspect at all ICs that have made K99 awards, the scores have been very low and destined for an award (eg, 10-15 or perhaps up to 20 in some ICs) and will expand their funding zone when they have their appropriation (ie, after the FY22 federal budget is signed into law instead of a CR) and all 3 cycles have been reviewed (so ICs know the total number at each score level). I think you should be okay with a 23, though you probably won’t know until your IC has their appropriation and can make a final playlist based on the number of competitive applications and how far down the paylist the K99 funding goes.
K99 cycle 1 appl said
Hi, thanks for the reply and information.
I have been keeping checking my era status every week. The status remain “council review completed” since last September. However, in the contact of administration, it only had SRO and PO, but this week, I see a new name of “Grants Management Specialist (GMS)”. Does this mean anything (good sign)?
writedit said
Should be a positive change, as one would need to be assigned for administrative processing. Again, this varies by IC, but since this is happening so long after Council, I assume it is an active vs passive change.
stressed_k99applicant said
Hi! You are definitely not alone. I’m also cycle 1 with impact score of 20 (NCI) and start date of Jan 2022, and I’m also waiting… JIT request from PO back in 2021 Nov and ERA commons still shows “pending”. I hope to have some positive news soon because we got an email in early Feb asking whether it’s OK to start the award in March. (Fingers crossed)
K08 applicant said
Good to hear. My K08 (NCI) also cycle 1 2021 (proposed start date 12/1) got a score of 20. PO said no need to worry back in September but told me unable to fund it because of CR in November. He suggested just in case to resubmit it which I did early this month. Not sure how soon will hear back on the first submission.
writedit said
You should see some action on your application in April or May. NCI could have been waiting for all 3 review cycles to complete, so they know the scores for all 3 rounds, and for their appropriation to arrive, which should happen at the end of April-beginning of May. If you need any regulatory approvals for JIT, you could probably get those going (if not already submitted).
K08 applicant said
Got an update from PO saying my K08 wont be funded despite an impact score of 20! what’s the heck? Not sure still worth pursuing…
writedit said
Wow – especially since the PO said no need to worry! POs almost never give advice that could raise false expectations. Your PO is likely as surprised as you. At least you submitted again, so hopefully your score will improve … though a payline of 14 is ridiculous (thank you for chiming in, What to do!). Of course, I do remember some past K paylines at 10 for certain activity codes at specific ICs (IC had 3 applications scored 10 and were only going to fund 2 (!!), but I think they managed to fund all 3). I would hope that if your A1 scores at 14 or lower, NCI would fund your A0 rather than make you wait until next year – especially since the FY23 federal budget will be a total circus with mid-term elections. Now, by this time, hopefully you have more publications and preliminary data, so you might be ready just to move to an R01, since I’m sure your tenure clock is ticking. New faculty are intimidated by going straight to an R01, but your score of 20 indicates you are a strong applicant, and unless you really need some additional mentored training, getting to your independent research program sooner is not a bad thing.
What to do said
Rumor is NCI K08’s Payline for 2022 is 14………Last year was 25..
K08 applicant said
update: Got an update email from PO saying there will be an adjustment on the payline as more funds are approved for K08 training program, so an impact score of 20 is now fundable…Still waiting for more confirmation.
writedit said
Phew – what a roller coaster ride! At least the news is positive this time, and I hope you have more good news. Unfortunately, you’ll just need to wait, but at last you can do so more hopefully.
K08 applicant said
Thanks. PD said it will be going through administrative review first. Also advise me to withdraw resubmission. Do you think any risk or should I withdraw it asap?
writedit said
Hmm. I believe the NIH itself withdraws the submitted application just before or simultaneous to when the Notice of Award is issued. It could be your PO wants to reduce reviewer burden (or avoid the potential situation of a higher/worse score), but no award is guaranteed until the NOA is issued, so I am a bit surprised. You can confirm with the GMS whether you need to do this preemptively or if they will automatically do this as part of the NOA preparation. You can decide based on the scheduled review date whether to withdraw the application before the NOA is issued (eg, if review is in June and your award is still being processed, you might want to withdraw before the panel meets to free up some discussion time).
K08 applicant said
Yeah, my resubmission is scheduled for review end of June. I will contact GMS to have more information. Thanks
SaG said
I vote no withdrawal until you get the NoA. And I agree with WE, it should be automatically withdrawn when the NoA is released.
K08 applicant said
Thank you both! The status has changed to pending admin review. I suppose it is a good sign. Based on your experience what could prevent a NOA at this stage?
writedit said
It means they are processing the application for an award. I think you would already be aware of any issues that might cause a problem (eg, duplicate funding), so if you can’t think of any potential concerns on their end, then you should not need to worry about anything. You don’t need to contact anyone at this point – the GMS will contact you if there are any questions. You can just wait for the NOA and let NIH withdraw your resubmission, since this will likely happen before the study section meets.
R01studysections said
I am submitting an R01 with a collaborator who is a standing member of my preferred study section. In that case I assume I can designate other preferred study sections, but when/how is it determined in some cases to send to a SEP? Thanks in advance for the feedback!
writedit said
If your collaborator is on the SRG panel to review your application, the SRO will send it to a member-conflict SEP, though if your collaborator sits out that cycle (ie, does not participate on the SRG as a reviewer when your application is under consideration), it could just go to the full SRG. You can include the referral request form in your application and list other possible SRGs, but if your collaborator’s SRG is the best one for the science, that is where it should go. You should be able to check the typical member-conflict SEP composition from recent past review cycles, to get an idea of the size and composition.
R01studysections said
Thank you that is helpful. Could you please clarify how “member-conflict SEP”? works? How do I find more information about that?
writedit said
I have a post on this, taken directly from an SRO, from 2008 that I assume holds true still: “At CSR, member conflicts generally occur if someone has a “significant” role on a project. If a member is participating as a consultant, this is considered to be an individual conflict rather than one for the entire study section. So, the member would be in CF and would leave the room during the review, but the study section could then review it. However, once involvement reaches a certain point, the study section itself is in conflict. If involvement exceeds 5% of effort (more than 0.6 calendar months), or if the member is described in the budget justification as participating in the preparation of manuscripts for publication or receiving other tangible benefit, then a line has been crossed and the study section itself is in conflict. At this point, the “member conflict application” is assigned to a member conflict review group or to another appropriate study section if there is one. These situations are evaluated on an individual basis. It is a question of both (1) tangible benefit, and (2) extent of involvement (e.g., would this be considered “this person’s research”). There is also the important matter of “perception” of conflict; this is always a matter of judgment by the SRO for the group doing the review. We are to avoid actual conflict of interest, as well as the perception of conflict.” The SRO picks reviewers for the member conflict SEP, though at one point, CSR was trying to bundle these so there were no longer SEPs reviewing only one or a few applications from a given SRG (due to expense of setting up so many small one-off panels). I am not sure how generalized the member-conflict SEPs are currently, but you could get an idea by skimming through these for the current review cycle (next cycle will be completely different) – if the panel seems to include a good assortment of disciplines, these SEPs are probably looking at conflicted applications from more than one SRG. And actually, some ICs (NCATS comes to mind) provide the full (very long) roster of possible SEP reviewers vs the actual panel members for a given meeting so applicants can’t figure out who might or did review their application.
kingdaddy2010 said
Dear writedit,
For budgeting and responding to a JIT request, what are the pros and cons of putting employees in Section A key personnel vs Section B? Is it better to have more in one vs the other? I can make cases for putting them in either, we have 6 total employees for this.
How many Key employees in a typical Phase I SBIR NIH grant?
writedit said
Since I work in academia, I am not experienced in SBIR administrative details and unfortunately cannot offer any advice. Your PO can probably give you some advice – or maybe SBIR folks visiting the blog can chime in.
Jim said
Dear all,
I recently applied for a K99/R00 through NIDCR. I have combed through the database here and there is not much information on fundable scores. Can anyone provide insight into this? Also looking at previous percentage of applications funded @ NIDCR it varies year by year quite a bit from 30-40% to 20%. What could be the reasons for this?
Thanks!
K99 said
I saw somebody on twitter got a k99 (2022 cycle 1 I believe) from nidcr with a score of 26. Hope this information helps.
Jim said
Hi K99 thanks a bunch that does help provide a ballpark range 🙂
Hi Writedit or anyone else that can provide insight – why does the percentage of applicants funded by K99/R00 vary quite a bit year to year? Ex: 30-40% vs 20%.
writedit said
The success rate (what you are citing here) varies depending on the size of both the appropriation and the competitive applicant pool for a given FY. If funding is lower and more applications are received, the success rate drops, even if the actual number funded stays level (though that would also drop if funding were lower). I am not sure what FY range you looked at, but about a decade ago, we were dealing with budget sequestration, and more recently, COVID-related award extensions, both of which negatively impacted the ability of ICs to make new awards (had to take care of existing awards first, then spend what was left).
cjb57 said
All-
ESI/NI and I’ve got an R01 with an impact score of 32/19%. NICHD is the primary assignment, NIAID is the secondary, application was submitted in response to a NICHD NOSI. I’ll revise and resubmit in July, but how much do NOSIs drive NICHD funding decisions? Last I’d talked to a NICHD PO they told me that COVID grants were sucking a lot of air out of the room for other projects, not sure whether this is still an issue.
writedit said
If you are NI, you definitely want to apply again, and probably also if ESI. The NIAID appointment is essentially irrelevant (secondary ICs rarely fund applications relinquished by the primary IC), especially if you responded to an NICHD NOSI. The NOSI indicates the IC’s priorities when making awards but does not necessarily mean there is money set aside for additional awards (though sometimes NOSIs do provide this – you need to check the NOSI language). Sometimes an IC will reach (above payline) to fund a NOSI because it is responsive to their priorities – and the NOSI just helps you be responsive, which is their intended purpose (to amplify current IC priorities, especially short-term and urgent areas of interest).
cjb57 said
Thank you for the feedback! Figured revise and resubmit was the correct answer and fortunately the grant in question is an A0. Is it worth asking the PO about an R56? Doesn’t look like NICHD funds many of them.
writedit said
Probably not. Most ICs use the R56 for applications that are closer to the payline (perhaps on the paylist but at the very bottom, with little likelihood of funding) and/or of high priority or sometimes to avoid an impending lab closure (firing staff, losing students) when an application just misses. The R56 decisions are typically not made until the end of the FY.
Peach said
Hey, just got the score of my R21 (AD/ADRD) to NIA (12%tile). If funded, this will be my first NIH grant ever. What should I expect next? Shall I do something when waiting for the summary statement (JIT?)? Thanks!
writedit said
Congratulations – there is nothing you can or need to do until you receive your summary statement. Once you have that, you will want to contact your PO about next steps, including when to submit JIT. You want to wait for a personal request, not the eRA Commons generated notice, but if you need to get any regulatory approval (IACUC, IRB), you could start that process now.
Peach said
Thank you! Then I will wait for another month.
Peach said
Just got the summary statement… and contacted the PO. PO requests response to reviewers. Will it just be used in the Council meeting? When preparing for it, should it be in a way different from that in A1 application because I am not supposed to revise the proposal? Thank you!
writedit said
This is not what you would use as an Introduction for an A1 application. What you write will not go to Council but will provide the PO with talking points if there are any questions about your application when the paylist is discussed. You are now within the interim payline, but if your PO asked for it, they must want to be sure they can respond to any points raised during internal discussions. You don’t need to thank reviewers or discuss what you would change in the application – you simply list each weakness cited in the Summary of Discussion (these weaknesses were discussed and agreed upon by the entire panel, and the SRO decided they needed to be mentioned in the Summary) and write a short explanation about anything that wasn’t clear or included in the application and/or of how you would address this weakness in your research plan (that is, how you would actually change the experiment or study, not how you would change the proposal). You want to be concise, but if you need to, you can go on to a second page (unlike the A1 Introduction).
Peach said
Thank you so much for the detailed instructions! That means I don’t need to respond to the three reviewers one by one, but rather just to those weaknesses highlighted in the summary of discussions?
The PO also mentioned “If you receive requests for JIT information, please do respond.” My interpretation is that she is talking about the personal request but I have not received it so far. When should I expect to receive such JIT request? From either the PO or the GMS?
Peach said
Sorry after posting my last reply I reviewed the summary statement and noticed that there is no weakness highlighted in the Summary of Discussion, though reviewers did raised some in their individual critiques. So I believe I will need to respond to reviewers one by one…
writedit said
Hmm. Seems odd that the SRO would not mention any weaknesses (or reduced enthusiasm) in the Summary paragraph, since your score wasn’t exceptional. They won’t separate out strengths and weaknesses in the Summary as they do for individual critiques. If there really is nothing mentioned as a concern/weakness in the Summary of Discussion paragraph, then you can address the individual concerns raised, again in terms of what you will change when you conduct the work (and keeping brief). You will receive the personal JIT request from the GMS (sometimes the PO, but more often the GMS) later in the spring, closer to the Council date in May (or after – each ICs handles their JIT differently).
Peach said
Thank you! What I can think of is that this is an A1. From the summary, the discussion seems focused more on how the weaknesses raised in A0 were addressed. Not sure if this could be a reason why individual concerns were not included in the summary…
new investigator said
This is an amazing resource that I’ve learned so much from. I have an R01 that was recently scored well within the payline. Council meets on it in mid May. I have two questions: If it gets on the paylist, when might the funding actually come through? And second, what happens if you move institutions between the time of the score and the time that it’s funded?
Thank you so much!!
writedit said
Congratulations! Your award would have a July 1 start date, though that might get pushed back, depending on the backlog caused by the lengthy continuing resolutions. Your R01 will be awarded to your current university. To move the award with you, you need to confirm both that your current university will relinquish the award (vs replace you as PI and keep the R01 – very unlikely) and that the NIH will approve your new institution as a site for the research as reviewed by the study section (eg, same facilities, equipment, research subject infrastructure, etc.). Some of the award will likely stay behind as a subcontract to fund collaborators at your current institution, especially if they were integral in the review. You want to talk with your PO ASAP if you plan to move in the next few months – they need a long lead time to make the transfer happen, including time to confirm that changes in environment will not alter the ability to achieve the aims as reviewed. If your new institution has a much higher F&A rate, you may need to do some rebudgeting to accommodate their higher costs (by lowering your direct costs). Moving itself will not jeopardize the award (your competitive score means the science is of interest to the IC), but waiting to tell the PO will delay when you will actually get it at your new institution. Talk with them now.
ESI said
Hi. Does the impact score of 49 for NIBIB Trailblazer R21 stand any chance to be funded? There is no percentile available on eRA.
writedit said
That seems pretty high, but you when you receive your summary statement, reach out to your PO for input on next steps.
Fei said
It has been a pain to wait for the government to sign the 2022 bill. I am wondering if the government will raise/cut the budget to NIA. If the bill was signed on March 11, how likely the interim payline will move up for NIA.
writedit said
The current spending bill will not cut any of the NIH’s budget, so the payline should be raised about 2-3 months after the FY22 omnibus spending bill is signed into law. It takes 6-8 weeks before each IC knows their final appropriation (they know what they asked for, but a little gets skimmed off by HHS and NIH along the way), and then it will take however long it takes for each IC to set paylines (if they typically do publish a payline, that is).
kate M said
My impact score for A1 (NIDDK-K99) was 30..I got pretty disappointed but my friend told me he saw someone who got 30 but funded. Is 30 a fundable score for k99? I know it totally depends but is there any chance for funding?
writedit said
Possibly on the bubble, not out of the question. After you get your summary statement, you can check in with your PO about next steps, including whether you should plan to submit again (if you are still eligible). If you’re close, they may want a brief rebuttal.
K99 A1 said
Thanks! I contacted my PO with my summary statement (k99, A1) to see what would be the next steps and she said we can talk if I addressed the concerns raised by the reviewers. Does it mean I need to submit the rebuttal? Or is it just a general next step and they don’t have any decision yet since the budget hasn’t been signed into law? Thanks.
writedit said
Your PO probably wants to hear how you would address the concerns, and if your response is compelling, then she’ll want a brief written rebuttal to use at internal meetings to advocate for your application. If you need more data or publications or need to better convey the significance of the work, then that probably needs to go back for peer review, whereas minor adjustments in your approach or training plan can probably be accepted post-review.
R15 NCI pay line said
Dear Writedit:
My R15 application (A0 submitted in Oct 2021) was assigned to NCI and NIBIB (secondary). Today I got my impact score 23, no percentile. Is this a fundable score? In my PHS, I requested to be assigned to NIBIB, but it got assigned NCI. I heard NCI has more difficult pay line. Can you please share some thoughts about my funding likelihood? THANKS!
writedit said
NCI has tough R21 and R01 pay lines, but the R15 is a little better – last year it was at 25. CSR contacts ICs about accepting applications. It could be NIBIB did not want to be primary, or it could be that NCI asked to be primary rather than secondary. Either way, the secondary assignment is essentially meaningless, since secondary ICs rarely pick up these applications. If you worked with a PO at NIBIB before submitting your application, you could ask them what happened, since I assume the PO would have told you if your application was better suited for NCI. If this application does not score well enough for funding, you will want to work with the NCI PO on improving the proposal and targeting NCI priorities.
R15 NCI pay line said
Dear Writedit,
Thanks a lot for your prompt reply. Is 23 a fundable score for NCI R15? This is my first NIH application and I have no clue about how NIH works. Should I contact PO right now or wait for summary statement?
writedit said
You need to wait for your summary statement – your PO cannot give any feedback until you have your summary statement since they need to see the concerns raised before suggesting next steps. You are within the FY21 payline for R15 applications (25), so you can be cautiously optimistic in the meantime. Assuming the payline stays the same and there are no administrative issues, your application won’t be processed for an award until after Council meets, and the delay in passing the FY22 federal budget could make you a little late for a July 1 start. If you need any regulatory approvals, such as IRB or IACUC approval of a protocol, you want to start that process now. If not, the PO or GMS (grants management specialist) will send you a request for your Just in Time (JIT) information – mainly to confirm all regulatory approvals and certifications are in place, no additional funding has been received for the project since you applied, and nothing in the budget or key personnel has changed.
YY said
On NCI’s division of Extramural activities website:
Small (R03) and AREA (R15) grant applications with scores up to and including 25 will likely be funded with no policy reductions. Applications with higher scores may be individually selected for funding depending on the availability of funds. You should be good.
RT said
Dear Writedit, my A1 R01 (<500k, established I) landed in the 12% (assigned to NIA)… do you think the current pay line might improve once NIH/NIA have a budget? Just trying to gauge whether there might be a slim hope of it getting funded… any insight would be appreciated!! Thanks.
writedit said
If this is not AD/ADRD, then your PO would probably need to advocate for select pay, since the FY21 payline was 10th percentile, though it possibly could go up to the 12th in FY22 based on years prior to FY22, depending on the level of extra AD funding and numbers of competitively scored applications. Your PO would know better later this spring, about 6-8 weeks after the FY22 federal budget is signed into law (hopefully later this week …). You can contact the PO after you receive your summary statement for next steps, which could include a rebuttal for internal use (to justify select pay, if needed) and will likely include a recommendation to submit a new FY23 A0 in June for insurance (since select pay won’t be sorted out until August or September, and the final FY22 payline may not be known until May, so you would at least want to have something ready).
RT said
Thank you, Writedit!! Appreciate your insight!!
t_swiss_t said
Hi, thanks for this nice resource and keeping up with the comments. I submitted a K08 to the NCI and received an impact score of 20. I didn’t see any K info for the NCI in your post but was wondering if you had any insight about if a score like this is fundable. Thank you again.
writedit said
NCI doesn’t post a career development payline, but I think you can feel hopeful about a 20. When you receive your summary statement, you’ll want to contact your PO about next steps and probably be prepared to provide a brief written response to the concerns raised in the Summary of Discussion.
t_swiss_t said
Thanks very much, that’s good to hear and appreciate your guidance on the next steps!
GJs said
Update and very minor question:
I wrote here last summer about a potential appeal for an A1 where one reviewer tanked the app based on misreading a method (despite definitive bolded, underlined statement in app) that scored 32%. The resubmitted A0 scored 2%.
Question is: does my IACUC protocol title need to match the title of the grant? That was necessary at NSF, this is my first big award from NIH. My POs are both out of town/on leave.
writedit said
Congratulations on the exceptional score (underscoring your concern about the prior review)! The NIH cares about the IACUC approval number and date and should not be concerned about the protocol title. You can confirm with the GMS, too, or your own institutional grants officer, who helps with lots of JIT submissions from your institution.
doggeroo said
My student submitted an A1 F31 to NINDS that scored at 27%.The A0 was not discussed. Any insight into the fundability of this score? Seems on the high side but its a good jump from not scored. Will that be taken into consideration? Thanks for any insight!
writedit said
The jump from ND to 27th percentile is great, and Fs can go pretty high in score-percentile, given how small the awards are. When the summary statement is available, you and your student should talk with the PO about next steps, having discussed in advance how you would respond to concerns raised in the Summary of Discussion paragraph. If the panel concerns are pretty straightforward, your PO has a better chance advocating for funding (if the application is not already within their usual threshold).
klgequine said
Asking for a friend: My colleague received a 20 impact score on an A1 R21 at NIAAA. The PO said funding was dependent upon the available budget and number of meritorious applications in a Pay Plan cycle. Does the recently passed congressional budget help the individual IC budgets and is there hope that this would get funded soon?
writedit said
If the FY22 federal budget is signed into law by Friday, then you need to add about 8 weeks before NIAAA will know what their final appropriation is (it takes that long after passage to arrive at ICs), and probably a couple more weeks before the extramural program has sorted out the number of competitively scored applications over the 3 submission cycles. If your friend was just reviewed, the start date would be around July 1. If your friend is within the payline, an award should be made in July – but it sounds like from the PO response that your friend is probably in the grey zone (not surprising, since R21 applications are more competitive than R01s), which means neither NIAAA nor your friend will likely know about funding until the end of the FY, in August or September. Your friend might want to ask the PO if they should plan to submit a new application in June for insurance.
NIA K said
I have a K application which scores 30 (NIA ADRD). Is it possible that too many K award candidate got score lower than 28, so they set interim payline to be 28. If that is the case, NIA may not rise the payline even they got more funds.
writedit said
I think the ADRD payline will increase, though you are correct that a high number of very competitively scored applications could limit payline increases. Now that the FY22 budget has been signed into law, NIA should be able to gauge final paylines in about 2 months. If you haven’t asked your PO if you should plan to submit again, it would be good to ask now to ensure you have time to get ready for the June-July submission dates (even just for insurance, if there is any chance paylines will not get back to 30).
Tuhina said
Hi Writedit,
My R15 application to NIGMS was approved by council for funding on 02/03/2022. I was asked revised JIT on 11th Feb. Since then there has been no change in the status. It shows as “pending”. How long does it take to get notice of award. i am kind of getting anxious whether everything is fine. I am hesitating to contact my PO and not sure should I wait more. Thank you so much for maintaining this wonderful resource.
writedit said
No to worry. Pending can last months (and months). Your PO will not know when your application will come up for administrative review and award processing (PO not in that loop), and the GMS will be incredibly busy in the months ahead dealing with the backlog of applications delayed by the continuous continuing resolutions (finally resolved into FY22 budget). Your start date will likely be after April 1, but that’s okay – it’s not an expiration date. NIGMS will contact you if they need any additional information. No news, is good news (except for the waiting).
Chimburi said
Any thoughts on NCI payline going back to 11%? My R01 got scored at 11% last July and since then I have been waiting for the payline for FY22 to be released. I found NCI’s proposed fyFY22 budget on their website chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cancer.gov%2Fabout-nci%2Fbudget%2Fcongressional-justification%2Ffy2022-nci-congressional-justification.pdf&clen=1453422&chunk=true and it seems that they have proposed a funding payline of 10% which will be worse than FY21. I am really bummed out. Any thoughts?
Sirius said
This is the congressional justification based on the president’s budget request in early 2021. The real appropriation passed by congress a few days ago is better than that. 6.9 billion (including 194 million moonshot) VS 6.73 billion (including 194 million moonshot) I believe. So maybe the payline will at least hold on to the 11%.
Waiting too said
Do you mean ICs know their appropriation, and they know they will have more money? I am a little confused, I read previous comments, it seems they will only know this 6-8 weeks later after the president signs the bill.
During these 6-8 weeks, are IC still operated under CR (same amount of money as last year in the same period if I understand correctly)?Will ICs start to make some more new awards during these 6-8 weeks?
Sirius said
I think they now roughly know how much they will get (like written in the appropriation bill, NCI will get a total of 6.9 B). But HHS and NIH will take some money so it will take about 6 weeks or so for each IC to get their actual amount.
writedit said
I see Sirius gave you the lowdown on ICs needing to wait 6-8 weeks before they get their final appropriation – and at that point, they’ll know most of the application scores for FY22 as well, which will allow them to set a final payline. NCI is committed to raising the R01 payline, so I would not expect it to go below the 11th percentile, and hopefully they will reach the 12th percentile this year. I assume you asked your PO in the meantime whether you should submit again (even just for insurance). If not, you could check in to ask whether you should sit tight or plan an A1 for July (assuming the 11th percentile was an A0). If your PO says to sit tight, you can be cautiously optimistic about an award this spring.
Waiting too said
Writedit and Sirius thanks for your information, which helped me understand the process much more. It sounds like NIH would probably not make new awards in the meantime. My PO did not imply my possibility of being funded, I will just wait for 1-2 months to see how it goes.
HMC said
I have a similar question for the NIA budget; their 2021 final payline (non-ADRD) was 10% but the 2022 interim is 8%. Very anxious about what their 2022 final payline will be, as mine is right in the gray zone. Any thoughts? Thank you.
writedit said
I would expect all final FY21 paylines to continue into FY22, though an increase in the number of competitively scored applications in FY22 could impact paylines (would need to be a pretty significant shift though). If you did not ask your PO whether you should submit again (even just for insurance), that response might help to set your mind at ease – and alert you whether to start getting an application ready for June-July, in case it is needed (FY22 payline probably won’t be updated until at least May).
Chimburi said
Thanks. My PO in Feb said that he thinks that there is a 5% chance of it getting funded which was a shocker since as you said I thought the paylines were going up but not down. He said there were too many applications that got a great score this year. I had missed the Feb submission deadline (this will be submitted as A0) when I spoke to him and do plan to resubmit in June. I am still hopeful since the NCI funding has improved and keeping my fingers crossed.
writedit said
Wow – that is surprising, since it takes a lot of competitively scored applications to push down the payline, but apparently that is the case at NIA this year. Some ICs may still be offsetting the extensions to awards given during the pandemic, including with Omicron in FY22, so that could be another factor as well (ie, ICs may have to set aside some of the funding for new/renewal applications to cover extra time for current awardees that hadn’t been budgeted). Thanks so much for sharing this intel.
Fei said
Dear Writedit,
I read through the comments, in your reply to Chimburi, how do you know NIA takes a lot of competitively scored applications to push down the payline (I think Chimburi is talking about NCI)? How about K award payline in NIA?
writedit said
Aha – thanks! You are correct on my getting the IC wrong for Chimburi (thread started off about NIA, I forgot Chimburi was focused on NCI). CSR and ICs try to keep review panels calibrated to spread scores so that there is not an unusual increase in low-scoring applications in a given FY that could affect paylines. K applicatiions are reviewed within the IC (not CSR), so I think ICs do a better job ensuring that scores are spread so that there are not significant swings in paylines. That said, the need to support K awardees longer due to the pandemic interfering with the ability to complete training and research has affected some F and K paylines (since ICs had not budgeted for extra time on noncompeting awards). I think this will be less significant in FY22 vs FY20 or FY21 (ie, perhaps an extra month or two vs a year), and while each IC will be different, I would still hope NIA will get back to the 30 for ADRD Ks. Your PO will definitely be a better source of intel.
HMC said
Thank you, Writedit.
Sirius said
POs are usually very conserved when talking about funding probability. I certainly hope NCI is on track to achieve its 15 by 25 goal. Maybe they will publish their final payline on April, if you follow NCI Botton line blog, they updated their payline for FY2021 about 3 weeks (1.14.2021) after the president signed FY2021 appropriation act (12.27.2020).
WIS said
Dear writedit, how long will an application stay active on eRA common since it is submitted to the NIH? Any possibility for a scored application that went to Council meeting in Feb 2021 still gets funded in FY22?
writedit said
Any active application in theory can be funded, but in reality, this (almost) never happens, so do not pin any hopes on your FY21 application being considered for funding now. The NIH automatically withdraws application ~20 months after submission (if not sooner – eg, after 3 Council cycles without funding, which in your case, could be pretty soon).
WIS said
Thanks for the quick reply. I (re)submitted the application as A0 last month and it will be reviewed in mid June. Will keep you posted.
R15 Eligibility said
Dear Writedit,
This is a wonderful resource! Thanks for doing these!
My R15 application recently scored within NCI payline and PO was very positive about the application. She asked me to wait until the Council meeting which will be in May 2022. I requested the starting date to be Aug 2022.
However, I am currently having an NIBIB R03 award in no-cost extension to Nov 2022. Will this be a problem? I heard people said the R03 can be terminated once I received the R15 award. How will that happen across different ICs? Should I request to terminate my R03 award at some point or NIH will take care of this?
The RFP of R15 states:
“The PI may not be the PI of an active NIH research grant at the time of a R15 award, though he or she may be one of the Key Personnel for an active NIH grant held by another PD/PI.”
Thanks.
SaG said
Your school can terminate the R03 grant whenever they want to. But, any unspent money would be lost. So, this shouldn’t be a problem.
writedit said
This will be addressed as part of JIT, at which point (following administrative review) the R03 will be terminated so the R15 award can be made, and the clock will start for your R03 final RPPR submission. If you have funds left, you will want to spend those down before July-August; if you have any concerns about doing so, you can talk with your NIBIB PO.
lacquerhed said
I recently applied for a K01 and have a potential A1 in Nov if I need it. I was curious on your thoughts about also sometime this year applying for an R21, since Ive read that it can disqualify an individual from receiving a K award. Was not sure of the details though, like if that still applies if the topic of the grant is entirely different etc. Thanks!
writedit said
The problem with the R21 is not the science but the NIH policy that prevents mentored K awardees from serving as PI on concurrent awards from federal sponsors or on awards >$100K from non-federal sponsors: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-18-157.html You could serve as PI for an R21 or R01 award in the final 2 years of your K01 award period, but not at the outset. You can talk with your K PO about this if you need further clarification on the policy or the timing of awards. If you are ready to apply for research project grants, though, you might want to skip the K01 and get right into R01 applications.
P said
Hi R21 scored 28 in 12 percentile at NIDA. Any thoughts on my chances? Don’t have summary statements yet.
Thanks
writedit said
Seems a little high for an R21, which are typically more competitive than R01s, but you should check with your PO about next steps after you get your summary statement.
P said
Thats my concern too! My PO hasn’t mentioned anything about a resubmission with that score. Anyone have any experience getting an R21 funded with that score/percentile? They are definitely more competitive than R01s but NIDA doesn’t publish their paylines. I am wondering if it is in the range of what they would reach for.
writedit said
Your PO won’t give any advice one way or another until the summary statement is available. They need to see if reviewers had major concerns with the significance (premise, rigor) and/or approach of the science or a series of readily addressable mild-moderate concerns that added up. Once you have your summary statement, you can ask about resubmission (and be prepared to write a rebuttal). Although R21s are more competitive, they can be easier to award as select pay due to the smaller budget and short duration. And NIDA might go up to the 12th percentile or higher (all behind the curtain).
envr5890 said
Hi Writedit,
I am an an MD/PhD student and I applied for an F30 at NIA (ADRD). The score was 37. I also know the interim F payline for ADRD is currently 28. I have noticed the F payline for ADRD has been 40 the last 2 years and that the new funding for NIA was signed into law recently with a 289 million dollar increase. I am wondering what is the possibility of funding? I am waiting for summary statement before contacting PO.
Thanks!
nia k99 said
We are all waiting to figure this out. I have received a score of 29 for my NIA K99 (ADRD). The hope is that the payline doesn’t stay at 28 with the new omnibus bill. I saw that NIA posted their interim payline on Dec. 16, about 10 days after the continuing resolution was signed into law last December.
Writedit suggested it generally takes 6-8 weeks after president signs the bill. Are we waiting another 6-8 weeks or ~1-2 weeks now?
Fei said
in the same boat here. NIA K25 score 30. I emailed PO three weeks before, and shot her another email last week about resubmission. No response!
writedit said
Your PO can’t respond until May, probably – NIA won’t have their appropriation before then.
writedit said
6-8 weeks after the President signed the bill into law. Goes first to HHS, then to NIH, then to each IC. Each step takes a couple weeks and skims off some $ along the way – not at all like direct deposit!
nia k99 said
Thanks writedit! So it sounds like the omnibus spending bill works differently than a CR? It took only ~12 days for NIA to post their interim payline after CR last December, but I guess they could be planning to post the interim payline regardless of the CR.
SaG said
A CR only gives as much money as they got last year. So, it is a very conservative payline. Now that they know how much money they will get with a full budget they can increase it. But, it will take 6weeks+ for NIA to actually get the money and be able to pay grants.
confusing too said
It sounds like duing CR, they have the same amount of money as they had last year during the same period. So they can make some awards although less than normal.
But NIA’s money stops at the end of the last CR. So, they don’t have money to make any awards now until maybe ~6-8 weeks.
Is it correct? Thanks
writedit said
They’ll continue at the FY21 levels until the final appropriation arrives, at which point they will have more money to spend by Sept 30 than they do now.
writedit said
You are correct to wait for your summary statement to contact the PO about next steps. You might want to wait until early May, at which point your PO should have an idea about the payline (NIA should receive its appropriation 6-8 weeks after FY22 budget was signed into law). I would say chances are good that the NIA payline will go back to 40 as in years past, but your PO may not know this for sure until the May Advisory Council.
sinh said
Hi everyone,
I am trying to decide whether I should apply as Co-PI on a multi-PI grant even though I still have my ESI status for another 2 years. I understand if the multi-PI grant gets funded then I would lose my ESI status. However given how hard it is for R01 grants to get funded in general, wouldn’t it make sense in certain situations to give up my ESI status to just get a R01 level grant under my belt? I guess I’m having a hard time weighing 1) securing half an R01 grant vs 2) the payline boost on R01 grants I’m submitting over the next 2 years. I’m wondering if there are other factors I should be considering while making this decision.
Thanks.
SaG said
I think they key question is will an mPI R01 count towards tenure at your school? If your school insists on a Sole PI R01 to get tenure then wait. You could be a key personnel on the other R01, do the work get some money, and not lose your ESI status. Have a talk with your Chair.
writedit said
SaG gives good advice on asking your chair about MPI status with regard to tenure. Here at BICO, MPI is as good as sole PI for the SOM P&T committee. You didn’t mention the IC, which could make a difference, too, since some are more generous to ESI (and to first renewal of an ESI R01). If you have a relationship with a PO already at your IC, you might ask them for advice. You could get salary support as key personnel vs MPI and save your ESI status for a sole PI R01. If you plan to start your own independent research program (not in collaboration with others), this would be the way to go. Don’t forget, too, to check if you can get any type of extension on ESI due to COVID. Finally, if you are still ESI, you are still within your tenure clock and probably have time to consider a future MPI application with an established PI before your tenure clock runs out.
heleaid said
Hi Writedit,
Thank you very much for providing very useful information. I recently received impact score (32, 17 percentile) for my R03 application in NICHD. What do you think of my chance for getting funded?
Thank you.
Heleaid
writedit said
That is probably a bit high even for an R03 (small budget so more leniency on payline usually), but you should check with your PO about next steps after you receive your summary statement.
Pbz said
R21 – NIDCD – 19 impact score. What are chances of getting funded?
writedit said
If you only got the impact score, this seems likely to be at least on the bubble, but your PO will have the best advice, once you have your summary statement. If this is for an RFA or other special solicitation, then NIDCD priorities will play a factor, too.
GetNIHTheirBudget said
I received a possibly fundable R01 score in November (10 percentile) and council review was early February. I contacted the PO in December after receiving my summary statement and they indicated they did not recommend I work on a resubmission. My status has said “council review completed” for over a month. It seems that with the delay in the budget approval, I may not hear anything until May? (The proposed start date is April 1.) I assume many are in a similar situation, so there is probably no need to reach out to the PO during this time?
writedit said
You will probably hear sooner than that, depending on your IC (eg, not for NCI). The April 1 start date is not an expiration date, and now that ICs know they won’t be continuing on FY21 levels through the end of the year, they should start processing more awards within the payline. You can trust your PO – they are super conservative and would never recommend not to resubmit unless they were cautiously optimistic that you would receive an award. You don’t need to reach out to your PO, who won’t know about the timing of your application being processed (PO is out of that loop).
GetNIHTheirBudget said
Thank you writedit!
For anyone else reading this in a similar situation, in case helpful, I am still (mostly patiently) waiting for news. I have not received a personalized JIT, only the automated one, or anything else so far.
Mine was not for NCI, no.
Anxiously Awaiting said
We recently received a 24 impact score on a NCI U01. As a RFA, there is no percentile so wondering if you have any general guidance on the likelihood of funding for U01s. Also, we are both ESI but not sure if that matters for grants that aren’t given a percentile. We do not have our summary statement so haven’t contacted the PD yet. Thanks!
writedit said
You are correct that RFAs allow ICs to pick applications to award based on the science as much as the score, but that is a solid score (and without the percentile, you don’t know if that is the best score or in the middle of the pack), and they will definitely take your ESI status into consideration, albeit without a specific “payline break”. NCI would love to be able to include ESI awardees among its RFA recipients. You are also correct that you will need to wait for your summary statement to contact the PO on next steps (rebuttal, consider submitting as new R01/U01, etc.), but I think you can feel positive in the meantime.
K_Grant said
Hi Writedit,
I have K01 and am planning to apply for faculty positions next cycle. Just wondering that if I keep 75% effort on the K01 at a new institute, is there any restriction for teaching (the number of courses for teaching)? I think I need to at least teach one course per semester due to the school policy.
Thank you!
writedit said
The issue is more related to percent effort than number of courses or credit hours involved. One course should not be a problem, but your PO will not want to see you taking on a heavy teaching load, though – and of course your PO needs to approve any change in institution, so as soon as you think you might be moving, start talking with the PO about transferring the award.
MF said
Hi all,
I’m a postdoc and applied for my first K99 with NIGMS. I applied February 2021 (so over 1 year ago at this point). Got scored with 44… which I know is like basically non-fundable (but I did see a chart where there were a handful of K99s funded in the 40s)
Anyways, my status has been “council review completed” since 9-10-2021. I noticed on Reporter that they did give a few awards for my application cycle, but it doesn’t seem like a normal amount of awards. Probably gave out awards for the best applications, and they’re waiting until funding confirmation to send out the awards for the rest of the applicants.
(1) I’m very surprised that they haven’t notified me that my application was rejected or not under consideration anymore….
(2) so do I have any chance here? I applied a bit early into my post-doc because I have a very unique finding, but haven’t written the paper yet. So I am wondering if I might be in that category of
high-score, but really cool research so we’ll fund the application if we have enough money left over.”
Any thoughts?
SaG said
NIH almost never tells PIs that they are not getting funded. So don’t wait for that. Given your score i think the chances are low. But, as always, talk to your PO they can advice about resubmitting your app.
writedit said
As SaG notes, you will only find out that your application will not be funded if you ask your PO, and that it is unlikely you will receive an award. There is no automated process for notifying PIs, though applications are withdrawn after 3 Council meetings have passed (~20 months) without an award. I hope by now you have applied again and will soon publish your unique finding, which probably what it will take to receive a fundable score. Grant application reviewers cannot evaluate the data the way journal reviewers can and need to know that their peers have confirmed the rigor and reliability of your finding.
k99 appl said
Hi,
FYI, my A0 of NIGMS K99 was in the 40s, and my PO told me it was not going to be funded with my score. We discussed resubmission (I suggest you do so, too). It still shows as “council review completed” in era commons.
However, my A1 is in the same cycle as yours, I submitted in March 2021. It was scored in 20s. Era commons remained “council review completed” also since 9/10/2021 until 3/17/2022, it just changed to “pending”. I am very nervous, does this mean I would be funded? Should I contact the PO or should I wait for them to contact me?
writedit said
The pending status means they are processing your application for a possible award (no guarantees until after the administrative review). If you have not submitted JIT yet, you should expect to receive a request to do so soon. Your PO is not involved in the administrative review, so they won’t be able to tell you about timing, and they are not involved in the final decision about funding (IC Director makes that decision).
k99 appl said
To update my case, my PO contacted me and told me that my application has been recommended for funding, and that official notice will come after a few weeks of administrative review! My original proposed start date was Dec, it has been delay for so long. But finally, my first grant is coming!
This forum is so helpful to me during the past year of waiting! Thanks!
writedit said
Woohoo! Final congratulations when the NoA arrives, but this is fantastic news – very happy for you.
living in hope.. said
NIA just updated pay lines and for R01 (<500k, established I) its now 10%. Do you think this might improve again later in the year? in previous years… it looks like pay lines relax a few times over the year..
CHM said
This is great, where did you get this update on NIA pay line?
Fei said
It is on their website. Just checked. Everything back to the 2021 level.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/grants-funding/nia-interim-funding-line-policy-fy-2022
CHM said
this is great, thank you.
writedit said
Any subsequent change will wait until all 3 cycles of applications have been reviewed and they have their final appropriation, so they have an idea of how far their funding will go. The paylines could stay where they are (as final paylines), but if they are lowered later in the spring, it probably won’t be by much.
NCI K99 said
So NIA increased their payline to the FY2021 level less than a week after the president signed the 2022 appropriation. This is fast!
cassm said
Hi Writedit,
I have a question about the study section assignment. My RO1 resubmission was assigned to the original study section. Then it got re-assigned to a study section which is newly established with several regular members and does not have reviewers with expertise to review my application. Who is the best person to talk to for re-assigning my application to the original study section again?
Thanks!
writedit said
I suspect the IRG Chief looked at your application and made the decision, especially if both SRGs are in the same IRG. If that is the case (all same IRG), I would suggest you contact the IRG Chief and the SRO for each SRG and provide objective rationale for your SRG preference (original assignment). You’ll need to show, without naming names, why the expertise is on the original panel but not the reassigned panel – especially if there is a scientific rationale related to the renewal status to stay with the first SRG. The reassignment could have been due to an imbalance in the number of applications between groups and/or an intentional effort to shift this science to the new SRG. CSR is continually adjusting SRGs and reorganizing panels as part of their ENQUIRE initiative, so you probably want to be sure your SRG is not among those already evaluated: https://public.csr.nih.gov/StudySections/CSREnquire
Kelly L said
A1 NIAID R01 for an established investigator scored 14%, which is also the final payline for the past 3 years. Interim is 10% currently. Any ideas when final payline likely to be set for 2022?
SaG said
Should be anytime. Signup for their email alerts. It comes out when the webpage is updated.
New PI said
I just got a personalized JIT request from my PO for my R01. Council meets in mid may on it. I’m still in the process of getting IRB approval, which I did not initiate until I got my score a few weeks ago. Will it be problematic if I don’t have IRB approval yet?
SaG said
Nope. But, you wont be able to do any human subjects work until the approved IRB is submitted to NIH and accepted. They will put a restriction in your notice of award.
Fei NIA said
The score of my K application (score 30) is within the newly published interim payline for NIA ADRD. When I ask if I still need to prepare new submission in June, my PO seams to be uncertain about whether my application can be funded, and gave no suggestions about whether to prepare or not to prepare the new submission. Do we need to wait until May council to get some confirmative decisions? Or they can make funding decision before the May council meeting?
nia k99 said
Same waiting here (score 29). My PO never replied though. What does your PO say exactly? I just prepared a resubmission in March regardless. I hope we don’t have to wait until May, because I think our cases have been already discussed in the January council meeting?
Fei NIA said
PO said nothing. She said no one can be sure about the funding until you get NOA. I believe there is nothing meaningful in her response.
nia k99 said
Thank you. That’s probably the right thing she should do. She could have been more informative and tell you if your grant is going to be recommended for funding though.
writedit said
For both Fei NIA and nia K99, I think the PO is just being very conservative, though it doesn’t make a lot of sense with scores within the payline. But – POs cannot predict black swan events, so no matter how unlikely it is that any issues will be uncovered during the administrative review, they never guarantee funding until the NoA is prepared (and apparently this one doesn’t even want to be cautiously optimistic). Your applications won’t go to Council again, but since NIA won’t have its appropriation in hand until later in April, award processing will be slow for the next few months as they catch up on their backlog of applications to process. If you have a significant reason to know about award timing sooner (eg, job loss due to end of postdoc funding), you can ask the GMS (PO is not involved in processing and won’t know timing) whether you are within 90 days of award, in case your institution is willing to set up an account for prespending in advance of award.
nia k99 said
Thank you!
NCI F30 said
Hi all, as someone who’s very new to this process, this thread has been a godsend. Many thanks to the community and especially writedit for their notes.
I resubmitted an F30 to the NCI last April and scored at the 17th percentile. As I understand it, this is a fundable score below where the payline typically sits. During the final continuing resolution, a PO indicated that the fellowship is not likely to be funded given the restrictive funding environment. However, now that the FY2022 budget passed last week, I’m wondering if the payline may relax to its historical level (another user commented a year ago that the NCI F30 payline then was between the 25th and 28th percentile).
The PO recommended preparing a new application for August (FY2023), but I’m wondering how necessary this will ultimately be. I imagine that the payline will eventually rise again either this fiscal year or next (unless F applications are only considered for their particular fiscal year before expiring?). Thanks for in advance for any feedback you might have!
SaG said
My guess is that they are saying, “better safe than sorry.” They can not guarantee funding so you should start preparing to resubmit. Better that than miss an application cycle. Of course if you can miss an app cycle then wait.
writedit said
As SaG notes, your PO was being safe and protecting you from missing a cycle. However, you should know the outcome of your application before August – hopefully by late April or May! – so the recommendation could be moot. If you have heard nothing by June, you probably want to check in for another update on whether the August submission is likely to be needed.
NCI F30 said
Thanks so much to you both! Then am I correct in understanding that the application will eventually “expire?” In other words, the fact that it received a historically fundable score won’t matter once a new fiscal year starts as it won’t be considered then? I’d imagined, perhaps with naive optimism, that it would remain in a pool of fundable applications until the payline relaxes.
writedit said
Correct. It is not impossible for an application from a prior FY to receive an award, as long as it is administratively active, but this occurrence is vanishingly rare.
ESIQuer said
My ESI R35 from NIGMS got score 30, is it a good score? How possible I can be funded? Thanks a lot!
Anonymous user said
In the previous cycle, I got funded NIGMS R35 MIRA. I can tell you that your score is much better than mine.
Magic 8-Ball says.... said
“Cautiously Optimistic” https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10f1MDXXW57r5pYxwqTnAKM_NRY_SmvC0s0b3joyO_Zo/edit#gid=967453091
ESIQuer said
Thanks for the information. I got the JIT request from Division of Management, Business Policy and Operations but not from PO, confused……Is it a good sign?
writedit said
This would be the GMS/GMO (grants management specialist/officer), who is as important as the PO at this phase.
still_waiting said
I moved institutions after my K99 had undergone council review. We did all the paperwork to transfer to new university but GMS seemed unhappy that I moved (“we don’t usually do this”). Now commons status shows the new university but it’s been stuck at “Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.” since 3/15. Should I be worried? I assume that I would be a pest if I email GMS or PO to inquire? Also because I have no legitimate reason that I need this fast except for being anxious that the transfer is going to fall through…
writedit said
Your GMS is probably correct, that ICs don’t typically let a K99 be moved (since it was reviewed as part of the mentor’s program at the original applicant institution), but this is not impossible. Award prepared means it is out of the GMS’s hands (their work is done) and awaiting the IC Director to sign off on the NoA. Neither your GMS nor your PO can give any insight on this process, so there is no need to contact them, and the delay is not too unusual. While usually applications flip from “Award prepared” to “Notice of award issued” quickly, sometimes applications get stuck at “Award prepared” for a week or two due to the Director’s schedule and commitments. You shouldn’t assume anything bad.
camapleleaf said
I received score 37 for NIBIB trailblazer application, there is no percentile in eRA. Is there any chance? Do you know what the normal payline is for the trailblazer?
FormerF31 said
When I spoke to PO’s about this mechanism in the past, they indicated that this mechanism is highly competitive with low funding rates. I have friends who scored similarly and ended up not being funded. There is no payline. I would suggest talking to the PO and see if they are excited. If they are not excited, then you are facing a massively uphill battle.
writedit said
Thank you, FormerF31! This is excellent intel and advice. I have no information about this program or its funding history, so I (& camapleleaf) appreciate your sharing what you know.
camapleleaf said
Thank you both for your reply! I have contacted the PO and will see what she suggests.
Fish said
I have one question about effort for K02 award. Does the 75% effort is for K02, or it includes efforts from all the grants?
The requirement for K award is to put at least 75% effort, if I have other grants, is it ok to put 50% effort for K02, 15% for R01, and 10% for ACS award? Thanks.
writedit said
You would be able to put 75% effort for the K02, 15% for an R01, and 10% for an ACS award, but you need to devote 75% to the K02. If your appointment is for full-time research, you need to be able to justify the need for 75% protected time for career development (vs research). You will want to talk to your PO about your situation, to be sure this is the right FOA for you to pursue. You are essentially getting salary and little else – if you need funding to do research, then you should probably focus on R01 support.
Fish said
I see. Thank you so much for clarification!
ESI2020 said
This site is a wonderful resource for reading the NIH tea leaves. Thanks for maintaining it. My situation:
In late February, I received a K01 score of 24, 6.0 percentile.
Last week, I received an R21 score of 23.
Both are now pending council. The institute is NIDA.
My questions: Is it even possible to do a 75%/25% effort distro for both, or do regs mean if the K is funded the R can’t be? And any insights into NIDA’s forecast for fundability (I know they don’t do paylines) would be helpful. There was no percentile score given for the R21.
Thanks for your help! These are my first NIH applications.
writedit said
I am surprised to see the K01 receiving a percentile, but that is clearly within funding range. The R21 score is good – though R21 awards are typically more competitive. You could provide effort on someone else’s R21 as part of your non-K effort, but you cannot be PI on an R21 award until the final 2 years of your K08 award (at which time the K effort is reduced). The idea is that if you need protected time for mentored research, you aren’t ready to serve as PI on your own research project grant. You might talk with your mentor and/or PO about which route is more advisable if either award is possible. The K only provides salary support, so if you are ready to jump into your research program and were going to use the R21 to secure preliminary data for an R01, there may not be a good reason to delay that so you can complete a few years on the K08 … but it depends on your situation and plans. However, if you would benefit from the protected time and some additional training, then the K08 is the way to go, with an updated submission of the R21 (or an R01) later in the K08 award period.
ESI2020 said
Thank you very much for taking stock of the options. I appreciate it! The K01 was evaluated by a standing section that reviews applications from multiple ICs, so perhaps that’s why the gave it a percentile. The R21 is a time-sensitive project.
writedit said
Correct on the SRG assumption in that case – and, depending on whether the R21 even becomes an option, you can also talk with the K08 PO about what is possible, though I don’t know if there is any wiggle room since this is NIH(vs IC) policy … but your PO would know.
22 payline said
Just want to update everyone who may be interested, NCI has set their FY2022 payline for R01 to 11th percentile and 16th (ESI), R21 to 9th. Yes, the same as FY2021. Non-competing (type 5) R01 grants will be funded at 98%.
writedit said
Thanks for the update, 22 payline! Disappointed that NCI did not get the R01 payline up to the 12th percentile, but glad it at least held steady.
Sirius said
Just want to update everyone who may be interested, NCI set its FY2022 payline for R01 to 11th and 16th (ESI), R21 to 9%. The same as FY2021. Type 5 non-competing R01 will be funded to 98%.
writedit said
Thanks for the update, Sirius!
Mishra said
I have an RO3 scored 29, and the FY2022 NIAID payline cutoff just came yesterday (28 for RO3). I requested the PO to see if they could fund outside range!
What is the possibility of getting this RO3 funded?
TD said
They are still Interim paylines but not final. Your score will have good chance.
writedit said
It depends on if the work is of sufficient interest to NIAID. If you just received your score, your PO won’t be able to say whether they can/will advocate on behalf of your application until they see the summary statement. However, this may not be necessary if, as TD notes, the final payline goes back up to 31 as in recent years.
Expedited_review? said
I have heard that some ICs have expedited review for some applications — whereby the applications may be reviewed and proposed for funding even before advisory council for that cycle. Do you know if NCI does this? I have an R01 that scored at the 7th percentile and wondering if things will hold static until May AC or if might move faster.
writedit said
Most ICs will send applications within the payline to Council for pre-meeting electronic approval en bloc. In that case, the eRA Commons status changes to “Council review completed” before Council meets. This saves time at the meeting itself and can allow award processing to start earlier, since applications on this list are approved to be considered for awards. This year, with such a backlog of applications due to the extended CR, applications approved in advance of the May Council meeting will probably be less likely to be processed early, since grants management will want to clear all the delayed awards that should have had start dates around Dec 1 and April 1.
NIA k99 said
Hi writedit,
Always learning new things from your replies! This looks like my case.
My score is within the payline, and my PO just replied and said that they have a large backlog and they will have “funding meeting” in May. However, my status was changed to “Council review completed” in January, when my council meeting was supposed to happen. Does this mean that the January council meeting was cancelled due to extended CR and they may have just electronically voted? I don’t quite understand why they will need another funding meeting after the council meeting in January.
writedit said
Your PO is not referring to the Advisory Council meeting but to internal discussions at the IC of how to rank applications for awards (Council just approves the list to be considered for awards). ICs can’t really have these meetings until they have their appropriation, which will arrive in late April-early May. By that time, they will have the scores for Cycle 3 applications, too. Most ICs have started issuing awards to the lowest scoring applications, but they will rank everything from the 1st percentile/10 on up to pay these applications in order.
NIA K99 said
Thanks! Hopefully that goes well. It sounds like the interim payline doesn’t really mean much if they are still going to rank and pay from low to high (it just provides a proxy for final payline maybe), and they will only do so in May. They will have a ton of grants to fund in May, so we may be expecting further delays in May in this case I assume. Ok another month of stress!
I really hope they can fund some grants into the score of 20s now (given that the interim payline is 35) so they are not looking at a massive backlog in May…
Tuhina said
My RO3 from NIAID scored 30 and just checked the updated payline (28 for R03). Is there any possibility of it getting funded. Should I contact PO or wait for the final payline.
writedit said
Per the response to Mishra above, it will depend on if the application is of sufficient interest to NIAID to fund above payline, if the final payline does not go up any higher. The past few years, though, the final payline has been 31.
once_stressed_k99 said
This site has been extremely helpful when I was preparing and waiting for the K99! I am now back to share my timeline and experience of a K99 re-submission that just got funded through NCI. I had to go through change of institute during the K99 review process, due to the lab move of my primary mentor, which was a bit stressful, and I hope my experience below will be helpful to others that are in similar situation. This is a re-submission from a first submission in 2020 June cycle (impact score 40+). Before re-submission in 2021 March, I already knew the news of lab move and contacted PO to make sure that will not be an issue.
2021 March 12: A1 submitted.
2021 May: post-submission material submitted. (Note: by this time my primary mentor has moved to the new institute, while I still remained at the previous institute. I contacted SRO and asked whether I can add some info about change of institute in this document, was advised to do this under “news of professional promotion or positive tenure decision for any PD/PI or Senior/Key Personnel”. Everything except updated on prelim data still needs to fit under 1-page limit.)
2021 June: Scientific Review Group review completed (Impact Score 20).
2021 June: Automated JIT notification.
2021 July: Summary statement available (Aug: I moved to new institute, emailed PO about next steps but didn’t get any reply).
2021 Sept: Council review completed.
2021 Nov 1st: personalized JIT request (asking for current and pending support, IACUC approval, they gave 2 weeks to do this). New institute had to submit change of institute request before submitting JIT (pre-award change of institute refers to PA-21-268, new institute needs to prepare and submit all documents). I would suggest to collect all the important documents/information (new institute environment/facilities etc) beforehand to make this less stressful.
2021 end of Dec: Emailed PO asking about status /2022 Jan beginning: received email from PO it is under consideration.
2022 Feb: Received email from NIH asking whether it’s OK to start award in March; another email asking about visa status.
2022 March 11th: official NOA.
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you so much for sharing this detailed timeline annotated with great practical advice! I am glad the SRO and PO were (mostly) helpful along the way. Best wishes as you complete your training and launch your independent career in biomedical research!
Grants said
My grant was reviewed in October but I haven’t received any response from the PO. My era commons status said “council review completed” but when I open this grant, the “advisory council” tab is blank (no time or date of council). Does anyone know what it means? Thanks!
writedit said
If your application was reviewed in October, that means it went to Council in January or February. Because the federal budget was just signed into law a couple weeks ago, ICs will not have their appropriations until late April or early May. If you contacted your PO and never heard back, it could be due to the lack of a federal budget (though they should have responded). If you did not contact your PO, you should not expect them to proactively contact you with an update. If your score is within the published payline, you should receive a request for JIT sometime later this spring to begin processing for a possible award. If your score is not within the payline or if your IC does not publish a payline, you need to contact your PO about next steps, including whether to submit again (if you have not already submitted again). No one will contact you to say your application is not being funded.
Lostvoss said
Thank you Writedit and others on this site for the wealth of information and responses. Here is my situation:
an A0 clinical trial submitted in Feb 2021 was received a 30%ile at NHLBI (2021 ESI payline 25). A1 resubmitted 11/2021 – moved from the A0 SRG (NHLBI – CHSB) to an SEP. Much to my/co-Is/teams surprise/chagrin the A1 just received a ND. Some of the comments reflect lack of familiarity/appropriateness of the SEP reviewers. Question is: does anyone have experience with the appeals process? From what I can tell this needs to be handled/supported by the PO. Thanks!
Systemisbroken said
You have my sympathies. My recent R33 A1 was scored at the 46%ile, when the A0 was scored at the 17th and I addressed the only concern of the original reviewers by adding *exactly* what they requested and adding an expert collaborator. I also resubmitted at the very first opportunity to minimize any study section turnover. Sigh…
Lostvoss said
System is broken, indeed! I’m sorry to hear of your experience; at least I’m not alone!
Systemisbroken said
So I finally got the Summary Statement, and as I suspected new reviewers = a whole host of new criticisms, many entirely off-base and others completely contradictory to previous reviews/suggestions. It’s completely a crap-shoot as to what does or does not get funded these days, driven in part by the fact that many study section members are relatively inexperienced (despite incentives like submission deadlines, smart/experienced folks wisely bow out of such service, as the rewards don’t justify the effort). Paraphrasing the famous saying about governmental systems, it’s the worst method of evaluating grants except (perhaps) all others.
writedit said
I will just add that reviewers only have the material in front of them. This is why it is so important to get as many eyes on your drafts as possible – you think you are communicating your science and message clearly, but your brain fills in the gaps, which the reviewers do not have access to. Asking (or paying) someone not involved with your application – and not necessarily an expert or collaborator in this work – to critically review your Specific Aims page and/or Research Strategy drafts can prevent many unexpected (and unpleasant) surprises in the summary statement. I believe reviewers do their best and disagree with your assessment here. Reviewers can only give your application its best review if you submit the best application – that’s on you, not them. I cannot tell you how many applications I receive to review that would have received devastating summary statement comments without significant changes to the narrative (not the science, necessarily – although sometimes there, too).
SaG said
You can appeal the review but it has to be based on one of 4 issues (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-11-064.html) If the PO and SRO disagree with you it probably won’t go anywhere. I assume that the Program you applied to allows Appeals. For instance, RFAs don’t allow appeals.
writedit said
You don’t want to appeal. You need to be able to show that reviewers were factually wrong (not just unfamiliar, not appropriate) and that these objectively demonstrable errors led to the application being not discussed. This is a really high bar – and what happens in the meantime is that you need to lose one cycle during the appeal to Council (no changes to the A1 you submitted, no additional submissions of this application), and, if Council agrees there were scientific errors in the review, one cycle to the repeated review of your A1 (again, absolutely no changes to the application), and if the outcome is the same, then you have missed a couple more cycles before you can try again with an improved application (well over a year later). You are much better off simply revising and submitting again.
What you could and probably should have done is to immediately (upon assignment) ask the SRO why your application was sent to the SEP if it wasn’t obvious to you. That is, if you had no conflicts with reviewers on the SRG, then the application should have stayed at the main panel. However, since you submitted after the change in reviewer roster (changes after 6/30 each year), then a reviewer might have been added with whom your application had a conflict, in which you would have had no choice but to accept the SEP assignment. Unlike in years past, a SEP is not your friend, because they cover a range of applications with a limited roster.
You can talk with your PO about the best SRG to use, especially if the conflict with your preferred SRG continues (ie, you would get sent to a SEP again).
LostVoss said
Thanks writedit for your comments, both related to my OP and the follow-up comments. When the A1 was switched to an SEP I did email the SRO with questions/protestations about this switch, especially because I had worked hard during the A0 to get the proposal to an SRG with what I thought was appropriate expertise – I did this by working my way via email all the way to the branch chief, with whom I eventually had a pleasant phone call. My argument was to point out that on NIH reporter the assigned study section had reviewed/funded a much smaller portion of proposal in areas relevant to my application than my desired SRG for the A0. I remained everyone of this for the A1, but was told that this SEP would be appropriate, and not to worry. Turned out to be poor advice, and I do feel disadvantaged by the process, but appreciate all the other feedback on next steps.
writedit said
You did everything you should have done, and the IRG Chief clearly thought, based on your aims and abstract and on your conversation, that the SEP had the right expertise for your science. In that case, again, I suggest you discuss the outcome with your PO and with someone who can give you a very critical, objective review of your proposal as written.
new investigator said
When the PO says to submit the JIT “ASAP”, how long do you think that is? I asked what the timeframe was and the PO said “ASAP.” Council meets in mid May. Thank you!!
writedit said
ASAP means now, not mid-May. Within a week. If you cannot respond this quickly, you need to get in touch with the PO to say when you can get the information in.
Gemma said
Hey fam, anyone here have experience getting an R21 funded from NIDA with a 28, (12percentile?) I know its close but without paylines its so hard to tell.
writedit said
That’s probably a little high for an R21, especially at NIDA, but there is a lot of programmatic discretion, so your PO will be your best source of guidance when you get your summary statement – and hopefully someone monitoring the thread will chime in with their experience.
Gemma said
Just got word it was recommended for funding by my PO 🙂 No JIT yet but will know more after council meets.
writedit said
Great news – the decision is still up to the Director, but glad your PO is advocating for an award. The JIT timing depends on when the application was reviewed (can’t tell from your post if just reviewed, in which case not much will happen until late May-June, or if this was a Jan-Feb Council application).
Gemma said
Yes, I am aware nothing is for sure at all. just glad to know I am in the running still TBH. I provided a response the reviewers. It was recently reviewed. Wrote a response to the reviewers, everything was addressable (in the words of my PO).
Gemma said
I know you don’t get ESI status for R21 but do you get viewed more favorably when you are a new investigator informally? One of the reviewers noted it as a strength in my application.
writedit said
If you were in a tight competition for select pay, it might become an unofficial factor (especially if this R21 is to secure preliminary data for your first R01 as ESI), but the IC will not give a payline break for ESI status.
GemmaR21 said
My ERA status switched from Council Review Completed to Pending – Personalized. Our JIT request was submitted last week to GMS. Any thoughts on next steps?
GemmaR21 said
Sorry about the typo. I mean *Pending. The JIT was personalized.
writedit said
Next steps are to wait until the GMS either contacts you for more information or prepares the NOA – there might be a gap between NOA prepared and NOA due to delays at the IC Director’s office (long line of awards awaiting approval). You don’t need to do anything else and shouldn’t contact the GMS again, since they will be incredibly busy from now until the end of the FY in September.
GemmaR21 said
Thanks so much for this incredibly helpful forum and your comments. I agree about contacting them which is why this is so helpful! What is the likelihood of funding at this stage? My apologies for being clueless about the process! I hope you have a good day and many thanks.
writedit said
Likelihood of funding is very high. You would know if there were any potential problems that might be uncovered during the administrative review, such as duplicate funding for the same research from a different sponsor, missing regulatory approval, or excessive PI funding. If you do not anticipate any bars to being funded, then your award should be likely to follow in the weeks ahead.
Fei NIA said
NIA K25 score 30. I have an additional question regarding the possibility of funding. I got my review last Sep. The summary of the critiques is not outstanding although the score past the payline. The comments are like the education aims are too ambitious, the proposed methods are not very innovative. I submitted a rebuttal letter as suggested by the PO. I am wondering if the final decision will be made based on the comments? How likely they will reject to fund the application when the score past the payline but the comments are relatively weak?
writedit said
The internal decision is based on the career development and scientific merit of your application (especially in relation to the NIA mission, since they would be funding you as a future NIA investigator) and your response regarding how you would address concerns raised if funded. I assume your application is not ADRD, in which case the score of 30 is well above the payline (21) and thus possibly a stretch but not impossible, as evidenced by your PO’s request for a rebuttal. If you have not submitted an A1, you might want to ask your PO if you should plan to do so in July.
Fei NIA said
My application is indeed ADRD.
writedit said
Then you are well within the payline (40) – no rebuttal or discussion necessary any longer; this was not the case last September, though, so your PO was being safe. ICs have a backlog of applications to process due to the extended CR, but once their appropriations arrive at the end of April-beginning of May especially, application processing for potential awards should pick up, you should get a JIT request, and your eRA status should change.
Fei NIA K25 said
Thank you very much!
Tuhina said
Dear Writedit, I submitted a new R15 proposal in Feb cycle and chose NIGMS as IC. But on checking the status I saw they have assigned NIAID instead. Though in the cover letter I had mentioned choice of IC as NIGMS. Should I contact SRO for change in assignment or I cannot do much at this point. Thank you so much for maintaining this wonderful website.
LostScientist said
I am loosing trust on the NIH review system. Nobody cares! the reviewers think they are the most powerful and the best scientists in the universe. I am sharing my experience with a proposal. Submitted 4 times as R01, discussed three times. ND to discussed, new A0 discussed with much improvement from previous, A1 worse than A0 but discussed. Changed from R01 to R15 and submitted four times. Same drama! Same SRO all 8 times but two different study panels- ND to Discussed, new A0 discussed with pretty close to funding (one reviewer basically killed it with a probable 4) and A1 slipped 15 pts although discussed. Each time I have taken helps from experts and revised accordingly. Nothing is working. Anyone has any suggestion.
Systemisbroken said
No suggestion, but replying just so folks new to the system truly understand what they’re in for…NIH likes to tout a 20% or so success rate of grants, but that’s a bit of sleight of hand. In reality, only about 10% of submissions succeed, and which ones do or do not get funded are as much up to chance as anything else. This is why the most successful strategy is to simply keep throwing crap against the wall until something sticks, versus submitting strategically-crafted proposals reflecting your very best science.
Speaking from decades of experience here, with a batting average better than the best hitters in modern baseball.
LostScientist said
Thanks! Holding nerve is a challenge!
writedit said
Completely disagree with this sentiment. Please see my prior response to your other comment, with which I also disagree. If you keep throwing crap, you will alienate the review panels and achieve a self-fulfilling prophesy (bad reviews, no/minimal success). I would again recommend that you get an outside, unbiased critical review of your applications in advance of submission before you assume the problem is with reviewers. The system is not broken.
SaG said
In the olden days when you could resubmit an unlimited number of times your app might get incrementally better until it was finally funded or reviewers got tired of seeing it. Unlike in the olden days, the job of the study section isn’t to help you produce a better app. It is to evaluate the app you give them. I am not sure what you mean by inexperienced reviewers. If you mean groups of reviewers that have been funding each other apps for the past few decades then yes, the reviewers are inexperienced in that. I like to think of them as folks bringing new insight and ideas to science.
And yes, there is randomness in the review of grant apps. They are reviewed by subjective humans. The idea that the percentile or impact score of an app is an objective measure of how good the science is very weak. But, if you keep submitting the same ” strategically-crafted proposals reflecting your very best science” that get shot down by review panels then either the ideas are not very good, incremental or you’re on your way to a Nobel Prize. Given that several different sets of scientists reviewed your applications and gave it poor scores and different sets of criticisms, perhaps it is your application that is the issue not the reviewer panels. It is hard to say without seeing your summary statements; maybe your ideas were great and sexy 10-20 years ago but you have been successful in your work and those ideas are mainstream and incremental now. As Writeedit suggested have some fresh critical eyes look at your app and get feedback. Don’t go to your colleagues and friends. Find the biggest jerk in your school. Or assemble a panel of scientist, have them meet to review your and give you feedback in a summary that states their issues.
LostScientist said
Thank you SAG for your comments. As I mentioned, the A0 was very close to funding, within the pay line of some institutes. The first reviewer disagreed with the others. The panel agreed that significance is high, innovation is moderate to high. The team is outstanding although first reviewer suspected about students’ training in new institutes (reality is I trained more students in less time in my new institutes). His other concerns were underdeveloped and immature aims although he mentioned that adequate feasibility established by rigor of previous research and preliminary data and the panel agreed that the proposal is supported by preliminary and published data. I replied all concerns, added some new data to further increase the rigor, unfortunately score ups 15 pts.
Systemisbroken said
So just a follow up on this: I finally had the chance to speak with my PO, and he agreed that I got hosed on the review of the A1. He is going to look into bridge funding (i.e., R56…as he pursued for the A0, but it was too late), but also had useful suggestions on how to deflect/avoid the criticisms directed at the A1 on a new submission.
To paraphrase Machiavelli: keep your friends close, and your PO closer (in this case, they are a former post-doc from our group).
Now here’s my question: are R33 applications actually eligible for R56 bridge funding? (I have read conflicting information.) If so, does any follow up application have to use the same mechanism? (The PAR in question expires in July, and at present neither I nor my PO know whether it is going to be renewed.)
Chimburi said
HI @LostScientist, I hear your frustration. I myself have gone through a very similar trajectory with my grant going from ND to 15% to going back to ND. I submitted my proposal 8 times and it has taken me 6 years to get my first R01 (The R01 finally got scored in the 11 percentile which seems to be NCI’s 2022 payline). I am here to say that there is light at the end of the tunnel. Sometimes reformulating Aims and streamlining the story helps but sometimes it’s just the luck of the draw. For all you know, next time will be the charm :). Hang in there.
LostScientist said
Thanks!
writedit said
Thank you for sharing your experience, Chimburi!
writedit said
@LostScientist – I thought I had answered this, because I have been fielding a lot of comments on frustrating application experiences (eg, https://writedit.wordpress.com/nih-paylines-resources/#comment-88539). I hope you have discussed your application strategy with your PO(s), especially changing between R01 and R15. The SRO is not relevant, though the SRG is – you must have your application in a review group that will appreciate and be enthusiastic about what you are doing. You also want to get fresh eyes on your application to be sure you are communicating what you think you are communicating (your brain will fill in gaps that reviewers will flag as weaknesses). If the weaknesses have been related to the significance, then you need to rethink your premise and the rigor of the studies on which you are basing your study. If the weaknesses are related to your analysis or interpretation of the data, then you should work with a biostatistics consult service at your university (if there is a CTSA at your university, they can help – but many institutions offer this help, or you can ask the biostatistics or statistics department for a review of your plans). There are many steps you can take to strengthen your application and tighten your science story – it’s on you, since reviewers only have what you submit to work with, but it’s not a lost cause, especially with some help.
LostScientist said
Thanks for your reply. Twice I took paid professional helps along with helps from friends. The grant has a biostatistician and pathologist in place and no such concern. During A0, the first reviewer was mostly disagree with the other two in most issues. The panel agreed that the significance is high, innovation moderate to high. He raised some concerns with approach (underdeveloped, immature) and we fixed it. From his comments, my understanding is he is from one of the top institutes in the nation and looks R15 institutes with the same eye.
writedit said
I am having a difficult time matching which experience goes with which application (ND or discussed), but you can’t seek fresh eyes on your application once or twice. You also haven’t mentioned input from your PO, which is also essential, again, especially for R01 vs R15. As SaG said, you need someone who will have no qualms about being super critical about everything, from the writing style and application formatting to the quality of the science.
LostScientist said
Hi Writedit,
Sorry for the confusion! I am referring to my last R15-A0 which scored 31. Two reviewers were very positive but the third one with a possible 4 brought the score 31. Since I need only few points improvement, I did everything including a paid professional help for grantsmanship. I talked to the PO about the possibility of “case by case” consideration. She was very conservative and my conversation gave me the sense that she is much more align to the worst reviewer. Since NIDCR has better success rate, I discussed with a PO in NIDCR. She was positive and enthusiastic and told that the A0 is within their considerable range. In agreement with two POs, the A1 was assigned to NIDCR. I have a question. The A0 belongs to which IC now? eRA is showing previous IC and PO. Is their any possibility that NIDCR pick the A0 for funding although NIDCR is not the Primary IC for A0 but for A1 (terrible score)?
writedit said
The primary IC would need to relinquish the A0 to NIDCR, and NIDCR would need to accept it (not a guarantee, even with the interest shown by the PO). Also, if this was an FY21 application (vs FY22), NIDCR would not go back an FY to fund a secondary application. Your primary IC PO would have heard the study section discussion (not just read the summary statement) and might have agreed with the concerns raised by the negative review (ie, she might have agreed that the concerns raised weakened the science).
JN said
Hi Writedit,
Do you know why the NHLBI payline for RO1s declined in 2021 compared to FY 18-20? Do they update the final payline for RO1 for FY 2021? What will be the payline in FY 2022? Please let me know.
Thanks.
writedit said
NHLBI will probably update their paylines in May, once they have their appropriation (which will arrive in late April or early May) and all 3 submission cycles have been reviewed (so they know the distribution of scores and can gauge how far their $$ will go). I do not know, but I would suspect NHLBI received an avalanche of applications related to COVID-19 and its sequelae and also needed to divert funds to support investigators affected by the pandemic (ie, extending grant awards, which reduces the amount available for new awards). They would have received extra funding related to COVID-19, but perhaps not enough, given that their portfolio was most affected by the acute and chronic effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. I would assume FY22 will at least be the same level as FY21 but have no idea if it might return to pre-pandemic paylines.
SMK_R01seeker said
I am an ESI and just received a 10th percentile score for an R01 to NIMHD (first submission). PO sent JIT request and asked me to provide responses to some specific reviewer comments. There are no paylines, so I followed up with an inquiry about insights into funding likelihood – didn’t get a straight answer other than that they may be able to present the grant for funding consideration, esp given score and status. My question is – is this just a safe response, or is there really no knowing? I realize there are never guarantees, but is it typical to request responses if funding isn’t likely? (there was no suggestion of resubmission)
writedit said
Your PO is being conservative – they can never guarantee funding in advance of a Notice of Award. Also, your PO needs to wait for the FY22 appropriation to arrive (later in April, early May) to be more confident. For future reference, your PO will likely never answer the question about funding likelihood with a clear answer, but you can ask about whether to submit again. The fact that your PO did not voluntarily advise this is a positive sign, but you can always ask. Now, if your application is on the bubble, they would still recommend submitting again for insurance, but if they ever say you can sit tight, you can sit tight and assume an award will be forthcoming, since, again, POs do not want o risk endangering an investigator’s success through advice that might cause them to miss a submission cycle and delay their research further.
waitwait said
I submitted an R01 last July (to a PAR) as ESI and received scores in the 21st percentile, and the IC does not publish payline. PO asked for response to summary statement and discouraged resubmission as the reviews were positive; I believe this was presented to the council in early Feb. In March, I reached out for an update and PO suggested preparing a resubmission given that they haven’t heard a decision. The eRA status just changed from pending council review to council review completed at the end of March. I’m not sure what this means- should I reach out to PO again asking for an update or just focus on resubmission? Thank you in advance.
writedit said
Your PO clearly thinks your application should receive an award, but with a PAR, there is a lot of programmatic discretion, including not making any awards, so it could be that they are waiting for the final appropriation (which will arrive in late April-early May). Your PO likes your science and does not want you to risk missing a review cycle waiting to hear, in case they make no or very few awards. The change in status simply means it has gone to Council. Depending on when the next PAR submission date is, you probably want to start preparing another application as insurance, recognizing that you might receive an award in the meantime.
waitwait said
Thanks very much. The submission dates are once a year in July (and this July would be the last submission date for this PAR unless it gets renewed again). Previously PO discouraged submission/resubmission to a regular cycle because the reviews we got this time were good. But from the PO input and your comments, it makes sense to start preparing a resubmission. Thanks again.
writedit said
You could start getting ready (and the planning-writing process should help the research if you do receive an award), with the hope that decisions will be made before the July due date but with the insurance of having an application ready to submit in case decisions are delayed after then.
AnonStudent said
Applied for F31-Diversity (NCI) in August of 21, still no word on funding status but was previously told by PO likely to be funded as I was just under the typical payline (which I was told had been 30-35 in years past) when I spoke with them last fall. Sent an email to another contact (PO was unavailable) and was told the payline had been moved to 20! Seems like a big jump from what my PO had initially said. Either way submitting a resubmission this week but still no official word on the initial application. Just thought I’d share for any others who’ve been waiting so long like me.
writedit said
That is a huge jump and seems odd, given the current emphasis on increasing the diversity of the biomedical research workforce, so perhaps that reflects the interim payline, and you will still be considered for an award when the NCI appropriation arrives later this month or early next. Glad you got a resubmission in, though I hope you don’t need to wait for its outcome to receive an award.
JJR said
I received 38 for an RO1 submitted in response to RFA (no percentile). Is there an outside chance that the application with this score could get funded? Since no resubmission is allowed under RFA, as I understand, is it possible for me to ask for R56 in order to resubmit it as a new application? Thank you for your advice.
writedit said
The scores for RFA applications only partly tell the story. Your score could be among the best – or the worst – given. The IC applies a lot of programmatic priority and prerogative in making award decisions and does not need to fund any of the applications, either, if they are not happy with the science that was submitted. Given your score, this latter outcome seems unlikely for this particular RFA. When you receive your summary statement, you can talk with the PO about next steps. Since you cannot apply for the RFA again, bridge (R56) funding isn’t relevant, but you can repurpose your application for a new R01 submission in June – and be sure to look at the NOSIs for a potential match with your science.
HopefullyOptimistic said
I submitted an F31 in 2021 (cycle 2 due date of Aug 8). In Nov ’21 I received an impact score of 31 and a month later was asked to respond to the Summary of Discussion. The IC is NIA and the previous payline for 2021 was an impact score of 40 or below (ADRD Fellowship)
I have not heard anything back since, and have reached out to my PO multiple times with no response. I know the CR conservative payline went down to a score of 28 or below, so that would have bumped me out of potential funding. However, with the recent spending bill, the NIA has updated this payline to an impact score of 40 or below.
Has anyone gone through something similar with the payline? I have a colleague who submitted during the same cycle and same IC, and he has received a JIT request. I have yet to receive any JIT request. His score, for reference, was an impact score of 24, so even with the conservative payline he was within funding line.
Do I have any hope of funding this cycle?
nia k99 said
Yes you may want to wait until late April or early May, when they will discuss cases that were outside of the initial tight interim payline. With your score you can be cautiously optimistic.
When did your friend receive the JIT? Was it from his PO?
HopefullyOptimistic said
I am hopeful! Thank you for your reply.
My friend received a JIT request actually from our institution, so it was not directly sent to him.
I am thinking of leaving a phone message for my PO just to try and establish contact again. I feel I do not want to be annoying but I do want some answers.
Fei K25 ADRD said
Not sure about the PO for F application. I applied for K ADRD, past the most updated payline and no update since last Oct. I have contacted my PO several times. Her response was not informative, but just created additional anxiety. I bet your PO will tell you it is hard to tell at this moment and the funding will be confirmed only if you receive NOA. One thing I realized is that an application will go through a computer software to decide whether it is ADRD. At this moment, it probably has not been categorized to ADRD, although you are 100% sure it is. But if you heard anything back from your PO, please post on the web. Thank you very much.
writedit said
I would suggest you sit tight and not contact the PO. There is nothing your contacting him will accomplish. If you did not submit an application last week, then you would need to wait until August to submit again, so it is not even worth asking if you should apply again (you’ll know in plenty of time now). Fellowship applications do not go to Council, so a decision on your application will depend on an internal NIA meeting to rank applications on the paylist, after which you will receive an update (probably in the form of a request for JIT, assuming, as others have noted, NIA agrees that your application falls within the ADRD area).
F31hopeful said
Hello,
I applied for an NCI F31 in April 2021. I received an impact score of 27 (20th percentile). My application went to council in October 2021. I contacted my PO and he said that my application was not within the interim payline. When will the final NCI F31 payline be published? What are the chances that my application is funded. It looks like historically, 20th percentile is within the payline. Thank you!
Nci k99 said
You probably can contact your PO early May. 2022 cycle 2 nci k99 applicant here. Scored 24 last Oct, had a conversation with the PO on Dec, was informed my score was a couple of points higher than the interim payline but was fundable in 2021. Asked me to wait patiently and may contact her again around May 2022.
writedit said
I agree with NCI K99 that you want to wait until late May to reach out – or just wait until you see the payline updated. If you asked about whether to submit again (eg, last week), you can use your PO’s answer to gauge your funding likelihood – but if you never asked, there is no reason to do so now since you will know the outcome before the August deadline.
boy_blue said
Just received the NOA for my F30 from NINDS and wanted to give my timeline as I found that to be extremely helpful in the process
8/6/21-application entered into system
8/17/21-SRG review pending
11/2/21-SRG review complete
received a score of 33
2/23/22-personalized JIT request
3/3/22-admin review pending
4/6/22-award prepared
Thank you for all of your help!
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you for sharing your very helpful timeline! Best wishes for success with your project, your dual degree program, and your career in biomedical research.
boy_blue said
Thank you! I also forgot to note my grant is an ADRD grant
NIAR21 said
Just received the NoA for my R21 (ADRD) from NIA. Here is my timeline.. Hope this helps:
04/07/2022 – Application awarded.
03/28/2022 – Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
03/04/2022 – Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
01/27/2022 – Council review completed.
10/19/2021 – Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
06/24/2021 – Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
06/14/2021 – Application entered into system
nia k99 said
Congrats! Looks like your score was within the initial interim payline in this case (so it was pending before the 03/17 interim payline change).
NIAR21 said
Yes. The PO asked for JIT on 03/08/2022.
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you for sharing your timeline. Your entire process was “on time”, which is great. Best wishes for success with your research.
question_noncompetetive_NOA said
I have a question on the subsequent years of funding (noncompetetive renewal). The project was appoived for 4 years, and now I just finished year 2). I submitted RPPR on time and the 3rd year should start on April 1. However, I haven’t received the new NOA. No message or question from PO or GSR was received. Should I just wait? Is there any possibility that NIH is not satisfied with the RPPR? Should I contact PO or GSR?
writedit said
The grants management office will handle the RPPR and noncompeting NOA. Your PO would have contacted you if anything were missing. I would suggest you contact your grant administrator at your institution to be sure they did not miss anything related to the RPPR (or follow-up communications) and have them contact the IC GSR about the delay.
K99 my interest changed said
Hi
My K99 is being processed for award. However, during over one year of waiting, my interest has shifted. I feel my proposed research may not work (or work well). And I have been working on another project, which is clearly publishable with just some additional months of effort. The new project can be viewed as an extension of my k99 project, but for a different disease model (it’s not R00 project either).
Do I need to bring up the issue to PO at some time point? I am afraid my award would be retrieved. How much does it matter for the match of the proposed work and its progress in the K99 phase?
Thanks!
SaG said
It depends if it is a change in scope. That will be up to your PO to determine. My suggestion is to do nothing for now then talk to the PO after award. They can approve a change in scope but you don’t want to surprise them. That fact that it is a different disease model could be a problem if the work falls under the mission of another NIH Institute. For most NIH grants you have to stick with the science that was reviewed by the Study Section.
K99 my interest changed said
My application was through General Medical Sciences, that’s why I was thinking it might be possible to claim my method would be a general approach. But it sounds like still risky.
Your advice of doing nothing before formal award makes sense. Thanks!
bioPhD said
Where can I see the F31 NCI interim and final paylines?
writedit said
As far as I know, no where, but you can ask your PO, once you have your summary statement, whether you should plan to submit again and what your next steps are for your current application.
Tipparat said
Dear Writedit,
I submitted K43 (Emerging Global Leader Awards) and got impact score as 28. I could not find the paylines in previous years. How could I find this information please? Thanks so much and always appreciate your answer.
writedit said
Fogarty does not really post any pay lines, so when you get your summary statement, you will want to get in touch with the PO about next steps (submit response to PO, plan for another submission, sit tight). I think most K scores below 30 have a reasonable chance, but I have no idea about the application pool for K43s, so hopefully your PO will have good news for you.
31days&counting said
Our grant was reviewed on March 10 and we still have not received our summary statement in era commons (31 days and counting…). It was for a RFA so anxious to talk to the PD to understand how to interpret our score (24 IS). Are there reasons why summary statements are delayed that we should be concerned about? I know they are “usually” posted within 30 days so trying to be patient but so hard!
SaG said
Could be lots of reasons that don’t have anything to do with your app. SROs are human and have human issues outside of work. Since it is an RFA they could be waiting to post all of the SSs at the same time rather than as they complete them.
Hopeful said
Hi Writedit,
Love your blog and whenever I’m searching for answers to grant questions, I just hit control-F and find what you’ve told others. I submitted an R01 to an RFA (5M set aside for 10-14 awards) in last fall. It was reviewed last week and received an impact score of 18. Summary statements will go out soon. Was told Council decision will be made in June ‘22 (earliest award date July ‘22). I’m debating whether I should submit as an A0 to a PA for June 5th. When I asked the PO whether to resubmit (and likelihood of funding), the reply was “Your score of 18 is likely to be competitive. If your timing is flexible, you may wish to wait for the award process to play out. However, ultimately up to you to if you would prefer to submit this as a new A0 for June 5.” I guess the safe option is to put in the A0 for June 5 so as not to miss a cycle, right? Any gut feeling about our chances with an 18? Was there a more definitive message in the PO reply? Thanks.
writedit said
I believe your PO was telling you to be cautiously optimistic … that you will likely receive an award, but they could make no guarantees and did not want you to be disappointed if something out of the PO’s control caused your application to fall through (ie, black swan event). If you are on a tight tenure clock especially, the PO would never put you at risk of missing a submission cycle. If you can wait until October without putting your lab or your tenure trajectory in jeopardy, then you have the option of concentrating on some manuscripts/publications in the meantime and/or submitting a different application for a different project in June (or to another RFA on non-standard timing). If this were February, it would be very easy to say just to wait, since the FY23 budget will almost certainly be delayed several months due to the election and its aftermath. For the June cycle, it’s a tougher call, though these awards (& their April 1 start dates) could also be delayed.
Hopeful said
Thanks for that helpful information. I’m on the fence about having time for a different grant to be prepared for June. So I may just elect to put this application back in as an A0 to not miss the cycle. Not sure how much we would tweak it (the SS should be mostly positive with that score, but we’ll see). I’m also in an IDEA state, so under a normal PA, I could qualify for co-funding if close to the payline on a new A0. So I think going June would be essential to get that request to them in time for consideration (usually by March or early April latest).
The waiting of course is always the hardest part! But thanks for weighing in. Makes me feel a little more confident of success.
Hopeful said
Hi Writedit,
Some updates and 2 questions. First, after recent discussions with the PO, we are apparently “very, very, very, competitive” and they are “far down the road in their decisions.” Not long after this discussion, I got a request for JIT (they wanted my info within 5 days). One item they asked for was IACUC approval. It’s a long story, but my IACUC protocol to support this grant, despite going in for review several months ago, may not be approved until late July or maybe early August (due to a linked IBC amendment, which was also submitted long ago, but has not been reviewed yet due to reasons out of my control! Grrrr IBC!!). We submitted JIT to GMS indicating that the IACUC protocol was reviewed on May and that we responded to requests for changes (early in June), but the approval is pending and that we would update them when approval is given (we didn’t specify a timeline). So my question is what does NIH typically do in these situations? Will they likely issue a NoA with a restriction on use of animal-specific funds? Or will they hold the entire NoA up for that approval? I ask because if necessary, I will push our IBC to get to this long overdue review for my amendment.
My related question is I probably don’t need to resubmit this as an A0, right? This app went to a one-time RFA as described above. I have until June 21st to resubmit as an A0 (I’m reviewing grants now so have a 2 week grace). I can do it, but seems like we’ll get the money. Just curious as I can go either way (I wouldn’t change anything but the biosketches).
Thanks again for your input!
writedit said
On the IACUC/IBC approval, your first scenario is correct: the NoA would not release funding for the animal work and would later issue an amended NoA once approval was received. That said, you can certainly tell the IACUC and IBC that a grant award is now on the line and you need the review completed ASAP. Get your Chair involved, too. That much delay is unacceptable and could result in lost awards in other situations. Your July 1 start date is not an expiration date, and it is not a deadline for the IC to move on your award, either. That said, the request for a 5-day turnaround (typical) suggests they are serious about processing your application for an award. I would say this means you can hold off on the A0 submission, especially with your score and the RFA set-aside context – but I would recommend confirming with your PO for full reassurance (and they would understand your query – it wouldn’t be an annoyance). To be honest, even if a black swan event struck (eg, entire RFA suddenly canceled) and you don’t submit, given the midterm elections and current political climate, I don’t expect the FY23 budget to be passed until well into 2023, so all Cycle 1 and 2 awards will be delayed again – and maybe Cycle 3.
Hopeful said
Also, I should note that the start date for this award is listed as July 1, 2022.
Hopeful said
I wanted to follow up with the final outcome and timeline. We were able to get all our IBC and IACUC docs in order. And we did resubmit as an A0 just in case (we will w/draw it now). A long process, but of course worth the wait!
10/22/2021 Application entered into system
10/27/2021 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
04/08/2022 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
06/07/2022 Council review completed.
06/08/2022 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
08/10/2022 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
08/19/2022 NoA released.
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you for sharing your timeline! This will be perfect to reassure folks about the long radio silence during the Pending status and the gap between award prepared and released. Best wishes for success with your research!
kingdaddy2010 said
Hi Writedit,
My grant proposal now has a status of “Pending”. How soon might an award happen? Any thoughts on next steps to expect?
writedit said
Woohoo! I assume this is for your SBIR and that your PO (or someone else) was able to help you sort out the personnel and budgeting issues. Pending = processing your application for a possible award. This status can last weeks or months. If your requested start date was April 1, then probably a matter of weeks. The ICs have a backlog of applications to process, so the queues will be long at each step. Because the final step is at the IC Director’s office (this represents the time between NOA prepared and NOA issued, which can be as short as a day or as long as a few weeks), even your GMS won’t know the exact timing – and your PO definitely won’t, since they are not in the grants management loop. Pending is a positive but passive status, so you simply need to wait until either they ask you for more information or your status progresses to Notice of Award.
kingdaddy2010 said
I’m sorry – yes, the SBIR Phase I grant proposal. As usual, your insights are awesome, thank you!!!
SaG said
If this is the first SBIR your company has received then NIH has to do some due diligence to make sure you have the appropriate controls to handle Federal Gov’t money. That can take a long time.
Demetris Yannopoulos said
Hello
Does anyone here have an idea what an impact score means for the pioneer award DP1 finalists?
We were told the scores are intentionally spread a lot
Just wondering since there is no information about what can be funded
writedit said
In addition to the scores being spread, programmatic discretion comes into play as well of course. As with any grant application, when you have your summary statement, you can contact the PO about next steps and whether to be thinking about an application to the new DP1 RFA that was just released (both whether you need to based on where you rank in the current pool of finalists and whether you should – but as a finalist, I assume the answer would be yes for you).
roochoo said
Hi, thanks for this great resource! I received IS and the summary statement for my NLM R01 application (IS:24, pct; 7). I also received the JIT request. I am a new investigator (not ESI). I emailed the PO with my response to the weaknesses pointed out in the summary statement and added that I’d be happy to discuss next steps and other questions. I received the response that no information was needed from me at this point.
I am a bit confused, because the payline on the NLM page is 23 for established PIs and 30 for ESIs. On this page, I see 30 for ESI and NIs. Any thoughts?
writedit said
NLM is unusual in that they use IS instead of percentile, maybe since they are mainly reviewed internally, but even then, I am not sure why. I need to update my listings above, so I apologize for that, but you can always trust the IC paylines/funding strategy website. NLM is a bit ambiguous on whether they distinguish between ESI and NI applicants, but I believe you qualify under the ESI payline (30). If you received a JIT request from NLM (not through eRA Commons), then you probably didn’t need to send a response to the prior review (just your JIT info). If you responded to the automated request, then your PO is probably holding off until NLM receives its appropriation and they have internal discussions on their paylists from the 3 cycles. They won’t start processing the July 1 start date awards until they catch up from the backlog of cycle 1 & 2 awards, too. You can always ask for advice on whether to submit again – if the PO says no, then you can feel positive about a likely award.
JN said
Hi
NIDDK just updated their payline for FY2022.
writedit said
Thanks for the heads-up!
> >
question_noncompeting_NOA said
Is there anyone else having the issues with a delayed noncompeting NoA from NIDDK? The third year of funding for an R01 is not yet arrived but it should start on April 1. Writedit suggested having a grant administrator at my institution contact NIH. We did it about 10 days ago, but PO and GMS didn’t respond. Hopefully, it is just a delay, not something strange happening.
question_noncompeting_NOA said
I received the NoA today. There is a section as follows: “Delayed Award
The issuance of this award has been delayed due to administrative considerations. According to NIH policy, if preaward costs are necessary, they may be approved by the Authorized Organization Representative”.
writedit said
Aha. Do you need IACUC and/or IRB approval for any part of the research still? Or could there be a question of overlapping funding for the same science? This means you can ask your institution to set up a pre-award account so you can order supplies or animals or post a job etc. in advance of the award (this notice communicates to your university that the award should be issued within 90 days).
NCI_F31 said
I applied for the NCI F31 in April 2021. I think my score is probably borderline for being funded. When can I expect to hear about a final decision?
YY said
Did you contact your PO for advice?
writedit said
As YY notes (thank you!!), your PO would be the best source of information. You can ask about whether to expect an award for this application, and, if you have not already submitted another application, whether the PO recommends that you do so.
Chase your dreams said
Hi Writedit,
Can I contact my SRO directly to suggest specific expertise needed to review my first R01 grant application this summer?
writedit said
As Question_noncompeting_NOA said (thank you!!), you don’t need to send the information again. The PHS Assignment Request Form is the appropriate place to do this, and SROs do use this form. In the optional cover letter, you could also identify the PO with whom you have worked, which will help with the referral itself (CSR knows whom to contact) and could help the SRO.
For those who were not aware – PHS Assignment Request Form: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide/forms-f/general/g.600-phs-assignment-request-form.htm
Chase your dreams said
I had made this request when I submitted the assignment request form, but just wondering if I need to contact the SRO again regarding this.
question_noncompeting_NOA said
I don’t think you need to do that again. You should state it in the assignment request form and in the cover letter. Do not suggest a particular person, which will disqualify them. You should only suggest specific expertise, but you don’t need to contact the SRO again. They are busy and keeping contacting them with the same info is not productive.
Chase your dreams said
Sure, highly appreciate for the input.
Fei NIA said
Are there any members have received updates for their NIA K application after NIA adjusted the payline. My NIA K application was scored 30 and likely to be ADRD. I have emailed PO recently but got no response. I knew someone with score less than 28 got funded last week. I am not sure if I need to submit a new application in June. My sense is that if it was not funded, it could be due to some weird policy issues, which I may not be able to address in a new application.
writedit said
If you asked the PO about funding, ask instead whether you need to submit again in June. If you are not clear whether your application falls under the ADRD umbrella, you could specifically ask that. I do not think there would be any other policy issue related to your not being funded (ie, you are not a well-funded investigator, you don’t have other sources of grant funding for the same research). If your PO will not answer a question about whether to submit again (and has not been responsive in general), then contact the Division Director or Deputy Director.
k99 said
Fei I wouldn’t worry too much about it. As you know from previous threads I am on the same boat. I also haven’t heard anything back yet. From my PO’s limited response my guess is that our grant is going to be discussed in May, because we were not below the interim payline.
Fei NIA said
Thank you very much both. I will wait the result.
writedit said
If you are going to wait vs ask whether to submit again, then you should start working on your next submission if you need to apply in June vs July – just in case a late May decision leaves you without an award and not enough time to get the next application ready.
Fei said
Thanks for your advices. I will start to prepare a new submission.
Clover_K01 said
I would like to follow up with this thread, “If your PO will not answer a question about whether to submit again (and has not been responsive in general), then contact the Division Director or Deputy Director.”
My PO is not responsive to my emails in general (need to wait for a couple of weeks and send out follow-up emails a couple of times to get a response). I have got a borderline score for K01 application. Does this mean my PO is not interested in my application? If contacting the Division director directly, I would need to specify why I am contacting them rather than my PO. Would this lead to bad relationship with the PO? Thank you!
SaG said
There are many not-bad reasons a PO is not responsive. They are ill, they left and they haven’t passed the portfolio on to a new PO, maybe a new Po has taken over and you are contacting the old PO listed on your Summary Statement, etc. If they are just ignoring you I think an email to a supervisor is needed. How else would they know about the bad behavior?
Clover_K01 said
Thank you, SaG. For my situation, it doesn’t seem to be one of those cases, unfortunately. I have contacted a supervisor who responded to my questions very promptly and copied the PO. In this case, should I reply to both of them with my additional questions? I am not clear how their roles differ in terms of recommending applications for select pay or how select pay are recommended and finally selected. Will only the PO be able to recommend applications for select pay? Thank you in advance for clarifying these confusions of mine.
writedit said
It depends on what your questions are. You don’t want to ask either of them the questions below, since you cannot ask to have your application recommended for select pay. Your PO makes that decision based on their entire portfolio. There are lots of competitive applications under consideration, and the PO knows their portfolio and what science directions are of highest priority right now. If you received answers as to whether your application is considered ADRD and whether you should apply again, then you should be in good shape to make an informed decision as to your next steps. If you have a question on strategy for your next submission, then you want to reply only to the PO.
Julia said
Thank you for the response. I understand that it is the internal decision from the IC that determine whether to recommend an application. But I thought I could ask whether my application will be recommended or not. If it is not recommended, then I know for sure my application will not be funded for FY2022 — By the way, what does ADRD represent?
I heard that the decision for recommending selective pay or not should have been made by the IC by now. So I asked the supervisor (copied the PO) whether my application could be recommended or not. The supervisor got back to me that they won’t know this until a couple of weeks after the council meeting. Does this mean that my application has been recommended and got to the rank-ordered list? If not, my application wouldn’t be even reviewed by the council meeting, right?
Also, I wonder how PO was assigned and whether all K01 applications go to the same PO.
A last question, if serving as a co-PI on a big federal grant, will that disqualify me for K01 application? I understand the PI role on a large grant will disqualify the eligibility for K applications.
Many thanks for your help.
writedit said
I apologize – I forgot that you were not the original author on the thread, whose K01 is at NIA (and thought their application fell under the much-higher ADRD – Alzheimer’s Disease & Related Dementia – payline). If your score was borderline, your application will go to Council for review, since their role is to approve applications to be *considered* for funding (not to make any funding decisions). Council reviews the quality of peer review and the appropriateness of the science for the IC’s mission. The list of Council-approved applications is much longer than what the IC can fund, but this is necessary so the IC Director has flexibility in making funding decisions, especially during the final scramble at the end of the FY. As the supervisor said, they won’t know the paylist (rank order of applications to be considered for awards) until a couple weeks after Council. That is, the list will not exist until then, so no one can check now. If you have not asked already, you should certainly ask if you should plan to submit another application in June or July. With regard to your being “co-PI” on a “big federal grant”, it depends on if you mean you will be one of multiple PIs (MPI) or co-investigator. The designation “co-PI” does not exist. It also depends on what you mean by “big federal grant”. You can check the list of activity codes in the K01 FOA and/or you can ask your PO. If you are one of multiple PIs on an application with an activity code that would make you ineligible, though, then you already have your answer (if funded, you will be ineligible for the K01 award). In this case, either your PO or the supervisor who responded could answer the eligibility criteria question. Although it varies with IC, you will almost certainly have different science-based POs for future applications than the current K-focused PO for your K01 application. You can search your IC for appropriate program contacts by science area and/or use the MatchMaker tool in NIH Reporter to identify potential POs for your future research project grant applications.
Julia said
Many thanks for this detailed response. Now I understand that the Council will also review borderline applications outside the current payline of FY2021. In the summary of discussion within my summary statement, I did notice some biased and not sound statement that I pointed out to both my PO and the supervisor, and I also sent them the responses to critics, although not requested. Will this document be shared with the Council that may help them understand better the quality of the review?
For the paylist (rank order of applications to be considered for awards), will it be generated in the IC staff meeting after the Council? Do you have any insights on who will attend and how this meeting will be run? If all the K01 applications go into the same PO, I guess the PO will largely determine this rank order since the PO is most familiar with all the K01 applications under his or her portfolio? Then what is the role for the supervisor? The supervisor is actually the IC contact person listed for K01 so I communicated with this supervisor a lot when building my first K01 application. After I got my summary statement, I started to contact the PO listed there — Do you know why the contact person changed?
When meeting with my PO after I got the summary statement, the PO went through the critics with me to help understand how to address these. The PO also said it does not hurt to resubmit. I guess I didn’t feel a lot of enthusiasm from the PO for my application — Maybe this is why it often takes me weeks and a couple of attempts to get the PO’s responses to my emails? Without hearing back from the PO, I went back to email the supervisor since he has always been very prompt in answering my questions, helping resolving much of my anxiety ;). But if PO is the only one who can advocate my application during the IC staff meeting for finalizing the paylist, I am not sure how I can better communicate with the PO about my application. I don’t know the PO’s current portfolio. But as I read the selective pay criteria from the IC funding policy, my application actually meet many of those, which make me feel very hopeful earlier that the PO would like my application. Thanks again for your valuable insights and suggestions!
writedit said
– Any response to the review is used internally at the IC, not by Council (which does not review the applications themselves).- The PO advocates for individual applications, but IC leadership determines the rank order, and the IC Director approves each award.- Some ICs have a general contact for help with career development applications in advance of applying but then have science-specific career development POs who can only be assigned based on the content of the application after it is submitted. The main career development program director can help anyone, though.- Your PO probably has over 100 currently active applications in their portfolio plus dozens of applicants each grant cycle (asking pre-application and post-review questions, like you) – plus they have a lot of trainings and other internal meetings at the IC and NIH, plus they keep up with research in their area of scientific focus.- It sounds like you have made your case and should sit back and wait to see what happens with your application (rather than continue to send messages to the PO – they will be in touch when they know anything or need anything from you).
Clover_K01 said
This sounds great. Many thanks for your patience in addressing many questions of mine, writedit ;).
Clover_K01 said
Hi writedit,
Many thanks for your quick responses to all my questions. How can I identify this main career development program director who can help anyone?
I am now preparing my third K01 submission as an A0 application. My last resubmission addressed most of the critics/concerns raised for my first A0 submission; only minor critics or some not very sound statements have been made for my last resubmission ( a couple of points off the FY2022 payline). In this case, for my third K01 submission as an A0 application, I could only make minor modifications that will be largely similar to my last A1 resubmission.
Considering A0 is supposed to be a new application, would this be allowed? In another word, for a new submission of A0 application, should I or am I expected to make dramatic changes, compared to my last A1 submission that has a good score but a couple of points off the payline?
Another question related to the eligibility for K01 application. I understand what you explained before about multiple PI, co-I and co-PI roles. In that case, being a co-PI on a NSF or USDA grant wouldn’t disqualify me from applying for K01, right?
Thanks very much for your time and help!
writedit said
Your A0 will be a brand new application with no reference to the prior applications. The NIH does not check to see if the A0 is the same as prior applications as that is allowable. It just cannot be the same as another application actively under review (summary statement not yet released). I would highly recommend that you make modifications based on the prior reviews, but you don’t need to worry if it is essentially the same as the last A1. As far as I can tell, non-NIH awards are not part of the consideration in determining eligibility for a K01 (only major NIH awards), though you might want to confirm with your PO, if you are a PI on a major NSF or USDA award. With regard to finding the program director of all career development and training programs at your IC, you need to look at the IC website. Some ICs make it very obvious through their organizational structure and include a separate page for all career development and training programs and program personnel. If not, check the organizational chart for the Office of Extramural Research to identify the director or chief of career development and training. For most if not all ICs, this individual probably also serves as the assigned PO for one or more K, T, and/or F activity codes as well. You can also check the office that oversees career development and training for the entire NIH, and who should be able to answer or triage any questions you might have: https://researchtraining.nih.gov/ic-training-representatives (main page is here: https://researchtraining.nih.gov)
Clover_K01 said
Glad to hear A0 is allowed by NIH to be essentially the same as a previous A1 submission. I am more concerned about the expectations from the study section members. The IC has a standing study section for reviewing K applications, the members of which appear to be relatively stable. Since the study section has discussed my previous A1, they may recognize my new A0 application during the new discussion（I understand the assigned reviewers may be different）. If not seeing much changes to this new A0 application, would they tend to view my application in an unfavorable way? Thank you!
writedit said
Reviewers cannot refer to prior applications in their critiques or discussion, so while they might recognize your application, they will treat it as a completely new submission and evaluate it on its own merits (not in comparison with prior applications).
Genome Data Sharing Certification said
Dear writeedit
I recently received a JIT from NCI Office of Grants Administration. Since my research project does not involve genome data and human sample, do I need to provide Genome Data Sharing Certification? I saw this option in the JIT upload page.
writedit said
Based on what you say, you should not need to provide this, but if you have any doubts, you can ask your grants administrator at your institution.
Office of Grants Administration said
Dear Writeedit,
I recently received JIT request from NCI Office of Grants Administration. Since my research project does not involve genomic data and human sample, do I need to submit Genome Data Sharing Certification? I saw this option in the JIT upload page.
NCI K99 pending said
No, you don’t. Also you can ask your GMS specifically for what JIT documents you need to submit.
WW26 said
Dear Writedit, my K application (K99, NIGMS) has good score (<13) and positive summary statement (no weak point as far as I read). I'd like to know when should I expect the PO to ask me for JIT? I've got the system JIT email but I guess that is not the real JIT. Council meeting is scheduled to be held May 19th.
Thanks!
writedit said
You can contact your PO to see if they need any information from you to help with any internal decisions about which applications to fund and also to confirm that you do not need to work on a submission for July (or June, if your current application was an A1). You should ignore the automated JIT request and wait for a personal request for JIT, which should come shortly before or after the Council meeting but could come later, if they are still catching up from the backlog of applications to process due to the delayed federal budget.
SB said
I have a question about RFA vs investigator initiated grant application. Does submitting a grant under investigator initiated grant will provide better funding opportunity? I over heard that the RFA offered a limited money and therefore, will be more competition on that. Can i get any insight on this?
SaG said
There is no single answer. If your research matches the RFA 100% then you likely have a better chance than through an II app. But, it all depends on how many apps they get and how much money they have. If they can only fund 3 through the RFA and they get 100 apps odds of funding are low. If they get 5 apps odds of funding are high. NIH won’t tell you how many apps they received for an RFA. But how many reviewers served on the panel is a big hint. 3 reviewers per app, 10 apps per reviewer, 100 apps=~30 reviewers.
writedit said
As SaG says, it depends. If your science is multidisciplinary and tough to place in one SRG but is appropriate for the RFA (matches objectives), then you should get a good, possibly better, review via the RFA since that panel will necessarily have the diverse expertise needed that might not all be present on one SRG. You will also hear from reviewers specifically interested in your area of science, so their feedback, even if you are not funded, could be valuable.
Fei NIA K25 said
I got a response from NIA PO for my K25 application (scored 30 ADRD). She said my application is on the funding list for consideration at a funding meeting in early June. And I may not hear final decision till July. Do you think I should still submit a new application?
writedit said
Although with that score you should be fine to sit tight, if you did not specifically ask the PO whether you should submit again, you could confirm whether this is needed.
Fei NIA K25 said
I have asked my PO several times about the resubmission. She just told me this is my own decision.
K01_NIA_AD said
Hi Fei, Thank you for the update. Same here! Have you asked to send 1 or 2-page response to the main critics in the summary statement?
Fei NIA K25 said
Not at this time. I have sent in last Sep. I am in the first circle.
K01_NIA_AD said
I’m also in the first cycle (submitted Feb 2021, Score 34, ADRD). I was asked to send in September. And PO asked me to send it again by April 25.
Fei NIA AD said
Did she ask you to add something in the letter? May be they raise some other concerns in the meeting in Oct? This is my guess.
K01_NIA_AD said
She did not ask to add any specific item. Just a response for main critics. She might overlook my Sep email containing the response letter. Because another person asked behalf of the PO (CCed PO) to send the letter in Sep.
Fei NIA AD said
OK, it is PO asked me for the response letter. I guess that is why she did not ask me again
Northsnow said
Hello,
So, is there any information regarding the release of updated paylines for R21s and R01s from NIAID? When do you think we will get updates on the final payline for R01s and R21s by NIAID?
SaG said
Looking at the archive the R15 won’t change much or at all. The R21 might go up a few points. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/grants-contracts/archive-paylines-fiscal-year Maybe they are waiting until after their May Council meets.
WIS said
I have a question about the change in the assignment of the application. I submitted a grant in early Feb and requested NHLBI as the primary assignment. Today I received an email from eRA common saying that there has been a change in the assignment of my application, and it is now assigned to NICDH as the primary institution. Can I request to switch back? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated,.
SaG said
You can ask. But, NHLBI agreed to give it up and NICHD agreed to take it. So, they both must of felt that NICHD was a better fit for your app science- and mission-wise
writedit said
You can ask the PO at NHLBI with whom you were working why the assignment changed. If you did not communicate in advance with a PO at NHLBI, then either no one at NHLBI accepted the application, or someone at NICHD requested primary assignment. Either situation would have been based on your abstract and Specific Aims, not on your Application Referral Form. You cannot request a change – it is up to each IC to decide which applications to accept. If you have not been working with a PO at NHLBI, you can contact the assigned PO at NICHD to ask about the IC assignment (but they cannot switch it back to NHBLI either). For future reference, if you are working with a PO on an application (ie, confirming your science is of interest to their program, getting advice on FOAs and SRGs), which is highly advisable, then they should be watching for your application to accept it, and you can mention them by name in a cover letter (since there is no place for this on the PHS Assignment Form), so CSR knows.
WIS said
Thank you both so much! The PO was also very surprised with the change in assignment. I contacted with the SRO and she knew nothing about the change, The scientific review meeting will be held in mid June.
SaG said
as an FYI, SROs are not involved in the change of Institute assignment, Only a change in Study section assignment. And vice Versa for POs.
NIAID_K23_Help said
Hello,
First time poster, long-time reader. This site has really helped me with a K23 A1 to NIAID. Thank you for what you do.
I have a really helpful/kind PO and a K23 that’s gone from not discussed to an impact score of 20 (at last year’s payline), which just underwent expedited council review (status is now council review completed). I’ve not yet received a personal JIT. My PO has told me he’s “cautiously optimistic” about funding chances with this A1 and has specifically not requested a new reviewer rebuttal since the scientific review (I asked). However, NIAID’s K paylines are still not set due to the Federal budget timing (guess the omnibus signing data impacted this year’s timeline).
My question is, does anyone have a sense of when NIAID’s K paylines are getting set this year or have been set in prior years when this budget timeline occurs? I cannot seem to tell from prior years’ data and cannot glean it from prior posts here. NIAID staff have been told “early May” per my PO, but he seems rather distressed himself by the current budgeting situation and cannot give specific advice on timing, waiting for a decision, or indeed whether I should do a new A0 for the next deadline. For the record, I am cautiously optimistic about the grant being funded, but I’m getting a little nervous with the whole process. Like a few other posts, this is probably a “can you make me feel better?” request as much as a request for information. Thanks for any advice.
writedit said
POs almost never use the term “cautiously optimistic” unless they feel reasonably confident (barring unforeseen problems) about an award being likely, so you can continue to feel reassured by that assessment. I suspect NIAID is reviewing the total applications from all 3 cycles that would fall under a payline of 20 to confirm they have enough $$ to cover them all; some of this may involve calculating the amount of $$ needed for COVID-19-related extensions to noncompeting Ks, but since the payline stayed at 20 for both FY20 and FY21, COVID shouldn’t really be an issue in FY22 either. I am very happy that you have a good PO, who will relieve you of your anxiety as soon as they know anything – hopefully after Council meets. You won’t receive a personal JIT until the payline officially drops, though, so that shouldn’t cause any concern now.
NIAID_K23_Help said
Thank you very much. Really appreciate your work with this site. Some of the IC’s are releasing more updates to paylines (even today/yesterday), so hopefully NIAID’s K award paylines are set soon. Since my institution fiscal year changes July 1st, I hope these things are more settled by then.
writedit said
Yes, the R01 payline was just released, and I would expect the other remaining paylines to be updated/posted before July. However, since the final R01 payline is low (12th/16th, which hasn’t been that low since FY15), you might want to check again with your PO about whether to get an application in for June (if that is feasible). The K payline could hang tight at 20, though, since these awards are much smaller than R01s (ie, don’t let the final R01 payline feel too scary).
plmR21 said
Question, I have an R21 that was recommended for funding by my PO. Council met today. What is the typical timeline from Advisory Council meeting and notification. Is it usually a few days or weeks before we should start to wonder if we don’t hear anything. Also for NIDA about how many applications that are recommended for funding are not funded? It would be interesting to know the stats at the stage of the game like how many apps that are recommended for funding get funded. Any info would be great Thanks!
writedit said
There are no stats on success rate until the end of the FY, after the books are closed (these data are available from some ICs and at the NIH Data Book: https://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/category/6). Your application will be part of a ranked-order paylist that the IC (NIDA, I assume) will go through in order to make awards. When they run out of money, the awards stop, and any recommended applications still on the list will not receive funding. Because some applications higher on the list might end up being skipped due to duplicate funding, well-funded PI, issues with regulatory approvals, etc. (nothing anyone can predict), it is impossible to say how far down the paylist awards will be made. If you have not received a JIT request by June, you can ask your PO if you should plan to submit again in July (or October, if this was an A1).
r01_funding_PI said
Dear all,
I am looking for clarification on when you receive a notice of award, or other indication that a NOA is indeed coming.
I received 16th percentile on R01 to NIMHD. Submitted JIT and then submitted response to reviews per PO request. In era commons, it says IC meets later in May. The grant is scheduled to start in July. Do I need to wait until after the IC meeting date to receive news or to follow-up? Just not sure when I should expect to hear something. Thanks for your guidance.
r01_funding_PI said
**Edit to above: I meant AC, not IC
writedit said
Your start date is not an expiration date, so stop thinking about July 1. If you received a JIT request from your PO vs the automated eRA Commons request, then you should see some activity in your eRA Commons account in June. The ICs are still catching up on the backlog of awards from the delayed FY appropriation, though Cycle 3 applications should start in July (maybe not July 1 though). If you have not asked your PO whether you should submit again, wait about 2 weeks after Council meets, and if nothing has changed in your eRA Commons account, ask your PO if you should plan to submit an A1 application in July (or an A0 application in October, if this was an A1 application).
Eragon said
NICHD and NHLBI released their funding policy for FY 2022.
writedit said
Thanks for the heads up!
Advisory_Council_Date said
For two pending NIH grants (reviewed back in Feb and March 2022), the “Council Meeting Date” for both says 5/2022 but the advisory council date is blank. In comparison to other grants, it feels like the advisory council usually would be entered into ERA commons by now. Is anyone seeing a delay in advisory council dates in ERA? Is this common? For reference, these are NCI grants and looks like the advisory council is meeting in May and June.
M said
NCI’s advisory council meeting that will do grant review is in June. The May one is the NIAAA/NIDA & NCAB joint meeting.
writedit said
M is correct (and, thank you!!) – the June NCAB meeting will consider Cycle 3 applications, though most will be (or have been) electronically approved en bloc for consideration for funding in advance of the meeting. When this happens, and your application is on the list sent in advance of the meeting, your eRA status changes to Council review completed before the meeting happens. You can check meeting agendas and minutes for the NCAB here: https://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/ncab/ncabmeetings.htm
JN said
Hi Writedit,
The NHLBI payline for FY2022 is the same as FY2021. Is it going to increase? My RO1 got 16% and the payline is 15%. What will be my next steps? Thanks,
writedit said
This is NHLBI’s final payline, so you will need to resubmit in July. Even if your application is on the list for consideration for select pay, those decisions will not be made until August or September (after all the Cycle 3 awards are made in July and August), and you don’t want to miss a submission cycle. if you submit in July and receive an award in September, the A1 will be withdrawn. If you don’t receive a select pay award and don’t submit in July, then you need to wait for November.
JN said
Thanks for the suggestion, writedit.
DeadShrimp said
@JN – we’re in a similar boat, my ESI R01 is a 26th%ile. Per my PO the payline is set for FY2022 as noted (15%, 25% ESI). Re: your 16th%ile – I would contact your PO now if you haven’t already to discuss options for select pay. I was told discussions for select pay are ongoing now, and they hope to make determinations for these applications before June council, although the final NOA, if identified for select pay, wont come until close to or after the July 2022 resubmission deadline. Hope that helps.
JN said
Hi DeadShrimp- I contacted my PO early in Feb and he mentioned that the current payline is 15% and it may go up by the end of the FY. At that time the budget was not passed yet for 22. My PO recommended to wait till July for the resubmission. I am nervous. What did your PO suggest?
DeadShrimp said
I think the FY2022 payline for NHLBI is posted and is unchanged (15/25). I believe this has been confirmed by others on this thread. My PO used the proverbial “cautiously optimistic” that we would be competitive for funding, but I have not yet gotten him to comment on whether or not we should prepare for resubmission. He declined my offer to draft a response to Reviewers, and said that he had his arguments already prepared.
JN said
NHLBI got increased appropriation. I hope the payline will go up. Thanks for the info.
Fingers crossed.
DeadShrimp said
@JN – not sure if appropriations increased or not. But it doesn’t look like the payline changed. As published here: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/current-operating-guidelines
nia k99 said
Hi Writedit,
When an application “was recommended for funding” (words from PO), does it go into the administrative review? What does the PO mean by “the final decision will be made at the next meeting?”
writedit said
Your PO recommending your application for funding will not change your eRA Commons status. It just means your application will be one of several being considered for awards, and at the next internal meeting at your NIA Division, leadership will decide on the playlist. If your application is above the payline, you may not know about an award until later in the FY, such as August or September, so if that is your situation and you have not already submitted another application, you should ask your PO if you should plan to submit in July (if the application currently under consideration is an A0). If your application is within the payline, then you can relax and wait for NIA to get in touch with you with any information they still need, including JIT, if this has not yet been requested. Your eRA status won’t change until after they request and begin to review your JIT.
nia k99 said
Thanks! This is helpful. My application is a few points within the payline, so that’s less concerning. I am just a bit concerned that there’s no status change (it is still “council review completed”), and JIT was never requested by PO or GMS. I thought they are supposed to request JIT by now.
Do they wait for the leadership decision in June before they begin to request/review the JIT?
Fei NIA K25 said
I am in the same situation as you are. I got information PO saying that my application is on the funding list to be discussed in June. We may hear something in July.
writedit said
I just checked RePORTER. NIA has only made 7 new FY22 K99 awards so far, all but one in February or March (these awards should have started Dec 1, 2021). The most recent award was May 1, which means they still have most of the Cycle 2 awards (which should have started April 1) to make. That tells me they are waaaaaay behind on award processing, no doubt due to the delayed federal budget. Based on Fei NIA K25’s PO, it sounds like they will get to Cycle 3 in June, which is when you should expect the JIT request, but you don’t need to worry about the delays. If you need to start spending sooner due to your postdoc ending, you can ask your institution about setting up a pre-award account, which they can do if you are within 90 days of award (which you will be in June, since the FY ends September 30).
nia k99 said
Thank you so much! I was also part of cycle 2. They are clearly behind. I appreciate your work to look into the Reporter. This is encouraging.
I guess I am kind of interested in how this works- the PO recommended the application in one funding meeting. Why does it take another funding meeting for the leadership to decide? Also, do they start processing the JIT before the leadership finalized the list? Or do they wait until it’s finalized?
nia k99 said
Sorry again if this is too many questions. I am just trying to get a full picture. Thank you writedit!
M said
After council, the POs recommend applications to form a paylist in the internal meeting, then they will process those in the paylist (in the order of score/percentile). This is the time usually you receive JIT from the GMS. Then the GMS will do administrative review, drafts NOA and send to the office of director. IC director signs the NOA.
Fei NIA K25 said
I believe the order of funding decisions was not based on cycle, but based on the score. Mine is in the first cycle.
writedit said
They start with the interim payline, which leaves out some of the first cycle awards initially, until the payline is raised. Then they go back to pick up those that became eligible – another cause for backup, as additional applications from the first cycle need to be processed as well as Cycles 2 and 3.
writedit said
Thanks, M!
junior PI, first R01 renewal said
Hi Writedit,
I am a junior faculty writing for my first R01 renewal. Two questions about the progress report section. 1) Publications have suffered due to COVID-related delays, and PO suggested I directly address this in the progress report and include non-publication progress too (like efforts building up my first lab). Is it appropriate to include covid-delay remarks in the progress report section as well as include more “fluff” material, like lab management stuff? 2) If we made a new tool that is definitely promising but not quite ready for prime-time (i.e. not enough prelim data to be part of the proposed aims), should we not include it in the progress report?
writedit said
Glad you have a helpful PO! Reviewers want to understand what you have done with the money and time allotted by the R01 award, so not saying anything will not be helpful to their review, and they also understand the pandemic impact. I think your PO’s advice is good, but you will want to emphasize how what you were able to accomplish did set you up for the new aims in the renewal (ie, you aren’t just asking for more money to continue what you couldn’t accomplish). I would say this includes mention of your promising tool, again to show you are making progress, though I guess I am surprised it cannot described for continued development as part of the new aims – but please don’t try to explain here (I trust your assessment). Now, Open Mike has a May 17th post noting that investigators submitting for the summer 2022 deadlines “may address effects due to the pandemic on productivity or other scoreable issues in the personal statement of the biosketch. Reviewers will be instructed to take these pandemic-related circumstances into account when assessing applicants’ productivity and other score-driving factors.” You could save the pandemic delays for your personal statement and focus on any and all work done in the Progress Report, especially if you are tight on space. If you have plenty of room, you can assess what points belong in the Progress Report vs your personal statement.
Meghan said
Hi Writedit,
I am a researcher waiting for funding, and I have greatly benefited from your post. I submitted an R21 proposal to NHGRI, which obtained an impact score of 30 and percentile of 16%. The proposal is proposed to start in 04/01/2022. However, my PO said that “you score is considered bordline…you may want to consider making plans to revise and resubmit…things may change in the near future”.
NHGRI has no payline, and it is like a black box to me. Do you know how institutions without payline works? Does it award funding based on impact score? Or are there any other factors that they consider? Do you have any suggestions what I should do for the next step?
Thanks,
Meghan
BDGU said
The others on here can confirm this, but the ICs that don’t publish paylines are reserving the right to fund based on their strategic, programmatic (and… political) priorities. So it’s not only scoring acceptably well, but matching well with an institute or center’s trajectory. Good luck!
writedit said
All ICs have some sort of payline (at least by the end of the FY), though they are not obligated to publish it, so most don’t. Many probably maintain a large window of consideration (e.g., NIMH) to allow plenty of programmatic discretion. Your PO gave you good advice to apply again, so I hope you have already (or will in July if not). The start date is not an expiration date, and since you have a borderline score, that means your application probably won’t have a final outcome until the end of the FY (Sept 30), at which point you will have either received an award in August or September, or the FY will close with no award (and no award will be considered in FY23 either).
Meghan said
Thanks so much for your clarification. It is very helpful to know the meaning of borderline score (I will have either received an award in August or September or no award at all).
Can I confirm with you for one thing: So for institutions that do not have a payline published, they do have an internal payline and they do stick to the payline to award grants? So I can trust them and do not need to network with the POs to increase my chance of getting the grant?
writedit said
Yes – each IC still sets up their own paylists, and most have an internal operating payline – though some simply calculate what theirs was at the end of the FY (like success rate). ICs like GM really do not have a hard payline, but can estimate the cliff after which awards drop off precipitously and could be considered select pay (even without official payline). That said, you can always ask the PO if they need any information to help advocate for your application during internal discussions of paylists. If not, don’t assume the worst – it could be they don’t think they will need additional information, such as your response to the review, to make your case.
NCI_hopeful said
Dear Writedit, thank you for running this blog, it has been very helpful!
I am in a unique situation and wondered if you would have any suggestions on when I expect a change in ERA based on this timeline (NCI, 15th percentile ESI):
Grant submitted in Feb ’21 (A0), Council met in Aug ’21. Final NCI payline released in March and JIT submitted (after reaching out to PO and asking if I should) on Mar 28th. Grant status “pending administrative review” on May 5th, 2022. While the status says that I can contact GMS or PO, there is no GMS assigned. The PO has been very encouraging and helpful in the past, but hasn’t replied to my last two queries. Would you know if a lack of GMS contact should be concerning and reflect on the likelihood of funding? Thanks so much for your advice!
writedit said
Your PO is out of the award processing loop, so that is probably why they did not reply – especially since you are securely within the payline, so the likelihood of funding is certain, pending administrative review (and no issues uncovered). I suspect NCI has a tremendous backlog of applications to process, due to the FY22 budget delay and their payline changes. Since the status changed in early May, a GMS has started to work on your application (though I am not sure why no name was added – someone there has been assigned to your application/award, though). I am not surprised you are still waiting as often there is a long span in the “Pending administrative review” status. You are okay just to wait and not worry that something is wrong (nothing is – other than government bureaucracy in the face of employment shortages, COVID pandemic, time off for school-college graduations, etc.). If you need to start spending now, you can ask your institution to set up a pre-award account, and your grants administrator at your own institution probably knows whom to contact at the NCI Office of Grants Administration for a follow-up on your application’s status (to confirm you are within 90 days of award, if this is necessary).
NCI_hopeful said
Dear Writedit, thank you so much for your quick and detailed response, this is certainly very helpful! This has been a long wait with the budget delays (and I am sure I am not alone). Hopefully the GMS will get in touch eventually. Your blog has taught me so much about the way NIH works! I greatly appreciate it. Thanks!
namaska97 said
Dear Writedit, I will be submitting my first R01 to NCI for June cycle. I saw that there has been significant changes in study section (ENQUIRE 2022), starting from this June cycle. I cannot find the SRO information for the majority of these new study sections. Where can I get this information? I would like to discuss my application with SROs to find the most appropriate study section for my application. If you know, please let me know. Thank you for your help in advance!!
SaG said
You might be better off talking to a Program officer. They should be able to guide a study section choice too. But, keep in mind that the final decision is up to the SRO and until they see the full submitted application they can’t tell you anything definitive. I suggest you look at the reviewers on the study section. Do you recognize the names? Do you cite their work? Do you go to the same meetings as them? The one with the most yeses would be the best study section for you.
namaska97 said
Unfortunately, there are no information for the reviewers or PO as well. Many of theres new study sections are not updated…
writedit said
If you do not have a PO yet, that should be your first task. They are completely unrelated to the study section. You want to go to NCI’s website to check research program contacts for the right person in the right division (https://www.cancer.gov/grants-training/grants-funding/contacts) and past your draft specific aims page or abstract text in the Matchmaker tool of RePORTER, which can also help you identify possible study sections (https://reporter.nih.gov/matchmaker). When you identify the names of possible POs, check their bios on the NCI website and search them by name (under the Program Officer field) in RePORTER to see if their expertise and current grant portfolio looks like a good match for your research. Once you have contacted them and confirmed their fit for your work, you can ask them for advice on SRG options. You can also past your specific aims and abstract into the CSR Assisted Referral Tool (ART – https://public.csr.nih.gov/ForApplicants/ArtHome) to identify the best current panels for your work. Now, I just went through he current ENQUIRE list, and some SRGs do have all the required information. If your SRG does not have an assigned SRO yet, then you can contact the Review Branch (formerly IRG) chief – the person in charge of the branch in which your target study section sits: https://public.csr.nih.gov/StudySections/ReviewBranches (there are a few cancer-related review branches, so you’ll need to see which one is right for your research).
namaska97 said
Writedit, thank you so much for your advice!!!
GM R01 said
This site has been very helpful. I have a 12 pct R01 at NIGMS; they had the council meeting last week, but the funding decision cannot be made until late June. Should I ask PO about the need of resubmission, also how likely a 12% is fundable at NIGMS?
SaG said
See Figure 4. https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/2022/04/application-and-funding-trends-in-fiscal-year-2021/
writedit said
As SaG points out, you are likely to receive an award, especially if you do not fall in the category of very well funded PI (this accounts for many skipped applications). You could ask your PO about resubmission, if you want to be sure – though at this point, unless you have an application about ready to submit, it is a bit late to prepare a new application for June 5 (assuming the 12th percentile was A1).
GMR01 said
Thank you SaG and writedit. This is very helpful.
New PI said
I was told that it is possible to request an administrative deferment on an award. I have an R01 with a status of “pending administrative review.” I know it sounds nuts when everyone is waiting on pins and needles to get their awards. However, there is a lot of upheaval at my institution that is distracting me from concentrating on my research at the moment and I have another grant I’m working on finishing up. I’m hoping things will settle out a bit in 4-6 months. Would it be reasonable to ask for a delay?
my experience said
I suggest that you should take the money. 4-6 months are not that long and you may request NCE at the end. If you don’t get the money, you may completely lose it. The FY ends on 9/30. Delaying 4-6 months means a new FY. They may not even fund any application from the previous FY.
writedit said
You will be approved to receive the award in FY22, which as my experience points out, is Sept 30. The ICs are crazy busy the last 3 months of the FY, since they are rushing to spend down their appropriations (no carryover allowed). Your GMS might be able to delay issuing the NOA until August or early September, but that’s something you’ll need to negotiate. I would suggest that you tell your institution grants officer (in your Sponsored Programs office) that you would like to delay the start date, and they can communicate with the GMS to determine if this is possible and for how long (or they can tell you immediately, if they already know from experience how the IC will respond).
Viru said
Hi,
I am currently on a K23 (year 1). I also have a young family (dad to a 2 year old and a newborn).
I have heard of extension of ESI status when you have children – is this something that is done? My terminal degree was 2017 so I have time still but was curious.
Thanks for maintaining this great forum and resource.
writedit said
Yes, you can talk with your K23 PO about this and complete the ESI Extension Request Form in eRA Commons (https://www.era.nih.gov/erahelp/ESIE_ext/Default.htm). The birth of a new child (automatic 1-y extension per child) and family care responsibilities are valid reasons to request an extension during your eligible window (see FAQ at https://grants.nih.gov/faqs#/early-investigators.htm?anchor=alphaHeader4112).
Namaska97 said
Hi Writedit,
I’m applying R01 as an ESI. I used the Assisted Referral Tool which suggested the best study section, and SRO from that study section also gave me a positive signal although she said nothing is for sure.
Also, SRO mentioned that either NCI or NHLBI will decide if any of them are interested in my proposal after submission. Based on review of similar proposal that were funded previously from NIH reporter, sometimes proposals with my topic are funded by NCI (~40%), but sometimes funded by NHLBI (~60% of cases). But, the payline for the ESI are very different between these two institutions. SRO told me that regardless of institution, my proposal will be assigned to the study section with best match, and same percentile will be used either by NCI or NHLBI for their funding decision. My question is, let say I get 20 percentile. Then, will it be funded if NHLBI is interested in my proposal, but not be funded if NCI is interested? I’m just trying to understand the mechanisms how it works. It sounds like it depends on luck….. I would appreciate any comments on this.
my experience said
For your case, you should contact NHLBI PO(s). If someone from NHLBI is interested in your science, you should state that in your application cover letter. You should also describe why NHLBI is the best fit. You don’t want to mention NCI. Or you don’t want to depend on your luck.
If you find a PO from NHLBI who is willing to take your proposal and you state his/her name in the cover letter, 99% of the chance your proposal will be assigned to him/her.
Sometimes you might be unlucky. For example, the PO left NHLBI after you submit the application (I had one of the experiences, so my proposal was rerouted to NIDDK from NIBIB after the NIBIB PO left her job).
writedit said
You need to find the right PO at each IC, just as you did the SRO. Paste your specific aims into the RePORTER Matchmaker tool (https://reporter.nih.gov/matchmaker) and see which POs receive the highest matching scores. Then go to the NCI and NHLBI research contacts by scientific area pages to check their bios, and use RePORTER to check their award portfolios (you can do that from the Matchmaker results). When you find the most appropriate POs at each IC, contact them with your aims to ask if your research is a good fit for their program. If both are interested, you might want to consider a message to both POs together to decide how to request assignment, so you are not surprised by what happens (ie, you might decide just to request NHLBI based on payline, but the NCI PO might tell CSR the application needs to go to NCI). You can note all this in your optional cover letter to explain your IC choice on the PHS 398 Assignment Request Form. Having both POs on board might help in the event of an NHLBI secondary assignment and a percentile above the NCI payline (ie, rarely do ICs accept secondary assignment applications, but in this case, they might).
Namaska97 said
Thank you so much!!
waitinglite said
Hi,
Thank you for your help! My R01 was resubmitted March 5.
era Commons says that the council meeting will be mid September. As the FY22 ends September 30, will the funding decision be available before September 30 if IC is willing to support my application?
writedit said
Your March 5, 2022 submission means your application will be considered for FY23 (with a Dec 1 start date – in theory). Due to the midterm elections, I do not expect a federal budget to be in place until some time in 2024, but maybe Congress will get it done before the elections.
Luan Vu said
Dear Writedit,
My K99 resubmission got an impact score of 25 in Oct 2021, and with dual assignments: NIAID (primary) and NICHD (secondary). NIAID (PO) told me the score is good but does not know if it will be awarded, PO added”…but it may be a bit of a stretch. There were quite a few strong applications this year, which may mean the awards will be exceptionally competitive and funding decisions tend to be made later in the fiscal year.”
Recently, NICHD published the K99 payline of 32 on 05/05/2022. Should I ask NICHD PO whether NICHD may consider my application as one of two assigned Institutes? This is my last chance for the K99 award.
Thank you very much for your kind consideration and help.
Best regards,
Luan
writedit said
Normally, I would say there is no chance for the secondary IC to pick up an application, but it sounds like your NIAID PO is interested and sympathetic – and this is your last chance. I would suggest you ask the NIAID PO if they would be willing to relinquish the application to NICHD. It might be better for your NIAID PO to initiate contact with NICHD, if they want to help you get an award (at either IC), but if they are willing to let the application go but want you to contact NICHD, then you can reach out to your PO there. Of course, there is still no guarantee that NICHD would be interested, since they might have a number of qualified applications as well, though the higher payline suggests otherwise. Now, you might want to confirm that your eligibility window wasn’t extended due to COVID-19, but of course it would be even better to see if the POs would help get this application awarded.
Luan Vu said
Thank you very much, Writedit. I greatly appreciate your help and advice!!
Best regards,
Luan
M said
NIAID has one of the lowest k99 successful rates (below 20% I believe) and a very tough payline. While NICHD has a more than 33% successful rate. Their payline even increased this year. I am not sure if NICHD will accept the score from a different IC, because that’s two completely different study sections. But no hurt to ask, you never know.
Luan Vu said
Dear Wrtitedit,
Thank you very much for your kindness, Writedit and M.
I contacted the NIAID PO. The PO told me that each IC handles dual assigment differently and suggested me to contact the NICHD PO.
Also, I just found that NICHD published a research paper which is very much align to my K99 proposal.
At the begining, my orignal K99 was submitted to NICHD (according to NICHD PO’s suggestion after reviewing the Specific Aims page). However, NIH transfered my application to NIAID as the primary IC after the submission.
Best regards,
writedit said
This sounds promising for NICHD to pick up your application, despite, as M notes, the non-NICHD study section. You should certainly contact your NICHD PO, noting that the NIAID PO suggested you do so and reminding them this is your last chance at applying (ie, resubmitting with NICHD as primary is not an option).
LVD said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you very much for your kindness, Writedit.
On May 27, I emailed the NICHD PO about my situation. I have not received any responses from the NICHD PO yet.
I will keep you posted.
Best regards,
Luan
writedit said
Sounds good. The holiday weekend will likely delay their response, so not surprising. Hopefully you will receive a (positive) response soon.
LVD said
Dear Writedit,
I hope this email finds you well.
I sent the email to NICHD on 05/27/2022 regarding the possibility of funding my K99 ( 25 impact score). At this time NICHD payline was 32. And I haven’t received any responses from the PO so far. Yesterday,NICHD just updated the new K99 payline which is 34 of impact score.
Also, since my supervisor told me that the chance for my K99 is extremely low, she wants to retailor the K99 application for an R01.
Should I contact the PO again, or what can I do now?
Thank you very much.
writedit said
If you have a score of 25, then your application will receive an award (assuming no administrative issues, which are not likely). You don’t mention when your application was submitted, but if you submitted in February or March of this year (2022), then your application will receive an award in FY23. If you submitted the application in 2021, then you will receive an award before September 30th of this year. If a GMO was assigned to your application, you can contact them about submitting JIT material (if you have not already). You can also contact the Branch chief where your PO works for further guidance, especially in light of your supervisor’s plans, though it could be that your PO took extra time over the holiday weekend and is still catching up. Either way, your application score is well within the payline, so your supervisor should not be talking about taking your K99 application and converting it to an R01 to fund their lab – especially since they should understand that your score indicates funding is almost assured. I hope you have a mentoring team with faculty other than your supervisor who can watch out for your welfare and career development.
LDV said
Dear Writedit,
My apologies for confusing you. I forgot to mention the previous comments between you and me.
1. My K99 was dually assigned with NIAID is the primary and NICHD is the secondary Institute.
2. NIAID PO told me that my chance is low “a bit a stretch” and K99 award is “extremely competitive this year” and the desicion will be made at the latter this fiscal year. Since the chance of my K99 is low, my supervisor would like me to retailor my K99 for an R01 application. I will be a co-investigator.
3. In the meantime, NICHD published the payline of 32 for K99 on 5/5/2022. According to your advice, I contacted NIAID PO and was told to contact NICHD PO. On 05/27/2022, I sent NICHD PO an email regarding to the chance of my K99 and have not received any responses yet.
4. Yesterday, NICHD updated a new K99 payline which droped from 32 to 34.
My K99 resubmission was scored 25 in Oct 2022.
Should I contact NICHD PO again (since I have not received any responses yet) or wait for the responses?
Thank you very much, Writedit.
LDV
writedit said
No, I apologize – I should have answered from the website (where I can see the entire thread) vs from the email I get from WordPress (no thread included). As I mentioned in my earlier message, it’s probably not surprising the NICHD PO has not responded, since it’s not a quick or easy answer, and there was just a long holiday weekend (plus graduations and other non-work events likely). The likelihood of a secondary institute picking up an application is not usually high, but it’s not zero, and in this case, you originally wanted NICHD as the primary institute. I’d suggest you wait until later next week and then try the NICHD PO again, reminding them of your original preference/request for NICHD and their interest in your application (to accept as primary institute), your alignment with their recent paper, your last chance for K99 funding, and the NIAID PO’s support. Since the R01 application won’t be submitted until October, you will know in plenty of time whether NICHD will pick up your K99 application.
LDV said
Thank you very much, Writedit.
I will wait for the NICHD PO.
Thank you so much for your help.
Best regards,
LDV
LDV said
Dear Writedit,
I enquired NICHD PO whether NICHD is able to consider my K99 (dual assignment).
And I just got the response from the NICHD PO. The responses mentioned that “…..The most appropriate time to transfer an application to another IC from an IC which your application was assigned is prior to review/Council. NICHD has many scientifically meritorious and aligned applications under consideration for funding. If we are able to consider your application for transfer and funding, we will reach out appropriately”.
What I should do now? Does it mean NICHD is unable to consider my K99?
Thank you very much, Writedit.
Best regards,
LDV
writedit said
Your NICHD PO thinks you should have contacted CSR as soon as your application was assigned to NIAID instead of NICHD. I assume this is the same PO who recommended that you request NICHD as your primary IC. It’s a bit of a tall order to expect a K99 applicant to know they can contact the NIH about having the assignment switched back … though your mentor could and probably should have given you this advice.At this point, it looks like your likelihood of funding is low but not zero, but you won’t know until August or September probably (and they closed the door on you asking about this again). You should move on to plan B, recognizing the very slim possibility of the K99 coming through – and this would happen before the R01 is submitted in October.
LDV said
Thank you very much, Writedit.
I am wondering if I should inform NIAID PO about what we learned from NICHD PO.
Best regards,
Luan
writedit said
You could forward the email as an FYI, but I wouldn’t suggest asking for an update or making any other queries (NIAID has made it clear where they stand, too). I think forwarding the exact response is better than trying to summarize it yourself.
Maroon said
Hi Writedit,
I applied for the NIGMS R35 as an ESI last year and got a score of 30s. Emailed the PO after receiving the summary statement in March and got a brief response, then no response; a couple followed up emails between April to May – no response.
I am not sure how funding decisions work in this program. Council meeting was completed a few days ago. Shall I wait or try to reach out the PO through other means?
SaG said
Probably not much they can tell you at this point but not responding to your emails is rude. You could reach out to other POs or supervisors in the Division see if they can help. https://www.nigms.nih.gov/about/pages/staff-contacts.aspx
Maroon said
Will it jeopardize my chance of funding if reaching out to other POs or supervisors?
writedit said
No – part of the PO’s job is to communicate with investigators. That said, it might depend on what you are asking at this point. As SaG notes, the ranking of MIRA applications are often not decided until late in the FY, so no one may be able to tell you about your chances. If you had a question unrelated to funding likelihood to ask, then by all means, contact a branch chief or other appropriate PO. If you need to know now whether to start working on another submission for October, you could ask whether you should be doing so. You might also check out the online MIRA (& DP2) Impact Score spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10f1MDXXW57r5pYxwqTnAKM_NRY_SmvC0s0b3joyO_Zo/edit#gid=967453091) – but please note that many of the JIT requests logged reflect the automated request, not a personal request from NIGMS (but you will see that some applicants did have JIT and other requests of various sorts from their PO).
Maroon said
No, wasn’t asking about funding chance, but questions about the JIT (got automated request) and whether I should prepare a response to the reviewers. I assume my PO will make the funding decision, right?
Thanks for the great insights.
writedit said
No, the PO does not make the funding decision (this is not NSF). If they did not ask for a rebuttal to the review, then you do not need to send one. The PO would use the response to the review to advocate for your application, but that is their call – you can’t force them to advocate for you.
SaG said
Contacting a supervisor won’t alter your funding chances. Just do it in a non-accusatory way. Dear Dr. X, I have some questions about my JIT but I haven’t been able to get in touch with my PO, Dr. X. Can you refer me to some one else I can speak with?
Maroon said
Thank you so much writedit and SaG.
I thought I would just follow up with another comment/question before I reach out further. I interacted with the PO before my MIRA submission, but got an impression that the PO was not enthusiastic about my research. I have been having a difficult time getting a response from the PO since the beginning.
Do you know how the PO’s enthusiasm or responsiveness translate to funding chances? I read your article at https://writedit.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/how-noas-are-born-at-nigms-anyway/, which seems to suggest the handling PO has big influence (at NIGMS).
writedit said
Also (thanks, SaG!), the MIRA program is NIGMS-wide covering all Institute research priorities, so while a PO can make a difference at the branch and division level, the final decisions are made by IC leadership and ultimately the Institute Director. I know of POs who prefer to be neutral in communications with PIs while still advocating hard for their applications at their IC – their rationale being that they do not want to give the PI false hope in case their advocacy falls short, but their lack of explicit enthusiasm in emails does not necessarily reflect a lack of enthusiasm for the science in the application. If you ask about applying again, applying elsewhere (to a different FOA), and/or modifying your research and get a response, you’ll have your answer.
SaG said
This is hard to quantify. Responsiveness makes no difference. Enthusiasm could. But, the PO has to convince their colleagues and the Branch Chief and Division Director that they should also not be enthusiastic. That is, funding is not just up to the PO. Assuming your score isn’t way outside of the range of apps they fund, then lack of enthusiasm isn’t a big deal. If they have to make a long reach then yes it could be a big deal. I am curious how you came to the conclusion that the PO wasn’t enthusiastic. Did they say that or are you trying to read that into their lack of responsiveness?
Maroon said
Would it be possible to reach out to you privately (email)? No worries if not. thank you both!
writedit said
I have absolutely no idea what happened to the reply I posted last week.
In this situation, I don’t think there is anything either of us could help you with, since it is up to NIGMS as to what applications they want to fund, no matter then score. We can’t speak for your PO or the branch and division in which your research falls. You will have a better idea of the outcome with plenty of time to prepare an application (whether R01 or R35) for this fall, so the outcome of this application is not time-sensitive, either, unless you have a tenure decision on the line or your lab is about to close, which is something you could communicate to the PO as well.
Clover_K01 said
I actually have the same question and want to follow up with SaG’s last response on June 7th. I thought even if the score is at borderline (a couple of points off the payline), then whether it could fall under the selective pay will be largely dependent on the PO’s enthusiasm to advertise this application or not. Only if the PO advertise this application, this application can be further brought to the IC leadership for final decision. Is this correct? Thanks for your help!
writedit said
If you are talking about a different IC (than NIGMS) with a hard payline, then yes, the PO must advocate for your application internally so it is considered for select pay, but the decisions are made higher up. Of course, each PO has dozens of applications that could be eligible for select pay each cycle, so they must decide judiciously which to promote for consideration. No doubt all the applications are worthy of funding, but if there is a particular portfolio gap or current interest internally that makes one application more timely or appealing than another, then those are the ones more likely to get extra consideration. Sometimes talking with a PO in advance of applying or resubmitting about current high-priority interests can help you target these gaps, but only if your science fits, and even then there is no guarantee.
SaG said
It depends on the Institute. NIGMS MIRAs don’t have a hard payline. See figure 7 in this blog post (https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/2022/04/application-and-funding-trends-in-fiscal-year-2021/#more-15496) . So, PO enthusiasm plays less of a role. At ICs with a hard payline (NIAID, NCI etc) then reaching to pay for an app is more dependent on the PO’s enthusiasm. They only get to propose 1 or 2.
Clover_K01 said
I have a question on a review comment. I am not sure whether this is the right place to post, but hope some of you may have similar experiences to offer some insights. One of my reviewers mentioned that I didn’t adequately address Sex as a biological variable. But I did mention to include Sex as a covariate in my model. I am not sure why this is not sufficient or how I should further address Sex. The PO is not quite sure about this either. Any suggestions or insights would be appreciated. Also, should I contact the SRO who was at the scientific review meeting and who wrote the summary statement to clarify this? Thank you!
writedit said
Often reviews include comments that suggest the reviewer did not see or read the material that was there. If you are asking because you plan to submit again, then just be sure to highlight “Sex as a Biological Variable” in your Research Strategy narrative, so no reviewers miss it. If this concern was raised in the Summary of Discussion, that means the entire panel agreed that you did not address sex as a biological variable (SRO just reporting what happened during discussion, so there is nothing that they could clarify), which means you need to highlight how you handle this more clearly (even if you think you did the first time, apparently not) so they don’t miss it. If the concern was only raised in one critique, the issue was probably addressed during the discussion, and the reviewer never corrected their review (very common). The SRO does not change anything in the individual critiques.
Clover_K01 said
Got you. Will highlight them this time. Thank you!
F31NewB said
Hello,
Applied for NCI F31-Diversity in August of 2021, received both percentile and impact score of 34. Spoke with PO in November of 2021 and was told based on previous years it had a good chance of being funded (of course he stated nothing is for sure as the federal budget was still up in the air). I resubmitted in April of 2022. I was told by another NIH contact prior to resubmission (PO was out of town) who said that the pay line had been set to 20 due to COVID, etc, but it was not stated if that was an interim pay line or not.
I still have not heard one way or the other about the funding status of the initial application in August of ’21 and the resubmission is set to be reviewed in July I believe.
How long does it typically take to hear one way or another on your funding status? I hoped that by now I would at least have a yes or no on the initial application. I have attempted via phone and email to contact the PO in the last couple of months with no response (I assume there is a lot of catching up with the budget being passed??)
Any input of suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks!
writedit said
NCI now has their final funding plan up (though no scores posted for fellowships), which probably wasn’t available in April – and yes, they are still catching up on a backlog of applications to be processed for awards. Applicants are never told “no” and only know that they will not receive an award if none has arrived by September 30th (application is administratively withdrawn by the NIH later, usually in the next FY). You could ask your PO or alternative NCI contact if your August 2021 application now falls within the funding range. Your PO should have responded to your email (not a good idea to cold call without arranging time via email), but it could be they had no new information when you reached out (though still no excuse for not simply saying they didn’t know yet). Since you have another application under review, you don’t need to ask if resubmission is needed, but if you have another time-sensitive reason that you need to know the outcome sooner, you can mention that in your message.
Always_something_to_worry_about said
Hello,
I have an R44 grant, with an -02 year that ended yesterday. The -03 is listed as beginning today. However, it is still listed as “Pending” and we have heard nothing from NIH. Is this common, or something to worry about? Can we still work on the -02 using carryover funds?
Thanks
writedit said
I am not familiar with the management of SBIR awards, but if you got your annual report in on time and there were no issues, and you do not need to provide any regulatory oversight approval (ie, IRB or IACUC), then I am not sure why the noncompeting award was not issued, unless it is simply due to FY budget related delays still. The NOA start date can be back dated to match the correct date. You should contact your PO or GMO about continuing to spend (though I assume this is fine) and whether anything is needed for the Type 5 award for year 3.
Always_something_to_worry_about said
Thanks. Report was filed on time, only potential issue was a (justified in the report) large budget carryover. IRB is in place. We have tried to contact the GMS and PO, but so far no luck (PO is out of office this week). I hope they’re just backed up/busy, since they haven’t asked us for more information or clarification regarding the report.
tm456 said
Hi! I am an ESI and scored a 45 on my first R01 submission (yay!). It was reviewed by a SEP and assigned to the NIA. Grant application is focused on ADRD. No percentile was posted. Which payline would my grant be applied to? Should I reach out to my PO before or after the summary statements are posted? I’m thinking it’s a resubmission most likely. Thanks for a great blog.
writedit said
Congratulations on having your first R01 scored (& reasonably close to NIA payline)! You want to wait until after you receive your summary statement to contact your PO about next steps. Since your application was reviewed by a SEP, it should fall under the “Other NIA-reviewed research” category, which – for FY22 – has a payline of 40 (impact score) for ADRD applications. If you were just reviewed, then your application is for FY23, which means the payline will not be known for several months (probably sometime next year – or whenever the FY23 federal budget is signed into law). Your PO will advise you to submit again, since you are above the payline, though with your ESI status, the PO might be able to advocate for select pay – but again, this would not be known until spring or summer of 2023, and you don’t want to wait that long to submit again.
Peach said
If I understand correctly, SEP-reviewed applications are considered as NIA-reviewed (score-based) instead of CSR-reviewed (%ile-based), right? But SEPs are still organized by CSR? My application was reviewed by a SEP but has both a impact score and the %tle, so which one should be used to compare with the payline? Thanks.
writedit said
Thanks, SaG! Peach, you can also check the FOA to which you applied. If it was NIA-specific (vs multiple ICs participating), then your application should fall under NIA-reviewed. Your PO can clarify your specific situation, too.
SaG said
Percentile. CSR organizes some SEPs, Institutes organize other SEPs. ZRG-XXX SEPs are run by CSR. ZAG-XXX are run by NIA.
Peach said
Yes, mine was reviewed by ZRGXXX. Thank you for the info!
Northsnow said
NIAID recently released final paylines for many of the mechanisms. In the case of R21s and R03s the final paylines stayed the same as the interim ones. I have a question. Has NIAID ever adjusted final paylines at some time over the summer?
Thank you
MD said
If they are marked as Final then they are final for the fiscal year I believe.
writedit said
Correct – thanks for chiming in.
New PI said
My institution got an emial from the GMS regarding my R01. They asked for IRB approval for human subjects research they said they need the info by Tuesday (6/7). The IRB has been submitted, but is still not approved yet. Will this delay or put me at risk for losing my award?
writedit said
Your IC can issue the award but not include any funds for clinical work (NOA would be updated when IRB approval is received). If all the work is predicated on having the IRB in place, you can ask the GMS how this will be handled. Hopefully you did not wait until the JIT request came to submit your IRB materials and will have approval soon.
K_grant said
Hi, I was just wondering if NIH-K awardee (K01, K08, etc.) would be able to apply for NSF-CAREER.
Thank you!
writedit said
I am not sure why you would want to, for starters. You cannot change the percent effort on your K award to accommodate the NSF CAREER award effort, and the two projects cannot duplicate each other. Depending on where you are in your K, a better use of your proposal development time and energy would be working toward your follow-on research project grant, whether that is more appropriately funded by an NIH R01 or an NSF award. Otherwise, you could reach the end of your tenure clock with 7+ years of salary support but no research project grant funding to sustain your independent research program (and miss getting tenure).
niaf30 said
Hi, I have applied and received score in fundable range for F30 from NIA. My PO said there would be a funding meeting in early June where they would make the final decisions. Does anyone know when this meeting is/was?
niaf30 said
I also forgot to mention I submitted for Dec 8th deadline and my application was discussed at May 2022 council
writedit said
Well, your fellowship application didn’t actually go to Council, since these are discussed internally at each IC (the “June meeting” your PO mentioned). If your score is 30 or less for non-ADRD or 40 or lower for ADRD, then you can just sit tight and not worry. Your PO or GMS will get in touch when they need information. Your contacting them will not make anything happen faster, and you don’t need to worry that the radio silence indicates a problem – it doesn’t, just government bureaucracy.
vtofaeono said
We are in the same predicament. PO told us about he internal funding meeting that is supposed to happen in June and she would keep us posted. Thanks for the info, it is helping to calm our anxiety.
Peach said
As far as my PO told me two weeks ago, they should have their final funding meeting last week. Haven’t been contacted for the final decision yet. My application is an R21, JIT request not received. But the PO asked for GDS docs, and said “I am hopeful about a possible award” when I followed up with her two weeks ago. Seems a promising sign?
writedit said
Definitely promising – don’t forget that the wheels of bureaucracy turn slowly, so you can sit tight until they ask you for more information.
vtofaeono said
I just checked our status and it has changed to “Pending administrative review. Review any questions to program official or grants management specialist.” We submitted JIT documents during the first week of May and are now assigned a GMS. What happens in during an administrative review?
writedit said
They check to confirm there is no other funding for the same science (and no scientific overlap with other awards), that all required regulatory reviews (IRB, IACUC, IBC, etc.) and training have been completed, that all budget requests are appropriate (as in, appropriate for that activity code & budget field – they are not checking science) and justified, that the PI does not fall in the too highly category (or if so, with IC approval), any necessary review of foreign components, etc. Mainly they are working to convert your application budget into award structure, including specific restrictions or other notices as appropriate for the award. You can sit tight – they will let you know if they have any questions or need any information. Your PO is out of this loop, and it’s not worth interrupting the GMS with questions since they are all incredibly busy catching up on negotiating awards from Cycles I, 2, and 3 before the end of the FY in September. Hopefully your next eRA status of Notice of award prepared will appear in the next few weeks, but don’t worry if it takes longer (no news is good news – they will only reach out if there is a potential problem).
Peach said
My status also changed to pending admin review last week, although I still have not received a JIT request. Is this normal? A few weeks ago my PO requested GDS (for some reason we have not submitted). Since further questions should be referred to GMS, whom should I submit the GDS to at a later time? Thanks!
writedit said
You should send the GDS to the PO, since they need to review it from a scientific perspective as well as in the context of NIH policy requirements (GMS knows finances and regulations, not science). When you send the GDS, you can ask the PO if you should submit JIT. I suspect the PO wants to review the GDS before they request JIT, since they first need to review whether you are in compliance with the NIH genomic data sharing policy. The “pending” might reflect the pending GDS review. If you need any regulatory approvals for JIT, it sounds like you should get those in order.
Peach said
Thanks. One more update is that this morning our grant office (not I) received a JIT request from a GMS in NIA (not the one assigned to my application). The request seems more tailored than a generic JIT. Should it be considered the same as a personal JIT request directly to me?
writedit said
Yes, absolutely respond to the JIT request within the time frame stipulated. This is a “personal” request, and the GMS often contacts the sponsored program/grants office directly, since they are the ones who submit the JIT.
mc991220py said
Hi Writedit,
I re-submitted my previously unfunded renewal R01 application to NIBIB and the revised submission scored within the payline in March. The Council Meeting has completed in May17, and the status changed to “Pending”. The PO has not responded to me emails lately. I haven’t hear anything for the GMS either. NIBIB typically funds competing R01s for four years while this renewal R01 application has a 5-year budget. Any ideas on How ICs usually handles this?
Thank you
SaG said
They award 4 years and cut the overall budget by 20%.. When you renew reviewers will judge you on how much progress you made in 4 years.
writedit said
As SaG notes, they will just cut the year out – just because you requested 5 years of support and the study section approved it doesn’t mean the IC needs to fund all 5 years. Your pending status is good news, though, since it means your application is being processed. Your PO won’t have any information on timing or the budget that will be approved for funding, so that’s probably why they haven’t answered. At this point, you should just wait for the NoA. The GMS will contact you if they need any information or if any issues arise in the meantime.
mc991220py said
Dear Writedit,
It’s been another month since my last post. We still have not received the personal request for JIT. The status in the List of Applications/Awards page remained to be “Pending” since late May. After clicking into the webpage for this specific application, it shows: “Status: Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.” This application was scored within the payline. At this stage, has our application passed the screening for research priority of the IC or if it could still be turned down due to research priory of the IC? Thanks
writedit said
You don’t need to panic just because July 1 has come and gone. The holiday weekend probably caused additional delays. If you did not submit JIT earlier when you got the automatic request, you could go ahead and submit now – unless you prefer to wait for the personal request so you know when they are moving forward with your application. I assume you have everything ready, and if not, you should, since they will only give you a couple days to turn it around (so be sure your institution is ready to submit quickly, too). Although it sounds like you have no basis for concern (your PO would have said if there was an issue with programmatic priorities), you won’t know that the award is assured until the NOA actually arrives. The last step after “NOA prepared” is IC Director review and approval to issue the NOA. In the meantime, it’s not worth pestering the GMS since they are busy with a whole pile of applications to process. I’d suggest you try to distract yourself with a manuscript or another proposal – or a pre-award summer vacation. And if you need to start spending some funds now, you could ask your PO to confirm that you are within 90 days of award (by definition, you are, since the last possible award is Sept 30) so your institution can set up an account for pre-award spending (though not on that pre-award vacation).
kingdaddy2010 said
Dear Writedit,
I received an NOA for our SBIR Phase I grant proposal, woohoo! We’re excited to get started.
That said, in the NOA, there is quite a bit of info, including a link to the NIH “Welcome Wagon” letter for new recipient organizations (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/welcomewagon.htm)
That page itself includes many other links, such as a link to the SBA SBIR STTR Policy Directive, which is over 150 pages (https://www.sbir.gov/sites/default/files/SBIR-STTR_Policy_Directive_2019.pdf)
The Welcome Wagon letter also states: While this letter highlights or summarizes important issues, it does not serve as a substitute for the NIH Grants Policy Statement (NIHGPS) or any other federal requirements, provisions or terms of award.
So the Government tries to cover their side of this from every angle.
With such an overwhelming amount of linked information, is there anything you can share that are the main sources of problems for grant recipients that we should ensure we focus on?
SaG said
Welcome to the jungle. Focus on the Money stuff. Only spend the money as listed in the NoA. Don’t pay folks more than allowed, don’t do animal work unless it was approved, turn in forms on time etc. Also, celebrate Flag Day, don’t give money to terrorist organizations, wear a seatbelt and do the work you proposed. Nothing else. Good luck!
writedit said
🙂 Your PO can also provide guidance if you have specific questions about grant management and award do’s and don’ts. If you look ahead to what will be required for your progress report (& other reporting requirements), that can provide some guidance on what to monitor along the way, too.
kingdaddy2010 said
Thanks, agreed! Looking forward to this project, it’s going to be amazing.
R01Seeking said
Dear Writedit and SaG:
1. Is that correct that one should almost never submit two R01 applications (one original and one resubmission) to the same study section in the same cycle?
2. When reviewers question that the PI lacks of experience to manage an R01 with multiple subcontracts, what should I do? I think I can simply say that I have a long collaborating history with my co-investigators with multiple publications. And also, I can say I have completed several research projects as PI. Apart from those, what else I can say?
3. Reviewers also say “unclear translation to clinical utilities”. My R01 is about developing machine learning models for diseases diagnosis and monitoring. Apart from detailing how I put all models together into a software, what else I can say? I found this comment is a bit odd (program official also agrees and does not know how I should respond), “translation to clinical utilities” really needs another separate project to test if clinicians can benefit from using our software and validate the models with other datasets.
4. Lastly, reviewers say “Aim 3 is dependent on Aim 1 and 2”. This is not true. Of course, they are related; otherwise, they won’t be in the same project. What is the best way to respond to this?
Thank you very much.
SaG said
1). No rule against it but yes try to avoid. 2-4.) Were these criticism in the resume part? That is the part to focus on. Those are the score driving criticisms. The answers you gave to 2 and 3 sound reasonable. Emphasize those points in any resubmission. 4). Without reading your app it is hard to know how to answer. If Aims 1 or 2 fail can you do Aim 3? That is the crux of the issue.
R01Seeking said
Hi SaG,
Thank you for your detailed reply. I have tons of preliminary data and papers to show the part in Aims 1 and 2 to be used in Aim 3 won’t have risk to fail. Can I just argue in this way (of course politely)?
Thank you very much.
writedit said
Thanks, SaG! On #1, I would add that the SRO ensures that the two applications from the same PI are treated as if they are the only applications and that the second application is never mentioned during the discussion of the first application. Each application is discussed on its own merits, not in comparison with any other application. It is not up to the study section to decide which applications should get an award. The IC needs to decide if if it is a good investment to fund 2 R01s at the same time to the same PI, which does happen (good science is good science), though it is more likely to occur with two different ICs making awards to the same PI at the same time (assuming PI has sufficient effort and resources for both). Especially if you are applying to the same IC for both applications, talk with your PO(s) about whether one application should wait. On #2, which seems like an odd concern, since usually fiscal administrators handle subcontracts, you can note in your Facilities & Other Resources the level and experience of fiscal administration services available to assist with award management and its subcontracts. On #3, if you are at an institutional with a CTSA (Clinical and Translational Science Award), you can get a letter of support from the CSTA Director confirming their mission to support the translation of biomedical to sustained use in the clinic. In your case, you could add some stakeholder input from clinicians about what they would want to see from your software and what model outputs would be most useful in clinical care (it may not be what you think). That is, give some attention to the future implementation of your informatics tools in clinical care. If your models generate predications or other information that is not useful to clinicians, they will never be used in clinical care. On #4, SaG nailed it. Can you do Aim 3 all by itself? I have no idea what your aims are, but if you needed data from Aims 1 and 2 for Aim 3 but did not generate the data or get the model outputs that you anticipated, could you use a public dataset instead to accomplish Aim 3 (eg, to test your algorithm)?
R01Seeking said
Hi Writedit,
“In your case, you could add some stakeholder input from clinicians about what they would want to see from your software and what model outputs would be most useful in clinical care (it may not be what you think).”
For above, I have two prominent clinicians on my proposal as co-investigators, who are also my long-term collaborators. Can I just ask them to say something in their support letters like “if the project succeeds, they plan to help me go further with some clinical experiments to see if my software can really help clinicians better diagnose and monitor the disease”. A key thing to respond to the clinical translation issue is that I should not go too far to say something about the clinical translation issue, as reviewers could say that I say things baselessly. For example, if I say a lot about how I am going to make clinical fellows and residents to use my software and test if the software helps, it is just a bit too far.
Thank you very much.
writedit said
You can do whatever you like, including whether to take into account the guidance from prior reviewers. We can’t help you write your application via 20 questions on the blog, and we certainly cannot say definitively what will satisfy your reviewers, but your institution may have some assistance with preparing grant applications. I always advise PIs to get as many eyes on their Specific Aims and Research Strategy as possible, so your mentors, colleagues not involved with your research, your biggest critic in the department (as SaG would recommend), etc. Don’t fall into the trap of making your responses fit what you want to do (& justifying your decisions in your own mind) rather than addressing the concerns of the review panel and the priorities of the sponsor.
K99GrantScore said
Dear Writeedit and SaG:
I have just received my K99 score, 33 from NIA and I believe my application fell into ADRD payline. but there was no percentile. Since my score is closer to the borderline, I am wondering if I am eventually funded.
Is that okay to contact PO now, or later after my summary statement is released?
Thank you so much as always!
SaG said
Wait until the SS is released. Otherwise you won’t have much to talk about. Since this app won’t get funded until next fiscal year (After 10/1/2022) The PO wont have any insight about funding chances.
K99GrantScore said
Thank you so much!!
writedit said
Thanks, SaG! Unfortunately, you probably won’t know much about funding likelihood until next year, unless a miracle occurs, and the FY23 federal budget is signed into law before the midterm elections. After you receive your summary statement, you will want to ask your PO if you should submit again. While NIA paylines are likely to remain where they have been (ie, you should be okay for an award), if your PO does recommend a resubmission for insurance, you don’t want to miss an application cycle. If the PO says you can sit tight, just be ready for a very long wait with no communication (so don’t panic, even if the interim payline is below your score – you’ll know to expect some news after the FY23 federal budget passes).
K99GrantScore said
This is very helpful to understand the whole process. Thank you so much for all the details.
Fei NIA K25 said
My application is K25 NIA ADRD. I was told by PO that they will have funding meeting in early June and my application is on the funding list to be discussed. I suspect they have already discussed my case, but I hear nothing from NIA and there is no status change on the eRA system. Do I need to check with PO what was going on now?
writedit said
I would suggest that you only contact the PO if you need to know whether to submit an A1 application in July, but actually, that question can wait, too. Your PO probably isn’t in the senior level discussions at this point and likely has no news to share. If your score is within the payline especially, you can sit tight until someone at NIA contacts you for JIT.
K99 applicant said
Writedit and SaG, thanks a lot for maintaining this valuable website, it has been very helpful for me. I am very excited that my K99 was just awarded and would like to share the timeline here, hope it will help other applicants, especially those who are struggling with the delay from the expected start date, to get an idea of how long it may take for the whole process.
10/13/2020 A0 application entered into system
03/25/2021 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review
pending. Refer any questions to the Program Official.
~ 3 days later, got the Impact Score of 40,
04/20/2021 got the summary statement (SS)
For this A0, I did not talk to PO, with comments from SS, I prepared for a resubmission
07/12/2021 A1 application entered into system, expected state date was
04/01/2022
12/06/2021 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review
pending. Refer any questions to the Program Official.
~ 3 days later, got the Impact score of a high 20s
01/03/2022 got the summary statement
01/19/2022 talked to PO and was requested for a response letter to SS
01/28/2022 Response letter directly submitted to PO
02/04/2022 Council review completed
04/28/200 PO emailed me that my application was further considered
to be funded and requested JIT submitted to eRA account
05/09/2022 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to
Program Official or Grants Management Specialist
06/15/2022 NoA arrived
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you so much for posting your detailed timeline! Always very happy to help. Best wishes for success with your project and career in biomedical research!
R01 Applicant said
Hi writedit, thank you for being such a valuable resource! I am emailing to ask about the chance I may have for funding. My R01 (original submission) received a score of 38 and a percentile of 8.0%. Do you think I have a chance for funding? The institute is NEI. Any thoughts or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
writedit said
At the 8th percentile, I certainly hope your PO tells you to sit tight and wait for the JIT request and then the NOA. It could be a long wait, though, due to the midterm election and delayed FY23 federal budget (but hopefully early in 2023 for you).
R01 Applicant said
Thank you!
NIDDK K01 Applicant said
Hi writedit, I just discovered your fantastic resource today. I would love to have your suggestion on my K01 application to NIDDK. I first submitted it in 2021 and received a score of 39 with good feedback from the reviewers. After talking with the NIDDK PO, we decided to resubmit it in March 2022. Unfortunately, I just received the score of resubmission today: it was 36. I was very disappointed and not sure what to do next. Do you think there is no possibility of me getting the NIDDK K01 award this year? Thank you!
writedit said
Sorry to hear your score only improved incrementally – I know that is frustrating. Your March 2022 application is actually for funding in FY23. If you submit another new application in October, that would also be for FY23. When you get your summary statement, you can talk with your PO about whether your science is of high priority to NIDDK; you want to be sure NIDDK is excited about your work, so if you get a borderline score, your PO will advocate for you. I assume you have discussed your A0 and A1 applications with your mentors, including the A0 summary statement. If you can get some new eyes on your application and summary statement, you might get some new insight as to why your application scored the way it did. That is, was it due to the science or the application? If the Significance is a consistent weakness across applications, then you probably need to rework or reframe the science – or pursue a different problem in your area of expertise. If there are concerns about you as a candidate, then any steps you can take to address those concerns prior to the next application should help (eg, publications/productivity, mentoring team, skills learned, etc.). If your institution has an office that reviews grant applications (the science narrative portions), you should seek feedback on what you are communicating and how you can make your narratives more clear, concise, and compelling by improving the narrative organization and presentation, writing style, and rhetoric. Finally, if the science seems to be solid, ask your PO if you should be moving straight to an R01. Sometimes new faculty feel they “should” have a career development application first but want to do (and are ready to do) research that needs research project grant (R01) funding.
NIDDK K01 Applicant said
Hi Writedit! Thank you so so much for your valuable feedback! I will definitely bring your suggestions to my mentors and discuss with the PO about the next step. This (the grant application) is a very long journey, but I am glad we have your and your team’s support. Thank you!
Fish_fish said
Is it acceptable to cite a figure from other researcher as previous results for grant submission?
SaG said
Yes, you can as long as it is properly referenced. That is you make it clear that it isn’t your prelim data or paper you are citing. Can’t you reference the figure and describe it? Why do you need to use the figure? It will take up valuable space that you could use for your own figures/tables or text.
Fish_fish said
Thank you very much for your reply. I reviewed a proposal and found out that the PI just used figures from a publication by other group and parentheses the name of first author and the year of publication. My colleague ever encountered the same situation that the PI used other person’s figures as preliminary results for an R01 application, and SRO said he couldn’t criticize this. Maybe we can say it’s not novel since other people have published the results.
David said
Like SaG said, I don’t recommend to do that. If those data are important to your application, you got to do it yourself. If they are not important, you can just refer them in your text. When I first time submitted my grant application I used a figure from other researcher, because I want to show how the system works. Then I got criticized by two of the three reviewers. At the end I made the model myself and put into prelim data in the resubmission.
writedit said
Perfect – thank you so much for sharing your experience, David! And I definitely agree with you and SaG – if it is work that you, Fish_fish, will do as part of the proposed research and not just evidence supporting your premise, which can simply be cited (no figure), reviewers will want to see that it works in your hands.
Tanya said
Hello!
I just received an impact score of 31 for my A0 K01 to NIDDK. I have heard of folks in other institutes getting funded for K awards up to a score of 33. Any idea where I can find data on historical cut offs for NIDDK? All I can seem to find are overall percent success rates.
I’ll reach out to my PO as well and see what the summary statements say. Just wish I had a clearer idea of if this is likely to be funded or not.
Thank you!
writedit said
If you don’t have the summary statement, that means your application is for FY23, and your PO will have no idea about funding likelihood until the FY23 federal budget is signed into law, which probably won’t happen until early 2023, since this is an election year. Although your score is not out of the realm of possibility for funding, I suspect your PO will advise resubmission, given the length of time before they will have any insight into the NIDDK appropriation. Aside from the federal budget, other factors affecting whether that score could be funded include the number of other competitive K01 applications received in FY23 (there was a bump in applications during the pandemic, for example, whereas most ICs had to cut back on new awards due to the need to provide unanticipated extensions to awardees who were forced to suspend their research and career development in 2020 (and beyond) and whether your science is of high priority. You’ll have a better idea of next steps after you receive your summary statement and talk both with your mentors and your PO, but I suspect the advice will be to apply again for insurance.
Tanya said
Hello! Just wanted to follow-up that I did resubmit in the Fall and just received an impact score of 20 on the A1 for this NIDDK K01 award. Hoping that should be funded no problem! 🙂
writedit said
Great – both the score and the improvement from your last submission should put you in funding consideration. As always, you can communicate with your PO once you have your summary statement.
scienceguy said
I received a 1%ile on an NCI R01 grant that was reviewed in Feb. 2022. I haven’t heard anything from the PO yet about funding, and the project period was supposed to begin July, 2022 (in 10 days). I am writing to ask if it is likely that funding of this award is likely being delayed by political/budgetary circumstances beyond my control.
writedit said
NCI could still be catching up on a backlog of awards to process, but it seems as though you should have at least received a personal JIT request (assuming you did not submit to the automated request). Your start date is not an expiration date and is not something an IC is committed to honor. Your award can start any time before September 30. If you have not checked in with your PO yet, you probably want to do so. If this was for an RFA or PAR/PAS, then you might want to confirm that awards will be made at all (although rare, RFAs can be canceled) and that your exceptional score won’t be passed over based on science (ie, your science was obviously flawless, but it might not be in an area of high priority to NCI – 1st percentile applications can be skipped out of programmatic priority).
DocGG81 said
Hi WriteEdit – Just received the R01 impact score (36) and percentile (15%). The NIAID payline is 12th percentile for FY22, but this grant would be considered for FY23, correct? Or could it potentially be funded in the gray area for FY22? Many thanks for your amazing service!
writedit said
Correct – assuming you applied at the standard receipt date in February (or March if A1), this is an FY23 application (and would not be considered for select pay in FY22). Your PO will have no guidance on FY23 for many months (not until early 2023 at best), so you can anticipate the advice to submit again this fall. When you receive your summary statement, you can check with the PO on submission advice.
DocGG81 said
Thanks Writedit. This was an A1 application, so would you advise just waiting? Submitting again would be a new application, which then might have issues with overlap, so perhaps not an option?
writedit said
Submitting a new application would be just like submitting an A1 – if one were processed for an award, NIAID would withdraw whichever application wasn’t funded. You cannot have the same application under review in 2 places at the same time, but “under review” ends when the summary statement is issued. Your A1 is no longer “under review” – or won’t be soon, when you get your summary statement – and certainly won’t be in October when you submit again.
R01anxiety said
My first R01 scored within the payline (just 1% under the cut off). Should I resubmit just in case FY23 paylines are lower?
SaG said
Congrats! If it lowers your anxiety level then yes, resubmit. But, the time you are spending resubmitting might be better spent generating more data and publishing papers. If you are a new PI then getting your lab up and running also takes time. Not to mention teaching, work/life balance etc.
writedit said
Completely agree with SaG (thank you!). After you get your summary statement, you can also check in with your PO, who will have no information on funding likelihood but could confirm their and the IC’s interest in your science and might want your thoughts on a response to the concerns raised. The PO will probably recommend submitting for insurance, just because they are so cautious about investigators’ careers, but publishing and/or working on a new grant application for a different project (especially if you can craft one for a different IC and SRG) for the fall would be a better use of your time.
R01newPI said
Hi, Writedit: I got my R01 A0 score 14 percentile from 2022 February submission. My IC is NCI. I am a new investigate but not ESI. Unfortunately, my score is below 11% pay line. My PO told me it is better to resubmit. However, I found NCI has select pay policy. Is it possible that my application can be picked for select pay? Thanks!
writedit said
Your score is for FY23, so your PO will not know about select pay until the summer of 2023, since select pay decisions come at the end of the FY (before Sept 30). You should definitely submit again since you cannot afford to wait until August 2023 to find out about an application that scored above the payline.
Madison said
I am currently a graduate student preparing two grants as F32 applications for funding after the conferral of my degree. Is it okay to submit multiple F32 training grants at the same time?
Both grants are HIV related. Is it okay to submit one for the AIDS-related applications (May, September, and January) and one for the regular deadline (April, August, and December)? Alternatively, is it okay to submit two in the same cycle/deadline? Will HIV-based grants be more competitive as a non-AIDS or AIDS-related application?
Any thoughts would be helpful. Thanks!
writedit said
You cannot submit 2 applications that propose the same or substantially the same project. If you are applying to the same IC, I would recommend talking with the PO for the NRSA fellowships about which project would be more competitive. Fellowship decisions are made internally (the applications don’t go to Council), and submitting 2 fellowship applications, even on different topics, puts burden on the IC review system. If you are applying to 2 different ICs, they will each know about the other application, and then neither will seem like a commitment to to their IC. For NRSA and career development awards, ICs are investing in investigators whom they want to see enter the biomedical research workforce in support of their mission. Whether the applications are AIDS-related or not does not affect their likelihood of funding, unless there is a specific NOSI involved (and even then not a specific payline break per se but extra consideration if the application is close to the payline). If this were Alzheimer’s disease at NIA, it would be a different story, as there is a significant payline benefit to pursuing ADRD research there.
Madison said
Thank you for your quick reply! I am drafting the two proposals with completely different aims. In my case, it may not be best to submit them in the same cycle. Do you think it would be appropriate to submit one this September and the other in January 2023? How long is the waiting period for F32 reviews? Thanks!
writedit said
The F32 summary statement should be out within 6-8 weeks. Are the other applications both F32 applications, or different activity codes? I would be surprised if your institution allowed you to submit applications other than postdoctoral fellowships. If you have a special appointment that allows research project grant submissions, then submitting in the same cycle is fine. If the IC wants to fund both, it won’t matter to them, assuming they have the funding available. You could split them between FYs as suggested if you are concerned funding might be tight and they would only fund one due to budget constraints. You could communicate with your PO about which topic might be higher priority and get that in first.
airmonkey84 said
Hi – I just received my K08 score for a first-time submission of 28, which is exactly at the FY2022 payline for NIAMS (the institute to which this was directed). However I’ve been informed by my PO, who has been very helpful and communicative, that the payline does not apply for this proposal, as it will be considered for funding in FY2023. Therefore because the score is on the edge, I have been advised to resubmit. I’d like to learn more about your thoughts on how to proceed with resubmission including timing and whether there would be ways to get this funded sooner?
writedit said
The good news is that you are close and have a helpful PO. Priceless. Because your application was submitted for FY23, there is no way to get it funded in FY22 (they already have more FY22 applications than they can fund). The timing for the A1 submission would be this November (2022), so it would also be considered for FY23. Your PO does not want to take a chance on the payline for several reasons. Career development paylines tend to fluctuate more than those for research project grants because they are dependent on the number of competitive applications each FY (budget for Ks is much smaller than for RPGs and is fixed). The pandemic threw off some IC career development budgets due to the need to offer extensions to current awardees who were forced to suspend their research and development plans, though that should be worked out by now. Because the FY23 federal budget will likely be delayed by the midterm elections, the FY23 paylines probably won’t be known until next spring (2023) at best. If you wait for news on the FY23 paylines, you might not realize that you need to submit the A1 until July 2023 (for FY24). That is far too long to take a chance on waiting to see if the A0 gets an award, so I would recommend taking your PO’s advice, including any advice they might have on addressing reviewer concerns.
ashailes said
Thank you very much. I will plan to resubmit as my PO and you have both suggested.
I’ve got another question though. If the payline is not established until Spring 2023, can it be recommended for funding sooner if the score is much better? I will resubmit in November 2022 and then find out by Feb 202 – if the score is below 20 for example, could finding be recommended by the council even in the absence of an established payline?
writedit said
Sometimes POs can argue for an A0 to be funded when the A1 comes in with an exceptional score (vs wait for the A1 start date); in fact, I can see that NIAMS did that for at least one K08 in FY21. However, the problem will be lack of a federal budget vs payline. Most ICs limit the competing awards made under a continuing resolution (or don’t make any at all) because they will not know their final appropriation until after the FY23 budget is signed into law. So far, NIAMS has only made 2 K08 awards (interestingly, both in April, and both originally assigned to other ICs). For FY21, it looks like most awards were made in August and September, which suggests they wait for all scores to come in before making final selections (ie, applications from all 3 cycles pooled, and the best applications selected). Those awards made earlier in the year (earliest was in February 2021) were probably exceptional scores, as in ~10 (ie, no question whether they would be funded).
keep0nkeepin0n said
Hi WriteEdit; I’m currently a 2nd year postdoc and I submitted my first NIH proposal back in Oct 2021. I applied for a NICHD K01, specifically directed towards a NOSI.
While my impact score came in at a lukewarm 31, my summary scores were encouraging and had very addressable comments (primarily focused on the analytic strategy). After the council meeting last week, my PO mentioned that things are “looking positive” and that she put it forward for select pay. I was told that GMS will reach out in 2-3 weeks as things move along.
Before I get too excited, do you have any insight on what the chances are for a select pay proposal to get funded? I was told that I should have a clearer understanding about whether a resubmission will be needed by end-of-June/before 4th of July, but I’m anxious about how close the timing will be to the July 12th resubmission deadline.
writedit said
This is very good news, especially your fantastic PO, but the PO cannot guarantee anything, as all funding decisions are made by the IC Director. I would suggest continuing to get your A1 application ready, so if you have not heard from the GMS (with the holiday, you could be looking at the 3- vs 2-week interval), you can submit to have peace of mind. Hopefully your application processing will proceed quickly, so your A1 is not submitted or, if it is, is not sent for review (to save reviewer burden), but because a last-minute hiccup could occur that the PO cannot predict, you want to be ready with the A1 in case it is needed as insurance. Now, all this said, because your PO is so positive, I would say you have an excellent chance at having the A0 funded – and hopefully this will be clear before July 12. If your PO left open the door to contact them about a last-minute resubmission decision (eg, you have not heard from the GMS by July 8), feel free to do so, too – they clearly want the best for you.
ConfusedGradStudent said
Is it possible that my NCI F31 application submitted in April 2021 will be funded? It was scored in the 20th percentile but I haven’t heard anything since getting my score back.
writedit said
You should definitely touch base with the PO. Your application can be funded any time up until September 30 (2022), and your PO should have some idea by now where your score stands in terms of award likelihood and whether you should submit again, if you have not already.
R01newPI said said
Hi, Writedit: I just got a R0-A1 score 9 percentile submitted to NCI in March, 2022. I am a new investigator not ESI. Do you think I need to contact my PO about funding status now? Thanks!
writedit said
No, there is no rush. Your application will not be considered for FY22, and the FY23 budget will not be signed into law until sometime next year. When you have your summary statement, you could ask the PO about whether you should resubmit as a new A0 in October and/or if they would like a response to the critique of your 9th percentile A1 application.
R01newPI said
Thank you very much! I will do it. Although a long time wait, hope my application can get funded in the end!
new R01 nei said
Hi, Writedit; I got my R01 A1 score at the 9 percentiles with impact score at the 31. My IC is NEI. I am new investigator not ESI, so I received the summary statement with very good comments. The NEI does not post the payline and wondering I support to have chances of getting funds.
writedit said
At the 9th percentile, I would certainly hope you have a strong likelihood of an award. NEI does not seem to give an extra break for NI vs ESI applicants, but even so, that percentile should be competitive. Unfortunately, you will not know for sure until next year probably, since the FY23 budget is likely to be delayed due to the mid-term elections. When you get your summary statement, check in with your PO on next steps -mainly to ask if you should plan to submit again in the fall (your PO will have no information on funding likelihood yet) but also whether they need any information from you in response to the concerns raised in the Summary of Discussion paragraph. Your time is probably better spent on publishing and developing a different grant application (different science/project) than resubmitting this A1 as a new A0, but you can see what your PO recommends.
new R01 nei said
Thank you very much for the comments! I will update the results to share with everyone.
Thanks again!
LittleDani said
First of all, thanks a lot for this great blog! I have been learning a lot here as a new investigator.
I got my R15 (A1) review back (26 with 9 percentile). My PO said these sores are encouraging as their current payline is 10%. Yet I think I am at a borderline and will need to wait for a new payline to be established for next year. Now I am about to prepare for JIT document.
My question is whether rebuttal letter to address comments raised by the reviewers can be included in JIT document and whether it is really helpful to submit a rebuttal letter in JIT. I hear some people say rebuttal letter at this stage would not affect. Some other say it would be helpful as my scores are at a boarder line. I have not yet discussed this with my PO, but I wanted to be prepared first before I speak with my PO.
Thank you so much!
SaG said
A rebuttal letter is not part of the JIT. Only include what is requested. But, you can send a rebuttal letter directly to your PO. No rule against that. Just keep it to 1 page if possible.
LittleDani said
Thanks for your information!
LittleDani
writedit said
As SaG notes, the rebuttal letter definitely does not go with your JIT information, but I am a bit confused. Your application is for FY23, so you could not possibly have received a JIT request yet. You don’t want to submit in response to the automatic request. You should also be prepared for a long wait, since the midterm elections will delay the FY23 budget (& don’t worry when your start date comes and goes with no communication about an award – it’s not an expiration date). With regard to the rebuttal, since it sounds like you still need to talk with the PO about this, you want to focus on the concerns raised in the Summary of Discussion paragraph and be prepared to discuss what you would modify to address a concern raised or explain why it is not actually a concern. Your PO wants to be sure that none of your responses are so significant as to need to go back to peer review, but with a 9th percentile score, this should not be the case (ie, all concerns should be minor and easily addressable).
LittleDani said
Yes you are right. I have not received a JIT from my PO yet. I only have received the automatic JIT request.
It is clearer to me that I need to address the concerns raised by reviewers to my PO (- not in JIT), and convince my PO such that s/he can speak for me if/when necessary.
Thanks for your input and suggestions!
nia k99 said
Hi Writedit,
I am wondering if K99 awardee can be partially paid by another NIH grant? I know the effort has to be 75% or more, but can I have ~25% of my salary covered by my mentor at my primary institution or co-mentor’s grant at another institution?
Best;
Chenxi
writedit said
Yes, your other 25% effort can include research, though not in a PI role, and provided that this other research does not interfere with your work on your own project and career development.
GM NI said
I am a new investigator (not early stage). My PO at GM kindly told me that my R01 was recommended for funding, subject to administrative review. However, there is a substantial cut in the Y1 budget (saying out-years depending on budget allocation) and also project length (5 to 4 yrs – GM typically allows only for 4, but NI can be 5). I am concerned that the budget will be too tight, and I am wondering what I can do. At this stage, 1) do I still have a chance to negotiate about budget and years, 2) will this at least benefit out-years when they consider the budget, 3) should I negotiate SOW to make sure the budget will work. A side question, the email only mentions the Y1 budget and that out-yrs depend on budget allocation. Does it mean future Yr budgets are still up to negotiation (i.e., not set)?
writedit said
You will want to focus on talking with your PO to adjust your aims/SOW, since the $$ won’t really be negotiable. This assumes that the “substantial” budget cut is 25% or more, but even if it is less, you can always ask about reducing the project scope. The outyear budget allocations won’t be known until each subsequent FY federal budget is passed (so that qualifier is true of every award, not just yours), and Type 5 awards during a CR will typically have a cut that is subsequently restored if the GM appropriation is sufficient (although, your award will be late enough in the FY that the CR situation probably won’t apply).
jingdh836 said
Hi Writedit,
I am an established PI and just got a R01 A0 application scored 9%ile at NCI. Do you think this one should be optimistically safe for funding? Many thanks!!
writedit said
You will want to check with your PO when you get your summary statement, but I think you should be okay. The FY22 11th percentile payline should not go down in FY23 and hopefully will go up a notch. Your PO can note whether there might be any other potential concerns based on your total funding level, the scientific focus (in case your project is in an area where NCI has already made as many awards as it wants to fund right now), overlap with other funding, etc. and give you advice on next steps. I think your time and effort would best be invested in publications and/or other grant applications though.
GM NI said
Great, thank you for your advice!
TD said
Dear writedit,
Thanks for running such a helpful website.
I have an NIDCD R21 application that just received a score of 46. Should I resubmit the application as an A1 or a new A0?
Thanks!
writedit said
While I advise anyone with an ND application to submit a new A0 (instead of A1), the advice for high scores depends on the summary statement. If there were concerns about the premise, rigor of prior research (your own or that cited in the literature), significance of the work, or feasibility of the approach, I would advise a new A0, taking good care to address all the concerns raised as part of the new application. If the concerns focus on procedural details or other readily addressed issues with the approach (and/or personnel), then an A1 can leverage the strengths raised in the A0 review and demonstrate how the amended application has been improved.
TD said
Thanks a lot, writedit. Very helpful.
R01 NI said
I am a NI (not EI). I know that NIGMS typically only issue 4-year R01, but for NI 5-year R01 is often allowed. I am wondering if this is true; if so, where I can find the written policy?
writedit said
The policy is on the NIGMS website: Research Grant Duration Policy (nih.gov) “NIGMS limits the length of most of its R01 grants to 4 years. However, 5-year R01 grants are made to most early stage investigators and to some new investigators, generally those early in their career, to provide extra time for getting their projects under way.” I would say that “some new investigators” does not mean “often”.
MG said
Dear Writedit,
I received an impact score of 25 on my R21 reviewed during the most recent June cycle. This grant has been assigned to NIAID. When do you think this grant will be funded?
Thanks!
writedit said
Not before April 2023 and possibly later, depending on how late the FY23 federal budget is. Don’t expect your PO to know anything until next spring – and your only question to them after you receive your summary statement should be whether you should resubmit, but I would advise working on manuscripts and other grant applications in the meantime.
MG said
Great.Thank you very much!
demhi said
Hi writedit,
K99:
I submitted a K99 in October 2020, got a 19 (17 after resub). Wasn’t funded summer of 2021 but I just got the JIT request this summer (2022). I already accepted an offer for a faculty job starting Feburary 2023. Does this disqualify me for the K99 award? Should I write my PO and let them know or wait for them to ask me this question?
K22:
I also submitted a K22 while the K99 was pending (at the advice of my SRO). It got a 25 and I also got a JIT request for that one. I wrote this PO informing them of my situation and got no response. I just read (should have read this before) that you can’t sign a faculty job offer before receiving the NOA. Should I follow up again to see what is possible?
I fear I won’t get any of these awards…. after years of applying for them!
writedit said
Congratulations on your faculty position, which almost certainly eliminates the possibility of the K99 or the K22, but you should still check with your PO to be sure. However, an independent K award or, even better, an R01 award would be much better than either of these transition awards, so you might want to focus on publications and developing an application for submission after you start next February. I often recommend the R01 over an independent K award, since the latter mainly provides salary, is not renewable, and may delay your R01 submission until well into your tenure track (ie, if you apply 2-3 times prior to award). Now, if you have a great start up package, are eligible for independent K funding (in terms of citizenship/residency), and need more data before you can submit an R01 application (that you won’t be able to collect while still in your advisor’s lab), then a mentored career development award could make sense, and you might even be able to submit in February from the new university. Alternatively, if your new institution has a KL2 or K12 program for which you would be eligible, you can ask about applying for a slot in advance of your arrival so you can take immediate advantage of the institutional career development resources.
NCI K99 said
Hi writedit,
Thank you very much for maintaining this incredible site. I learned a lot about grant applications from you and other people. As a promise I made to myself, I would like to share the timeline of my NCI K99/R00 application process.
A0: Not Discussed
10/09/2020 Application entered into system
10/23/2020 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
02/26/2021 Scientific Review Group review completed: Application was Not Discussed. Refer any questions to Program Official.
04/14/2021 Summary statement received, reviewers had major concerns about my research plan. Made a phone call to my PO and outlined the resubmission strategy.
A1:
07/07/2021 Application entered into system
07/16/2021 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
10/22/2021 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official. Score:24
12/06/2021 Summary statement received. The application was greatly improved. Phone call with my new PO. Good score, but was a couple of points above the interim payline. Noting to rebuttal. Asked me to wait patiently.
02/14/2022 Council review completed.
04/25/2022 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
07/08/2022 Letter of award received.
Also for future applicants, I believe the payline for NCI K99/R00 is around 30/31.
writedit said
Congratulations on going from ND to awarded – and thank you so much for sharing this wonderful timeline! Best wishes for success with your project and your career in biomedical research.
R01newPI said
Hi, Writedit: I recently resubmitted a R01 ( the first submission was reviewed by MCT2 study section). Today I was told my A1 application was assigned to MCTA study section that is a new established study section. The old MCT2 was ended. The SRO is the same person. I am worried all three reviewers may be completely different compared to ones from my first submission. Would you please tell me whether I should ask SRO or PO to assign the same reviewers to my A1 application? Thanks!
writedit said
The SRO will be very aware of applications straddling the two study sections and will almost certainly try to ensure at least one prior reviewer is assigned to each MCT2 A1 application (PO has absolutely nothing to do with application review – they can give advice on which SRG to target when preparing your application but are not involved between the application submission and the issuing of the summary statement). This will depend on whether reviewers with the appropriate expertise also moved from MCT2 to MCTA, or if some of the new reviewers would be more appropriate for your science. You would not have had all 3 reviewers the same even if MCT2 had continued, so having 1-2 new reviewers would be the norm anyway.
Apoorva said
Hi writedit,
I submitted a proposal under the NIH STTR scheme in Sep 2021, but it was not discussed. I resubmitted it in Apr 2022 and received an impact score of 33. Waiting for the council review meeting in August. Any educated guess if it will be funded?
writedit said
It depends on the IC, but when you receive your summary statement, you should certainly ask your PO about next steps, including whether to resubmit, since your April application will fall under the FY23 payline, which won’t be known until sometime next year (hopefully by spring).
DP2wannabe said
Hi writedit,
I am starting a faculty position this fall and will (in theory) have active R00 funding from my K99/R00 award. This award requires 75% effort towards R00 research during this two-year phase. I wanted to apply for the DP2 NIAID-specific mechanism (PAR-20-259) which only allows investigators to apply as postdocs or in their first year of a faculty position (this would be me). If awarded, one must commit 50% of effort to research activities on the DP2.
I inquired about eligibility from an NIAID PO about a year ago and they mentioned I would be eligible to apply, even if I am on an R00 because I would still have ESI status. Yet, we did not discuss effort requirements. Since I can’t have over 100% effort committed to two concurrent projects, would this disqualify me from accepting the NIAID-specific DP2 award if it was eligible for funding? Thanks for your help!
SaG said
The details about how you work this out could be tricky. But, you could accept the DP2 and relinquish whatever remains of the R00. Depending on the timing you might lose a year of R00 money. But, you would get more DP2 money for a longer time. Best case is that the PO lets you decrease effort on the R00 to 25% with 50% on the DP2. You need to speak with your K99/R00 PO about options. Assuming there is no scientific overlap between the 2 apps.
writedit said
SaG gave a great answer, and I would agree on relinquishing the R00 if needed (and not looking back – aside from helping with the job search, it’s not a great award for fledgling investigators due to so little funding and no ability to renew). Good luck with the DP2 application.
DP2wannabe said
Thank you both for the info!
HIVgrant said
Hi, I have a question for a HIV grant. It was reviewed today and got a score within the NIDDK payline. The start date of the application is Sept 1, 2022 but council only meets at Sept 7. Can it still be funded within this fiscal year payline (given our proposed start date of Sept 1) or will it have to wait until next fiscal year?
SaG said
Technically, yes. Practically, No. September Council is for apps that will be funded with 2023 $. NIDDK could try and pay it in 2022 if there was an extenuating circumstance but that rarely happens.
NIMHDR21 said
Hi writedit,
I submitted an R21 proposal to NIMHD this February. This proposal was reviewed a few weeks ago and was scored at the 8th percentile (Impact score: 26). I talked with the PO to see what the next steps might be. The PO said there are no next steps for me but if I would like, I can do a resubmission. I understand that NIMHD does not post the payline so I wonder what my chances are for this one to get funded?
Many thanks!
writedit said
Your PO will always suggest resubmission for insurance, but with an 8th percentile and the casual nature of the recommendation (resubmission if you would like to), I’d suggest you focus on getting new data, manuscripts out, and perhaps a different grant application underway, since you want to keep a few different projects in the hopper at all times (especially if they go to different sponsors & reviewers). Depending on when the FY23 federal budget is signed into law, you might be waiting on this R21 until next spring, so making progress in other areas in the meantime will be important.
Martin said
Thank you to all the helpful people on here! This has been a valuable resource throughout my NHLBI K99/R00 application process. Here’s my timeline:
Initial submission (impact score 39)
07/20/2022 Application withdrawn: previous application funded.
11/01/2021 Council review completed.
06/11/2021 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
02/22/2021 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
02/11/2021 Application entered into system
Resubmission (impact score 18)
07/20/2022 Application awarded.
07/18/2022 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
06/30/2022 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
06/15/2022 Council review completed.
03/11/2022 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
11/22/2021 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
11/12/2021 Application entered into system
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you for sharing your timeline and scores! Best wishes for success with your project, job search, and career in biomedical research!
Clover_K01 said
Dear Martin, thank you for sharing the timeline.When did you submit the JIT? Were you given a chance to modify the budget from the proposed one? Thanks!
SaG said
Absent an obvious admin error (e.g., requesting 1 year when you wanted 5 years) budgets can’t be increased at this point. Though they can be cut. And K99/R00 budgets are usually capped anyway.
Clover_K01 said
Thank you for your comment, SaG. I thought during JIT there could be budget negotiation. For K01 grants, their budget is usually capped for salary and research support. Could one slightly increase the budget under the capped salary due to increased salary in the current year or by increasing the efforts (devoted person months)? A previously-assigned GMS indicates I could do this with the budget button under JIT. But the currently-assigned GMS didn’t ask for budget file for the official JIT email. In this case, could I still submit a revised budget under JIT or should I only submit the required JIT documents? Any suggestion or insight on this will be highly appreciated.
writedit said
The NIH doesn’t allow COL increases, so you couldn’t increase it just because you got an annual increase. If your appointment and your salary grade changed (ie, you went from postdoc or instructor to tenure-track faculty as a result of the K01), you should let the GMS know. The budget was approved as reviewed, which means the study section thought your devoted effort was sufficient for the work proposed, so I doubt the IC will let you increase the percent effort just because you now want to reach the K01 salary cap. Most applicants consider this at application and request as much time as is feasible for their position. I’m surprised your mentor (or chair) did not point this out when you applied, since most departments want to maximize salary coverage under these awards. Given that the FY is winding down, your current GMS may want to stick with the approved budget to avoid any delays in award processing.
Clover_K01 said
Thank you for your insights, writedit! Unfortunately, neither me or my department is very familiar with the K01 application…. I actually listed more efforts(devoted months) in my training/research plan but only budgeted 9 months’ salary in the budget. At that time, I didn’t realize one can budget more than 9 months’ salary…It is interesting that the previous GMS indicated I may submit a revised budget under the caps while the current GMS didn’t get back to my inquiry on a revised budget ( I have asked about this twice now). For questions related to the revised budget, could I also consult with the PO or deputy branch chief since I don’t hear back from the current GMS? Thank you very much for your guidance.
writedit said
Now I understand. The grant administrator in your department and/or the sponsored programs office should have caught that mistake – unless you submitted at the very last minute and they had no time to review your application prior to submission. As SaG points out, the study section probably thinks you intentionally budgeted for less effort than you committed to the K01, with your institution picking up the rest of the committed effort. I am not sure why the first GMS said you could submit a revised budget to make up for the mistake made in the application. I have not heard of this, but I don’t know if it is just rare or if it is not allowed. Your PO is not involved in award processing – that is the realm of the grants management branch (which is separate, similar to the review branch). You could ask the PO if the IC allows budget mistakes in applications to be corrected, but they won’t be able to do anything themself. If you have not submitted the rest of the JIT, you should do that ASAP so you don’t risk losing the award altogether (it’s getting late in the FY). You can amend the NOA, if the IC allows you to correct your budget mistake, but it is more important to get the JIT in, which can include the note about the mistake in the budget due to insufficient FTE covered in your salary. As SaG notes, you could later move some of the supply funding to salary to make up the difference, but then you have less $$ for the research itself.
SaG said
I am not familiar with K01s but if you are just moving money between categories (research to salary) and the amount is less than 25% of the total award, you don’t need NIH approval. I am assuming that K01s are treated like R01s for this. The various NIH institutes have caps on how much salary support you can request. For instance NIAID is $75k, NIDDK is $90k while NINR is $100k. So, you can’t request more salary than that. Finally, how much salary to take from a grant is up to you. You can have 100% effort but only take 6 months salary. But, not the reverse. Of course your school wants you to take as much salary as possible.
Clover_K01 said
Many thanks for these information, Writedit and SaG! Just an update that the current GMS did confirm that I cannot revise the budget after the council approval — A good lesson has been learned in a hard way ;).
writedit said
Thanks for the update. I was surprised that one GMS suggested you could alter the budget, but I suspect they thought you meant to move $$ around within your requested amount, not increase the budget request to match your effort.
F31DiversityNewb said
I was wondering about the NCI F31 Diversity. I received my scores a few weeks back and I got 17th percentile. I was told by my peer that the F31 non-diversity had a payline of 16th. Going over the comments of the previous Diversity applicants here, they were saying that it got moved from 30-34 to 20 – is that in percentile? I am assuming it is since most fundline for the NCI referenced a percentile cutoff.
I am still waiting on my summary statements but I emailed my PO if this is within the range of the F31 Diversity Payline for NCI and I have not received a response (also followed it up). I am wondering if I should be preparing for a resubmission.
SaG said
The PO won’t know much. You app will be paid with Fiscal Year 2023 $. Until Congress gives NIH a budget for next year paylines will remain unknown.
writedit said
Instead of asking the PO if you are within the payline, which won’t be known for months, you should wait until you receive your summary statement (PO won’t reply until it is issued) and ask if you should prepare a resubmission.
F31NewbAsWell said
Hi, just a fellow F31-Div. applicant here, I sumitted initially 8/21, received 34 impact score and percentile. Was told initially likely to be funded but nothing for sure. Resubmitted 4/22 and received a 19 impact score and 7th percentile, so hopefully will get funding. I have emailed my PO more than 5 times since the beginning of this year and have received no replies what so ever.
From the tea leaves i’ve been trying to read I would guess your in the pay, I just don’t know if we will have to wait until NEXT September to actually get an NOA. Definitely frustrating, how long exactly do they think we are students for? I assume funding is never retroactive?
SaG said
Hmmm, PO not responding is not good. Have you tried contacting someone else at the funding Institute (e.g., Grants person)? Supervisors need to know when their POs are responding for whatever reason. I have heard of some schools getting tagged as spam and all emails from that school going to junk mail folders. Always a good excuse ;-).
If you resubmitted in April then you will be funded with FY2023 $s. It will be awhile before any funding is done. Could be December or more likely early next year.
writedit said
SaG is correct on reaching out to someone higher up in the hierarchy to let them know your PO is not responsive and that your application will be paid in FY23 (probably early in 2024 … hopefully not too late, though I don’t have high hopes for a federal budget until the spring due to the midterm elections). I will just add that your score and percentile for the Diversity F31 FOA should result in an award – some ICs are more competitive than others, but 7th percentile should receive an award anywhere (assuming no administrative issues arise).
doggeroo said
Hi Writedit,
Can I submit the same grant to NSF and NIH with the condition I will reject one if I get the other or is that not allowed?
Thanks as always!
writedit said
Concurrent applications to both the NIH and NSF were prohibited in the past, and they remain prohibited within both the NIH/PHS and the NSF, but now CSR indicates that “Concurrent submissions of applications to a component of the Public Health Service and a different Federal Agency (e.g. NSF) [are allowed], unless otherwise prohibited”. (see https://public.csr.nih.gov/ForApplicants/SubmissionAndAssignment/DRR/evaluationofapplications) Assuming neither the NIH FOA nor the NSF solicitation prohibit applications to other agencies, you should be good.
Sharath Chandra said
Hi, thanks for sharing the payline info here.
I submitted an R01 to NIMHD and the proposal was scored by a special emphasis panel. The score is 29 and i did not receive a percentile score. I qualify for ESI.
This RFA has another submission round in a few months.
– Could you share how to interpret the score considering NIMHD does not publish paylines?
– Should I reach out the PO before i receive the summary statement? I spoke to the PO before submitting the proposal and they seemed enthusiastic by the proposal.
Thanks!
writedit said
Since it is difficult to gauge likelihood of funding by score alone for an RFA (lots of programmatic discretion to fund what they want), you will want to wait until you receive your summary statement to contact your PO for advice on next steps, including whether to submit again to the next submission date. Your PO probably won’t know about funding likelihood, even with an RFA, until after the FY23 budget passes, which won’t be for several months. The PO does not see your summary statement before you do, and they need that summary of discussion paragraph especially to determine if you can address the concerns through minor changes to your approach, or if there was a concern with the significance or study design that would require more substantive changes that should then undergo peer review again. With a score of 29, I suspect the weaknesses were minor/modest vs major, but you won’t know until the summary statement arrives.
Kas said
I just received my K08 NOA and the awarded salary remains the same across the 5 years despite my request of increases [per my university’s rate] and the direct costs appear to be close to 20k lower than requested. Is this common?
writedit said
This is standard NIH policy, which your institution should have known (though many still request annual increases, knowing they will be removed when the NOA is prepared, since there is no penalty for asking). There are no annual increases for any award, unless your IC makes an exception to do so. I can’t tell if the $20K difference is for your first year or for the entire award (due to lack of inflationary/COL increases each year), but ICs can and do reduce budgets (again, for all awards), usually by no more than 2-5% but by larger amounts during a CR and at the end of the FY when trying to squeeze out as many awards as possible out of remaining funds. Stipends for NRSA awards are adjusted each year, but salaries and all other costs on NIH awards are not. You can check each year’s fiscal policy for what rules are in effect NIH-wide: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-22-105.html
Kas said
Thank you very much for the answer! Really appreciate your site and everyones questions
ross said
I received an impact score of 30 and percentile score of 19 for my NIBIB R21 grant. On 19th June I received automated email notification to submit JIT materials. On 6th July I submitted these materials. I have not yet heard anything from programming officer. It shows “Pending Council Review”. I am not sure what is the NIBIB payline for R21s. I am new investigator. May I please know my funding chances?
SaG said
Hard to say. But since R21s are generally more competitive than R01s I would guess that the best you can hope for is that you are in the grey zone. Since this hasn’t been approved for possible funding by Council it will be many months before your PO will be able to help either. This is from the NBIB R21 FAQs, “R21 grants no longer uses an automatic payline to determine fundable grants. NIBIB has moved to a selective funding process for R21 applications NOT-EB-16-009. This means you cannot infer funding based on previous year’s funding levels.”
writedit said
In addition to all SaG’s great info, please keep in mind that your application will be funded in FY23, and NIBIB won’t know their final appropriation for many months. Your PO won’t be able to say anything about funding likelihood, but you can ask about whether to resubmit (I am sure they will advise you to, at least for insurance).
DHXSUN said
Thanks a BUNCH for running such a helpful website. I’m about to apply for my K99 with NIGMS. I’m not sure if MOSAIC has a higher payline than the regular K99. I know it is a very new mechanism and NIGMS say that they don’t have hard paylines, but does anyone happen to know which one is more competitive?
SaG said
The Mosaic and regular k99 are different beasts. For the Mosaic you have to write a diversity statement. And this has to be more than, “I believe in diversity” you had to have done something in the past to demonstrate leadership in that area. You also have to participate in “MOSAIC UE5 activities.”. If you can’t demonstrate leadership in diversity then you should apply to the regular K99/r00. Read the Mosaic PAR carefully then decide which you have the best shot at.
R56 or not? said
Dear Writedit. Thank you for your very helpful blog. I have a question regarding R56: I am en established investigator with very little funding right now (none from NIH). My A0 R01 got a 25% at NHLBI last year, and the A1 got 16% this June. My PO told me she is pushing for an R56 for the A0. Does this mean that the A1 would “disappear” and could not be considered for select pay in the next FY? As my situation makes me a good candidate for select pay on the A1, I am a bit reluctant to loose this opportunity.
writedit said
I agree with SaG that your PO can give you the best insight as to whether your 16th percentile might have been picked up this year. Your PO is probably offering you the R56 based on the 16th percentile A1 (not the 25th percentile A0, though that is the application that will be converted to an R56). Since you are established, a decision on your A1 would not be made until next summer in all likelihood, so even if your A1 might be picked up, you don’t want to risk waiting a whole year to find out (and potentially be disappointed). I would definitely recommend taking the R56 and submitting a new A0 when you have more data (from R56 funding) to strengthen it, depending on the reviewer concerns.
SaG said
Great question. Did you ask the PO? Maybe the strategy is to get you $$s now since they know it will be 6 months or more until they can consider reaching for your A1. Or maybe they want you to submit a new version of the app and hope you get a better score. That is a reasonable strategy to me given they have no idea of when or if they can fund the A1.
R56 or not? said
Thank you both. I haven’t talked to the PO yet (waiting to ear whether the R56 is going forward). I agree with your suggestions. I will likely take the R56 if it is being offered, and keep my fingers crossed for a resubmission to be scored well later.
K01/NIA applicant said
Hi NIA K01 applicants, any update on your grant status?
I submitted my JIT a month ago! Still pending.
Fei said
Hi, just an update for my K25/NIA. I received the NOA two weeks before.
K01/NIA applicant said
Congratulations and thank you fo the update!
Year2 said
Dear writedit and SaG, thank you for this wonderful forum. I submitted my RPPR in June, and the Year 2 started from August 1st. However, eRA Commons indicates that it is still “Pending administrative review.” I sent an email to my GMS about a week ago, but there has been no response. I do understand that all in NIH is very busy during summer seasons and some sorts of delay is not a surprise. Nevertheless, is there anything that I need to concern from the delay?
writedit said
They can back date the start date on the Type 5 NOA, but you might want to let your PO know that you are still waiting to hear, and/or the chief of Grants Management Services at your IC, if you can identify this person. You can also ask your institution’s sponsored programs office/grants officers about their experience – it could be this is a typical delay for your IC (but you don’t realize this – yet).
Year2 said
Thank you very much for your advice. I will let my PO in NIGMS know the situation.
Valentino said
Hi writedit,
I have a pending R01 with NIA for which I received a score within the payline back in March 2022. I received a personalized JIT request in June and submitted all my JIT materials on July 6. I also received a personalized request from my PO for signed Genomic Data Sharing forms back in June, which I promptly submitted. However, I have not heard back anything since that time. My grant has had the status ‘pending administrative review’ since June 17. I contacted my PO, who said that she doesn’t know when the NOA will be issued but that the deadline to issue the NOA is the end of the September. Do you think I should contact the grants management specialist to get an update? Why do you think there has been no movement on the status of my grant since June 17, even though I already submitted the JIT? Thank you for any advice.
writedit said
Your PO is not in the grants management loop, so she won’t know more about the NOA timing (but did seem to confirm that she expects you to receive a NOA by the Sept 30 deadline), and you don’t want to interrupt the GMS with a question on status, since everyone there is frantically trying to meet the end of the FY. They will contact you if they need anything, but contacting them will not speed anything up. I cannot explain why you have been waiting so long other than the usual flood of activity from July through August. If you are still pending in another week, you might want to circle back to your PO about getting picked up early in FY23 if grants management runs out of time.
Valentino said
Thank you for your reply. Is that common for grants management to run out of time? Is it common for grants that were supposed to be awarded in a specific fiscal year but were not awarded due to time to then be awarded in a subsequent fiscal year?
writedit said
I do not have the data on this scenario but assume it’s reasonably rare. Usually running out of time is only an issue for very last-minute awards made to use up FY funds, not regular cycle applications that scored within the payline. However, because your application was scored within the payline and considered for funding back in June, this seems like a situation in which the IC would ensure the application does not slip through the administrative cracks. I just checked RePORTER, and NIA has only issued 8 new Type 1 R01 awards since August 1 (most of which should have started in April). I only see one that should have had a July 1 start date, so you are not alone in waiting.
Valentino said
Thank you for this information, writedit! It’s so wonderful to have this resource and to learn from your wisdom. Yes, mine is within the payline for a regular cycle application and was supposed to have a July 1 start date. Good to know that only one has been issued thus far! Hopefully, I’ll get an update on my application status soon.
OldDogNewTricks said
A colleague has encountered a situation I’d never heard of, so I thought I’d plumb the combined wisdom here. Here’s what happened 1) R01 assigned by CSR to NHLBI, 2) NHLBI accepts assignment, 3) grant receives highly fundable score from study section, 4) NHLBI decides that they don’t want to accept it after all, and 5) grant is reassigned to another IC.
It’s the order of events/step 5 that throws me for a bit of a loop. That is, I can understand NHLBI simply deciding that they don’t want to fund the study (although as I said, it received a score well under the payline, and my colleague is an new investigator as well), but I’ve not heard of a grant being reassigned after being scored. Maybe it happens all the time, and I’ve just never heard of it?
OldDogNewTricks said
I should add, it’s a study of post-menopausal women that has been reassigned (weirdly enough) to NICHD.
SaG said
You are correct that it generally doesn’t happen. It is rare. The other IC night have had a secondary assignment and decided they are very interested in the specific area of science. NICHD does support science in the area of menopause research. I am surprised it didnt go there first.
OldDogNewTricks said
Thanks for the quick reply. My colleague was (is) naturally very concerned, because NHLBI has a fixed payline and NICHD does not. That, plus the apparent oddity of the final assignment, greatly undermined his confidence in being funded. However, if NICHD was the secondary assignment all along it might actually be a positive sign after all.
writedit said
I agree with SaG that NICHD is a better IC for research in postmenopausal women. The change in IC would have been discussed among POs at both ICs, and NICHD had to want the application (otherwise, it simply wouldn’t have been funded). Be sure to advise your ESI colleague (or perhaps no longer ESI if/when this R01 is funded) to complete the PHS Assignment Request form for both the IC and the SRG. Going back a step, be sure they work with a PO at their target IC while still planning their application so this situation does not occur again. Your colleague is fortunate that a secondary IC was interested. I have had a post on this blog from someone who scored at the 8th percentile but had their application skipped (not funded) because the assigned IC didn’t need more research in that specific field (& PI had not communicated with IC first to learn this), and no other IC was interested. Just because an IC accepts an application does not mean they are excited about it, especially if it is a cold-call application (ie, no pre-application communication with PO). It just means the application was appropriate for the IC to consider, so when CSR sent it to them, they accepted it for review.
OldDogNewTricks said
Just a follow-up here: NICHD was not a secondary assignment, but apparently picked up the application after NHLBI decided not to fund it (despite agreeing to accept the application initially, and the score being well under the payline for ESIs). Sadly, NICHD has now told my colleague that he has to resubmit.
Gilda said
Dear writedit,
I have an R01 at NIA that is ‘pending administrative review’ for which I submitted the JIT (in response to a personalized request) earlier this summer. I scored well within the payline. I contacted my GMS to check on the status, who told me that they don’t have any further information at this time and have not heard back on an expected date of award. They also told me that if approved, the award will be between now and September 30. What does this mean? When they say ‘if approved’ are they referring to the IC Director signing off on it? I’m hoping for a change in status to ‘award prepared’ soon. Thanks!
writedit said
Wow – NIA must be struggling with staffing. Yes, the GMS cannot prepare the NOA until they receive approval from IC leadership to do so. You don’t need to worry about not getting funded due to a change of heart at NIA, but they are super far behind in making Cycle 3 awards (when I checked a week or so ago, only 1 R01 award that should have had a July 1 start date had been issued). The IC director signs on the NOA itself off between the “NOA prepared” and “NOA issued” status.
Gilda said
Thanks, writedit! Yes, in fact, my grant was assigned to a GMS at another institute due to the staffing issues at NIA. It’s hard to wait so long to get to the ‘award prepared’ status. By the way, how do you check how many R01 awards that should have been awarded on July 1 have been awarded thus far? My start date was supposed to be July 1. If you could provide guidance on how to do that, that would be very appreciated.
writedit said
Sure – I just checked again, and the number of new R01 awards since August 13 jumped up to 27, so they are hustling these out as fast as they can. In the advanced search of RePORTER (https://reporter.nih.gov/advanced-search), you want to check the Newly Added Projects Only box at the bottom right (right now, it is since August 13), and enter 1 and R01 and AG in the first 3 boxes under Project Number / Application ID. Since there is no budget end date option, I just click through to see awards that end June 30, 2023, which means they should have had a July 1 start date. Right now, I see lots of RFA and PARs with varying start dates, but all in the June-July range.
CuriousPI said
Thanks so much for doing this blog. Such a great resource over the years for me.
I have a pending grant. It scored competitively. PO was ambiguous about prospects. A month after council I received personalized JIT request. After submitting JIT, some time passed (multiple months). I contacted GMS to check if clarifications were needed. It turns out, they did need clarifications that I was unaware of (was never contacted). Once I sent required info, the GMS thanked me for my patience and stated “we are working to fund the project as soon as possible.” I took this as a relatively good sign. But more recently I reached out to the PO to thank them and inquire about an additional project I have with them, and the PO was the definition of the word ‘ambiguous’ (did not rule out funding but did not give ANY confidence of funding). I realize nothing is guaranteed until NoA is received, so the comment by the GMS does not officially mean anything.
I am trying to understand the intricacies of award processing and not decay into despair. Is it possible the GMS has information regarding funding that the PO does not? Or is the GMS just looser with their tongue than the PO? Any perspective would be greatly appreciated.
writedit said
The PO is ambiguous because they are out of the application processing and award decision loop (they have plenty to do helping PIs get applications ready for submission and dealing with post-review and post-award questions and support, not to mention planning new initiatives n’at). The GMS does all the work to process the application to be sure it is eligible and ready to receive an award (in your case, needing some additional information first – you probably would have been asked eventually). The GMS puts the processed application in the queue for IC leadership to review and approve a NOA (PO not in this loop either – only knows your application is under consideration but cannot make any guarantees). The GMS refers to getting the award made as soon as possible because that is what they do with applications (prepare NOA) once given the green light. There is always a chance that an IC could skip an application processed for an award, but usually the PI would be aware of this potential (duplicate funding from other sources, lack of programmatic priority, well-funded PI, etc. – any potential issues would have been raised with the PI as under consideration). As far as the GMS is concerned, though, if an application has not been pulled during the processing SOP, then it is probably in line for an award, assuming (since this is getting to the end of the FY) that the IC still has the funds available. Only select pay applications really need to be concerned about how far the $$ will stretch, though – applications are processed in rank order of IC priority, so the “beyond payline but nice to have” applications will need to see what shakes out during the processing of applications above them in the paylist.
CuriousPI said
Thank you so much. You are an AMAZING RESOURCE!!!
CuriousPI said
Thanks for helping me understand the process.
Received NoA this morning.
Timeline provided below as payback for the peace of mind you have provided. This is such a great resource!
A0 R01 application
10/05/2020 Application entered into system
02/22/2021 Scientific Review Group review completed: Impact score 56 (24th percentile)
Phone call to PO. Outlined the resubmission strategy. No new data added, just modified scope based on reviewer feedback. Polished.
A1 R01 application
07/02/2021 Application entered into system
10/26/2021 Scientific Review Group review completed: Impact Score:39 (10th percentile)
02/08/2022 Council review completed.
Ambiguity from PO, no published payline
06/06/2022 Pending administrative review
06/07/2022 Personalized JIT request
06/13/2022 JIT submitted
08/23/2022 Contacted by PO, had to change to U01 based on scope of work. Coordinated milestones and cooperative agreement terms with NIH over 7 day period.
09/07/2022 Award prepared
09/14/2022 Application awarded
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you so much for posting your detailed timeline, especially the conversion of your R01 to a U01 in negotiation with the NIH. Best wishes for success with your research!
SDA said
Thanks for keeping this blog active! it has been a great resource for me over the years. I am a mid-career PI..applied for NHLBI R35 emerging investigator last year and got a 39. Submitted this year my last year of eligibility and got a 49. 2 of 3 reviewers liked it enough (2’s and 3’s) but 1 reviewer gave it 6’s. scientific disagreements aside, there are indications that the reviewer failed to notice sections of the grant such as innovation/mentoring and service paragraph in biosketch etc. As a standing member of a study section, I am very reluctant to blame reviewers and have always gone back to the drawing board but this is my last chance at R35, I am on NCE on current R01s. I am writing for every cycle for the last 3-4 but not hitting any.
I was thinking about an appeal since this year there are increased # of awards (20) and I think a score of 30 might have been fundable. I talked with my PO and was discouraged from filing an appeal. Any input is appreciated.
SaG said
If you can point to a factual error you can appeal. But, all that gets you is a re-review even if you win. Even with a better score you wouldn’t be funded until later next year probably. So, it is probably better for you to submit an R01 renewal. It won’t take much longer.
writedit said
Completely agree with SaG, especially since your PO said no. Without the PO on your side, your appeal would be denied by Council. Then you’ve lost a couple cycles. As SaG notes, even if Council agreed that you deserve another review, it is the exact same application going back to your colleagues on the SRG for review again … which means they will know you were not happy with their review and appealed. Not a good look, especially if these are your people, and some awkward SRG meetings in your future. If two of the three reviewers gave you 2s and 3s, which do no add up to a fundable score – and the entire panel gave you a final impact of 49, your colleagues agreed with concerns that exceeded the original criterion scores (2s-3s) but were not as bad as the third reviewer (6s) made them out to be, and if the information you say they overlooked was clear and easy to find, someone else on the panel would have pointed it out and stopped discussion of those points (none of which sound score-driving in any case). This is why your PO says you don’t have a case (and they probably would have heard the discussion). You would be better off trying to renew an NCE R01 if possible (unless you’ve struck out with both the A0 and A1 for each renewal attempt) or getting a new R01 in. Getting close on the score could at least garner the possibility of an R56 to help get you back on track. If you are struggling to renew, then you might focus on publishing instead, if productivity was a concern. I know it’s a tough situation though.
TeaLeafer said
Has anyone ever seen the Snap Indicator Code change to “Snap Indicator Code: Y” but the application goes unfunded?
Mark said
Hello writedit, I have a quick question. Have you ever seen an application being under ‘pending administrative review’ for a few months after JIT materials have been submitted, etc. and not get funded? Under what circumstances could that happen? Thanks!
writedit said
Applications can be stuck in the Pending administrative review status for months before being funded, and program can decide not to fund an application at any stage, including between NOA prepared and NOA issued (ie, NOA not issued) – but this is rare, and the PI would not be blindsided (ie, a point of negotiation-concern recognized in advance, select pay application that did not make it to the top of the list before funding ran out at the end of the FY). I suspect you are at NIA, which seems to be having a staffing meltdown and is way behind on all Cycle 3 awards. NIH has until September 30 to make awards, though, so no matter which IC you are waiting on, don’t assume the worst, especially if you are within the payline. Your PO is out of the grants management loop and won’t have details, and the GMS time is better spent processing awards than answering scores of emails from worried PIs.
Mark said
Sounds good! Also, another question I have is what determines the order in which Cycle 3 awards are processed? For example, is it by score? (e.g., if there are two applications within the payline, but one is higher than the other, is the better score processed first)? Or does it vary according to the PAR, RFA, etc? Thanks again!
writedit said
Lots of parallel processing due to multiple divisions, FOA types, etc., as you note. Each IC has their own system, but you wouldn’t need to worry about a within-payline Cycle 3 application being overtaken on the processing list by a select pay application. ICs set paylines and set aside RFA/PAR/PAS funds that the leave them discretionary spending at the end of the FY, which is used to fund select pay applications. These are all processed at the end of the FY (no matter when submitted), once all the planned Cycle and special initiative (RFA, PAR, etc.) awards have been made, and in this case there is a ranked list to be sure those of highest priority have the highest chance of funding. Being low on the list is not necessarily a death knell, though, since applications higher up on the list might need to be skipped if they can’t get their JIT submitted in 1-2 days (they just get skipped – no time to wait), if a problem is quickly identified, if they receive other funding (from a different source) in the meantime, etc.
AgingPI said
Hi writedit, thanks for your great blog!! It really calms a lot of nerves to know that other people have similar experiences. What happens during the time period from ‘pending administrative review’ to ‘award prepared’ status on era commons? Is your grant already approved for funding prior to reaching ‘pending administrative review’ or does it need to be approved for funding after that? Thanks!
writedit said
The GMS goes through the JIT and ensures there is no duplicate funding, no missing documentation, no regulatory concerns, and no other issues that need to be addressed before an award can be made. At that point, they need IC leadership to sign off on preparing the NOA, and once it is prepared, the NOA itself goes to the IC Director for review and final sign-off before the NOA is issued. From your handle, I assume you are waiting on NIA, whose staff seem to be MIA, causing a huge backup in Cycle 3 awards (ie, July 1 start dates). You can be patient not assuming the worst (and NIA award notices have sped up in the last week or so). You will be contacted if there is a concern, so no news is good news (albeit nerve-racking).
AgingPI said
Great, thank you so much for these detailed explanations! And yes, I am waiting on a grant at NIA, like a lot of people who have been contacting you recently! When you say that the “IC leadership needs to sign off on preparing the NoA,” who are you referring to?
writedit said
At NCI, this would be the Scientific Program Leadership (SPL), for example, but essentially Division leaders and leaders of major cross-IC initiatives, who keep an eye on their scientific portfolios and approve both within payline and select pay awards.
New PI said
Thank you for this amazing resource. I know there are a lot of anxious people out there waiting for awards. Just got a NOA for an NIDDK R01. Timeline was:
5.16.22 Council review completed
5.24.22 Pending administrative review
8.22.22 Award prepared
8.30.22 NOA issued
As you can see, waited almost 3 months between pendind admin review and award prepared. Also- I did NOT get an email about the award prepared or the NOA. Had to log in to commons to see that.
If you’re anxiously waiting, I feel your pain. Hang in there.
writedit said
Woohoo! Congratulations and thank you so much for sharing this reassuring timeline and helpful tips. Best wishes for success with your research.
GrantApplicant said
I have an application submission question. For applications that don’t require certain attachments (e.g., Data Safety Monitoring, Resource Sharing) due to the parameters of the grant application, is it okay to omit those attachments and hope the reviewers know the rule, or should an explanation of why it’s not required be uploaded in the application packet?
So, for example, if the application is <$500k in direct, a Resource Sharing Plan isn't needed, should a document that says that be attached in ASSIST, or should it just be left blank.
Sorry if this is off-topic!
writedit said
You don’t need to attach an explanation. Reviewers assume it passed the automatic checks made at the time of referral, and anything missing that would be required to make an award are noted in the summary statement. You need to be sure your FOA does not require a resource sharing plan (no matter the budget) – and I often just suggest investigators include one since they will typically be sharing data and/or resources.
edta said
How is an admin supplement handled at EOY? I had responded to a NOSI, asking AS for my NCCIH R01 in May-status changed to ‘accepted for consideration’ then no move for 3 months (did discuss with PO before submission but nothing after). When I did a similar AS last time, I got a short rejection letter in about two months.
A couple of weeks ago, it is gone from my original R01 stack-strange, but if you search with Grant#, it says ‘pending administrative review’ with W1 code after the original grant number/year (saw earlier posting that W code is used for the pending supplement before it gets typical S code). Is it moving foward, so just sitting tight till Sep 30 is the best strategy?
SaG said
The W code is used for admin supps (staff review). S is used for competitive supplements…that is they are peer reviewed (also called a revised award). Usually if you get a W code it means they intend to pay the supp. But, different ICs do this differently so don’t get your hopes up. Sit tight is all you can really do at this point. Perhaps the Institute is waiting to see how much end of year $s it has. https://www.era.nih.gov/files/Deciphering-NIH-Application.pdf
pol123 said
Thanks for a great resource. I have R01 submitted in Feb 2022, reviewed by a SEP, got a score in the 40s (NIA is assigned as the primary institute, focus is on ADRD). I was just contacted by the NIA to get together a response to reviewers by the end of next week. Is this a good sign or is it common practice? Any tips for putting a response together to make it more “attracting” for funding? (If there is such a thing).
SaG said
Good sign. They might be reaching to pay it before the end of the year. Respond like you would for the Intro to a resubmission. Focus on the score drivers and keep it concise. 1 page or so.
K01 NIA applicant said
Thank you so much for keeping this great resource active by advising and answering all the questions. I have K01 NIA/ADRD submitted in Feb 2021. I got fundable score in the first cycle (June 2021). I received personal JIT two months ago. My status still is Pending. My question is: what will happen if I don’t receive NOA by the end of September?
writedit said
NIA is super far behind on awards. You should get your award in time, but if not, you can check with your PO on timing in FY 23 (awards can be made in the next FY – you don’t lose your only chance).
K01/NIA applicant said
Thank you so much for the comment.
cheezy said
Thanks for this blog! I submitted a K99 in July 2021 and a revision in April; the revision was ND but I received a personalized JIT request for the original submission. The status says “Pending administrative review” on eRA commons. Unfortunately I thought the personalized JIT request was for the ND revisions and so I ignored it and the documents are quite late (they emailed me last week and it all just got submitted officially yesterday). My score is *just* within the payline for the institute for the current fiscal year. Might the late documents change my changes of funding? How hopeful can I be? Anything I can do at this point? Thanks!
Magic 8ball said
“How hopeful can I be?”
shake, shake, shake
● Signs point to yes..
shake, shake, shake,
● Outlook good
“Anything I can do at this point?”
shake, shake, shake
● My sources say no, unless you are a religious person…..
Good luck!
writedit said
Magic 8-ball says it all.
>
gands07 said
Thanks so much for this amazing blog. I’m hopeful you may have some insight into my situation. I resubmitted an R01 to NCI in 3/21 (as an ESI, proposal scored 20%). Since then I submitted a new application later in 2021 and a resubmission in 7/22. Late August, I received an email from my PO indicating the the 3/21 grant may be put forth for funding. My PO also requested a rebuttal and asked about my current funding status. This sounds like exception funding…. Do you know a) what the likelihood of funding may be and b) is funding unlikely since I haven’t heard anything yet? Do you know the success rate for exception funding? The process itself is largely unclear (how is the decision made/when…).
SaG said
If they are ask this at then end of the FY they must have money left to spend. Since they asked you for this info I would say the odds are high. The process involves internal NCI discussions and prioritization but they are not going to ask 10 PIs for this info if they only have money for 1 or 2. They have to make these decisions within the next 7 to 10 days.
anxiousPI said
Amazing community here, thank you! I am one of the anxious people out there waiting for NoA.
I have been in pending administrative review since 5.12.22–and it is getting closer and closer to 9.30.22
In July, the PO said my timeline depends on the GMS. And at that time the GMS says “we have many applications to review”.
What happens if I don’t get a NoA by the end of September?
writedit said
I am going to assume your application is at NIA. Your PO doesn’t know where your application is in the queue, but something happened at the NIA that all awards have been backed up for months, and they are turning to other ICs for help. They must spend their appropriation by September 30, so they must be working at a feverish pace to turn around hundreds of awards by month’s end. If by some disaster they don’t finish in time, I must assume that they will pay within payline awards from the FY23 appropriation, though should that happen, the busy fiscal month of October will delay the NOAs further. There is nothing you or your PO can do, so please just sit tight. If you don’t have an award by September 30, then check in with your PO on October 1. I assume NIA will have informed their Divisions about how to handle this … but I suspect they will find a way to get all the awards out in FY22.
anxiousPI said
Thanks for the response, writedit!
My application is actually at NIDDK. But either way, it sounds like I should continue to sit tight, and message my PO on October 1st if I don’t hear back.
writedit said
Yep. There’s still nothing you can do, and contacting the GMS will be a distraction to award processing.
K01 NIA applicant said
Thanks so much for this amazing platform. Here is my timeline for my K01 NIA/ADRD.
02/11/2021 Proposal Receipt Date
06/10/2021 Council review completed
06/17/2022 Pending administrative review
09/02/2022 Award prepared
09/14/2022 NOA issued
First cycle–Fundable score–Total processing time=19 months
writedit said
Congratulations (finally!) and thank you for posting your timeline, which will be especially reassuring to dozens of NIA investigators anxiously awaiting word on their awards. It is unconscionable that you had to wait 19 months from submission to receive an award. Best wishes for success with your project and your career in biomedical research!
what's going on said
My R01 (A0) to the NIMH scored 7% in the summer. The PO contacted me and asked for a response letter. He indicated the application was very competitive and the response was sufficient. JIT was requested through an automatic email and was submitted. Now it’s been 2 weeks since the council meeting–the eRA status was updated “council meeting completed” about 10 days ago. I emailed the PO about the funding status last week and got no reply. What’s causing this radio silence? Would 7% be good enough? Shall I just sit and wait? Many thanks for your kind input!
writedit said
Congratulations on your exceptional score. Unfortunately, NIMH (and the rest of the NIH & federal government) are operating under a continuing resolution through December (at least), which makes it unlikely your application will receive an award until next year, unless NIMH decides to fund some very low-scoring applications under the CR. Your PO hasn’t replied because they have no information, and they probably won’t for the entire month of October, which is pretty much spent closing out the prior FY financial reports and getting ready for FY23. Your PO sounds confident about funding for this application, so you shouldn’t need to ask about a resubmission, but you could ask if you need to wait for the FY23 federal budget to be signed into law before your application will be processed for an award. At least then you would know whether to expect any activity on your application until the FY23 budget passes (again, earliest would be December, but that will depend on what happens with the mid-term elections). In the meantime, you can put your energy into publications or starting to develop a second R01 or other grant application (especially to a different IC or sponsor).
what's going on said
Indeed, in a world full of uncertainties, on steroid, it’s indeed wise to focus on the things I can do. Thank you so much for the calming voice and sage advice to me and many others on this forum!
airmonkey84 said
Hi – I am following up on a previous message I had posted. My K08 to NIAMS received a priority score of 28, which for FY ’22 is fundable (at the payline), but this will be considered for the FY ’23 budget with unclear payline at this time. My PO has suggested resubmission; I am concerned about the possibility of a worse score on resubmission. What are your thoughts on resubmission in this uncertain situation? My understanding is that I cannot select the better of the two scores.
writedit said
You can’t select the better of two scores, but the IC can. The A0 application that scored 28 will still be active (ie, not withdrawn upon submission/review of the A1), so NIAMS will still be able to fund it. I personally have not heard of a situation in which a PI is not considered for an award because the resubmission scored worse than the initial submission (including an ND A1 in which the A0 was still funded), but I recall an applicant posting here that they had been warned by their NCI PO that a worse A1 score could endanger the A0 application. You can ask your PO for reassurance on whether the A1 score will affect your A0 chances for an award.
R01ESI said
I submitted my first R01 on last cycle as an ESI, and it will be reviewed within 2 weeks. Currently, I’m on 4th year of my K08 and I wonder whether the outcomes from my K08 would affect the reviewers’ and institutions’ decision. I heard that, if an applicant has any prior NIH grant when applying R01, the productivity is really important for the next NIH grant. If I have no first/last author paper resulted from K08, would it negative affect the review score? Also, if I have good paper resulted from K008, would it affect the review score? People said that SRG only judge the scientific merit of the proposal itself, but I worry whether my K08 outcome would negative affect my R01 application. If anybody has experience, I would appreciate any comments/advice/suggestion. Thank you in advance.
SaG said
Reviewers will always look at productivity. But, how they weigh it varies. Given the target group for K08s (junior clinicians with little-to-moderate research training) the reviewer’s expectations should be less. If you have enough data for a paper then that will help. At a minimum submit it to BioRxiv or MedRxiv.
writedit said
SaG covered the key points perfectly. Since your application is being reviewed within 30 days, nothing you do now, including a preprint, will affect the review. However, if your score is in the gray zone, be sure to let your PO know if you have a preprint or manuscript accepted before Council meets relevant to the R01 science, since that could help with internal award discussions.
Nopercentile said
Thank you for this great resource! I’m wondering if you or anyone can weigh in on interpreting NIMH impact scores with no percentile listed. In this case – an R34 score of 33 for an ESI. Any ideas about what that likely means in terms of percentile/any chance of eventual funding?
writedit said
Your ESI status only comes into play for R01 decisions, in terms of a payline break, so that isn’t necessarily an issue here (though sometimes still considered when decisions come down to one or two applications). With no percentile, there will be a lot of programmatic discretion in making funding decisions. Your summary statement will give better insight into the possibility of funding, especially if the concerns are readily addressed by tweaking the approach (vs concerns about scientific significance or concepts). After you receive your summary statement, you can check in with your PO about next steps, including whether to submit again (even just for insurance).
carl anon said
Does the timing of getting review scores matter? Within a day versus the standard 3 or 4 days?
SaG said
Nope, makes no difference. They are all released at once.
Rosa Lee said
Hi, thank you for these amazing resources! I recently submitted a K99 to NEI this June and received a score of 30. I got a few comments that this may require a re-submission. I was wondering what you think? Thank you!
writedit said
I am unclear as to whether these comments were in the summary statement or from colleagues. A score of 30 is generally at the upper range of funding, but this varies by IC. More importantly though, if your score is borderline, you won’t have a clear resolution until late next summer, and you obviously would not want to wait that long to submit again due to the tight eligibility window for K99 applicants. When you have your summary statement, you can review the concerns raised with your PO and ask about next steps, including whether to submit an A1, even if just for insurance (paylines will not be set until sometime in 2023, with the timing dependent on the mid-term election outcome).
Rosa Lee said
Thank you so much for your suggestion @writedit! It’s very helpful. Fingers crossed!
Q about DP2 and R35 said
Hi,
I hope to start preparing for my ESI grants now, although I will start my independent position in a few months. I have a few questions about DP2 and R35 that I am not sure.
(1) can you submit both at the same time?
(2) they may not affect your R00, right?
(3) you can only get either one of them, even if you use different topics, right?
(4) If (3) is true, which one is better for new PIs? My understanding is that DP2 has more money (300k/yr) in the five years than R35 (250k/yr), but DP2 is not renewable while R35 is.
(5) DP2 seems more competitive, is it considered more prestigious, so that would make your track record looks better for future grants?
Thanks!
SaG said
1) if they are scientifically distinct yes. (a very subjective rule)
2) I am not sure what you are asking. But, you can have a DP2 and an R00 at the same time.
3) If you are referring to the NIGMS ESI R35, if you get a DP2 they will skip awarding you an R35 since as soon as you get a big NIH grant you are no longer an ESI. Instead they use the money to fund a different ESI. And vice versa.
4) But, it is still a good idea to apply for both if you can. If GM manages your DP2 then at renewal time you can apply for a Established Investigator R35..same as if you received an ESI R35. So, choose the bigger DP2 dollars if you get the choice.
5) as for prestige….talk to your Dept Chair. I am guessing they just think, “show me the money”
unasked question) And yes, find and speak with a PO.
Oliver said
Thank you for maintaining this helpful resource.
Is it allowed to change title from A0 to A1? If so, is it a good idea? The context is that the A1 has been significantly revamped from a non-discussed A0. Thanks.
SaG said
Yes, you can. https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2011/10/31/can-i-change-the-title-of-my-resubmission-or-renewal-application/
Oliver said
Thank you, SaG!
Nuria said
I submitted an U01 May 20 2022. The scientific review group met on 09/15/2022, and I got my impact score of 41 a week later (no % score or threshold announced). On 10/06 it was assigned to the office of the director, But in status history, the last message was “05/25/2022 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.” In the main page it says: Last status update was 09/16/20022 “pending council review” Why is scientific review not completed after 26 days? Can I infer anything from this information?
Chloe said
This is just the website’s idiosyncrasy. The status listed near the top is correct. The list at the bottom sometimes lags by one update.
Nuria said
Thank you, Chloe. So the last update is as of 9/16/2022 and it says “Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.” But not summary of the comments posted yet. I guess I just have to wait for those prior to contacting Program Official?
writedit said
Your summary statement is a little late, but it can take up to 6-8 weeks to be released, and yes, you will want to wait until you have the summary statement before contacting your PO. They cannot offer any advice or insight until they see the reviews, and I assume this was an RFA or PAR, which means the impact score won’t be the only factor in the funding decisions.
DavidTexas said
I submitted an A1 R15 proposal in June 2022. It was initially assigned to the same NIH institute as the A0 proposal. Just found out today that it was completely reassigned to a new NIH institute with a brand-new proposal ID. The new institute has a much lower pay-line, and I really do not see why the A1 was assigned to it. The scientific aims fit the original institute much much better. Anybody has such experience and how should I approach NIH?
Thank you.
SaG said
It happens. A PO at each institute must agree that it belongs at the new place. POs get the final decision (more or less) about what fits their mission. You could ask the POs why they decided to switch it. But, it is hard to get it reversed. I guess that the A0 was accepted with out a close look at the proposed project. With hundreds of apps a year to look at it is not surprising something is missed.
DavidTexas said
Contact the former PO. No response yet. It was given a new proposal ID for the new institute. But no new PO has been assigned. Does this mean the re-assignment is not finalized yet and I happen to catch it when visiting ERA account?
The proposal remains with the original institute and PO when I checked about 10 days ago.
SaG said
Yes, it is still going through the transfer process. If it has a new number someone at the new institute agreed to take it.
Nuria said
@ Writedit. It is an RFA. What do you mean that the impact score won’t be the only factor? I am new to this and any input will be useful. Thank you.
SaG said
It means that they have more flexibility to skip a better score to fund a worse scoring app to fill a programmatic priority. NIH is not required to fund in score order. They can skip around if they want to. Some institutes do it more than others especially with RFAs and PARs.
Nuria said
It is still “Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending” since 09/16/2022. On 10/06 it was assigned to the office of the director. But have not heard anything yet from the PO.
luyongke said
I submitted a grant in response to a PAR. How can I change the PAR to a Notice of Special Interest? If cannot, will it influence on the funding decision?
writedit said
It’s too late to add the NOSI designation once an application is submitted (you don’t change the PAR to a NOSI, you add the NOSI designation to your application in response to the PAR). Your application won’t be given any special consideration under the NOSI (e.g., if your score were in the gray zone, more likely to be awarded) without the required NOSI number in the Agency Routing Identifier field (box 4B). Lesson learned.
SaG said
Try contacting the PO and GMS assigned to your app. I think they can add or change a NOSI designation. Probably doesn’t make a difference unless the NOSI number is required for the specific program. Which is rare.
luyongke said
Thanks Writedit and SaG. I did not recognize it is so important to have respond to a NOSI compared to a PAR.
luyongke said
Thanks Writedit and SaG. I did not recognize it is so important to have respond to a NOSI compared to a PAR.
SaG said
It might not be. Depends on the NOSI. Anywhere from trivial to critical.
AML said
First time R01 applicant here. I am an ESI and wrote an ADRD grant to the NIA and just received my score/percentile of 34% which is 1% below the pay line of 33%. Any chance it sill may get funded?
writedit said
Once you have your summary statement, you can ask your PO about next steps, including whether to resubmit – which I am pretty sure you will be advised to do. Most funding decisions for competing applications will be delayed until the FY23 federal budget is signed into law, which is not likely to happen until next year, and usually decisions on applications that are above the payline are put off until the end of the FY (ie, late next summer), which is too long to wait without submitting again.
Scientist12 said
Hi Writedit,
There is ongoing department mergers in our university. Some are planning to switch to a clinical department (neurosurgery) as it matches with their brain vascular research. I work on 2 different areas: metabolism and brain vascular research. I wonder if I switch to neurosurgery, will it negatively affect my metabolism grants. I hear conflicting opinions about this where some say the department doesn’t matter while other say it will open up unnecessary discussion in the study section.
Thank you
writedit said
As long as you have access to the laboratory resources you need, study sections won’t care which department you are in. Being in a clinical department can be an asset if you need access to human biospecimens, clinical insights on mechanisms and high-priority research questions, clinical collaborator, and so on. However, basic scientists in clinical departments are often required to fund their full salary with grant awards and to teach a lot and may not get as much support or recognition (a good chair would never do this, but it happens in with short-sighted leadership). If you are picking a department, pick one where your research will be valued by your new colleagues and chair and whose insight would benefit your science.
Scientist12 said
Thank you for your response.
CuriousScientist said
Hi writedit –
I recently got an impact score of 17 for my K99 application at the NCI. I was wondering how likely you think my funding chances might be? I understand the current NIH budget is a bit precarious. Thank you in advance.
CuriousScientist said
P.S. is it true that K99 don’t release percentiles? (Eg Impact Score only)?
YS said
You should be funded even during continuing resolution period.
writedit said
I think with a 17, you should be in good shape, since plenty of applicants with scores in the 20s report awards here (you can search this and the archived pages). After you receive your summary statement, contact your PO for advice on next steps (eg, sit tight, prepare rebuttal, consider insurance submission, etc.). Your PO won’t be able to give much insight on the likelihood of funding until after the FY23 federal budget is signed into law, which won’t happen until December at the very earliest. You are correct that there won’t be a percentile for an NCI K99, but they know the internal funding range (and how far out of range they will reach for an application they want to fund).
SweatingTheNCIK99 said
Hello fellow NCI K99 applicant. I just got my score as well (27) so I’m sweating it. Previous postdocs in my lab have been funded with 24 and 25 impact scores, so I think 17 should be well below the payline for NCI.
CuriousScientist said
Writedit – thank you for the information. I will sit tight until then.
SweatingTheNCIK99 – thank you for the reassurance. I went back and looked at historic trends at the recommendation of Writedit, and it seems we should both be okay. Based on prior funded blog posts the average payline has been 30 for NCI. Fingers crossed we both get it!
YS said
A 27 is fundable in the past several years. Unless they have a big money issue in FY23.
NIHROOKIE said
Hi Writedit,
I recently was awarded an R56 (NIBIB) in September 2022 based on a resubmitted R01(A1) grant that just missed the payline by 3%. I also submitted a revised proposal as a new (A0) R01 right after receiving the summary statement of previous A1 and got 6% (Impact score = 25) yesterday, which will be with NHLBI. The fundable payline of NHLBI is 15%, so it is very likely that the new R01 is funded in the Spring of 2023. The question for you is: what will happen to the R56 and R01-A0 as they have some overlap. I know that R56 cannot be carried over as the R01 was a new submission.
Will NIH end R56 and cut R01?
Thanks a lot.
SaG said
Unlikely that they would take any money back. Barring fraud, NIH almost never takes money back. Could be 5-6 months before they award the R01.
SaG said
And unlikely they would offset the first year of the award.
NIHROOKIE said
What happens to the inevitable overlap? Will NIH fully fund the R01 (with usual cuts) despite R56 being already funded for 1 yr?
writedit said
At the time of the NHLBI R01 JIT, they will ask about overlap to ensure they are not funding the same work twice, but that won’t be for many months, depending on when FY23 federal budget is signed into law (though it will be before September 2023). If the R56 work could be redirected on a different tangent (since the award just started), you could use that $ to launch preliminary studies that could set you up for a different R01 or other activity code application with NIBIB in a year or so (eg, focus on technology vs biology, if appropriate – your mentor who knows your research could give advice on how to develop a separate project for NIBIB).
Nose hair said
Dear writedit,
I have an R01 assigned to study section A. Now I would like to have it re-assigned to study section B? Which SRO should I email to? Or should I email the review branch chief?
Thank you!!
–NH
writedit said
I am assuming you requested SRG B in your application; a different assignment could have been made because the SRG membership and/or interests are shifting. If you did not request an SRG when you applied, keep in mind the importance of doing so for your next application (though you still need an objective reason based on your science). If you contacted the SRO of SRG B to confirm your application would be appropriate for their study section, you would email the IRG chief and copy the SRO you contacted. If you did not contact an SRO in advance, you will just email the IRG chief. You will need an objective reason based on your science for the request, not just that your peers get better reviews in SRG B. You will want to cite stated interests in the SRG B description in the context of your aims (and publications, if you have published preliminary data) and why SRG A is not a good fit.
NH said
Thank you very much for the reply! I originally requested SRG A without doing my homework. But after reading the panel members research topics, I think SRG B fits slightly better.
I have not contacted the SRO or the chief yet. Should I email directly the IRG chief to change, or is it better to contact the SRO first?
Thank you again!
writedit said
CSR agreed with your request of SRG A. If they had thought SRG B was better, that is where they would have sent it (in spite of your request for SRG A). You would still communicate with the IRG chief, who is the one who decides about moving an application. You should acknowledge that you originally thought SRG A was the best fit, but based on x, y, and z, you now realize that you should have requested SRG B. You need to be prepared to leave your application in SRG A, though, since the IRG chief’s word is final, and you do not want to get into it with someone who will likely make review assignments for many of your applications.
Nose hair said
Got it. I will contact the chief and ask politely.
Thank you again for being a part-time mentor for junior PIs like me.
writedit said
You are very welcome – happy to help everyone out there succeed. If your application stays in SRG A, it could be because SRG B got slammed with applications, and the IRG chief is trying to keep workloads manageable when the review won’t suffer (ie, reasonably comparable SRG available, as in your case), or, again, the chief thinks a shift in reviewers in either SRG might favor your application in A vs B.
NI said
My R01 grant to NCI (primary) and NIBIB (secondary) received a percentile score of 15. This is a multi-PI grant with a new investigator and established investigator. May I please know the chances of funding. Thank you.
writedit said
You will need to wait for your summary statement to communicate with your PO, but since NCI does not seem to be making much progress on raising their payline, you should plan on resubmission. Only an application with all ESI PIs would receive a payline break; NI doesn’t matter at NCI, and ESI+established does not provide the ESI payline break.
elliebo85 said
I’m an ESI and received an R01 score from NIMH in the 14th percentile. Any thoughts on chances of funding given the ESI bump?
writedit said
You are in their zone of consideration, and with your ESI status, you should be toward the front of the line. When you get your summary statement, contact your PO with advice on next steps, which could include preparing a rebuttal to the review for internal consideration. Your PO might also advise you to resubmit for insurance, especially with the federal budget in a CR, so don’t take that as bad news (and good news if they advise you to sit tight).
N29047 said
Good morning Writedit,
I have an awkward situation here that needs your kind guidance.
I have two grants being assigned to the same study section. One is a new submission and the other one is a re-submission. They are both based on the same/similar preliminary studies recently accepted for publication at Nature communications.
Of course, I proposed different set of Specific Aims with maybe 0-20% overlap depending who reviews it (very subjective). The Re-submission was initially scored decently (30/24th). The new submission will be unpredictable as usual.
Now I am eager to know:
1) It is possible that two grants will be assigned to the same reviewers by the SRO?
2) Are they going to adversely affect each other’s score?
3) Is there a good option? A) Do nothing and Remain on the same study section? B) Move the new submission to another study section; or C) Retract the new submission?
Much appreciated!
–N29047
SaG said
1) Very likely to have overlapping reviewers.
2) Could be. They will be subconsciously compared even if the SRO says don’t.
3). Tricky. I suggest withdrawing the new app and submitting it to the next Council round. But, letting it ride could work too. Too many unknowns to be sure. Given the similar science I can’t see a good argument to moving it to a different study section.
N29047 said
Thank you very much for the comments! Letting it ride seems to be a good option to me.
writedit said
Thanks to SaG for a great response! I would only additionally ask if you requested two different study sections, assuming the second study section has the appropriate expertise, since you seem surprised to find them in the same SRG. If you were expecting a different study section for one of the applications, you could ask the IRG chief about moving the appropriate one over.
R01 Issues said
In a similar situation. Just checking to see how this all turned out?
N29047 said
Thanks Writedit!
I requested the same study section for both grants.
I thought the specific aims for the June grant were not the best, expected the score to be mediocre, and did not plan a resubmission. I focused on the Oct grant, and submitted with a new non-overlapping set of aims.
However, after the Oct new submission, the June score came back better than expected, hence the resubmission.
writedit said
Sounds good. I think you are okay leaving both applications in the same SRG for the same review cycle. It’s up to the IC to decide whether to fund both at the same time (and it does happen), not the SRG, and I assume your PO was on board with both applications.
N29047 said
Thank you Writedit for the blessing! I have learned that grant application can be anything but predictable. Honestly, I haven’t reached out to the PO yet.
AnxiousOne said
Hi Writedit,
I just submitted a K23 A0, which will almost certainly be assigned to a study section with a reputation of judging applications harshly. Anecdotally, a colleague of mine has actually reviewed for this study section a couple times in the past and described the culture as highly nitpicky and resistant to rating any application within the 1-3 range. Moreover, my mentors have submitted several R01s to this study section and received middling impact scores but competitive percentiles. Despite the percentile scores, they have yet to be funded when sending applications to this particular study section.
My question for you is: how does NIH control for overly harsh (or overly generous) scoring behaviors from study sections? I know the percentile score helps with this by ranking the application’s impact score against scores given to applications within that specific study section over the last 2 recent submission cycles. However, it is unclear to me if the council considers percentile > impact score or if both factor in somehow with respect to decisions about funding. This is especially unclear because the institute I’m submitting to does not publish paylines.
Are study sections represented equally in terms of fundable applications or are there study sections that are easier to get your application funded relative to others because of scoring behaviors of the study section? As you can probably tell, I’m worried that my application may be doomed from the start, regardless of scientific merit or impact.
Any information/insight you can provide will be immensely appreciated.
Thanks!
-AnxiousOne
writedit said
Career development applications are typically reviewed in the IC that will consider the application for an award and by a review panel devoted to reviewing K applications. Because you mention your mentors submitting R01 applications to the SRG of concern, this worrisome panel will not be reviewing your K23. You can ask your K23 PO about the panel or look it up on the IC website (typically look under “About” and then look for a page of advisory boards, and then the scientific review groups). When you eventually submit an R01, that SRG membership will have completely changed, so the current concerns of your mentors are not likely to continue to your future R01 applications. CSR is continually reviewing and updating SRGs as well. You can also use your career development period to cultivate a line of research that would be appropriate to be reviewed in a different SRG.
AnxiousOne said
Ah okay. What a relief. So you are saying I won’t be assigned to a CSR study section, but an IC-specific one? My status on ERA has been “Pending IRG review” for the last week, and the assigned study section was one that I didn’t recognize: AA-3. I assumed that was an initial review group that would t hen send my application to a specific CSR study section, but upon further investigation, I think that’s just my study section…? Hard to tell but keeping my fingers crossed.
Thanks so much for sharing your insight 🙂
SaG said
It is an NIAAA study section. https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/how-apply-grant/niaaa-scientific-review-group-rosters
writedit said
One more wrinkle. Most ICs have separate career development study sections, but I see NIAAA has internal review panels by scientific area that handle all types of applications submitted specifically to NIAAA, including research grant and cooperative agreement applications in response to NIAAA FOAs. In other words, this could indeed be the SRG that your mentor and colleagues dread. Now, I suspect the panel has a different lens when reviewing Ks vs Rs and Us and shouldn’t be so harsh, and my earlier comment that the composition and hence review style should change by the time you start sending applications still holds (ditto for advice to consider lines of research of interest to other SRGs and/or ICs-sponsors).
AnxiousOne said
Wait…now I’m really confused.
The SRG that my mentors are worried about is a CSR study section. Era still shows my assigned study section as AA-3, which is not a CSR but NIAAA-specific. Are you saying that AA-3 is not the study section my app will end up at but instead one that reviews all NIAAA applications initially and then assigns them to appropriate specific study sections (including the “dreaded” CSR SRG)? I submitted on the 7th of October for the Oct deadline and I figured that Era would show the correct study section at this point, but the study section/SRO/PO are still what they were when I got confirmation that my application had been assigned a study section on 10/12.
Should I be regularly checking my Era status in case of change in study section? I assumed at this point it would be radio silence until the SRG completed its review of my application…
writedit said
Okay – my bad. AA-3 is managed within NIAAA, not CSR. I wasn’t clear whether your mentors were reviewed at NIAAA or CSR. Most IC career development study sections don’t review other mechanisms, but NIAAA does, so I realized it was possible your mentors went to the same study section at NIAAA. You can stop worrying about the fearsome SRG, which hopefully will be less hard ass by the time you start submitting research project grant applications.
AnxiousOne said
Ah! That makes more sense now. Thank you for looking into it and providing this wonderful resource!
NIH K application said
Dear Writedit,
I am preparing for K08. FOA notes “At the time of award, the candidate must have a “full-time” appointment at the applicant institution.” My question is what is the requirement at the time of submission? Do I need to maintain the full-time status to submit an application? Somehow, I am having hard time getting any response from NIH.
writedit said
You do not need a faculty appointment at the time of submission, though your application would be stronger if you had an appointment. At the very least, you want a letter from your chair committing to an appointment if you are offered the award. You cannot receive the award without a faculty appointment.
Nuria said
How long can a U01 grant be on “Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending”?
SaG said
Until the Council meets. The application should have a council date listed. If it was just reviewed the council won’t meet until late Jan to Feb. Next year.
Babak said
the guy I got my K08 A01 NCI resubmission scored 25, down from 29 for the A0 !!! I am freaking out, is that even fundable? they don’t even publish payline
writedit said
You will want to wait for your summary statement before contacting your PO, and they will have the best insight on NCI funding trends though probably not a lot of clarity on funding likelihood, due to uncertainty on both the federal/NCI budget (continuing resolution) and on the spread of application scores this early in the FY. Still, your PO will be able to assess whether the A1 review shifts concerns to easily addressed issues that could be handled in a rebuttal and make recommendations on your next steps.
R21 said
Hi writedit,
I just received a score of 23 for my R21-A1 application at NIDCR. The score of the original application was 41. Since NIDCR does not publish a payline other than R01 and I heard that R21 is usually more competitive, I was wondering if this score is fundable or not.
Please advise.
Thanks!
writedit said
By itself, the score is probably a bit high for funding, but your improvement in score is significant, so you can check with your PO about next steps when you receive your summary statement. Since the federal budget is months away (at best), your PO won’t be able to give any solid guidance on funding likelihood, but based on their enthusiasm for this project, you can decide whether to resubmit this application again as a new A0 (a likely recommendation for insurance while you wait for the FY23 federal budget) or pursue a different application (or publications related to this work).
R21 said
Thanks for your response, writedit. I will wait for the summary statement and discuss with PO the next step.
Ahr03 said
Hello, I received 22nd percentile, score of 35 for my R03 to NICHD – I haven’t received the summary statements yet, but wanted to get an idea of it being funded. Also, is there be an excel file of sorts where each of us could enter our scores anonymously along with the agency etc and if it got funded? For these agencies without paylines, it might be useful.
writedit said
Unfortunately, both the percentile and score are almost certainly too high to be considered for funding; I add the caveat, because if the PO is super interested in the work, or this was an RFA or PAR for which score is less driving, there is always a chance, so it’s always worth communicating with the PO. The spreadsheet is an interesting idea. I think the ongoing spreadsheet for DP2 and ESI MIRA applications has probably been useful for folks. What would be even better would be for OER to make application/award data available for all activity codes (individually vs by application category) by IC in the NIH Data Book.
Ahr03 said
Thank you! I appreciate it.
Hong Shi (@HongShi_MD) said
Hello, I received score of 56 for my K08 to NIAMS, not receive the summary statements yet, but want to get some ideas for next step. I thought this score is the worst score in that study section meeting. Should I just start to prepare a new submission for next cycle?
writedit said
There could be worse scores (range goes up to 90), or there could be not discussed applications. Any ND application is (usually) best submitted as new. You can wait for your summary statement to decide whether to improve your A0 application or start from scratch. With Ks, the improvement in score can also be important, so if you were just out of funding consideration but more than 20 points better than your A0, your PO might have grounds to push for consideration if there were just a few addressable concerns with the A1. No need to start planning now – wait for the summary statement, then talk with your mentor and your PO about the best approach. In the meantime, perhaps work on manuscripts or preprints that could support your next submission.
Mika said
today, my Ro1got an impact score of 33 with 18 percentile, NIDDK. is it fundable?
writedit said
If you are ESI, yes (assuming FY23 paylines remain similar to FY22). If this is a clinical trial, possibly. If neither of those types of applications, then your PO would need to advocate for funding (with help from you on a rebuttal). When you receive your summary statement, you will want to communicate with your PO on the next best steps, which will probably include advice to submit again (for insurance), due to the lengthy wait before funding likelihood would become clear (due to federal budget delays), especially if you are not ESI.
R21 said
Dear writedit, I have an R21 grant submitted to NIMHD and it was reviewed by the study section back in June 2022. It was scored at the 8th percentile. There was no council meeting date listed in the eRA Commons (only showed 10/2022). And as of today, the grant status still shows pending council review pending. I wonder if you have any insights re: this situation. Thank you.
writedit said
Hmm. The NIMHD Council met on September 2nd, so if your application was considered for that Council round, your status should have changed back in September. The next NIMHD Council meeting is February 7, 2023. Now, given the federal budget situation (continuing resolution through December at least), it probably doesn’t matter in terms of award timing if your application was pushed to the February Council, since all Cycle 1 awards will be late anyway. If you have not been in touch with your PO, you should contact them for an update on how your application is being handled (ie, was it considered in September or not until February) and to confirm you can be confident waiting for an award decision vs taking any other steps, such as preparing a rebuttal or a resubmission for insurance (R21s are more competitive than R01s, but I would hope that NIMHD is likely to fund an 8th percentile application).
K08 said
I submitted my A0 K08 to the NCI in 6/2022 and recently received an impact score of 20. I already reached out to my program officer, who said that budget won’t be finalized until Feb or March of 2023. Any idea if that score would be fundable assuming FY23 budget is similar to FY22? Thanks.
YS said
Yes, 20 is fundable in FY22.
writedit said
As YS noted, that would be within funding consideration in FY22, and I would hope that your PO would have suggested a resubmission if they thought you were at any risk of not receiving an award (based on score). You’ll want to watch for what happens when the CR ends in December, which could depend on the election outcomes.
NIAIDr01_interim said
got a 10% NIAID R01 score, which is the interim payline. the paylines are inclusive correct? will i still likely have to wait for a new budget to go through, or being in the interim avoids that delay? (still waiting on reviews so haven’t talked to PO)
SaG said
Yes, paylines are inclusive. They might be able to pay your app before the CR runs out. It depends on what they prioritize paying before the end of the year. For instance, staff salaries.
NewPI-RQ said
Dear Writedit and SaG,
Thanks for this webpage, it has been very helpful for me as a new PI. I am preparing to submit my new R01 for Feb cycle. I started my position this summer and am still setting up the lab, so my R01 is based on my published work and some unpublished data I collected as a postdoc. I wanted to ask how the published data (2 yrs old) is conceived as preliminary data in an R01 application? This is very relevant data and I will also be using the same transgenic model the data was generated from to understand a new mechanism. Because the data was already published a couple of years ago, I wanted to know whether it might be looked at as a weakness or not novel anymore. Also the published and preliminary data are supported by my K99/R00 grant, the new R01 is an entirely new direction based on my expertise and no overlap with the K99/R00 work..
writedit said
Congratulations on the faculty position! Relevant data are relevant no matter when they were produced, and it is always important that show you have experience with your approach (especially with transgenics) and it works in your hands. I assume nothing has been published since that would change your hypotheses or approach (or, if so, that you will incorporate it). Reviewers will see that you were in a postdoc and that you just relocated to start your new faculty appointment and set up your lab and understand you need to rely on data from your past work during this launch period. The fact that you are developing a new project outside your R00 work is also fantastic, and they should appreciate your ability to develop a multi-prong research program so early in your career. Of course, if you can get a reprint out before February, that could help, but starting to work on your application now is what will really help you succeed, so good on you!
Achilles said
My multi-PI R01 (established investigators) to this PAR:
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/par-20-271.html
received 11%. The NCI interim payline is currently 10%ile. We just received the summary statement and are going to talk to the PO soon. What are the chances that NCI goes back to 11% payline when federal budget is finalized? I heard that the paylines might be affected because of the recent ambitious moon-shot programs.
writedit said
The moonshot programs might get their own funding boost through the NIH appropriation, but that won’t be known until the FY23 budget is signed into law. Hopefully NCI was serious about continuing to try to raise the RPG payline for investigator-initiated applications, too, though.. Even if your PO is optimistic, you could be waiting several months still, depending on what happens in December (and on Tuesday – you probably want to wait until after the mid-terms). Be sure to ask for advice on next steps, including whether the PO advises an A1 for insurance.
rainydaybadnews said
I just received my scores from the R01 A1 resubmission (my score is in the 40s as well as the percentile), which is worse compared to the initial submission. The initial submission was scored in the low 30s (21st percentile) in an IC that does not publish a pay line. I submitted a rebuttal as requested by the PO, and I believe the application was discussed at the AC meeting but resulted in no funding (the status still says council review completed). I’m an ESI and my Co-Is (who are more senior than myself) thought the resubmission was stronger, as I was able to address all the critiques point by point from the previous submission.
Now I’m confused by the worsening of the score and not sure what the next steps and prospects of this proposal are. I know this is possible and I’ll need to wait for the summary statement before reaching out to the PO to discuss further. It’s disheartening.
If you have any advice/comments, I would greatly appreciate it.
writedit said
I am sorry to hear about the puzzling drop in score, which is not uncommon. It could be your A1 arrived after a change in reviewers (rotating off and on the panel) with the right expertise for your science and/or a recalibration in the panel in terms of scoring. you could take a look at the SRG membership for the two meetings to get an idea about the role the roster might have played. You’ll need to wait for the summary statement to see if reviewers were more concerned with methodological issues (easier to address) or a lack of enthusiasm for the significance for the work. As long as the A0 application is still active, the IC can still consider it for an award. I assume you mean the A0 was considered this fall versus last spring, in which case no movement on an award would be expected under a continuing resolution in any case. When you have your summary statement, you can talk with your PO about the A0 status and advice on submitting again. You might also ask if you should consider changing study sections, if there is another SRG qualified to review your science (you can’t change if only one has the right expertise), or if there is an appropriate NOSI or FOA to target that might help your next application.
rainydaybadnews said
Thank you very much for the reply and the advice. My A0 was considered in Feb AC, because I submitted to a PAR that is due once a year in the summer. The PO did not suggest resubmitting to a regular cycle. The A0 status has been council review completed since March, and since the FY22 has ended, I assume that is no longer under consideration. When I emailed the PO to let them know about the resubmission and asked about the A0 and was told there was no update regarding the A0.
The PAR has expired (my resubmission was to the last submission date). Yes, the roster changed quite a bit given that a year has passed. Both the chair of the study section and the SRO have changed. The study section should be the best fit for the proposal, but I feel stuck and I know I should wait for the summary statement so I can think about the next steps. I appreciate this space to process this.
writedit said
Aha. Well, even though you submitted for FY22, it is not impossible to have the application funded in FY23 (or the A1), if the PO is enthusiastic about your science and it fills an important gap at the IC. If the PO cannot help with either of these applications, they can certainly help guide you to the next best submission option, including FOAs that are upcoming. You would probably want to start making these plans anyway, since a decision on your A0/A1, if your PO feels this is a possibility, likely wouldn’t come until next summer, closer to the end of the FY (and you would not want to wait that long before working on another application).
rainydaybadnews said
Thank you so much! Very helpful guidance
ESI-R01 said
Dear Writedit, Thank you very much for this greatly helpful resource!
I submitted my new R01 in June to NIA. It was scored at the 12th percentile (impact score of 34). I checked that the current 2023 interim payline for ESI is 13 percentile on the NIA webpage. I was just curious about the chances that this application could be funded.
I am planning to contact the PO after getting the summary statement, but I hope to get your advice first.
Thanks!!!
writedit said
The payline is inclusive, and you are within the interim payline, so your PO should have good news for you (but no guarantees until an award is issued) once you have your summary statement. The timing may or may not depend on passage of the FY23 budget. You can ask your PO and keep an eye on what happens in December when the continuing resolution ends (I suspect they will try to hurry through a federal budget before Congress changes hands).
antidote said
How is NCE considered when a PO determines the total funding amount given to an investigator? How about the subcontracts, given as a non-PI but as a key personnel? I am aware of some IC-dependent rules for ‘well-funded PI’ (>1 mil or >750K), but wondering whether and how holding more than 1 major award (so probably less than those bars, but still could be considered significant) can impact the enthusiasm of the PO, especially when the third application is in the gray area.
SaG said
NCE shouldn’t count. You didn’t get any new money. 1 major award shouldn’t be a problem either assuming minimal scientific overlap. Other money you get from other people’s grants would count but likely not much. Depends how much you are getting.
writedit said
In addition to what SaG noted (thank you!), the PO is not the one to make the call as too whether a PI is “well-funded”. Since you mention being “in the gray area”, if your situation is related to needing to have your application recommended for select pay, the PO makes that decision based on the science, but the IC will check as part of the administrative review to be sure there are no bars to funding, such as the well-funded policy (depends on which IC, what sort of funding).
antidote said
Thanks for clarifying that PO’s advocacy is (more? totally?) based on scientific merit. My question was-if you have two funded R01-level awards, and if the third one (no scientific overlap among three) is in the gray area for select pay, whether it will be considered less favorable, at any review level. In such case, I assume administrative review is more likely to be a yes/no checklist, based on IC-specific, well-funded policy?
writedit said
The PO makes recommendations to IC leadership, who also take into consideration administrative review findings, such as substantial funding, overlapping support, etc.. In deciding whether to advocate, the PO is looking at whether this third R01 fills a portfolio gap or significant IC priority (ie, your third R01 might not overlap with your other 2 awards, but it might overlap with existing projects in the portfolio or others under consideration for awards). IC leadership will look at the whole pile of applications under consideration for select pay and rank those that are not set aside for administrative review findings in terms of IC scientific priority and scientific merit. If there are ESI applicants in the pile, or a PI who will lose their lab if they don’t receive an award or a renewal that the IC is invested in, that probably gets taken into consideration, too. Select award decisions usually won’t be made until the end of the FY, though, so I assume your PO advised you to submit again anyway.
Confused PI said
I have received conflicting advice, and I wonder if it could be clarified. I have heard both:
1) it is a good strategy to submit a grant under one mechanism (e.g. R01) and then the subsequent cycle submit a portion of that same grant (same science) under a different mechanism (e.g. R21). The key here is that it is a different cycle, though summary section may not have been received yet.
2) I have also been advised that this is not acceptable per the rules.
I am clear that if the science differs, that the strategy in #1 is ok. Can you advise if the same science can be submitted in subsequent time periods, using different funding mechanisms?
Thanks,
Confused PI
writedit said
#1 is incorrect (& bad) advice, #2 and your acknowledgment that different science can be submitted is correct. An application remains under review until the summary statement is issued (SRG meeting date is irrelevant). An application with substantial overlap in science (aims, experiments, hypotheses, etc.) will be flagged as such and administratively withdrawn (different activity codes are irrelevant). The identification of overlapping applications under review at the same time can occur at any point, not just when CSR receives the application. That is, a reviewer might notice (especially since the application is likely to go to the same study section – or the same reviewer still might get assigned as ad hoc based on the science), the SRO would notice (if sent to same SRG, which is likely based on science), and/or the PO would notice (again, same science, likely the same IC & PO – but even POs in different ICs see all of a PI’s current applications under review and awards). If the R21 managed to escape notice and the R01 scored well, you would need to withdraw the R21, thus alerting the IC to this unacceptable strategy and potentially damaging your relationship with the most important sponsor of your research. If the reverse scoring occurred (R21 competitive), the outcome would be the same (withdraw R01).
SaG said
Never heard that advice before. I agree with WE that it is bad advice, whether it breaks rules or not. If the R21 gets funded you cant resubmit the R01. Hard to get tenure with an R21. You should focus on the R01 work and not scramble for R21 money unless it is very different work. IMO..
Confused PI said
Very interesting to hear— I really appreciate the insight.
NIH_K_Recipient said
Hi,
I am interested in applying for R15 (my institute is eligible) and have a quick question regarding PI eligibility: I found this phrase from the NIH website “The PI may not be the PI of an active NIH research grant at the time of a R15 award”. Does the active NIH research grant include the NIH career development award (K01, K08, etc.)? Or just does it mean only R-grants? Because I have a k-grant now, and so I was wondering if I can apply for this R15.
Thank you!
antidote said
“research grant”, in general, is R-series (plus U01 and K99/R00). not sure whether a subproject of larger one such as P grant (which is often regarded as R01-equivalent) counts.
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/funding_program.htm#:~:text=NIH%20Exploratory%2FDevelopmental%20Research%20Grant,to%20two%20years%20of%20funding
writedit said
Career development awards are considered “other research awards” (but non-research project awards), and ICs generally expect career development awards to set up awardees for success as an R01 applicant. However, the policy regarding K and R15 awards is not explicitly stated (that I could find). I would suggest you contact your K award PO and the PO who administers the R15 program at your target IC (which I assume is the same for the K and the R15) for clarification. You can find the appropriate R15 PO in the FOA you would choose.
Tobacco Researcher said
Hello, I re-submitted an R01 application in response to RFA-OD-21-002 (Tobacco Regulatory Science) in February 2022 which scored a 17. The primary institute is listed as NIEHS but the FDA is providing the funds for accepted projects. My NIEHS PO just told me that the FDA has decided not to fund it. He’s going to see if NIEHS will consider funding it, but he doubts it. To say the least, I’m extremely upset. Is there anything I can do at this point?
writedit said
It would be nice to know why the FDA does not want to co-fund the application, but that doesn’t preclude any of the ICs participating in the RFA from completely funding it, so you could ask your PO why NIEHS is not interested. This is important to figure out so you don’t keep trying to submit a meritorious application that is not of programmatic interest. Well-scored applications are regularly skipped at the IC’s discretion, and if yours is one, you want to know why that is so you can better tailor your research to address their priorities.
Tobacco Researcher said
Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, it looks like the FDA has put funding authorities/rules in place to prevent NIH Institutes/Centers from paying these TRSP RFA awards if the FDA could not. Is there anything else that can be done at this point?
writedit said
In that case, no, nothing else to do for this application. Sponsors can decide however they want to spend their research dollars. I would suggest you talk with your PO about how to repurpose the science for an NIEHS FOA, since they seem interested in the work.
R01 renewal said
Hello,
I am waiting for the score of my A1 renewal R01 application. I am hopeful that it will receive a fundable score. However, if it was not funded, I need to submit it again as a new (A0) application. If this is the case, A0 application is still considered a renewal application?
SaG said
It will be considered a new application and get a new grant number.
writedit said
And it will no longer be a renewal. You can include relevant preliminary data from your prior award period, but you won’t include a progress report or any other renewal components. This can be a good thing if you want to increase your budget more than is allowed for renewals or go in a new direction completely.
mika said
Dear Writedit,
my re-submission R01(NIDDK) got 18 percentile with an impact score of 33 (originally 21 percentile with 38). is it possible to be fundable? I am waiting for the summary statement. Please what I should do after reviewing the summary statement except for an email to PO. or what the key points for the email are.
Thanks,
Mika
writedit said
If you are not ESI, this would need to be a select pay award, which would be contingent on your PO’s enthusiasm and the summary statement concerns being addressable. Your score did not improve significantly, so you will want to ask your PO whether your focus is appropriate for NIDDK priorities. I suggest this because often an application score does not move a lot if the problem is that reviewers are just not excited about the research or convinced it is sufficiently significant to fund (ie, research plan is fine but not high priority to support). This is a more difficult concern to overcome than weaknesses in the Approach. You won’t know if this is the issue until you receive your summary statement, but if this was part of the concern in the prior application, it probably carried over with this submission.
NeverStop said
Have anyone received personal JIT request lately for the Feb cycle submissions? Usually they send out decisions around mid-Nov, but mid-term election may cause delays… I sent an email to PO, and am anxiously waiting for PO’s response on a R01 from NEI.
KY said
I also wait for a personalized JIT request from NEI. PO told me it would take several weeks in our previous discussion (11/02/2022).
NeverStop said
Thanks for sharing! That is fair given the circumstances. Hope you will receive good news!!
KY said
You too. I will share if I hear from them. We might see at ARVO next year.
NeverStop said
I just checked Common status, and it changed into “pending administrative review”.
KY said
Thanks for sharing! My common status was changed into pending administrative review too. I hope we receive a personalized JIT request soon.
writedit said
Cautious congratulations, KY and NeverStop. Not a guaranteed, of course, but at least your applications are under review for possible awards.
NeverStop said
Update: received personalized JIT request yesterday. Things are moving along in a good direction.
KY said
@Writedit, Thanks for the comments.
@NeverStop, Thanks for sharing. I am waiting JIT request and hope get it soon. Thanks!
writedit said
Probably no movement on applications being considered for awards until after the federal budget is signed into law – which I expect to happen in December, now that the midterms are done and the Democrats have incentive to get the FY23 budget passed ASAP. Just watch for headlines on the federal budget being signed into law, and then add about 8 weeks to that date before you can expect to hear anything (not immediate direct deposit – ICs need to wait for for appropriations to be passed from the HHS to NIH to IC, which takes time and loses $$ along the way).
MolarCanineIncisor said
I just received an email from PO requesting JIT yesterday. My grant was reviewed and scored in the February cycle.
NEIR01 said
Thanks for sharing! Is it NEI?
KY said
Update: I received the NOA yesterday. Hope you have it already.
writedit said
Woohoo – congratulations and best wishes for success with your research!
KY said
@writedit. Thank you so much for your advice and comments. I which you have a great holiday!
Sun22 said
I got 25 percentile with ESI status at the NIGMS. Submitted JIT right after 2 weeks of the council meeting. But haven’t receive the final approval yet. The PO told to wait for few weeks, what would you think?
SaG said
I think that given NIH is working under a CR budget that ends 12/16 you might have a while to wait for a decision. They might not have any more money to spend until the next CR. And they won’t give approval until the have the $s.
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-23-005.html
Sun22 said
Thank you for your thoughtful comment and great advice. Now I see a better picture. That’s why the PO emailed me that it is under consideration (2 weeks ago), but needs to wait for a while.
circuit1to1 said
Dear Writedit,
I have an R01 that was reviewed in July and the status was just changed to “Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist” yesterday. What chance do you think it will be funded since the payline for 2023 has not been made? Thank you.
SaG said
I say buy a bottle of champagne and await some good news.
FrustatinglyOptimistic said
Dear Writedit,
I am just wondering why the NCI payline is less compared to other institutes. My R01 grant to NCI after four submissions in the last three years (went from discussed 28% to ND, again discussed to ND…and finally received 15 percentile in the 5th submission). In the mean time, my colleagues who are working on brain initiative grants, even with not so strong preliminary data, sometimes even with no preliminary data (they have this high risk R01 that funds without preliminary data) got R01 grants funded even with 21 percentile score.
This keeps me thinking why NCI has such a tough payline compared to other institutes. Is this because NIH believes cancer cannot be cured no matter what we do (perhaps based on the data they have collected for years) and therefore they provide more funds to other diseases?
writedit said
Actually, the NCI has the largest IC budget at the NIH, so it’s not a money issue. However, they typically reserve more of their budget for large initiatives (eg, Moonshot) and discretionary awards (eg, select pay), which leaves a smaller pool for investigator-initiated hard-payline awards and therefore tougher paylines. You can find their budget priorities and allocations their website (NCI Budget Fact Book), including their commitment to raise the hard payline to the 15th percentile by 2025: https://www.cancer.gov/grants-training/nci-bottom-line-blog/2022/raising-the-r01-payline-and-funding-other-nci-priorities
tryingtohelp said
NCI has the largest share of the NIH budget. Meanwhile, there are more investigators targeting NCI grants. In addition, NCI only use a part of its budget (~50%) to fund the payline, and it selects a large number of applications in the gray zone (above the payline. Other institutions, such as NIBIB uses most of its budget to fund the payline and there is almost no gray zone. For my understanding, NCI is changing its policy and promised to fund 15% payline by 2025.
DepressedWithND said
My renewal application was not discussed. Does that mean I should try to think about a new application, rather than a resubmission for the renewal? I’ve heard that sometimes the PO gives an R56 to help if a renewal is not funded and don’t want to miss that opportunity, but I also don’t want to waste time on something that isn’t going to happen. Also, do all institutes have the R56 mechanism? (I’m NICHD). Thank you.
SaG said
Sorry to say but they won’t award An R56 grant to a ND application. But, that doesn’t mean you should send in a new application. If the criticisms can be addressed in a resubmission I suggest you do it. Plus, you will get an extra month to submit it. A chat with your PO could help too.
R35aplicant said
Chin up! I got an ND on an area that I am passionate about. I did a resubmission and addressed all the critiques with lots of new data. I got a 3% and was funded.
writedit said
Congrats, R35!
DepressedWithND said
Yeah I meant that if I resubmit and it doesn’t get funded, maybe at that point an R56 would be possible. Thanks for the advice SaG, and thanks for the encouragement and inspirational story, R35aplicant! I will wait for the summary statements and go from there.
writedit said
You definitely want to submit an A1 for a renewal – but that’s tough being ND. Depending on the concerns raised in the ND reviews, you probably want to wait for some publications before you attempt your A1. Your PO can give advice on what to accomplish before you go in with the A1, too. If the A1 is scored but out of range, an R56 is possible – but the next submission would still be an A0, not a third renewal attempt (which, depending on whether you would do better with a larger budget than is allowed by the renewal, could be a good thing).
DepressedWithND said
An update here: I got the summary statement, and overall the reviews were not too bad. Reviewer one only gave me 1’s and 2’s. Reviewer 2 gave me 5’s or 6’s for a couple categories, but otherwise good. Reviewer 3 was probably around a 3. I thought the comments were reasonable/helpful and can all be addressed. My program officer said he was surprised it was ND, given the positive written comments, and recommends resubmission. Note that this was reviewed on a special study section because I am a standing member of my study section. On the one hand, it makes me more hopeful for resubmission, but on the other hand, I worry that reviewers will automatically not give fundable scores because it was ND the first time, or that reviewers had additional issues that they didn’t write.
The original proposal was modular budget. This is because my original grant was modular, and with the cut I received originally, the % increase I’m allowed with a renewal (if i switch to non-modular) would result in less money than the modular. Will reviewers get suspicious that I am proposing more experiments, but my budget is unchanged? Should I get a letter of support from my department chair about available supplemental funds, or is that not a good idea?
Thank you!
SaG said
I suggest you ask for the budget you need and let the Institute cut it to fit their policies. Your app wont be rejected just because you asked for more than what they will give you. A bit surprised your app wasn’t rescued by reviewer 1. R2 must have seen something that R1 missed and R1 changed their mind.
writedit said
Reviewers won’t be comparing budgets between the two applications (just the scientific concerns), so you don’t need to draw attention to whether you are proposing more but asking for the same or less. I’m not quite sure I follow that thread, but I understand the constraint on increasing your budget more than is allowed for the renewal. Thanks to SaG for suggesting submitting the budget you need and letting the IC cut it. You can also ask your PO about the budget issues and what would work best for your IC (to avoid cut). You don’t need to worry about the next panel automatically dismissing your A1 just because the A0 was ND. I have seen applications go from A0 ND to A1 funded. If the concerns cited were straightforward and the reviewers were happy with your progress in the last project period, you can feel optimistic about the A1. Probably the biggest issue is that it went to a SEP, which is not the golden ticket it was in years past. If you are still on the SRG that will review your application, you might take a look at your SEP membership and that of others set up for your SRG conflicts to get an idea of the expertise available, since you’ll be writing for a slightly different audience.
DepressedWithND said
Update – the renewal scored 18%. Not fundable by NICHD. Still depressed.
writedit said
If you went from ND to 18th percentile, your PO might consider an R56, perhaps even more if they are enthusiastic about your research (POs don’t like to see productive RPGs disrupted). You definitely want to contact them when you have your summary statement. However, a final decision will be delayed until after the FY24 federal budget is signed into law, which is likely months away.
DepressedWithND said
Thanks for the response. According to this page though, NICHD does not participate in the R56 mechanism. Let me know if I am misunderstanding something.
writedit said
Looking at RePORTER, NICHD issues 1-2 R56 awards per year, so not an award mechanism they use very often, but they do use it. A situation like the one approaching this fall might result in a few R56 awards in FY23, since POs know the FY24 budget will be lower than anticipated and delayed.
DepressedWithND said
Sooo my program officer said he is nominating the application for funding above the usual payline. Not sure how that type of thing works or how it will go over at council? I know it will be a while before the final decision is made, but just curious about how this kind of thing usually goes or if there are any insights into funding likelihood. Thanks!
SaG said
This should give you some hope. A PO ususally won’t go through the effort unless they think they have a solid chance. NIH does have a policy of reaching to fund ESIs and POs who are “at risk”. Not sure if that pertains to you.
xinluolab said
Question about the published success rate for F30s that is over 30% for NIAID. But the payline is only 20. How is that possible?
SaG said
If an A1 is funded in the same fiscal year as the A0 it increases the success rate but not the payline because the A0 isn’t counted in the success rate calculation. https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2022/03/07/fy-2021-by-the-numbers-extramural-grant-investments-in-research/
writedit said
It’s possible because one-third of the applications were quite competitive and scored 20 or below. In FY21, NIAID received 112 applications and funded 37 (33% success rate). The success rate has not been so high since FY14, and FY21 had significantly more applications than prior FYs – next highest application # was 83 in FY16. This year could be completely different in terms of success rate. For example, even though the F30 payline has stayed at 20 since FY18, the FY20 success rate was only 16.7% despite the more typical # of applications (78); in FY19, 79 applications but a 29% success rate at the same payline of 20.
ItSucksToBeMe said
Dear all:
I desperately need advice. I am a scientist that had a K01 in the past but due to very messed up circumstances my institution never gave me an independent title nor am I able to move institutions due to my work being stuck in here (trust me circumstances are that there is zero chance until everything is published and even then it is likely problematic). I am able to publish as a senior corresponding author but every time I have attempted to apply for grants (R21, as R01 would require a faculty position) reviewers seem less than eager regardless of the science (understandably so). Also, my current “PI” which is the lab where I do my work gets added to all my applications since well, I am using his space (I brought all my own resources and have a company grant) despite pretty obviously outside of his area. I think that also makes me look less independent but I feel that he deserves to get some money since I am using his space. I realize a lot of you are not discouraged and keep on reapplying with the same grant despite being ND and have even got funded so I got a bit of hope. My question is, what do you think is the best grant to apply under my current circumstances and/or what assurance would I need an from whom to make sure my grant gets revised more on scientific merit rather than my crazy circumstances? ANY suggestions welcome at this point so I can get out of purgatory.
writedit said
Your cryptic descriptions make it difficult to offer advice that will be satisfying. I am going to assume you have an Instructor appointment (since you can apply for an R21). If you can apply for an R21 (more difficult to secure than R01), that means you can apply for an R01 (faculty appointment not required by NIH). The key to gaining reviewer confidence is having the necessary resources very specifically and clearly committed (naming each commitment in the letter – contract renewal, space, protected time, ability to order supplies-animals, technical assistance, administrative support, etc.) for the duration of the award, which is why non-faculty applying need a very strong letter of support from a chair or dean. If your chair and/or dean are not supportive of your setting up an independent research program, then you probably won’t be successful with federal grant applications. If they are supportive, then identify the appropriate PO(s) in the IC(s) you would target with your application for guidance on the best FOAs and strategies to pursue. You will need to convey to the PO that you can be entrusted with a multiyear award also (ie, sustained institutional commitment for the duration). I know NCI has a staff scientist award (P50 activity code) – I am not sure if other ICs likewise have FOAs that target support of staff vs faculty or trainees. With the right FOA/notice, you could potentially seek out supplement funding on an existing award, which would also involve pre-planning with the PO and PI of the parent award.
MIRA.Doc said
Thanks for this amazing thread/resource. I do have a couple questions. My MIRA application went in in Oct 2022, and I received an email stating that I could send in post-submission materials but gave no further information. Anyone had experience with this?
Also- I would LOVE to take a look at the google docs spreadsheet, but the link that appears in the above thread doesn’t work. Can someone send me a new link or the spreadsheet itself?
Thanks all! Here’s to us all getting funded!
writedit said
I’m not sure what happened, but I could have sworn I saw SaG post a perfectly good response to this query earlier. The Google doc spreadsheet for MIRA & DP2 applications is here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10f1MDXXW57r5pYxwqTnAKM_NRY_SmvC0s0b3joyO_Zo/edit#gid=967453091
The NIH post-submission policy applies to MIRA (and you can ask the SRO about specific items if you are not sure): https://grants.nih.gov/faqs#/post-submission.htm
Plus the COVID exception: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-23-006.html
Sam said
Hi. I got a 14th percentile and an impact score of 30 on an R21 for NIEHS. NIEHS indicates funding up to the 10th percentile for 2019 but no funding information for last year. Any sense if this grant could be funded?
writedit said
I suspect this would be a stretch for funding, but not impossible if the PO is enthusiastic. You can see from NIEHS funding of R01-equivalent applications (here: https://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/category/23) that they didn’t reach above the 18th percentile in FY21, and R21 awards are even more competitive, so I suspect you would need to get closer to the 10th percentile. When you receive your summary statement, you can ask your PO about next steps (which will likely include a recommendation to submit again).
snag68 said
Hello! Thank you for this thread! My K23 A1 resubmission scored a 27 and 10th percentile with NIDA as the IC (apparently NIDA uniquely does percentiles and impact scores for Ks). Can anyone weigh in on where the odds of funding stand? To me the score seems borderline but the percentile more reassuring…
writedit said
Actually, the score and, especially, the percentile seem within reach of an award. The percentile allows you to gauge where you stand among all applications received (toward the top), and many ICs fund up through a score of 30, depending on the activity code. Once you have your summary statement, your PO can recommend next steps.
NIAIDr01_interim said
My within-payline R01 at NIAID changed to council review completed even though council date is listed as January 30th 2023. Does that mean it was fast-track approved before council?
writedit said
Each IC sends Council a long list of applications within or near the payline that do not need extra scrutiny by Council (eg, foreign PI, well-funded PI, etc.) for electronic approval en bloc in advance of the actual meeting. This advance approval makes the Council meeting manageable and allows ICs to start moving forward with application processing, if that is their practice. Hopefully the FY23 federal budget omnibus bill will be signed before Congress breaks for winter recess, in which case Cycle 1 applications should start being processed for awards in late January or February (takes ~6 weeks after federal budget is signed by President for ICs to receive their final appropriations – and winter break will slow everything in federal government down (even more)).
Sun22 said
Dear Writedit,
Now I guess the FY23 federal budget omnibus bill was already approved. Could you predict when the NIH start approving the NOA for application (submitted in Feb 2022, reviewed in June and Council Meeting in September). The last time I contacted with the PO and was advised to wait for the NOA was mid-October 2022. Thank you.
writedit said
It will take 6-8 weeks before each IC receives their appropriation, perhaps longer due to the various holidays after the omnibus bill was signed into law, and it will be a little less than they expect,. They may not start processing applications for awards until mid to late February. Your PO or GMS will get in touch with you when they need anything.
Sun22 said
Thank you for your great advice and critical suggestion.
Sun22 said
Dear Writedit,
Just waiting for too long to hear from the final decision. I just contacted the PO and she told me this: “we are still working on the funding decisions and let your status known”? what does it mean? probably they will let me know the final decision soon? I get 25 percentile with ESI status at the NIGMS cycle 1 2022 submission. The PO did not recommend resubmission and said wait.
Thank you for your advice. Thanks
writedit said
I understand “still working on funding decisions” but not “let your status known”. However, if the PO said to hold off on resubmission, you can feel very positive while you wait, because your PO would not risk you missing a funding cycle by giving bad advice about resubmission. The radio silence is not a bad thing, nor is the delay (my 6-8 weeks is an educated guess for when the appropriation arrives – and then the ICs still need to evaluate the scores of applications reviewed to project how far their appropriation will go. You can’t make the process go any faster, especially not by contacting PO again, so I would suggest concentrating on your research, a manuscript or abstract, or anything that will move your work forward while you wait for an update.
Sun22 said
Yes, thank you. Great Advice Indeed. We are working on manuscript now. Best
Hany Dweck said
I have a K01 award and accepted a Scientist position at a state-funded institution that does not allow me to get my salary from the award. I do not know what to do with this money. Can I use my salary from the award to hire research assistants or lab supplies?
writedit said
The purpose of career development awards is to pay for the awardee’s salary so their time is protected for research and career development activities (ie, not spent in clinic, teaching, etc.), and those funds cannot be used to cover research expenses. You need to talk with your PO about whether you can still receive the funds designated for research-related expenses and travel ($20-50K, depending on IC policy), or whether the entire award needs to be relinquished (since you cannot accept the salary portion). I am assuming that your new institution would protect your time for research and career development at the same % effort as in the K01.
nciK08 said
Anyone have any tips or advice regarding transferring a K08 from one institution to another at the start of the award period?
writedit said
Talk with your PO as soon as possible, if you haven’t already.
RAP in K? said
How common is K99 to R00 to get messed up?
I am in my K99, and actively interviewing for quite a few places. I am pretty sure that I’ll leave in the fall (So does my mentor).
My mentor is promoting me to an Assistant Professor position (research, non-tenure track). It’s essentially still a postdoc-like position but with more salary. Will there be a problem?
writedit said
You can be interviewing, but you will want to complete at least one full year of the K99 before accepting a tenure track position. You can check with your PO, but stopping the K99 early might endanger the transition to R00. You should be able to schedule acceptance date to permit completion of K99 year, but if not, and if the R00 is not activated as a result, it’s not the end of the world since it’s not really a very good award. There shouldn’t be a problem regarding your Research Assistant Professor title during the K99, as long as you are not tenure track, though it won’t mean a larger K99 award (your institution will need to make up the difference for the higher salary), and you might want to confirm with your PO first to be sure (since Research Assistant Professor is a step up from Instructor or post-doc, in terms of independence and training status).
RAP in K? said
Thank you.
I found this on NIGMS web actually at the time I applied my K99 (and it’s still on their web):
“NIGMS will not use K99/R00 awards to support individuals who already have faculty appointments—including assistant professor, clinical assistant professor, research assistant professor and instructor—or their equivalent in academia, industry or elsewhere.”
But I was already an instructor when before I submitted my application (in biosketch). I am not sure if non-independent faculty position is actually accept or they just missed the info. So, I feel afraid to bring this up, then they would even withdraw my K99…
writedit said
Your institution will need to make up the difference in salary, so it shouldn’t matter in terms of your award (just as your Instructor status apparently did not raise any concerns during the administrative review). The bigger issue would be if you tried to stop your K99 early to accept a tenure track position – then you might risk not having the R00 activated, but hiring institutions understand the need to accommodate the timing of the transition from K99 to R00 and so should be willing to set your start date accordingly.
K08-Promotion said
I’m wondering if anyone has heard of having to cut a K08 award short if the awardee gets promoted to tenured Associate Professor after the notice of award comes out.
writedit said
I don’t think your academic rank should affect the award, but I am surprised you were promoted to associate without an R01 or other significant independent research grant.
Mika said
Dear All,
I am sure my R01 application conflicts with One of the Charter reviews in the Study Section. How to avoid the reviewer?
Mika
SaG said
Send an email to the SRO of the SS. Explain the nature of the conflict. If the SRO agrees that reviewer will not see the app and will be asked to leave the room if it is discussed. YOU can also do this by filling out the ARF form when you submit an app.
NIAapplicant said
Do you know when interim paylines are generally revised for the NIA? I am two points about the interim payline for ESI but 5 points below last years payline.
NIAapplicant2 said
Based on the updated payline posted at the link below, has your grant status in eRA Commons changed to pending?
NIA Applicant said
Thank you for sharing, ADpayline — I had not seen that published yet. My grant is going before the January council so I haven’t seen any status changes yet in era commons, but happy to have the information of these new paylines. Thank you for this blog and all the useful information I have learned here!
writedit said
Please see my reply to ADpayline on when NIA and all the other ICs will be able to set final paylines (not until late February). The paylines are retroactive, so even if the final numbers aren’t set until after Council meets, your application will be considered for funding under them. Hopefully by the time your application is due for processing, NIA will have caught up on processing Cycle 1 awards, but there could be some delays for Cycle 2 awards, too (so don’t panic if there is radio silence).
ADpayline said
Dear writedit,
I noticed that the NIA paylines for FY23 are published (https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/grants-funding/nia-funding-line-policy-fy-2023). The new AD/ADRD payline is set at 25%, which is reduced by 3% compared to previous years since 2017. Is this payline final? Thanks!
writedit said
Per the Jan 4 NIA blog post, these are still interim. Neither NIA nor any ICs will know their final FY23 appropriation for at least another month (takes 6-8 weeks for ICs to receive). They know what they requested, but administrative-reporting $$ will be skimmed off along the way (first by HHS, then by NIH), and they won’t know how much of the Bypass Budget (for AD/ADRD), which is outside (bypassing) the NIH budget, they will receive. Once they have their final appropriation in hand, they can set their final FY23 paylines.
LittleDani said
Dear all,
I have a question regarding starting date, which is Jan 1 2023.
A few days ago I was informed by my PO that I would be funded after their meeting in January ( – a big relief!). Also I received a personalized JIT request today. Obviously the start day has already passed and I guess it may take another 1~2 months for me to finally get the budget loaded. Would the start date be still the same? Or is it possible the delay the start date accordingly? Thanks !
LittleDani said
(sorry if I asked a duplicated question above. Reading through other questions and comments, it looks to me that the start date is actually decided/adjusted on the Notice of Award). This is my first time ever to receive an award, so everything is new to me. – LittleDani –
writedit said
No worries – rest assured that the start date requested on your application is not an expiration date, and that your notice of award start date will reflect when you receive the funding. And congratulations on your first award – woohoo!!
K_advice said
Hi Writedit,
Background: I currently have a K99 application with the NIH and received favorable score (June cycle). I waited until summary statement was released and contacted the PO in Nov asking if I should submit a rebuttal and the PO responded it isn’t needed for now and said that it is “highly likely” to be funded and wait for the Council Meeting in January.
Question: I noticed that there is a Study Section meeting (10/19) then a Council Meeting (2023/1) and then an advisory council (AC) (2/09/2023). I read about what the AC is, which sounds like final logistics of approving fundable applications pending all requirements are met. My two questions are
(1) what are the differences between the Coucil meeting that meets this month versus the AC that meets next month?
(2) I’m still unclear as to if/when I should be submitting a rebuttal and JIT? It’s now a few days away from end of January and I still haven’t heard from the PO to submit either documents.
Any information and advice would be appreciated.
writedit said
The Council Meeting and Advisory Council are the same thing. Most Councils meet in the January-February time range, and the second date reflects the actual meeting date of your IC Council. Your PO apparently did not need a rebuttal (they would have asked for that last November) – that your score is sufficiently competitive not to need any justification for funding. POs generally ask for a response to the prior review if their score is close to or in the gray zone, just to be sure they have material on hand in case they need to advocate for an application during internal discussions of which applications to recommend for awards. The fact that your PO used the term “highly likely” to be funded means they assume, barring a black swan event, that you should receive an award. Your application should change to pending either shortly before or after the Council meeting. The timing of your application processing will depend on when your IC receives their FY23 appropriation and how many Cycle 1 awards need to be processed ahead of yours, so don’t be surprised (or worried) if your application is stuck at Pending for a long period.
K_advice said
Sounds great, I appreciate the insight/explanation. Thank you for this amazing resource.
Madison said
Hi writedit. Thank you for providing such a good forum for helpful information and discussion. I have several questions.
1. I am a fresh Ph.D. graduate and just began my postdoc. I submitted an F32 recently which will be reviewed in March. Meanwhile, I am a trainee of a Diversity Supplemental Award that was just funded. There are no overlaps in the scientific parts of the F32 application and the supplemental award. The F32 application was included in my pending other support file submitted to the NIH. Do I need to withdraw my current F32 application at this time?
2. The diversity supplemental award includes my postdoc salary and benefits (health insurance, etc. ~20k per year). If I choose not to enroll in health insurance through my employer will that portion of money be returned to NIH or can it be used for another purpose?
Thank you so much for your help!
SaG said
You can’t have both. I doubt you can rebudget money from the diversity supp. The Notice of Award for the diversity supp would say and is usually pretty specific. I think you can delay the start of the F32 for 6 months.
Mika said
Dear writedit,
R01 application, including Cover letter. My question is taht reviewers will see Cover Letter or not!
Thanks,
Mika
SaG said
No, reviewers do not see your cover letter.
PaylineQuestions said
Dear writedit,
First of thank you so much for this space. It has been wonderful to be able to read about others and learn about the process.
I had an F32 application from April 2022, that scored on the NICHD FY2023 payline (they just released the paylines today). The advisory council was supposed to meet in October 2022 but my ERA commons status has not changed since the initial scores from the SRG review (current status: SRG review completed).
After talking with my wonderful PO early last fall, I also ended up submitting another brand new application in December 2022 in case this one doesn’t work out.
Would my April ’22 submission need to go through another round of advisory council before I hear back about whether my grant is funded or not? And is it a bad sign that my status has not changed in the system?
Thank you so so much!
writedit said
Nothing to worry about – fellowships do not go to Council, so you don’t need to watch for that status change. Fellowship decisions are made internally at each IC, and I suspect they are all waiting for their final FY23 appropriations, which should be available soon (usually takes 6-8 weeks after federal budget is signed into law – probably added delays by winter holidays this year). You can check in with your PO in March if you haven’t heard back sooner.
PaylineQuestions said
Thank you so so much!
PaylineQuestions said
As of 2 days ago, the status of my F32 application changed to “Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist”
Is this a good sign?
writedit said
Yes (gotta love a Magic 8-ball!) – you can sit tight until the NoA. They will contact you if/when they need anything.
PaylineQuestions said
Thanks again so much! As of 2 days ago, the status of my F32 application changed to “Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist”
Is this a good sign?
Magic 8-Ball said
All sign point to yes
PaylineQuestions said
Received a personalized JIT request from PO and immediately turned it around. Fingers crossed!
writedit said
Good news – hopefully more to follow soon.
PaylineQuestions said
Submitted another JIT last week. They requested more information, including whether I would accept the fellowship if offered at the proposed institution, the dates I would like it to start, and the Ph.D. completion date, etc.
Is this typical? Seems to me like these are all the info they would need for an NOA, but I can’t help but overthink. Thank you so much in advance!
writedit said
All typical – and all necessary data to process your award.
PaylineQuestions said
My status is still “pending” despite it being over a month since my last JIT submission. Should I reach out to my PO?
writedit said
Radio silence during the “Pending” period is par for the course and can last many months, though I wouldn’t expect th
PaylineQuestions said
Thanks for responding so quickly, I think your answer got cut off!
writedit said
Hmm – I have no idea what happened there – thanks for pointing it out. I was probably going to say that your application should not take months (more) to process – hopefully by May or June. Some ICs are struggling with staffing, hence the delays. Your PO probably won’t have any insight into the timing of your award, but if you have a job-related deadline (ie, current contract) coming up that you need this F32 to meet or beat, you could let the PO or GMS know.
PaylineQuestions said
Thank you so much for your response. Hopefully, I’ll hear back soon!
PaylineQuestions said
Got my fellowship NOA! Thank you so much for this website and your responses. It helped make sense of so much about the post-application process. Truly appreciate it!
writedit said
Woohoo – congratulations on the award and best wishes for success with your project and your career in biomedical research!
NIHquestion said
Dear writedit,
So appreciative of this resource! I’d love your feedback. I submitted a K99 application in June and got a 24. The advisory council meeting was last month. My PO said I didn’t have to prepare a rebuttal for it which I thought was a good sign. Just a few days ago the 2023 paylines were posted and my score is under the payline (Priority Score 34 for K99 applications). I had thought I won’t know about funding this late this spring because paylines wouldn’t be decided, but now that paylines are out for 2023 does that indicate I could know sooner? My proposed start date was April 1 so I was hoping to know before then. My current commons status is Council review completed so I’m not sure what that indicates as far as likelihood of funding or timeline or what to expect next. Thank you!
writedit said
You can sit tight and wait for a JIT request. You are well with
NIHquestion said
I submitted a JIT request before council review. Should I expect another one?
writedit said
I apologize – I am not sure what happened to the rest of my response. You can still sit tight – you have a great PO, and they will be in touch if they need anything. If you submitted JIT in response to the automated request, the GMO may get in touch again for an update, to be sure nothing has changed in the interim. It is always best to wait for a personal request, and if that is what you responded to, then you should be fine (they probably won’t ask again). Lost from my prior response is my explanation that your start date is not an expiration date, and that whether they process your application for an award in time for an April 1 start depends on where they are in terms of processing Cycle 1 awards (whose start dates were Dec 1). They’ll catch up on those first, but the Cycle 2 awards, including yours, shouldn’t be too late (if not on time for April 1), so you shouldn’t panic. The Council review completed means that Council has approved your application to be considered for funding by the IC Director.
NIHquestion said
Thank you!
Suncius said
Is your application pending administrative review now?
ESI_NCI said
Dear writedit.
I am an ESI applicant, and submitted a A1 to NCI with a 15% score. The new payline was just released and the cut off is at 17%. I haven’t heard from my PO and the council meeting is next week (the 9th). I submitted my JIT back in Nov when they sent an automated email (wasn’t a personal email), and I just checked my eRA status page and a GMO was assigned. It wasn’t there before, so I don’t know if that’s good news or what. Should I assume my grant will be awarded given the change and my score? Should I reach out to my PO for an update? I don’t want to be pushy with my PO, but I wonder if reaching out to him would help assure me my application is on track to be funded. What’s your experience, should I see this as a positive?
Thanks.
writedit said
You are below the payline, and you have submitted your JIT, so you won’t get a personal request now. You can just relax and wait for the GMO to get in touch with you if they need anything (they may reach out to ask if your JIT needs to be updated). No need to contact the PO. The ICs are just getting their appropriations and will soon start processing Cycle I awards (applications submitted last February-March-April). You should see some activity on your application later in February, early March at the latest. If nothing is going on with your application by then, you can check in with the PO for any update (there might be an internal reason for the delays, and by then, they should give you an idea of timing for award processing).
ESI_NCI said
I wonder if this is the time to negotiate the budget? I know my reviewers recommended a 10% cut. What do you think?
writedit said
You probably won’t be able to negotiate in the case of a reviewer-recommended cut, but if you have strong rationale for why their recommendation is in error (objective reasons – not just that you want the $$), you can contact the PO.
Shawn said
Dear writedit:I am an ESI and NI. I submitted an A1 R01 to NHLBI and got a score of 17% which is within the payline of last year(25%).should I be optimistic? Any thing I should do? Not sure what the payline will be for this year. Hope there will not a big cut in budget.
writedit said
You will be fine as ESI at the 17th percentile. The FY23 budget is larger, though NHLBI won’t know how much larger until they receive their actual appropriation (soon if not already). You can sit tight without contacting anyone – they will reach out when they need JIT. And if you submitted your A1 last summer, then the award processing should be roughly on schedule, maybe a little late (for April 1 start, that is). You don’t need to worry if they are running behind due to the backlog of Cycle 1 applications – the start date is not an expiration date. As ESI, your R01 budget shouldn’t be affected unless reviewers recommended a cut.
Shawn said
thank you so much. I submitted it last Nov. it is an A1 application. I just logged in and there is a JIT link but I have not received the comments. I am not sure what I need to submit via the JIT since all protocols have been approved and I submitted a supplemental sheet in Jan included my new publication and new prelim data. any thoughts? many thanks.
writedit said
You want to wait until your PO or GMO requests JIT. They will tell you exactly what they want and when they want it. You can ignore the automated request and link for now.
Shawn said
excellent. thank you so much
Shawn said
Dear Writedit,
I just received my reviewers comments. I was wondering if I need to prepare a p2p responses. The council meeting is in May.
As I mentioned in my last message. I am an ESI and NI. my R01score is 17%. Last year, the payline for ESI with NHLBI was 25%. I heard of that this year the payline would be similar for ESI.
Thank you.
writedit said
You can ask your PO if you need to do that – the PO is the one who would ask for it – but probably not, since you are within the ESI payline (not likely to change – and your PO might know that by now, too).
Shawn said
Thank you. Yes. My score is within the payline which is very similar to last year’s.
The council meeting is in May. I am preparing my other support. Do I need to include my startup package in other support?
In the statement, they did not say cut the budget. So I should expect there will be no budget cut, right?.
Lastly, what else do I need to prepare? IACUC protocol which has been approved already.
writedit said
You should wait until your PO or GMO sends a request before you submit your JIT materials. I’ve pasted in a couple links on what to expect with JIT below. If you have IACUC approval and do not require any additional regulatory approval, then you can sit tight until the JIT request comes, which probably won’t be until May. As a head’s up, you will likely see your eRA status change to Council review completed before then actual Council meeting date. This occurs because your application will be on a long list of competitive applications sent to Council in advance of the meeting for early electronic approval en bloc. Now, with regard to your budget, it may not be cut because you are ESI, but not because the reviewers did not flag anything to cut. As you will learn, even if reviewers find the budget appropriate as proposed, you will, in future awards, almost always have a budget cut, up to 25% (though usually much less). If the reviewers recommend reducing the budget, the cut will start there and probably be larger. ICs want to spread their money to make as many awards as possible. JIT procedures: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/HTML5/section_2/2.5.1_just-in-time_procedures.htmeRA info on submitting JIT (including screens shots of what to expect): https://www.era.nih.gov/help-tutorials/just-in-time
Joester said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you so much for providing this wonderful forum with so much helpful information that we cannot get elsewhere. I submitted an NCI K22 (A0) last Oct and got a score of 31. The summary statement highly recognized the candidate and career development plan and stated these strengths “mitigate the weaknesses” in the research design and the short timeline for completing study activities. Overall, it is likely that the proposed activities will provide “strong to moderate training” to advance the applicant’s research independence to a tenured faculty position. I read very carefully about it and didn’t find unaddressable critiques. The first reviewer commented that concerns about feasibility of the recruitment diminishes the impact of the proposal. The other two reviewers both stated overall this application is considered of high impact. I am not positive enough to think a 31 will be automatically funded but it should be close. NIH never published payline/fundable score for K22 (maybe to leave more wiggle room for the ICs to pick up applications reflecting their programmatic relevance/priority). What do you think I can read out of those words in the summary statement? Thank you!
writedit said
I think it sounds positive and that you should talk with your PO about whether you need to resubmit and, if not, whether they need any response to the concerns raised in the summary statement.
Joester said
Thank you for the comment and advice! I have contacted my PO and she said the SS reflects the discussion on your application. This is her constant style. She never says anything more than what I can see on the NIH website. But she did suggest me consider resubmission and consult my mentors if I decide to resubmit. I heard many POs would make comments, such as “very unlikely to be funded,” “can be cautiously optimistic”… it seems that it won’t happen to my PO.
writedit said
Well, at least she is consistent. Unfortunately, no one outside the NCI can comment on your likelihood in the absence of more direction from the PO. If you are tight on time in terms of eligibility and advancing your career, then you may want to plan on resubmission for insurance (or an application to a different FOA, depending on your situation and eligibility) – the added experience doesn’t hurt. If your time is better spent getting manuscripts out, then you could skip a cycle and focus on your publication productivity. This is where your mentors can weigh in better – on what is the best use of your time to advance your career to the next position.
Joester said
Thank you, writedit, for your insights! Very helpful!! My mentors think the critiques are minor and suggested I resubmit. I may resubmit in the March cycle.
Hello World!!! said
Dear Writedit,
How do I request NIH grant administrative supplements?
I would like to request an administrative supplement to my existing NIH grant. However, it is difficult for me to find any resources pertaining to documentation, the procedure, or application examples.
Would anyone be able to direct me to a place where I could find detailed information or an example application?
Thank you-
SaG said
First, ask the PO of your grant if they support admin supps or if the have any special calls for admin supplements. Nigms has a website that links to the admin supps they offer(https://www.nigms.nih.gov/Research/Supplements/). But they are only good for NIGMS grants. What do you want to buy with the supplement? Equipment?
writedit said
As SaG notes (thank you!), the best place to start is with your PO, to be sure they are interested in funding your supplement. You never want to submit a supplement application without discussing it first with your PO. They can tell you if the IC has their own supplement FOAs and/or NOSIs. If there is not a special supplement FOA to which you would apply, then you would submit an application through the parent Administrative Supplement FOA: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-20-272.html You also need to check your IC’s policies related to this parent announcement: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/admin_supp/index.htm The application is short and straightforward and customized to the FOA/NOSI, the parent study, and your needs.
SamsData said
Dear writedit,
Thank you for this tremendous resource.
I just received an impact score of 39 (no percentile) for a specific R34 planning grant PAR that will expire in May. If the PAR is not extended, will I still have the opportunity to resubmit? Renewal deadline is March 16, 2023; I would have the summary statement only a few days prior, most likely.
And I assume a 39 is too low for funding no matter what, correct?
writedit said
You can ask the PO if there are plans to reissue the PAR. If not, or if it is uncertain still, you will need to have your summary statement before you can submit the A1. As you note, the summary statement could arrive shortly before – or after – the submission date, not giving you much time to address concerns (or not allowing you to submit again if too late). A 39 might not be out of the zone of possibility, depending on the number of competitive applications received and the IC priorities as the program winds down (if not reissued). Unfortunately, though, your PO will not be able to give advice on funding likelihood without seeing the reviewer concerns, so my guess is that they would advice resubmission, assuming you receive your summary statement in time to do so.
SamsData said
Thank you for your advice. I will update the post as things progress.
AnxiousOne said
Hi Writedit,
Thanks again for providing this wonderful resource!
Quick question. I recently received an impact score of 18 (no percentile) for my NIAAA K23 A0. I’ve heard no percentile is common for Ks, so I’ve tried to scan your blog for other posts to see how my score compares but I haven’t seen much representation for NIAAA Ks. NIAAA also doesn’t publish a payline.
I’m wondering, based on your experience, how should I interpret my impact score in terms of my chances of getting funded?
Thanks,
-AnxiousOne
writedit said
Normally, I would say an 18 for a K23 application should be in good shape, but NIAAA can be very competitive. I think you can still feel positive, but you’ll want to check in with your PO about next steps (including whether you should submit again – hopefully not) when you get your summary statement.
AnxiousOne said
It looks like the success rate for K23s was ~40% for NIAAA the last few years. I know that’s not the whole story, but when you say competitive, do you mean that NIAAA Ks tend to score very well and thus high scores are lumped together making the success rate seem misleading or is it something else?
*Also, apologies for the double post!! Meant to reply to your reply the first time. Feel free to delete the duplicate post below!
writedit said
Sorry for not being more clear. Based on my interactions with applicants and awardees at NIAAA in past years, they have a lower payline (though unpublished), such that percentiles that probably would have been paid elsewhere were skipped at NIAAA. The increase in the NIH appropriation may have alleviated some of this – in a good way. With a 40% success rate, though, I still think you can feel pretty positive about your 18 impact score. Those are reviewed internally, and I assume NIAAA tries to avoid clustering all the scores at the low end.
K99 said
Hi Writedit,
Thanks again for this great resource. I got my K99 last September due to the congress budget delay (was supposed to be April). The plan used to be getting K99 in April and then start job search in the fall.
I started the job search two months after I received NOA. I am getting provisional offers now. I wonder what language should I use to reach out to my PO? I heard about cases where K99 awardee can start job search in their first year, but since I got a provisional offer just 5 months after my K99 started, I wanted to confirm I don’t use the wrong language that kills my my K99/R00.
writedit said
If you have only 1 year of K99 support and can delay acceptance of the position until after the K99 period is completed, you should be okay, especially since your award was delayed until September. BTW, if your award is from NIAID, then all K99s, not just yours, started in late summer-early fall vs during the application/Council cycle in which it was reviewed. You are correct that some ICs are more rigorous than others in policing the K99 policies, but starting a job search early is most problematic if it proceeds the K99 award – applicants who are searching / interviewing for faculty positions or have offers during the JIT period can (will) kill the award. Awardees are expected to look for jobs during the K99 period, but you can check your NOA for any language about timing (e.g., if you requested 2 years of K99 support, that could be an issue).
ESIsoontoexpire said
My ESI is going to expire in May 1, 2023. I received my PhD diploma in May 17, 2013 but in my actual transcript I got it May 1, 2013. I had applied for Stephen Katz R01 (ESI only) A0 and A1 and both scored beyond the payline. I’m planning to submit a new application through this mechanism next cycle, deadline May 22, 2023. From what I know, I will still be eligible because ESI extends to the end of the month. Is that correct?
writedit said
I would suggest you confirm this with your PO. I am not sure if the filters key in on individual dates or a monthly cut-off. Also, would you be eligible for an extension related to time lost during the pandemic? This is an easy ask to extend your eligibility by however many months you were not able to perform research during 2020 and at other times.
ESIsoontoexpire said
Thanks, writedit. NIH staff said it’s a yes. Also ERA commons shows my ESI end date is May 31. So, there is a monthly cut-off.
I will be a new PI so I am new to this. The grant I am intending to apply to is Katz R01. Unfortunately, it seems like it will be discontinued this year with the last application date on September 26. So I have one chance to apply, that is for the May 26 deadline. If the application is not successful, it means I have almost no chance to resubmit as I will not get my SS before the September 26 deadline. Is this correct? (*Also, the traditional R01 has June 5 deadline and I will lose my ESI by then)
SaG said
They might be renewing the Katz R01. They dont usually publish the new version until after the old version has expired.
Jon said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you again for this useful websource.
Could you please advice on the following matter: I have communicated with PO and submitted, after PO’s recommendation, Administrative Supplemental funds to replace an equipment for my funded award (r15 NIH NIBIB). We submitted application it in late September 2022 and the status: “Application entered into system” has not been changed since then. I have emailed PO coupe time to seek timelines for decision but no response. Do you have any information when the decision will be made more likely? What would you suggest me to do at this point? I do not want to bother PO to often with emails.
Thank you!
SaG said
Not much you can do. My guess is that it will be several months more before they start paying admin supps. Maybe not until the Summer. They need to have an idea of how much money is left in the poiggy bank after paying the rest of the FY23 grants…which go to May, Council.
Jon said
Thank you, SaG. Sorry for my typos.
writedit said
SaG is correct in that they will probably wait until closer to the end of the FY to make supplement decisions. Receiving no response seems a bit odd, since the PO could have conveyed the same information that SaG did (ie, I probably won’t know until next summer), but if the PO encouraged the application, and everything required was submitted, then there is no need to ask again. If you communicate with the PO about another matter related to your R15 (eg, accepted manuscript or conference abstract), then you could also ask to confirm that the supplement is in a holding pattern and that you don’t need to do anything else (ie, simple request for peace of mind).
JellyBean said
My grant proposal was switched to a different study section, a special emphasis section, one week before the previously planned meeting. I’ve never seen that happen before, and I’m curious why that happens. Is this likely a issue with the match of the content that was missed until now? Thank you.
writedit said
You can ask the SRO, but it’s likely someone
SaG said
Could be lots of things but not likely anything you did. Probably some last minute conflict issue that could only be resolved by moving your app to a SEP.
anxiouspi said
Dear Writedit,
Very grateful for your time and this resource.
I am preparing my first grant resubmission, and I was wondering what materials the reviewers would have access to from my initial submission. I assume they should have access to the summary statement, but do they also have access to the initial SA/research strategy?
Thanks
SaG said
The reviewers only get the previous Summary Statement. Not the previous submission. Though you could have reviewers who reviewed, and remember, your previous submission.
TD said
Dear Writedit,
I just received an impact score of 23 for my R21 application to the NIAID through the parental PA. I have seen the NIAID interim pay line is 27 now. Could I be cautiously optimistic?
Thanks!
Magic Eightball said
“Signs point to yes”
TD said
Thanks, Magic!
TD said
Thanks, Magic.
writedit said
Love Magic 8-Ball! Yes, you are within the payline and can sit tight until your PO or GMS requests your JIT.
TD said
Thanks, Writedit!
YC said
Dear Writedit,
I just received my K99/R00 score 38, from NIA. My application is AD research, so the pay line for this year is 35. Since I have passed the 4-year bar, I don’t have a chance for re-submission. I’m wondering if the NIA would fund K99 beyond the pay line, and if so, is that a common thing or a very rare case?
Many thanks in advance!
writedit said
Probably not likely for NIA to go above the AD/ADRD payline given it is already so much higher, but worth asking the PO once you have your summary statement. You’ll want their guidance so you can plan with your mentor for next steps, if the K99 is off the table.
EW said
Hello writedit and all,
I just received disappointing news- my NIGMS ESI MIRA scored a 49. According to their most recent blog post on the subject, “scores between 10 and 50 generally get funded”, but it’s little consolation to me at this point- hard to believe that a score that high would actually receive funding.
I’m wondering what experienced peoples’ opinions are on this, and what recommended next steps would be (if any). According to the SRO summary statements will should be available by March 18.
Thanks in advance to all willing to share their experience!
writedit said
If you check the running online spreadsheet on MIRA and DP2 applications, you will see applications with scores of 48 and 49 funded last year: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10f1MDXXW57r5pYxwqTnAKM_NRY_SmvC0s0b3joyO_Zo/edit#gid=967453091
Although you can talk with the PO when you receive your summary statement, neither they nor you will know the outcome of your MIRA until later this summer or fall, so you should discuss whether to consider an R01 in June or wait for the October ESI MIRA submission (note some changes in the program: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-GM-23-017.html).
Bishuang said
EW, which study section was yours in? I got an impact score of 50 from MRAC study section and will set up a call with my PO soon.
BM said
Hi Writedit
My grant A0 (RO1) was reviewed at NHLBI and got 16% (FY 2022) and A1 also got 16% (FY 2023). I am an established PI. NHLBI just updated their payline 14%. Is there any chance that the IC will increase the payline since the NIH got a better budget? What are my chances of getting funded?
writedit said
NHLBI now has its final appropriation, so while it could revise its payline upward once all 3 cycles have been reviewed and it sees the full spread of scores, this wouldn’t happen until later this summer. As usual, when you receive your summary statement, you can check with your PO about next steps, especially if the reviewers are enthusiastic and have few, readily addressable concerns.
impatient31 said
Hi! Firstly, thank you for this amazing resource! My F31 A1 got a 16% (NICHD) in Nov 2022 after my A0 received a 47%. I reached out to the PO in Dec to see if there was anything I should do in the meantime, but she just said to hang tight. When should I reach out to her again? My start date is April 2023 with a 2 yr project period. Is it possible to push back the start date by a couple of months while keeping the original project length? I ask because I’m currently on a T37 and I’d like to complete the full year before potentially switching to the F31.
writedit said
Congratulations on the significant jump in score! You can contact your PO about delaying your start date to complete your T37 period – that shouldn’t be a problem.
Izlude said
Hi!
Like many I just received my score for an ESI R01 to NHLBI (4th submission with two A0 and two A1s with this being the second A1). I received a 17th percentile with the ESI payline being 24th.
My prior scores have always been 1-2 pts above the ESI payline. I did get an R56 off the initial submission to help with prelim data and stuff for this eventual second A1. I had a few questions:
1. Talk to PO: It has always been a reflex to talk to the PO since I always had to resubmit. With an ESI score of 17th, I am not sure what to do. Do I just hang back and let them reach out or should I reach out just to confirm that I don’t have to re-submit? I guess is there a chance they would pass this over for some reason? I think Council meets in May. I did get my summary statement a few days after the scores were released so there were some criticisms to talk about with the PO.
2. R56: I am in a NCE for the R56 that helped with this new submission. I have enough money for a second NCE that starts over the summer. I am worried they will either not allow this and or hit the R01 if it gets funded by either decreasing years/money. I really could use both the R01 and R56 NCE to support my salary for more funding. Obviously there is some overlap since it was based on the first R01 submission but my subsequent R01 has been changed based on reviewer comments so I think is different enough. I am not sure if this makes sense, can further clarify.
3. Second R01: I am resubmitting a second R01 to a different IC that had a decent score. My question is about ESI status (I know ESI only applies to the first R01). Since I currently never held a major grant I did mention in both applications that I am an ESI which I think is helpful and something the reviewers considered.
By the time this second R01 goes in I will still be an ESI but if the first R01 gets funded it will be probably around the time or maybe after the second R01 gets reviewed. Since it is not 100% that I will get the first R01 is it better to leave the ESI stuff in the second R01 since it is true when this goes in next week?
Sorry for all the questions! At least for NHLBI it has been a bummer to see the payline slowly decrease (or get worse) each year….
SaG said
1). Sure, send the PO an email. They will be as excited as you about the score. It is a win for the PO too.
2). The NCE doesnt count as overlapping support. That money is already off the books. Take the NCE.
3).This also isnt a problem. Until you get the NoA you are an ESI. I say do nothing and let them ride.
writedit said
Congrats on this string of good news to launch your independent research program, Izlude! Thank you for jumping in with a perfect & perfectly succinct response, SaG!
F31-Diversity Applicant said
Hello,
I applied for the NCI F31 Diversity April 2022. I received my scores (17th percentile) and got my summary statements. My status changed to “pending administrative review” last month but still no request for JIT. Last contact I had with my PO, he said hang tight and said there’s a high chance I won’t have to reapply. Is this a “good” sign? It’s been quite some time…
writedit said
Your application is being processed for an award. You can sit tight – they will contact you if/when they need anything from you. The long delay was due to the delay in the FY22 federal budget being signed into law. The ICs just got their appropriations and were able to start planning and processing awards.
R03 applicant said
Hello,
I submitted an NIA ADRD R03 proposal last summer and received a score in the 26th percentile, the pay line is at the 25th. The PO reached out last month and asked for a response to the Resume of the summary statement which I provided. I hadn’t heard anything since then so I just reached out to ask if we should resubmit at the March deadline or not. The PO said while our status is still conditional, and we will have to be patient and wait until the May council to know anything for sure, he did not think I need to resubmit, but that was not a promise of anything. My ability to continue in my position relies completely on this grant being funded so it is difficult to just wait and see, do you have any sense of whether I should be optimistic or not?
Thanks
Izlude said
Others can add to this but I had a similar thing with an R21 that was just over the payline and was asked to also submit a rebuttal. The PO was also positive in general but I think they say that since it is not a 100% nor would they be in the off chance it does not get picked up which will probably lead to super high salt on your end.
I did resubmit as insurance and in the end it was fine but was just more work. You can roll the dice and see but it sounds like you can’t afford to see? It just ends up being more work for you if you decide to resubmit. If the first one is funded they will just pull that resubmission. I guess the question is that even if you resubmitted it sounds like this would need to be funded this year so a resubmission is a moot point?
R03 applicant said
Thanks for the response. You’re correct, resubmission is essentially a moot point. I am mostly looking to understand the likelihood of funding to get a sense for how urgently I should be looking for a new position. It sounds like your original submission was funded? Or was it not funded until the resubmission was scored?
writedit said
A PO to tell you to wait before resubmitting is a strong indication of funding likelihood. POs are extremely conservative and know better than to risk an investigator’s lab, career, etc. by telling them not to submit if there is any chance of missing an award. Your PO probably feels better about reaching for an R03 since it is such a small award. That said, please be sure your PO understands your situation – that you will not get a second chance to submit and, more importantly, will not keep your position without this R03. Your PO is indicating the need to wait until the May Council because all ICs will wait for the third cycle of applications, at which point they will know how many competitive and high-priority applications need to be paid first, before making any select pay decisions for applications from all 3 cycles. So – yes, you can be optimistic, but the timing cannot be helped.
Arpana Gupta said
I saw that NCCIH does not have published paylines, but has this changed recently? Any idea where they fall. I saw somewhere it said an impact score of 33 and better is fundable (I am way over at 38 anyway), but does it differ if we applied to a NOSI? Feeling desperate, so any guidance would be very helpful.
writedit said
You don’t mention the activity code, but if it is an R01/R01 equivalent, you can see the spread of scored application and funded applications for NCCIH (and each IC plus NIH combined) here: https://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/category/23 The bar chart shows that the highest percentile receiving an R01 equivalent award was 26 (one award). The next highest funded score was 19. Now, for all RPG applications, NCCIH had a 13% success rate for untargeted applications and a 33% success rate for targeted applications (in response to RFA). These data for each IC and NIH as a whole are here: https://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/report/157 If you have an impact score, I assume this is for either an RFA or a non-R01 application, in which case your PO will be your best source of guidance, once you have your summary statement. Applying to a NOSI can give you an edge if they have a few applications at about the same score and need to prioritize for funding (if your application was genuinely responsive to their portfolio gap, you would likely get considered first).
AnxiousApplicant said
Hello! I noticed today that an old application (scored, but not funded) now says, “Administratively Withdrawn by IC”. This update was made this month, however, this grant was reviewed in early 2021. Is there a reason for this change/is this standard after a certain amount of time? Thank you!
writedit said
Yes, the NIH administratively withdraws unfunded applications after ~18 months, I believe (it is a certain number of Council meetings after the one in which it was considered – I would need to check to get the exact policy). This is a routine procedure so the system isn’t clogged by applications that will never be considered for funding.
Marius said
Hello, my R01 grant application underwent a special panel review in early March, and I received an impact score of 37. Unfortunately, I have not been given a percentile ranking ( this is their first meeting), and I am unsure of where my application stands compared to others. I am still waiting to receive the summary statement before getting in touch with my PO. I would appreciate any thoughts or insights regarding my situation. Thank you
SaG said
Did you apply to a special announcement? Was the app reviewed by the Institute or CSR?
Lookupforguidance said
Yes, it was a special announcement, and apps were reviewed by the Institute.
writedit said
You’ll need to wait for the summary statement and check with the PO about where your application ranks in terms of score and priority for this program. A 37 could certainly be fundable – but you need the PO to provide perspective and guidance on next steps (ie, whether to submit again to another NOFO/FOA).
NCI R01 said
Dear Writedit,
My A0 R01 application assigned to NCI received an overall impact score of 30 (9%ile) last week. I’m an EI (not ESI). Should I contact my PO as soon as the summary statement is released or just wait until PO or GMO contacts me? Another question is whether they would appreciate my proposed start date (7/1/2023) or it could be delayed. I have never worked with NCI and want to know the right course of action. Thank you!
writedit said
When you receive your summary statement, you can check in with your PO to confirm whether they need anything from you, and you can also ask about delaying the start date. This is something that would be handled later during JIT/application processing, but your PO would appreciate the heads-up and your rationale for the delay. You would need to start your award before the end of the FY (September 30), and I suspect they would prefer not to wait too long past July 1, since NCI and every other IC will be scrambling to make all their select-pay decisions and awards in August and September.
NCI R01 said
Thank you for the clear advice. 7/1 start date is what I proposed in the original budget, and I wanted to know if NCI (not me) could delay it past 7/1. But it seems they will rather try to fund applications around that time. Thank you.
writedit said
You can always ask – asking will not endanger the award. Again, it depends on how long you wanted to delay it, but your PO can tell you if your preferred timing is feasible.
curiousK99 said
Writedit,
I have a K99 application (resubmission June 2022; start date of April1) that the PO has verbally mentioned it should be funded, and I submitted the JIT per request of the PO first week of Feb. The portal seems to indicate that its still “Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.” My two questions were:
1. Do you think there’s any risks that the final NoA won’t be issued until after April 1?
2. If so, does this shift the timeline of the grant back by X-days delayed funding for my grant, or are these days of funding that will be shaved off of my grant?
Looking at your “timelines” resource, it seems other K99 applicants had their NoA following JIT submission within a matter of a couple weeks. I’m wondering if it’s normal for the OGA to take so long reviewing JIT/applications?
Any insights would be appreciated.
writedit said
ICs are busy catching up on a backlog of applications to process from Cycle 1 and now Cycle 2 (the April 1 start date applications). The Pending phase can last months. And months, during a continuing resolution. Pending is never a guarantee of funding, but the length of the Pending status should never be a concern. Your start date could still be April 1 – or it could be after April 1. April 1 is not an expiration date, and you will not lose time or funding as a result of the delayed start.
Post_PostDocLife said
First of all, congratulations!! I am past K99 recipient and just transitioned into R00 as a faculty. How long it takes for the start date will vary greatly. My JIT was in October and did not start till Apr the next year (budget etc) even though I was told by the PO that I was going to get funded. To answer your question(s):
1. Yes, there is a definite risk that your start date might be delayed (or be approved as soon as a month from now).
2. The overall budget will not change because of the start date. So if your start date is, let’s say June 1 2023, your K99 will end May 30th of 2025. The whole thing just shifts.
If you do have any other circumstances where your job security affected because of your PI’s funding etc, you may want to let the PO know at the earliest. If that’s not the case, you can just relax 🙂
curiousK99 said
Hi Wrtedit and Post-PostDocLife,
Thank you very much and Post-PostDocLife, congratulations to you as well on your new position!
I guess to your second statement, does this mean that the clock under my required “year of training” wouldn’t start until the start date of funding? If so, this would be concerning in the sense that it would delay me by x-months to transition if the grant starts x-months late.
Also to Writedit, sorry I’m not trying to split hairs rather am genuinely curious about the way the ORA works with timelines. I can see a posting below by F31Noob who shows a similar submission timeline for his/hers/their F31, even submitting JIT a month after mine, and yet it seems NoA was issued immediately thereafter. Perhaps they process different grants at differently?
Again thank you for this resource
writedit said
I can’t imagine your award being more than a month late, so that shouldn’t affect your postdoc period significantly. Each IC is different in their K99 award processing, so it’s tough to compare specific JIT turnaround times.
K99question said
Hi there!
Did you get a NOA?
I am in a similar situation.
Thanks
responseletter said
I have an application submitted to a BRAIN initiative RFA. It received an impact score of 46. I still received an email for requesting a response letter to reviewers’ comments. At this time, I am working on another R01 application (for the continuous submission deadline), and I feel that I don’t want to waste my time on this response letter if there is little hope. I heard that for BRAIN initiative RFAs, they ask a lot of people to write response letters. One of my colleagues told me that he was asked for response letters in the past two years, and he was never funded. He suggested me to focus on my new R01 application. What is your opinion?
writedit said
Send a brief rebuttal. Despite your colleague’s experience, you have a good shot of funding (soon), and you have no shot at an award if you don’t send a response. The response should only be 1-2 pages at most and need only focus on the concerns raised in the Summary of Discussion paragraph (not all the individual comments throughout the 3 critiques that were not mentioned in the summary). You should be able to write a rough draft in an hour or two, set it aside, and refine it over the course of a day or two while still continuing with your R01 application (whose funding potential is unknown and more than a year away). I am puzzled how this minimal effort when your odds of funding are better than 50% is too great to be worth it. Getting back to your R01, unless you have a reason that you must get the application in for Cycle 1, the timing of awards for Cycles 1 and 2 will likely be similar in FY24 due to the divided Congress, which will not agree on a federal budget anywhere near to October 1 (and we could be under a continuing resolution the entire FY). Especially if you might have more data or a publication if you delay until the June-July submission period, waiting to submit your strongest R01 submission could be worth it since it won’t affect the timing of an award.
Are 35 said
Hi All, I just received a JIT request for an NIGMS MIRA R35 application. The email from the PD was very sparse in terms of details, and this is my first time. My department doesn’t have a grants management specialist and I am hoping for some advice here.
Regarding “other support”- i have a departmental startup package. Do I list this?
The NIH instructions say I don’t need to include “training awards”. Does this include mentored research training grants from foundations?
There’s a button on the JIT submission page that says “budget sheet”. for the life of me I can’t find what that is in reference to.
Thanks writedit & team
SaG said
You can list everything and POs will ignore it if it doesn’t matter. POs are looking for scientific overlap and if you have lots (millions$) of other support. Training awards are Ts, Fs and some Ks. If you get research dollars (as opposed to just salary) from your training award you should list it.
writedit said
Thanks, SaG!! Are 35, regarding the Budget File, this should not be active, as a revised budget is requested by the GMO on a case-by-case basis, depending on if overlapping funding must be addressed as part of the administrative review process. You can just ignore this until/if you are asked.
F31Noob said
I want to thank everyone here for their help in answering all of my questions during this process, this was my first individual grant submission and I am tremendously grateful to have this as a resource, below is my timeline from initial submission to resubmission to award. Biggest lesson learned was to be SPECIFIC about training plan, highlight weaknesses in addition to strengths in your skillset and identify specific individuals who will help you address these shortcoming with letters of support.
NCI F31 Diversity Timeline
8/8/2021 – Initial submission
11/8/2021 – Score posted in ERA Commons, no email notification, 34th percentile and 34 impact score
11/29/2021 – Summary statement posted, no email notification
12/12/2021 – Meeting with PO via WebEx, no definitive statement on funding likelihood but indicated was likely on the cusp of a fundable score
3/17/2022 – After many emails, received a reply from NIH indicating that payline had been moved to 20th percentile due to continuing resolution
4/8/2022 – Resubmitted grant and addressed reviewer concerns (overhauled training plan to be extremely individualized and included multiple letters of support from post-docs and core facilities stating they would assist in teaching me proposed methods)
7/1/2022 – Resubmission score posted, 7th percentile and 19 impact score
7/18/2022 – Summary statement posted
11/22/2022 – Met with PO, who indicated (but again nothing definitive), that with my score I should likely receive a NOA in the coming months
1/12/2023 – Status change in ERA commons to “Pending administrative review”
3/8/2023 – Received a JIT request via email (Due by 3/13/23)
3/10/2023 – Requested JIT documents submitted
3/16/2023 – Received NOA
writedit said
Woohoo! Congratulations and thank you for sharing your detailed and informative timeline and experience! Best wishes for success with your doctoral program and career in biomedical research!
F31Noob said
Just a quick update to this grant timeline as it was an F31-Diversity
2/1/2025 – RPPR Submitted for third and final year of award
4/1/2025 – No NOA received, no reply from PO or anyone with NCI
Mid June 2025 – Received email to meet with PO to discuss status of grant. Upon meeting was informed grant is terminated due to new DEI policies
Early July 2025 – Received email from NCI requesting confirmation from institution that I am both eligible and interested in receiving the third year of my award
Mid July 2025 – Received NOA for third year of award
Was a bit of a rollercoaster but ended up getting the third and final awarded year of the F31D after being told it was terminated. The long period of radio silence after mid-March (when I typically would receive the NOA for the upcoming year) was definitely frustrating.
Figured I would update my timeline, do not have any additional insight on what went into the reversal.
Thanks!
writedit said
Rollercoaster indeed – glad you got through the ride with your final year of funding. Your IC either got it out during a brief gray period or possibly converted it on their books from diversity to traditional F31 for the final year. No matter how they got it through, very relieved to hear you are okay for your final year. Best wishes for success persevering through this tumultuous period and sticking with your career in biomedical research.
bluesand said
Hi Writedit,
For Emergency awards with untypical start date like Oct. 1st, is it possible to delay the grant from Oct. 1 to Dec. 1st in the same year? Earlier posts mentioned notifying POs before the NOA is issued. I’m not sure about its implications with the FY Sept 30 deadline.
Thanks!
writedit said
If your start date is October 1, then your application is for FY24 (which begins Oct 1, 2023). The NIH will be operating under a continuing resolution, and I am not sure how they handle emergency awards during a CR. Once your application is reviewed and you have your summary statement, you can talk with your PO about award timing, if your application is likely to be funded. If this is truly an FY24 application, your PO will likely not have a problem delaying until Dec 1 (assuming emergency awards can be made during CR), since much of October is spent closing out the prior FY books anyway.
R61 said
Hi, Dear Writedit, I have a funded R61/R33 grant (from PAR-19-315). I wonder if we can carry over the unspent fund from R61 to the R33 phase? Or, the fund for the R61 phase (first three years) has to be spent or returned by the time R61 ends and R33 starts (for the remaining 2 years)? Thanks!
writedit said
This is definitely a question for your PO. Asking won’t endanger anything about the award. If you have met all your milestones and are approved to transition to the R33, my guess is that the unspent R61 funds will carry over into the first year of the R33, reducing that first-year budget by the same amount versus adding to it (much like any carryover).
Inquiry R01 said
Dear Writedit, I received the result of my R01 application (25%). With ESI status, this project could be considered by NIGMS (but it is now with NCI). Is there any chance that this application can be switched from NCI to NIGMS after the R01 summary statement is issued? Thanks!
writedit said
NIGMS does not fund applications as the secondary IC (and it doesn’t sound like they are listed as such on your summary statement). If NCI does not pick up your R01 (long shot, but you would want to check with the PO once you have your summary statement), you would need to talk with a PO at NIGMS about accepting the resubmitted application with NIGMS as the primary IC and also strategies for making the science more in line with the NIGMS mission, as needed.
K08 anxiety said
I submitted a K08 to the NCI back in June 2022 and got an impact score of 20. Council met in early February but my program officer still says no word on whether my grant will get funded. Anyone have any idea when I should know by?
writedit said
NCI might need to wait until all 3 cycles of applications are reviewed, to see how far their K budget slice needs to extend. You could ask your PO what the time frame for award decisions will be (eg, will it be after the current review cycle). If you haven’t already discussed whether to resubmit, this would be a good time, so you don’t miss the July submission window. If you did ask and your PO asked you to sit tight, that’s a good sign.
nanokid said
Dear Writedit, I recently received a score for ESI MIRA that looks promising. I did have one reviewer mark Biohazards as unacceptable, which is something I have never had the pleasure of experiencing before. Other two reviewers said not applicable. There is basically no guidance on this in the NIH SF424 manual. Is this something I need to address with my JIT? I reached out to my PO (no response yet), but the deadline for JIT is fast approaching. Do you have any insights?
writedit said
I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. You only need to respond to an administrative bar if the SRO cited the Biohazards omission as unacceptable (ie, if only mentioned in one individual critique but not in the SRO summary at the end, then you don’t need to worry about it). If you were required to by the SRO and missed addressing this at JIT, you will have other opportunities – it won’t endanger the entire award. It sounds like you will need some insight from your PO about what is missing, if you feel the omission was appropriate for your application.
SC said
Dear Writedit, the NIA ADRD payline this year appears to be lower than in previous years (25% vs 28% for established investigators). Given that NIA has already received a full-year budget, do you think there is still a chance that NIA may increase their payline later in the fiscal year? Thank you!
writedit said
NIA indicated that this is their full-year funding policy, so these paylines won’t change. NIA received an increase of about $151M, which sounds like a lot but is much less than in the recent past, so the NIA is starting to scale back spending, knowing their rate of annual increase will likely continue to decline (there was a major acceleration due to the paucity of funding and research in AD/ADRD) that was acutely recognized just under a decade ago. NIA is probably going to be at a steady state (vs continuing with rapid annual growth), now that their appropriation has caught up with the other major ICs and a significant AD/ADRD research base has been established.
Fei said
I receive a K award. It covers 44% of my salary but requires 75% of the efforts. I have hard time to secure non-federal fund to fill in the gap. Could I reduce some efforts from K. If so how to do that?
Tanya said
Your institution is required to cover any portion of your salary that is not covered by the NIH as part of your 75% effort. This should have been confirmed in your institutional letter of support that went in with the award. I would imagine it is something your institution should be aware of as well.
writedit said
You cannot reduce your K effort. As Tanya notes, this is the responsibility of your institution. If your department chair will not cover the extra cost of your salary (I assume you are in a high COL region, like NYC, Boston, San Francisco, LA, etc.), then you need to communicate with the Dean or perhaps your Office of Sponsored Programs (or equivalent) about securing funds that will allow you to accept the K award. Institutions in any high-cost city should have processes and policies addressing this situation – otherwise, they would never be able to have faculty on K awards or trainees on Ts or Fs.
HRHR said
Hi writedit,
I just received an impact score of 34 for my HRHR application. Since there is no percentile, I have no idea if this is a fundable score or too high for funding. What impact score is considered for funding?
Thank you.
writedit said
I am not sure which high-risk, high-reward NOFO you used, but for any of them, really, the score is just a starting point. I am guessing a DP2 or DP5. My best advice is to jump on the MIRA-DP2 Google Doc created and maintained by Serdar Bozdag (Univ North Texas) that shares scores and experiences from applicants dating back to 2020 (maybe earlier): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10f1MDXXW57r5pYxwqTnAKM_NRY_SmvC0s0b3joyO_Zo/edit#gid=839232468 Data! I think you feel some reassurance and less anxiety by perusing the various DP2 sheets.
HRHR said
Thank you so much for your response and particularly for the link. Mine is neither DP2 nor DP5. After seeing those scores, I think mine is quite high, so I feel more anxious. Honestly, I was surprised by such many good scores (even 10)!
writedit said
I think you were looking at the wrong sheet or the wrong category of DP2 (NIAID vs OD), though, yes, there is often someone who gets a 10. For any of the Common Fund awards, while lower is always better, scores in the 30s are not out of range at all, and the score is not award-driving by itself. If a PO wants to fund your science, they will advocate for an award.
HRHR said
Thanks again for the additional information. I will wait for the summary statement and see what happens. Thank you!
HRHR said
Dear writedit,
I just received the summary statement. It says “Overall, there was a moderately high level of enthusiasm for the application.” I will reach out to the PO for the next step but wondering if this is a good sign or not very optimistic considering the score.
Thank you.
writedit said
Moderately high is certainly better than moderate. The source of the concerns is more important – if with the Approach, likely fixable … if with the significance or rigor, less so.
HRHR said
I just wanted to update the outcome for the record. I have been waiting for the decision for a couple of months and finally, my application ended up not being funded. I’m very sad but I move on to the next goal.
writedit said
Thank you for the update on your application, though I am very sorry it wasn’t better news. Great to see your keep moving forward attitude. With that score and programmatic interest, you should be able to rework the HRHR application into a competitive R01.
AnxiousESI said
Dear Writedit,
I am an ESI who has recently received a score and discussion on my R01(A0) from the NCI. My impact score, while not in the percentile ranking, is a borderline score. My PO has informed me that she will defend my grant to the council (interestingly she didn’t ask me to prepare a one-page rebuttal), but has also advised me to prepare an A1 resubmission in case funding is not secured. I am planning to send my PO a one-page rebuttal to help with my case as well as prepare my A1 resubmission. However, I am curious to hear your thoughts on the likelihood of my grant (A0) being funded, particularly given the involvement of multiple POs for this RFA. Thank you for your time and expertise.
writedit said
RFA is the magic term here. POs have a lot of latitude in picking the science of most interest to them, so you probably have a reasonable chance of funding sooner than later. You can send the PO your one-page A1 Introduction (assuming the RFA allows resubmissions) for advice on whether you have addressed the key concerns from discussion (PO would have heard everything), which will serve the dual purpose of helping the PO (if she needs any info – though it sounds like not) and helping you with lowering your score on the next round. The A0 can be funded after the A1 is submitted and reviewed – as long as it is administratively active. If the RFA does not allow A1 applications, then you could still send your PO your plans for revising the next submission in a handy one-page summary to see if she agrees with your strategy for revision (and, again, has any info she might need).
readwrite said
Dear writedit,
It looks like my K99 is going to be awarded soon (fingers crossed). I have a question regarding percentage effort on the K. I had proposed a 90% effort on my K99 project for 75K in salary support (so that I can receive an institutional salary of 75K / 0.9 = 83.3K) but I would like to further reduce the K effort to 75% as that would allow me a higher salary of 75K / 0.7 = 100K. Would NIH still pay out the same 75K in salary support even with the proposed 75% effort? or would they reduce my salary support commensurately to 75K * (0.75 / 0.9)?
Thank you,
writedit said
Your salary is the relevant constant here, not the $75K. If you requested 90% effort, your IC will base that on your current institutional salary. If the IC has a $75K cap on salary support, then you will get $75K, and your institution will need to make up whatever else might be needed to protect 90% of your time. Your reviewers evaluated your application and the work proposed based on the commitment that you would devote 90% of your time to this work – not 75%. Peer review determines if you can accomplish what you say you will do at the level of effort committed based on the science. Your award will be for 90% of your institutional salary, whatever it is (which I assume is $83.3K, if that is what you submitted). If you made a mistake in the budget and your salary is actually higher than $83.3K, then your institution will need to make up the difference – and will not be happy that you did not budget correctly (though, really, it would be on their Office of Sponsored Programs to have not caught this mistake).
k99submitter said
Dear Writedit,
Thanks for this informative forum. I may have a naïve concern. I see from the top of this page that NLM K99 has a payline of 25. However, in NLM website the payline is written 30 (https://www.nlm.nih.gov/ep/Payplan.html). A liitle bit confused. Thanks in advance.
writedit said
Thank you for pointing out that I am waaaay behind in updating the FY23 paylines! You aren’t confused – the NLM entry was wrong since it still reflected FY22. I’ve corrected this and will need to get back to the other ICs as well.
Shawn said
Dear writedit, my Ro1 grant status changed to council review completed 3 days after I submitted the JIT. Do I just need to wait? Is there a review Statement from the council review? One of co-Is left my current institute so for the JIT , we had to do a subaward which increased the total budget by 48000. Not sure if this would be a problem. Thx
writedit said
The change in Council status has nothing to do with your JIT submission – which I assume your PO or GMS requested. You never want to submit JIT until personally asked for it. There will be no document or additional status change as a result of Council review. Council reviews the quality of peer review and whether the research is in line with the mission of the IC. For applications near or within the payline, Council provides electronic approval en bloc (ie, to a long list of applications at once) in advance of the actual meeting, which is probably what happened. If your application is processed for an award, you will almost certainly need to identify cuts to make to accommodate the sub award, but this is something to discuss with the GMS during the application processing (not now, not until they contact you).
Shawn said
Thank u. Yes, I did receive an email asking for JIT.I am an ESI and my score is within the payline(17%/24%). The council meeting is in May. so I just have to wait till the GMS contacts me, right? Thank you very much.
writedit said
Correct. With your score, you can sit tight until someone asks for more information or until you receive the NoA.
TD said
Dear Writedit,
What is indicated when the status changes to “Council review completed” before the actual council meeting takes place?
writedit said
It means your application was on a long list of applications with no administrative issues from US-based investigators who scored both within and somewhat above the payline. Council members approve this list electronically en block in advance of the meeting both to save time at the meeting and to allow the IC to begin processing the most competitive applications. Council approval of this list gives the IC Director permission to make awards to any application on the list – it does not mean every application on the list will receive an award (list is always much longer than the IC can afford to ensure enough applications are approved to ensure the IC can spend their entire appropriation before the end of the FY (ie, Sept 30).
TD said
Thanks a lot, writedit, for the information.
awp said
What a useful forum!
ESI here. I have an NIBIB R01 (A1) scored with a percentile the same as the ESI payline just announced for this year (so technically “within” the payline?). The PO seemed to say that they will down the list at the council review (?) and see and didn’t need any information/rebuttal-page.
As an ESI this is my first time through this, I’m wondering if there’s something I can do at this point, for this very borderline score? What would be the chance of getting it funded?
writedit said
If your score is the same as the stated payline, then your application will be funded, assuming no unexpected administrative issues. The payline number is inclusive (ie, payline at the 23rd percentile includes applications with that score). This is why your PO did not need a response to the review – they expect your application to be on the pay list sent to Council in May and paid in July. You can sit tight until your status changes to Pending and the GMS or PO requests your JIT. Don’t worry about radio silence in between.
awp said
Thank you so much for the answer. FWIW, this website feels more informative than many resources at the NIH and my institute!
What sort of unexpected administrative issues can come up last minute, by the way? anything we can control to avoid?
writedit said
You would already know about any potential administrative issues, such as any concerns cited by the SRO
Sue said
Dear writedit, we have an application scored just outside the current pay line. After carefully reviewing the summary statement, we felt that Review-3 did not seem to have the expertise in the field related to our application, yet their critique may have unfairly impacted our overall score.
We tried to send an inquiry email to the assigned PO. However, the assigned PO will be out of the office for an extended period and will not respond to emails. Although the auto-reply email redirected us to another PO, it seems that this PO’s portfolio is very different from our research. Is there anything else we can do if we do not hear back from this other PO? Thank you!
writedit said
Before turning to the PO question, my most important advice is not to appeal. Only if there is a factual error in Critique #3 that is cited in the Summary of Discussion paragraph and that could have significantly altered the score (repeat – significantly altered the score) do you have any possible case. If there is no objective error, you have no case for appeal. If none of the problems you see in the individual critique are in the Summary paragraph, you have no case for appeal. If you do appeal, first Council must approve your appeal. That causes you to lose one funding cycle (when you could have instead submitted again). On the very long odds that Council agrees with your appeal, in the next submission cycle, the exact same application – the exact same application, no data or scientific updates, no rebuttal – goes back to the same study section for review again. No special treatment. You now lose more funding cycles waiting for the next round of reviews (your review is not expedited – it is conducted with all other applications submitted). Your application could be triaged this time. It could score worse. You could lose over a year and gain nothing except the ill will of the study section to which you will likely need to send additional applications (when an application shows up like this, they know there was an appeal, and that you didn’t like their first review). Based on what you write below, you should not pursue an appeal. You could be in this predicament because you did not work with a PO in advance of submission; the one who is now unavailable would have probably known about their upcoming absence and personally handed you off to an appropriate colleague, who might have been able to advocate for your application without involving the appeal process. This alternative and potentially less appropriate PO (to whom you were automatically referred) could possibly advocate in a similar way (ie, make your rebuttal without a formal appeal). If you don’t hear from the second PO, you can review the IC website for expertise by research area to see if there is another PO who matches your area of interest. You can also use the MatchMaker tool in RePORTER to find a PO who could be appropriate for your science; paste your specific aims page in search box and then start looking at the portfolios of the best matches. Then contact the best match based on the IC descriptions, the MatchMaker results, and the RePORTER portfolios. Alternatively, you could contact the Branch or Division chief of the original appropriate PO for a referral. When you do connect with a PO, ask for the best strategy for next steps, including whether you are close enough to the payline to prepare a rebuttal – and if so, focus objectively on the science that rebuts the concerns raised in the Summary of Discussion (not your subjective opinion of the third reviewer’s expertise).
Sue said
Thank you so much for your advice!
Izlude said
Hi,
I had a few questions about requesting delay in a start date. For an R01 submission, it was within the payline and the PO mentioned I can be “cautiously optimistic” which is sounds reassuring. The start date is July 1st but I was hoping to see if I can push it off for a month or two and had some questions:
1. When is the best time to request delay in start? Is this a thing?
2. The main reason is that I will be away over seas for good part of July and August so was hoping to start later middle or late August.
I am not sure how common people ask for delays in start dates and when is the ideal time to ask for delay (when they ask for JIT?)
thanks!
writedit said
If you are within the payline and the PO said “cautiously optimistic”, you will almost certainly receive an award. I would suggest you talk with your PO now about delaying the start. This will give them the most flexibility in planning when to process your application. Mid-August may be okay. Waiting any longer is tricky because every IC is scrambling to spend their appropriation by September 30 and processing as many awards as fast as they can. You want your NOA processed and approved before fire season. If your PO advises you not to delay due to this extreme rush period, then you can at least ask your institution not to draw any funds until you return. That won’t change your start date for reporting purposes, but it will all be sitting there when you return (vs if they started to take out your salary while away, e.g.).
alessaycy said
Dear Writedit, I was asked to provide JIT. It has been a couple of years since I did a JIT. I remember last time in “other support”, I had to provide information related to reagents (plasmids and animal models etc) that I received from other labs. However, this time, when I click the link provided in the JIT email, the sample JIT doesn’t include any of that. It only has active and pending grants. Do we still need to mention reagents obtained from other labs? Just want to make sure that I did not miss anything.
writedit said
No, you only need to provide what is requested, which is customized to your application. Aside from other support, JIT can include items that have regulatory oversight (eg, human or animal subjects, human embryonic stem cells, genomic data) or other specific requests, which apparently your application does not involve.
cse said
I am in my 2nd year K99 and being considered for an internal promotion to tenure-track assistant professor position at my current institution. Although the timeline could vary, it is likely that the promotion process will be completed 6 months prior to the proposed R00 start date. In my institution, I can’t really change the start date of the assistant profession position (start date would be the date when the promotion process gets completed). Do you think this could cause any issue with transitioning to the R00 phase? Would I be allowed to be under K99 phase with “assistant professor” title for the rest of the K99 phase?
writedit said
You should let your PO know. If the promoti
cure23 said
Does anyone have experience with NCI’s CURE R21 – Exploratory Grant Award to Promote Workforce Diversity in Basic Cancer Research? I can’t find any info on paylines or how many awards are given each year. Thanks!
writedit said
There will be no payline data available (even if investigators posted their scores, awards are likely based on more than the score). You can search the FOA number in RePORTER to see how many awards are made, but that won’t tell you the number of applications (to gauge your chances). The PO can give you some guidance, if you have a scored application. If you are trying to decide whether to apply, you can communicate with the PO about whether your science and you as an applicant have a good chance at funding.
Tmart said
Thanks so much for the info. Scores for my first submission are 35 impact/21 percentile and I have a meeting coming up with the PO. I can report back on whether it needs an A1 or not in case anyone else ever applies for this mechanism.
writedit said
Th
Council Curious said
Are any K awards put through the expedited Council process/approved pre-council? I’m trying to figure out potential timelines.
writedit said
Not sure what you mean. If you have a competitive score for a third cycle application, you can probably expect a roughly on-time NOA in early July. For applications electronically approved en bloc in advance of the in-person meeting, the timing of award is not accelerated. That is done to make the Council meeting more efficient.
Theo said
Dear Writedit, thank you so much for compiling such an amazing resource.
I am new NIH grant process. I recently submitted a K23 grant (A0) to NHLBI (October 2022 cycle) and received an impact score of 33. Comments from reviewers (March 30, 2023) in the summary statement were overall constructive.
I took my time to digest the comments from reviewers and then wrote to the PO requesting a brief call to seek his advice on resubmission. In my past interaction, he has provided me wonderful guidance. But this time, he said that “he would reach out when he has an update.” Did I do something wrong? What would you advise in this case? Currently, I am working to revise my application based on the comments.
writedit said
This sounds like good news, actually, in that he must feel you have a shot at funding for the A0. Otherwise, he would have advised you to submit the A1 in July and given you advice on what is most important to address. You can keep working on the revised application, if you wish, but you should know prior to submission whether it will be needed.
Theo said
Thank you so much for your advice. This makes sense. I will cautiously keep fingers crossed.
chery said
Great resource – thank you! I got my R01 (A1) impact score of 35 (no percentile given). It was reviewed by a SEP in response to a PAR. Assigned to the NIA as the primary institute, ADRD focus and I have ESI status. According to the NIA paylines, my project would fall under NIA reviewed applications paylines? Does it have a chance in getting funded?
writedit said
I am a little confused about your description of the PAR application being assigned to NIA. Usually with a PAR, one IC is involved, though I know sometimes NIA, NINDS, and/or other ICs can share a PAR. If this was an NIA PAR, which means NIA reviewed, then your score of 35 is within their payline for ADRD applications from ESI applicants. Even if the PAR was issued by another IC, I assume the payline still applies, but you would want to check with your PO to confirm. If this was just reviewed, it probably will be funded in FY24, unless the PAR indicated awards would be made by September 2023.
sean said
A bit complicated. if the grant (r01) is pending (pending council meeting) and there is a chance the PI may need to move to another institute, when will be the best time to transfer the grant, before the grant is awarded to the original institute or should call the PO to postpone the award and transfer the grant to the new institute directly? thank you so much.
writedit said
Your current institution needs to relinquish the application – it is not yours to transfer. You also need to have all the required facilities and resources to complete the research at the new institution. You need to inform your PO as soon as you have confirmed that you are moving, as transferring an application (once relinquished) can take several weeks to months. If you wait, the application might not be transferred before FY23 ends on September 30th.
Sun22 said
Anyone here got the NOA yet? I submitted cycle 1, 2022 (Feb, 2022) got 20 percentile with ESI status at the NIGMS. The Council review completed on 09/19/2022. Submitted the JIT request in July, 2022. Last month, contact to the PO and was told that the award is still under consideration. It takes quite long. Based on the 2022 report from the NIGMS, most people with 24 percentile got funded. This funding is essential for me as an ESI to set up the lab, but it hangs on forever. Any advice or suggestion is highly appreciated. May I contact the PO again, or just sit tight. He advised that I don’t need to resubmit the application. However, feel very stressedful for the 1st R01. Thanks
writedit said
Hopefully by now you have heard something, but if not, the fact th
Sun22 said
Yes, the PO told me that my proposal is still being considered for funding and will continue to be until the end of the fiscal year. If I have not received notification by the 15th of June, email the PO again.
SaG said
Do you have lots of other support? NIGMS gives priority to ESI MIRA apps. Why didnt you apply for a MIRA? And yes, contact the PO again.
Sun22 said
Thank for your advice. No, I showed the PO my account with few K left and submitted manuscript under review in top journal now. I did not apply for MIRA sine did not know how to apply for MIRA. Thanks
SaG said
Not sure what the hold up is. Def email the PO. And go ask your Chair or grants office why they didnt tell you about the NIGMS ESI MIRA program. Tell them they are failing you. 😉
Sun22 said
Dear Sag and Writedit: Now my era account changed council review completed to pending. When clicking on grant number and open inside. Status: Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist. What does it mean and how long may I expect to receive the NOA? Thanks
writedit said
It means your application is being processed for a possible award. Your PO is now pretty much out of the loop, and your GMS is busy processing awards, so you can sit tight until you either are asked a question or receive the NOA. The pending process can last months, but that is mainly when applications need to wait for the federal budget to be approved (ie, IC has approved and processed the application for an award but needs to wait for Congress to appropriate the $$ before a NOA can be issued). Your pending period will likely be less than a month, unless there is a question (unlikely) or there are staffing shortages (especially with federal holidays).
Arpana Gupta said
Apologies if this is a repeat question but I tried to look. What is the policy for conversion to R56 and what are the timelines. Our PO asked us about our interest in this mechanism but also stated there was no guarantee but council review has been completed and we have not heard anything. Any suggestions on how to proceed? How is funding for R56 determined?
SaG said
You don’t have anything to do really. It is an internal decision made by the PO and Leadership. Not sure why the PO even asked you about it. Did they request a response to the review? Funding could happen anytime between now and Sept. 30.
Arpana Gupta said
Yes we provided a response, but weeks later she asked us later if we would be interested in a R56 for 1 year (no guarantee of funding) but asked us what we would do in that 1 year to address issues regarding lack of pilot data in the Review. Hence why we were wondering what the process is and what the timeline for R56 are? Do we reach out or just sit still praying/hoping that we get the 1 year R56. Or do we go ahead and put in a grant for pilot data?
writedit said
As SaG said, you don’t submit a formal application for the R56. Your PO is giving you the choice of accepting one year of funding (R56) or wait to see if your full R01 is picked up at the very end of the FY. Most PIs would prefer to take the reasonably likely one year of R56 support than risk getting nothing as of September 30th. Your PO is asking for an informal response about how you would spend essentially the first year of your R01 budget to get ready for a more competitive R01 submission in 1-2 years. Would you pursue Aim 1 from your application or a revised set of experiments to cover multiple bases (eg, experiments from more than one aim to show feasibility of entire R01-level project). It depends on what data will most strengthen your application at your next submission. If achieving Aim 1 from your R01 application would give reviewers confidence when you submit again in 1-2 years, then you would list the work and costs to do so.
NIH3450 said
My A0 application status recently changed to “Pending Administrative Review” even though my A1 application is being reviewed at study section in July. Is this typical?
SaG said
It means they are thinking of funding your A0. If they do they will withdraw the A1.
writedit said
Thanks, SaG! This happens a lot for applications that score near the payline (or somewhat above but of special interest to the program). If you communicated with your PO after receiving the A0 summary statement, they may have asked you to send a short rebuttal and recommended resubmission for insurance. If you didn’t communicate with the PO, they advocated on your behalf, resulting in the A0 being considered for an award (no guarantees, so it’s important you got the A1 in).
kha ben said
Anyone knows the chances of an R21 with percentile 14 NIA to be funded. The status now in the eracommon is council meeting is completed.
SaG said
If it is an Alzheimers app pretty good chance. https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/grants-funding/nia-funding-line-policy-fy-2023
writedit said
Even if it’s not AD/ADRD-related, you should be in good shape given the 15th percentile payline for RPGs reviewed at CSR (that is, not an NIA study section).
Timeline Question said
Hello! Thank you for all of the information. I was wondering how long on average it might take an institute to create their pay list after council meets? I’m sure this can be highly variable, but wanted to see if there was any insight into this?
writedit said
It does vary by IC, but likely within a few weeks. If you’re trying to decide whether to resubmit, check with your PO.
AnxiousOne said
Hi Writedit,
Thanks for providing this wonderful resource!
Quick question. Do you have a sense of whether or not the ongoing debt ceiling standoff is influencing processing of awards for applications submitted for the 3rd cycle of FY23?
writedit said
Not at all. The FY23 budget has already been approved and appropriations dispersed. Now ICs need to spend it all before September 30. The FY24 budget will almost surely be significantly delayed, however, which means ICs will be reaching for projects they really want to fund in FY23, since FY24 could be a disaster in terms of delays – though probably not a lot of reduction, if any, since there is strong bipartisan support for biomedical research in both houses of Congress.
OSI027 said
Hi Writedit,
Just have a quick question. My R01A1 will be reviewed next month and council meeting date is scheduled on 10/2023. I understand that this year budget will be concluded by September 2023. Does this mean the chance of my R01 getting funded in 2023 budget year is zero even though my grant receives a score higher than payline? Thanks for your answer in advance.
writedit said
Applications must be approved by Council before the IC Director can consider them for funding. You might want to check the actual date of your IC’s Council meeting (eRA Commons generic fallback is October). Some ICs have a September meeting, which allows them to potentially fund highly competitive high-priority applications before Sept 30, but this is definitely the exception, not the norm. Almost all applications submitted since February 2023 will be considered for FY24, which will be a tougher year in terms of appropriation (likely to be flat).
KPande said
I am an MPI on a subaward for a collaborative R01. Will this result in me losing ESI status, if the grant gets funded? If so, is there a way to change status after the grant has been scored?
writedit said
I am not sure what you mean about being an MPI on a subaward. If you mean that you are an MPI for the R01 and are receiving a subaward (vs the main award to the contact PI’s institution), then you are considered an MPI on an R01 and will lose your ESI status. However, your PO can give you the best answer, since they understand your application and mechanism involved. Since the application will be scored with the assumption that you will be an MPI, your PO probably will not be able to change this due to the potential impact on peer review (ie, reviewers might have dinged the application if you weren’t an MPI based on your contributions to the project) – and it is your and your institution’s responsibility to consider the impact of receiving the award on your ESI status. Many MPI applicants who are eligible for ESI are willing to give that up if it means securing an award (albeit a smaller award to their lab than if they had been sole PI on an ESI R01 application).
Potential Subaward PI said
What if my role is “subaward PI” instead of MPI on a collaborative R01? To explain my scenario a bit– the overall project has 3 R01s with 2 sites per R01 (total 6 sites). For my site (Site A), we are submitting R01 through another site (Site B) and Site A will have the subaward contract. If I am the PI at Site A and not the PI of the overall R01, would I be considered just a “subaward PI” as opposed to MPI? And as a result, would I retain my ESI status?
writedit said
You would need to be changed to Senior key personnel as an investigator. This is not like a project in a P-level award. You are either one of the PIs or you are an investigator. It sounds like you submitted as a PI. If the application has been reviewed with you in a PI role, then the NIH would need to approve any change in your status, which could be difficult if reviewers were operating under the assumption that you would have a PI role (ie, would the score have been different if you had not originally been listed as a PI). As I mentioned last summer, ICs are reluctant to second-guess reviewers, but if your level of effort and contributions would be the same, the PO might be able to make the case for this change to preserve your ESI status. You should really be discussing this with your PO (and hopefully you started the conversation about your situation last June). You won’t endanger the entire award just by asking, and if you can’t change your status and get the award, you will have R01 funding as PI, which is a good thing for your research and academic advancement.
G_R01 said
Big fan of the resourceful site. My NCI R01got a 13 percentile, barely missed the 12 percentile payline. Council meeting is set for Oct 2023. My guess is that this grant is for FY24. What to expect for NCI payline for FY24?
Appreciate!
writedit said
When you get your summary statement, get
G_R01 said
Thank you, Writedit
Rc said
Thanks for this wonderful resource for an ESI like me. I just received 24% ile on my ESI R01 application assigned to NHLBI (reviewed this week). Current NHLBI payline for an ESI is 24%. Council meets in Sept23. Any chance this grant will be funded in FY2023, and if not, is there a chance that NIH paylines will go down in FY2024 (given budget concerns) and grant at this %ile may not be funded by NHLBI next year? Thanks for your insight.
writedit said
Not likely to be funded in FY23, but not impossible. When you receive your summary statement, check with your PO about next steps, including whether to consider submitting again for insurance (hope not – the answer will be telling). I suspect paylines will stay flat and hopefully not go down, but it is hard to say with this Congress. One certainty is that the FY24 budget will be late, so if your application doesn’t receive an award in FY23, you probably won’t have any word on funding likelihood until 2024 (which is why your PO might suggest submitting again – due to the delays and uncertainty ahead).
Emmett Whitaker said
First time NIH grant applicant here. I applied for an ESI R35 through the NIGMS. my status just changed from council review completed to pending. Anyone want to weigh in on what this means?
writedit said
Positive sign – someone is doing something with your application. You can ask your PO if you should submit JIT info, if you haven’t been asked yet.
<
div dir=”ltr”>
<
blockquote type=”cite”>
RC said
Thank you for your insight. I truly appreciate it. I will reach out to PO to check on potential funding and whether I need to submit a new application (as the scored app is A1 and I’m no longer an ESI now).
R15 renewal said
Dear Writedit:
My R15 grant renewal proposal to NIGMS was reviewed in February and received a score of 23 (if funded this would be my second renewal). Council meeting was May 18 and the program officer assigned to me was then switched shortly after the council meeting. My new program officer told me that she would let me know if she hears anything, and that unless an applicant is NOT recommended for funding, they try to see if they can fund the applicant over a long window of time as the budget allows, through the end of the fiscal year and into the next. In the same email she then said that the good news for me is that my grant WAS recommended for funding. For my previous two submissions (the initial proposal and then the renewal, both of which were funded), my score was quite a bit worse than it was this time (in the 30s both times), yet I found out relatively quickly after council meeting that I would be funded. My ERA status still reads “Council review completed” and has not yet switched over to “pending”. Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but the delay this time , coupled with the message about trying to see if they can fund an applicant over a long window of time, seems to indicate that my proposal may not be as high on the priority list as it has been in the past (despite my much better score this time). Am I reading between the lines correctly or am I being paranoid? I’m trying to assess my likelihood of funding for my nervous lab tech, who will need to start looking for another job for 9/1 if I am not funded by then. Thanks for any insights you can offer!
writedit said
As SaG noted, you can relax and focus on the fact that your application was recommended for funding and they want to be sure you have money. NIGMS has until Sept 30 to make the award (but should issue it well in advance of your Sept 1 lab tech deadline), and any delays are likely due to staffing shortages and bureaucracy rather than high-level hesitation to fund you again. I am quite sure things will move along in July, but if you are still in limbo come August 1, you should certainly check with the PO for an update, this time being sure to explain your lab tech’s situation if you haven’t already (POs don’t like people to lose their jobs due to short-term funding gaps if they can help it).
R15 renewal said
Thank you both for putting my mind at ease!
R15 renewal said
You were right – I was being paranoid. My status finally switched to “pending’ and I heard from my PO that my grant will be funded! Thanks again for your comments.
writedit said
What.a relief, I know – congratulations and best wishes for success with your research.
SaG said
“or am I being paranoid?” Yes, I think you are being paranoid.
This is the only line that matters “she then said that the good news for me is that my grant WAS recommended for funding”
R01_ said
Hi Writedit:
Always appreciate this amazing resources and comments. My R01 score was just released. It received 17% with 35 impact score. My R01 is assigned to NIGMS. I am ESI. Do you have any comments on fundability and timeline as NIGMS has no Paylines? Thanks a lot!
writedit said
This will likely be for FY24, so the appropriation is a long way off, but you should be able to keep a positive thought until you receive your summary statement and check with your PO about next steps. If you look at the NIGMS funding patterns for R01 equivalents in NIH RePORT, you will see that more applications at the 17th percentile are funded than not (so ESI even more likely): https://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/category/23
anoopbal said
Thank you so much for maintaining this awesome blog.
I submitted an R15 (NIA: primary) and received a score of 36 and 14% ile.
I am confused why they have both and which one is taken into consideration for funding?
I haven’t received my summary statment. What are my funding chances with that score and %ile rank?
Thank you so much
writedit said
They will use the percentile, and since your application is within the 15th percentile payline, you should feel positive about getting an award – but your application is for FY24, so the NIH appropriation could be flat, which could affect the FY23 paylines (make them go down a percentile or two). When you receive your summary statement, you can check with your PO about next steps, including whether you should plan to resubmit for insurance (since you will not know the outcome of this application until well into calendar year 2024 due to the almost certain budget impasse ahead).
anoopbal said
Thank you so much for the reply.
Since I am new the whole funding mechanisms, on average do the scores improve upon resubmission? Or can I still be positive of being funded even when I go for a resubmission?
Thank you again,
writedit said
An improvement in score is not guaranteed (applications can go from borderline to not discussed – and from not discussed to within payline), but your original application remains active (ie, is not replaced by the A1) and can be considered for funding. Some ICs will still fund the A0 even if the A1 score goes down (or even is not discussed), but a few take the second review into consideration. Once you have your summary statement, this can be part of the discussion – that is, whether your A1 application might put your A0 application at risk – if the PO recommends resubmission. I think NIA typically still funds the A0 even if the A1 score gets worse, but you would want to confirm this with your PO. Hopefully, they will simply tell you to sit tight rather than apply again.
Anoop said
The PO sent me an email asking for email reponse (3 pages) to the summary statment without any formal re-submission. I was in the process of adding a statistician as a key personnel for resubmission because one of the main comments were adding a biostatistician. So how do I add the person and the new budget? Or they don’t expect to make any changes to the budget in this reponse?
Thank you for all your help. You should have a donate button 🙂
writedit said
Your PO might be asking about an FY23 award, especially if they want the response ASAP, in which case you would not be able to increase your budget, though you could move funds around to cover a biostatistician. Also, you really only need to address the concerns described in the Summary of Discussion paragraph, so if the biostatistician comment was only in one critique, you can confirm with your PO whether this needs to be addressed. If your PO does want this concern addressed, and if you are at a university with a CTSA Hub, they offer limited biostatistical help (our CTSA offers 10 free hours per project), so if you have a CTSA available and well-defined data for analysis, that might help with the extra cost. If not, and if there is no way to accommodate the required biostatistician by moving $$ around, then you will want to check with the PO about how to handle this, as they need to work with the budget approved by the study section. If you are not clear on the timing, it’s important to confirm whether this is for FY23 (award by Sept 30) or FY24 (no rush at all).
anoopbal said
I got my resubmission score for R15. It got worse. Was 14% and now it is 33%! The good news is that the PO said he will support my A0 if the funding climate changes for NIA.Should I resubmit or can I be still hopeful about my A0?.
writedit said
Your A0 can still be considered for funding independent of the A1. When you receive your summary statement, you can ask your PO about submitting another A0 application next cycle (PO should have an idea of A0 funding likelihood by April-May, if the FY24 federal budget is signed into law in early March).
anoopbal said
Hello,Thank you so much.I got a JIT email request and I send all the documents including my IRB approval 2 weeks back. My status still shows “pending”This was for my original submission which scored 14% and is now within the NIA cut off. My PO was supportive of my original submission though my 2nd submission scored 33%.Do you know when I will hear anything conclusive?
writedit said
You can sit tight – no need to contact your PO or GMS, and doing so would take time away from your GMS’s application processing work (much better use of their time than answering emails). They will contact you if they need any additional information. No news is good news. You can simply wait and watch your application status change as the award is processed and submitted for approval by the IC Director. This could happen within a few weeks, but don’t panic if there is radio silence into August (again, they would contact you if there were any questions or problems). All the ICs are playing catch up after the delayed federal budget plus updating their paylists to be sure they spend every last dollar in time (ie, by September 30).
anoopbal said
Dear Writedit,I wanted to let you know that my fist submission just got funded!! Thank you so much for all the help and support!!Also, if I had small change in the intervention, do I have to let the PO know or ask him before I can change?
writedit said
Woohoo – congratulations! Minor changes to your scientific protocols are fine. If the scope of work were to be significantly modified, you would want to check in with your PO. Here is the relevant NIH policy: 8.1.2 Prior Approval Requirements
| | | | 8.1.2 Prior Approval Requirements
A description of the activities and/or expenditures that require NIH prior approval, including a summary table. … |
|
|
TD said
Dear Writedit,
My NIAID R21 application, which was submitted in February this year, has just received an impact score of 30. The ERA says the Advisory Council Meeting Date is 09/11/2023. Does it mean the FY23 payline will apply to my application? The FY23 payline of NIAID R21 is now 30. Is there a chance for selective pay?
Thanks!
TD said
The FY23 payline of NIAID R21 is now 29. Sorry for typo.
writedit said
Some ICs might be able to fund some FY24 Cycle 1 in FY23, but they won’t be reaching for applications above the payline at this point. You should touch base with your PO about next steps once you have your summary statement, but you should also start planning to submit an A1 application, since the FY24 appropriation will be delayed and will not be more than the FY23 level (which means the same or lower paylines for FY24).
TD said
Thanks a lot, Writedit!
Izlude said
I had a question about timing for NOAs. My R01 application was reviewed in the spring and is within the ESI payline and submitted a requested JiT about 3-4 weeks ago and the council meeting that was last week. My start date is July 1st which I know is not a expiration. With all the budget stuff in the air, would this be delayed until their next FY? I wasn’t sure if the NOA would happen (hopefully!) in June? thanks!
writedit said
You will receive an award – assuming no administrative issues pop up – before September 30, probably later in July or early August. Your application will be paid out of the FY23 appropriation and won’t be forced to wait until the FY24 budget is squared away.
ESI_1 said
Great resource here. My R01 score was borderline, and the Program Officer advised me to be cautiously optimistic. With the PO advice, I resubmitted a revised A1 application. However, the council met early this week, and I am still waiting to receive updates from my PO or notice any changes in my ERA. How long does it typically take to receive funding decisions after a council meeting?
writedit said
I am not sure if you are referring to your A0 or your A1 application when you refer to the recent Council meeting. If your A0 was submitted in October and is just now going to Council, then your PO should have an update in about 2-3 weeks (internal IC meetings follow the Council meeting to make paylist decisions). If your A1 has already been reviewed and scored (ie, if you submitted in March) – and if the score improved – there is a chance your A0 application could be funded in FY23 rather than make you wait until FY24 (and deal with the budget uncertainty ahead – and I agree completely with Heather Cox Richardson). Since you have already submitted your A1 application, there is not much you can do (and bugging your PO won’t help), so I would recommend focusing on manuscripts n’at. If you haven’t heard by mid-July (allowing time for upcoming federal holidays, vacations, etc.), you could check in with your PO for an update then.
ESIR01 said
Hi Writedit, thanks for the wonderful resource. One quick question. I just received 17th percentile for my R01 A1 submission and it is right at the cut-off of NCI payline. PO said, unfortunately, it will not be award before September (due to council meeting, etc), but I should wait until FY 2024 is announced. I wonder what timeline I’m expecting here. Do you know when FY 2024 payline is usually announced at NCI? Also, do you know how long it takes average (activation next march, april, etc). Just want to have an idea how much I should sit tight. Thanks in advance.
ESIR01 said
Forgot to mention that I’m an ESI, so current NCI payline is 17th percentile.
writedit said
Aha – then you should be watching for a JIT request in the next couple weeks.
ESIR01 said
Oh, so even though eRA shows council meeting would happen in 10/2023, can I expect my grant (as ESI) to be awarded in FY2023? If so, it is such a relief! Thank you!!
writedit said
Oh, no – I am so very sorry for getting your hopes up. There are two ESI R01 discussions going on, and I looked too far back and missed that yours was for FY24. Now, ICs do have the option of paying FY24 applications of particular interest/priority in the current FY, especially when they know there will be budget delays and/or reductions, but this is for select applications, and your PO has already confirmed yours will stay in FY24. The timing is difficult to predict, but just watch the federal appropriation / omnibus budget bill news, and after the president has signed the bill into law, then add another 2 months before you see any action at NCI (ICs do not immediately receive appropriation after law passed and won’t know their final appropriation until it trickles down to them: first HHS skims some $$ off the NIH appropriation for reporting and oversight, then NIH skims some $$ off each IC appropriation for the same administrative costs), and at least 3-4 months before an award. If the federal government doesn’t shut down, and a budget is negotiated by the end of the year, you would probably be looking at February-March. You should ask your PO for confirmation whether you should submit again (as a new A0) for insurance (due to the extended delay before you will have any payline information – you wouldn’t want to miss 2 cycles) or if you can sit tight. Alternatively, if you are working on another application (different science), you could concentrate on getting that in for October and then decide whether to submit this 17th percentile application again in Feb based on where Congress is (or isn’t) this fall.
ESIR01 said
Thank you so much for your detailed explanation. This is truly helpful!
Mika said
Dear Writedite, do you know study section ZCA1 SRC (99)? My R21responded to PAR22-216 has been assigned to this study Section. Thanks,
Mika
writedit said
Depending on when you applied, that could be a temporary code until NCI sets up their SEPs for the next cycle. You can watch for it on the list of NCI SEPs: https://public.era.nih.gov/pubroster/sepRoster.era?CID=100456&YEAR=2023&ABBR=ZCA1 If you want an idea of your potential review panel, search RePORTER by the NOFO (actually, the one prior, PAR-20-292, since applications reviewed this FY may not be in RePORTER yet), and then check the study section for applications that look similar to yours in terms of science. Or just wait until your SRG is updated, since the panel make up will be different.
LuckyCat said
Thank you so much for the wonderful resources, dear Writedit! I am an ESI and I submitted a regular R01 (new submission) to NIEHS in February. I just received a quite positive score with 12%– since NIEHS has not published the payline since 2019 and there is no specific payline for ESI either, I guess it is still at 10%? I am wondering if you can share your insight on
1) the likelihood of this R01 to be funded at this round; 2) if the grant can be founded, will I need to wait for the FY24 appropriations to be available? If so, when will that be available?
3) should I reach out to our PO now, or I should wait till the summary statement is available?
Thank you in advance for your guidance, and I look forward to hearing from you.
writedit said
Congratulations! I think you can be cautiously optimistic with your ESI 12th percentile, though nothing is ever guaranteed. Your application will be funded in FY24 unless NIEHS is so interested in your science that they opt to fund it in FY23 to avoid the inevitable delays in the FY24 budget; this is rare, though, so you should assume that nothing will happen until FY24. You will need to wait until you receive your summary statement to contact the PO. They cannot give advice or insight until this is issued, and they do not see it before you. Once you have the summary statement, you can ask whether you will need to submit again (for insurance, given the likely delay in the FY24 budget).
Luckycat said
Thank you so much for the prompt reply and super helpful insights and suggestions! I have a naive, follow up question—does the FY 24 start officially in October 2023, as stated here (https://www.niehs.nih.gov/about/congress/justification/index.cfm)? Or it may start later due to likely delay in approving the congressional budget?
writedit said
FY24 begins
K01_worry said
Hello, thank you for this fantastic resource. I wish I had come across this site sooner.
I resubmitted a K01 to the Fogarty Institute. Despite my best efforts, my scores did not improve much. The A1 score is 30, and the A0 score was 38. Since Fogarty does not publish their funding line, could anyone share their experience and provide insights on whether a score of 30 is fundable?
Should I email the PO after receiving the summary statement or now?
writedit said
A 30 for a K01 is possibly fundable (at some ICs, but don’t know about Fogarty), but you would need to check with your PO for confirmation and guidance after you receive your summary statement (they cannot offer any advice or insight before your summary statement is available, and they do not get it before you do). The drop from 38 to 30 is a reasonable improvement … if the score had only gone to, say, 35, then I would begin to wonder if the reviewers just weren’t enthusiastic about your premise (eg, significance of the work will always be moderate, no matter how much you improve the approach). Again, your PO will be the best source of insight and advice on next steps – after you have your summary statement.
K01_worry said
Thanks for your insightful reply, Writedit! Your predictions were very accurate. The reviewers were excited about the premise, the candidate and the institution and they said the revision addressed the previous critiques adequately. They, however, found several minor issues, many of which are actually factual errors/ omissions by a reviewer; he said I did not mention things that I actually mentioned on the same page/table he cites.
I emailed the PO twice, but she has not responded. I had a career break, returned on a re-entry grant from the NIH, so this K01 is literally the lifeline of my academic career. I received the automatic JIT, but our research admin says we should not submit anything until the PO says so.
If you have any advice on what I can do next in terms of communication with the PO etc. Would the PO tell me about the likelihood of funding ASAP, or do I have to wait until the council meeting?
writedit said
This is all good news. You should wait a bit before trying your PO again – they could be on vacation and/or covering for other staff who are away (FIC is very lean), plus all NIH extramural personnel are super busy with the end-of-the-FY scramble. I assume you asked to discuss funding likelihood, your summary statement, and next steps with the application. You don’t want to formally appeal based on your concern about the reviewer’s error (never a good idea, especially with the multiple application cycles missed during the process), but you can definitely bring your concern to the PO’s attention – with relevant application pages annotated – which will help the PO make your case for funding (if needed). It’s likely you will still need to wait until FY24, but you would definitely want to mention your lifeline situation and the hardship that could be caused by having to wait until 2024 for an award. If you haven’t heard from your PO by the end of July, you would want to reach out to the appropriate Director (I assume DITR) and let them know you haven’t heard back from your PO and would like some guidance on next steps (and if your PO is the Director, then perhaps contact the FIC Deputy Director).
ADRD_confusion said
Hi there! I wanted to express my gratitude for the valuable information shared in these threads. It has been extremely helpful. I am currently a postdoc and recently received my K99 score, which unfortunately wasn’t great. It seems likely that I will need to resubmit my application. My proposal focused on Alzheimer’s disease. Initially, I was aware of the special AD/ADRD K99 funding opportunity (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-21-220.html), but I didn’t apply for it because I thought I didn’t meet the diversity requirement. Instead, I applied through the standard K99/R00 to NINDS. However, after going through the threads, I gained the impression that applicants don’t necessarily have to submit their applications to specific ADRD programs. It seems that applications related to ADRD are automatically considered using ADRD paylines. I’m wondering if my understanding is correct.
writedit said
Correct. If the IC agrees that the science falls under the ADRD category, they will apply that payline, no matter the NOFO used (ADRD applications submitted to parent announcements are eligible, for example). When you receive your summary statement, you can confirm with your PO that your application would fall under the ADRD paylines and, if you still need to submit again, seek input on next steps and resubmission strategy.
Scientist12 said
Hi everyone,
I’m an ESI planning to submit a new application for the NIH Director’s New Innovator Award Program this August. Looking for inputs from prior applicants and awardees. What were the things that were positively received by the study section or major critiques you received for your application? Thank you in advance for your time.
writedit said
Hoping you receive the input you seek, but you might also review the MIRA-DP2 Impact Scores & comments spreadsheet on Google Docs: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10f1MDXXW57r5pYxwqTnAKM_NRY_SmvC0s0b3joyO_Zo/edit#gid=967453091 You should also reach out to anyone at your current institution who has applied and/or been funded for input and advice, though the timing would make a difference (program has evolved over time). Finally, you can search RePORTER for DP2 awardees with science similar to your own and/or use your abstract or specific aims in MatchMaker and search for similar projects.
mama bear scientist said
Good morning,
My ESI A0 R01 was reviewed by NHLBI, and scored 22%ile. I noticed someone above asking about their application ranking 24%ile, which is the cutoff for ESI R01s. Would I be in the same boat as likely-not-funded, or does being within the cutoff mean that it’s more (or very??) likely to be funded? I haven’t the experience to know what being within the payline “definitely” or “possibly” means. And the whole FY thing – even if funded, I may not find out until perhaps Oct/Nov/Dec whether things are moving, is that realistic?
And of course, I’ll wait for the summary statement to be released and seek my PO’s advice.
Thanks so much!
writedit said
If your application were to be funded in FY23, you would indeed be within the payline. Depending on what happens with the NIH appropriation this fall, paylines will at best stay the same or at worst drop a little. Being 2 percentile points below the current payline is probably fairly safe, but no one, including your PO, will know until after the federal budget is signed into law, which probably won’t happen until 2024, given the current state of Congress. You can and should still ask your PO about next steps once you have your summary statement – including whether you might need to submit again for insurance. Hopefully not, but you would risk missing one or more submission cycles – starting work on another R01 project (different science, SRG, and, in best-case scenario, IC) or another sponsor (eg, AHA or other society-foundation) would be a good idea if your PO feels you can sit tight with your 22 percentile.
mullerheartlab said
Thanks so much for this. I’ll circle back and post relevant update, and now fervently start praying for the Congress.
Silentlake said
I just received my K08 resubmission result, the impact score is 21, FY2023 payline is 30. Will I be able to be funded in FY2023?
writedit said
If your application was just reviewed, then your application will be considered in FY24. Although the FY24 payline is expected to be flat or drop slightly, I am sure your score of 21 will still be within payline, but the bigger question will be the timing of the award due to the likely Congressional impasse over the FY24 federal budget. When you receive your summary statement, you can check with your PO for next steps, but I assume it will essentially be a long wait before there is any action on your application.
Silentlake said
Council Meeting is October, 2023. When will the award start if funded?
writedit said
SaG is more optimistic than me – even in the one year the federal budget was in place on Oct 1, I felt as though a lot of Dec 1 start dates got pushed to early Jan (mostly staffing issues, I think). Watch for when the President signs the omnibus bill for the FY24 federal budget into law and then add at least 2 months. This would be the earliest start date, but probably a little later due to all the backlogged applications being processed at once (would depend on where yours is in the queue).
SaG said
If you are lucky December. More likely Jan or Feb. next year. Depends on when NIH gets a budget and how much.
Silentlake said
Thank you so much writedit and SaG.
Badger08 said
Hello,
I applied for an F31 in August 2022 and received an impact score of 37 (NHLBI payline 35). I contacted my PO who recommended that I resubmit since I was above payline, and I resubmitted April 2023.
On June 21, my A0 got a status update to ‘pending administrative review’ which I thought was encouraging. However, the study section for my A1 was held June 22 and my impact score was posted as ‘not discussed’ on June 27.
Could anyone provide some insight as to what is going on? I feel distressed with the apparent drop in impact between my A0 and A1. Do I still have a chance at an award with my A0?
writedit said
Your A0 can still be considered for funding, even with the ND A1, but you’ll want to communicate with your PO after you receive your summary statement (PO does not see it before you do), since that will be needed to determine the nature of the reviewer concerns. If they are readily addressed, the A0 could still be considered for an award, but if the A1 reviewers had a major concern with the significance of the work especially (not easily addressed), that might lead NHLBI to reconsider – though they could still go forward with the A0. Unfortunately, you now need to wait for the summary statement, which could take 4-8 weeks.
Bucky08 said
Thank you for your response and for all the help/advice you’ve given on your blog.
Bucky08 said
Apologies for waiting so long to follow up, but I did want to let others know that I was awarded my A0
writedit said
Thank you so much for the follow-up post – congratulations and best wishes for success with your research!
K.L. said
Hi Writedit,
Just learned that my R01 submitted to NHLBI got a 12.0 percentile. PO is out of town till Thursday. What do you think? I am an established PI.
writedit said
Your application would be within payline for FY23 and will probably still be within payline for FY24, but that won’t be clear for many months due to the likely struggle over the FY24 federal budget. You can feel positive in the meantime – you won’t want to contact your PO until you have your summary statement – and start thinking about what other application or manuscript you want to focus on during the months ahead until the FY24 budget is signed into law (probably not until 2024).
K.L. said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you so much for your insightful reply. I will wait patiently for the Summary Statement and hope that FY24 budget will keep the payline the same.
By the way, not sure how relevant it is, but my application is an A1. I got a 26%-tile in the parent application and I have made a 14% improvement to the current 12%-tile. WE also published a fairly high impact paper (IF of 11) on the preliminary data between the submissions.
writedit said
When you get your summary statement, you can ask the PO if there is any chance of having the FY23 A0 picked up rather than wait for the FY24 A1 application to be considered for an award. Not likely, but if your PO is enthusiastic about your science, it’s not impossible.
K.L. said
Hello Writedit,
Just received my Summary Statement. Overall is positive, but there remains a few score-driven weaknesses. The official who drafted the Summary section somehow cited our application as “moderately high impact”. Is this good or bad? I used to think that if the score is within the published percentile, it should be safe. Now I am a little worried. Please advise.
writedit said
The “moderately high impact” is subjective and is based on the SRG assessment – and will never trump the hard payline, for ICs that publish theirs (ie, if this were an FY23 application, you would still get an award). If your PO thinks your science will be of very high impact, especially in the context of their portfolio, that is what will matter. If the weaknesses cited are all related to the approach rather than the significance, you have a better chance of the PO considering your application sooner than later (especially with score improvement and publication). If the reviewers had concerns with the premise, though, the PO would need to have those scientific revisions/rebuttal go back to peer review in the form of another application (a new A0).
K.L. said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you for your insightful response again. You were spot on (as always). The remaining weaknesses listed Summary Statement mostly concerned the Approach. There were really no fatal issues on Significance and Innovation. All reviewers agreed that I had largely addressed most concerns from the previous review. I personally think that it is impossible to have no weaknesses because afterall, I did not get a 1%-tile here.
I also consulted the PO about the situation and he remained very positive. I asked him if I need to submit any rebuttal, he said it is not necessary (I suppose it is a good sign). He even congratulated me on an excellent score (I suppose it is another good sign). But he did not mention anything that he is willing to advocate my A0 for funding so that I can skip the wait. So, I guess I just have to wait and let the process play out.
writedit said
All good news. A decision about picking up FY24 awards in FY23 wouldn’t be made until August, when ICs know how much of their FY23 appropriation still needs to be spent down, and it could be that NHLBI is already completely committed (overcommitted) with FY23 applications – and NHBLI may not do this either at all or routinely. Each IC is different, and of course the upcoming budget battle doesn’t look pretty, so I’m sure there is some internal concern about the FY24 appropriation. You’ll know by the end of September, and in the meantime, there isn’t anything for you to do or ask about, so you can try to mentally set this application aside and focus on being productive in other aspects of your research.
K.L. said
Dear Writedit,
It has been 2 months since I wrote you about my R01. Clearly, everyone now is still waiting to see when the budget wil be passed and how much for NIH. That said, I just spoke with one of the Co-PI yesterday, and she told me that there is a chance that she might move to another University because they could give her an endowed chair. How should I take this news, especially since she has not accepted the position and there is no award yet?
Will her move sink the entire grant? Please advise.
writedit said
Since it sounds like the other institution will provide her with the support needed to conduct the research as reviewed in your application, it will not be a problem if your colleague moves to another institution. In fact, it is easier if she moves before the award is processed, which won’t be happening for quite some time based on the SNAFU in the House. One potential wrinkle is if she receives a higher salary and/or the new institution has a significantly higher F&A rate, in which case cuts would need to be made elsewhere in the budget to accommodate the higher salary and/or indirect costs. This would be submitted as part of the JIT – your PO will tell you what all you need to submit if she does make the move prior to the award being processed.
Neuroscientist007 said
Dear Writedit,
My A1 R01 submitted to NHLBI received a 26%. I have ESI status and the FY23 funding percentile for NHLBI is 24%. I talked to my PO and we discussed the summary statement. He said he liked the grant and the area is barely studied and of high importance. He said he doesn’t want to give too much hope but at the same time asked me to hang on and not resubmit the application. Does it mean anything in terms of funding? Thank you
writedit said
A PO would not advise you not to submit again unless they were reasonably confident; they never want to risk an investigator missing a submission cycle, especially knowing how important R01 applications are while under the tenure clock, based on their miscalculation or overconfidence. This is really good news if it means he will try to get your award in FY23 (ie, before Sept 30), since the processing of FY24 Cycle 1 applications will definitely be delayed and possibly Cycle 2 as well. He will probably have some idea about an FY23 award by the end of July, and if that is not possible, then I suspect he will advise an October A0 submission for insurance (because he will not know about FY24 for many months still). You have a great PO, so you can sit tight and be positive knowing he is looking out for you.
Neuroscientist007 said
Thank you for the response. I was thinking along the same lines. I just received my summary statement and the council hasn’t met yet (Oct’23). So I guess I have to wait a bit longer to hear anything about the grant.
Neuroscientist007 said
Thank you for the response. I was thinking along the same lines. I just received the summary statement and the council hasn’t met yet. I think it is in Oct’23. So I guess I have to wait a bit longer to hear about the grant.
R01 applicant said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you for this immensely helpful website! One quick question – my R01 application was assigned to NIA as the primary IC. It is focused on AD, but was submitted under the parent R01 FOA and was reviewed by a standard study section (not NIA). Is there a definite way to tell if the application will be considered under the AD/ADRD payline? Should I wait for the summary statement and check with the PO regarding this, or is it possible to tell from the grant numbers assigned? Thank you.
writedit said
The ADRD payline is based on the science proposed, so if your research is on AD, then you will be considered under the NIA AD/ADRD payline. You will see that they have a separate payline for NIA-reviewed applications (based on impact score rather than percentile). You can get in touch with the NIA PO after you receive your summary statement for advice on next steps, but be prepared for a long wait due to the negotiations that lie ahead before the FY24 federal budget is available.
Y said
I am an established investigator. I have an NCI R01 (first submission) scored at 13%, 1% above the payline (12%). Is there any chance of getting select pay, and how should I ask our program officer about select pay?
writedit said
If this is for an FY23 application, you can ask the PO if they would consider recommending the application for select pay (though these discussions have likely already taken place for FY23). If this is an FY24 application, you will want to wait for your summary statement and then ask the PO about next steps, but I suspect they will recommend submitting again, since a select pay decision for FY24 wouldn’t be made until next summer.
WFE said
Hi Writedit,
Received an impact score of 59 (no percentile) for an RO1 in response to an RFA (NIEHS). Is there any chance for this high score to be considered for funding? It shows pending council review. Thank you.
writedit said
Possible (any discussed application is eligible to receive an award, and RFAs consider more factors than just the score) but not probable. When you have your summary statement, check with the PO for next steps, including whether to submit this under a different NOFO. The PO will not know about funding likelihood for many months, so no matter what, they won’t want you to wait on a decision before submitting again.
k23orbust said
Hi all, does anyone have any experience with grants that change to “pending administrative review” after Council but do not actually get funded (barring eligibility or IRB/ethical concerns)?
I’ve been trying to patiently wait for a NOA on a K23 with a planned start date of 7/1. I’ve learned from this page that this isn’t an “expiration date” but given the uncertainty with the new fiscal year and the protected effort a K would provide everything feels fairly up in the air. My status has been “pending administrative review” on commons for almost 6 weeks now.
writedit said
Your application is for FY23, and there is no uncertainty about the rest of this fiscal year. ICs need to spend their entire appropriation by Sept 30th or it goes back to the US Treasury, so they have no incentive to hold funds over. The Pending period can last several months without foreshadowing a bad outcome. While yes, it is possible (though not probable) that an application in administrative review might not receive an award (they conduct the review to be sure there are no issues with issuing an award), if there were any concerns about your application, you would be asked and given an opportunity to respond (ie, no surprise “not funded” outcome) – and you yourself would be able to anticipate these questions (eg, pending application that could have involved overlap). For a K23 especially, you can relax and wait for the award processing to move forward. The recent federal holidays and staff shortages contribute to these delays, but they always make it happen before the FY ends.
k23orbust said
Thanks for this feedback! As an update to assist future readers, my ERA commons status changed to “Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.” on 7/12/23 – based on other postings here I would imagine I will see the NOA soon.
Brian said
I’ve had grants “pending administrative review” for months. Six weeks is barely any time at all. I suspect you’ll be funded before Sept 30. Did you contact your PO or GMS?
FuzzyDunlop said
Does anyone know of any good resources of what happens during administrative review, or the post-peer review, pre-award process? So basically the hypothetical lifecycle of an application post Council & the roles of various people involved (e.g., IC’s, Directors, grant’s management, Project officers etc.)? I’m in a similar situation as k23, so just am curious about what is happening behind the scenes.
Thanks
writedit said
NIAID lists all the parallel processing during the JIT review, which is probably the same/similar across ICs: https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/just-time-sop The internal processes might vary a bit (eg, NIGMS checks PI funding levels), but all this needs to happen before the NOA goes to the IC Director for final approval to issue (this is why there can be a gap between Notice of award prepared and Notice of award issued).
FuzzyDunlop said
Thank you so much for this resource. Definitely demystifies the process. One last question. Aside from the various roles of people involved in doing the formal administrative processing of the application, do you have any insight into the decision making process re: actually awarding the grant? In other words, if an app goes through SRG and IC review is “selected for possible funding,” and is now going through administrative review, is it basically your grant to lose at this point for some technical reason (e.g., upon processing they realize you aren’t eligible for the grant, they realize you don’t have the resources/support to carry out the grant etc.) or is there still a possibility that they don’t fund the grant on merit. You mentioned final approval by the IC Director – could they just say no I don’t want to fund this?
writedit said
The actual process of creating the paylist, which is what you are referring to, varies by IC but happens internally among program leadership, with early input at some level from POs. Council only approves an even longer list each cycle for consideration for funding – they do not give advice on which applications to pick for funding (they will exclude those that do not match the IC mission or that conflict with an IC funding policy (eg, well-funded PIs at NIGMS). At NCI, for example, the Scientific Program Leaders (SPLs) make the funding recommendations. The paylist ranks all applications by programmatic priority and the number of applications on each paylist well exceed what an IC can afford to support. This is because at the end of the FY, each IC must quickly spend down every last dollar, and if they start reaching for applications that maybe did not expect to get an award and do not have their regulatory approvals in hand, that application will be skipped if the PI cannot turn around a JIT request in 1-3 days, and the GMS will go to the next application on the paylist. There needs to be a surplus of approved applications to be sure no IC runs out of applications to pay with money still left to spend. This all happens before a GMS conducts an administrative review on an application on the paylist. At each IC, the Director has the final say, though I imagine that it is vanishingly rare that one ever overrides the internal recommendations and sets aside an application to be skipped (ie, not paid). Now, last-minute events can result in late decisions not to pay or at least to suspend a notice or only partly pay an award, such as late receipt of another large and overlapping award (or just putting PI over “well-funded” limit), notification of misconduct, missing regulatory approval (eg, human subjects research cannot be funded but other components could be until IRB approval obtained), etc.
k23orbust said
One last update from me – I received the NOA for my K23 today, 7/19/23 (hooray!). Thanks for the support and this very very helpful website!
writedit said
Woohoo! Congratulations and best wishes for success with your project and your career in biomedical research!
Chris said
Dear Writedit,
I have a question on R33 transition status. One month ago, I submitted the R33 transition package to NIH as requested by NIH (three months before the end of my R61 phase). I know that the R33 transition package will be evaluated by NIH Program staff. Recently, I noticed that my R33’s status is “Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.” I am not sure if it is a good sign. Does it mean that NIH has completed the evaluation and is processing it for a possible award? Will every R33 transition application change to this status no matter whether it is finally awarded? Thanks!
writedit said
It’s always good news to see that your application is being administratively reviewed, which means your application is at the point of regulatory and budget review. Although your PO won’t know about possible award timing, they should be able to confirm that your transition package was conditionally approved (pending administrative review) for an R61 award.
Toulouse said
Writedit,
Thank you for this site. I am an experienced investigator who received an R21 impact score of 28 with the NLM. I am sort of in the grey area based on their current payline (25 for experienced investigators; 30 for NI/ESI). Recently, how flexible is the NLM in funding experienced investigators in this range?
writedit said
At NLM, some POs are very strict on the payline, while others will consider applications of particular interest and reach above. You will want to wait for your summary statement and check with your PO on next steps (ie, resubmission vs rebuttal). Hopefully, your science is of particular interest and timeliness and warrants a second look.
confusedPI said
Does anyone here have encountered this following situation: the status of the application changed to “Council review completed” from “pending”?
We have an R21 with NIMHD. We responded to a personalized JIT request from the GMS in March and the application in eRA Commons was in the “pending” status for a few months. Yesterday I noticed that the status got changed to “council review completed”…quite puzzled by the status now. Thank you.
Brian said
For what it’s worth, this happened to me (freaked me out) and then, a month or so later, it changed back to pending, then to awarded.
writedit said
Thanks for sharing your reassuring experience, Brian! Given your backstory, ConfusedPI, you shouldn’t have anything to worry about. They would contact you if something turned up
ConfusedPI said
Thank you Writeit and Brian! This is very helpful.
Silentlake said
What’s the difference between advisory council meeting and council meeting? On my eRA, there is a council meeting date 10/2023, now there is another column named “advisory council meeting: 8/29/2023”. Will we know whether we will get funded in 09 or 10/2023?
Thanks
writedit said
Your applicati
Silentlake said
?
24%tile said
Hi, thanks for this helpful website. My R01 just received a 24 %tile from NHLBI, which is the cutoff of NHLBI for ESI. I talked to the PO and she was positive to this and said too early to consider a resub.. I wonder does this mean anything? Is there any chance I will get some news in 2023 (Council meeting in Sept). Thanks!
writedit said
If you don’t have the summary statement yet, your PO won’t know what issues were of greatest concern and how easily they might be addressed in a rebuttal vs resubmission. Unless your science is of particularly high interest at NHLBI, your application will be considered in FY24. If so, the federal budget is months away from passage, and the NIH will at best have a flat budget (no increase or decrease), which in effect means a reduction in the number of new awards that can be made. Check back after you have your summary statement – and if I am misunderstanding and you already have your summary statement, then watch for a message from your PO closer to September about whether your application might be considered for FY23 (this would come with an urgent personal request for JIT). If not, you’ll want another conversation about next steps and whether a resubmission for insurance might be warranted (or, alternatively, you could work on a new R01 to submit on difference science).
Silentlake said
I think NHLBI released summary statement much earlier than other institutes. Around one week?
24%tile said
Thanks writedit for the response. Yes, I got the summary statement before I talked to PO. Seems like she was positive. Maybe just wait until close to the council meeting… Fingers crossed.
NINDS_F31 said
F31 application received an Impact Score of 32 and a 28th percentile at NINDS. The NINDS site shows a table for paylines but for F31s there are no percentiles shown. Is this new that F31 applications at NINDS? What do you think the chances of funding are?
Silentlake said
https://www.ninds.nih.gov/funding/determining-your-funding-likelihood/ninds-paylines
There is a table about the chances of fundable percentiles.
NINDS_F31 said
Thanks. I was confused about that though because at that link there is a table that shows impact scores for F31s under a section for applications that are not percentiled. This application did receive a percentile.
writedit said
The table is giving impact score ranges, not percentiles. Out of all the activity codes on those tables, the F31s are the ones most likely to include percentiles, since they can be reviewed in CSR study sections, so it is confusing. Your score of 32 is in the range of having a better than 50% chance of being funded. If your summary statement comes back with readily addressable concerns, your odds will be even better, which you can confirm by communicating with the PO at that point (when summary statement available) about next steps.
Nathan-F31 said
NCI F31 received a 27 impact score in the 22nd percentile. Historical NCI F31 had success rates in the 25-30% percentile for 2013-2021, but in 2022 the success rate went down to 17.6%. Any idea if I have a good enough score?
writedit said
Success rate is not percentile, so be sure not to confuse these concepts. The historical 25-30th percent success rate means that 3-4 out of every 10 applications received an award. As you note, the success rate dropped, probably due to a combination of more applications and smaller slice of budget allotted. The regular F31 NOFO is pretty competitive, so your score is a bit high but possibly within consideration. When you get your summary statement, your PO can provide guidance on next steps (eg, prepare A1 vs prepare rebuttal to try to get A0 funded vs sit tight and wait for federal budget to pass).
A Scientist said
I’m a little confused on interim pay lines and how that impacts chances of being funded. If you apply in Cycle I and centers don’t know their FY24 budget yet, it seems they could have a more conservative pay line. If this were to get revised up later in the year, would applicants in Cycles I/II have an easier pay line to meet for funding? Thanks for any help understanding!
writedit said
The initial interim payline is always conservative, and if/when it is revised upward, this is retroactive to all applications from Cycle 1 and other non-standard submission dates for that FY. Unfortunately, FY24 will probably have a very, very conservative interim payline that will last well into calendar year 2024 and may not be revised up much due to the strife in Congress.
TD said
Dear Writedit,
I have two NIAID R21 applications that were submitted in Feberary and reviwed in June. My understanding that the application are for FY24. Today (07/20/23), I just found that the status of the applications have been changed to “Council review completed”, but the eRA system says Advisory Council (AC) Meeting Date is 09/11/2023.
What does this information mean?
Thanks!
Silentlake said
wired, did you receive summary statement? How’s your score? did you speak to your PO
TD said
Yes, I have received the summary statements for both applications. One was scored 30 and the other 28 (impact score), no percentiles. Will have a meeting with the one of the POs tomorrow and will ask.
writedit said
If you talked with your PO today, you probably learned that your applications were among those sent to Council for electronic review en bloc in advance of the meeting. This happens in each IC for each Council meeting – a list of applications with no unusual characteristics (eg, foreign component, well-funded PI, etc.) that score within a certain range are sent for approval to be considered for awards. This allows the actual Council meeting to focus on IC scientific progress and priorities and any applications being considered for funding that require extra scrutiny (eg, the examples I just mentioned, applications that a Council member feels do not align with the IC mission and/or did not receive fair peer review, etc.). Having Council approve the next FY Cycle 1 applications early also opens the possibility to early funding of some (very few) in the current FY, if they are of especially high priority, timely, and so on.
TD said
Thanks a lot, Writedit!
Sun22 said
Dear Writedit,
How long does it usually take from Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist to officially receive the NOA? In my case, it switched to Award prepared 5 days ago. I can request my institution to open account now or wait until to receive the NOA?
Thank you.
R15 Expectant said
It varies. Ask your GMS who has the exact date. I asked my GMS yesterday, who gave me the answer that when it will pop-up. I found our Senator has a press release with the information, although the NOA is not available to me.
Sun22 said
Thank you.
writedit said
It can take anywhere from hours to days, usually not more than a week or two. As R15 Expectant points out (thank you!), NIH notifies Congressional delegations about awards to be issued. This is especially important now when the NIH budget is coming under fire (House proposed a cut to the NIH appropriation), so Congress critters understand that their constituents’ tax dollars are coming back to their District/State in the form of research funding, which is generally a popular use for tax revenue. Delays can happen for a variety of other reasons, especially during the summer travel season, but should never be taken for bad news. And yes, you can ask your institution to set up an account so you can spend in advance of the award (they can do this up to 90 days before an application is paid), since they should have no doubt that the money will arrive soon.
Sun22 said
Thank you – writedit as always for thoughtful comments. I will share my timeline with our wonderful community once I officially receive the NOA!
Confused_About_IRBs said
I have some questions regarding IRB compliance requirements. I apologize if this is not the right forum for asking.
Scenario: A small business has been awarded an R43/R44. The business will not perform human subjects research, but outsources that component of the grant to a university. The university sub will obtain its own IRB that is sent to NIH as part of JIT.
(1) Does the small business also need its own IRB, even if they’re not directly performing the human subjects research?
(2) Does an IRB Reliance Agreement need to be in place between the small business and university? Does the University’s IRB need to be listed on the small business FWA if the small business isn’t performing any human subjects work?
Thanks.
writedit said
If no one from your business is involved with the human subjects protocol to be submitted to the university IRB for approval, then you should not need separate IRB oversight (NIH operates on single IRB model) or a reliance agreement (which supports the single IRB model). The university sub will not be able to receive funds for the human subjects work until IRB approval is granted, though. Your PO who is familiar with the details of the award and the research can give you much better specific guidance.
ex_PostDocLife said
Hi.. I have two questions about submitting 2 RO1 applications as an ESI in the same study cycle.
1. I am thinking of submitting two distinct applications to the same study section, is that any different (objectively and subjectively) than submitting to two different study sections or institutes?
2. In the extremely unlikely scenario, if both the applications were to receive fundable scores under the ESI payline (the institute that I usually submit my grants to gets a 10% bump for ESI), am I required to choose between the two or both will get funded?
Any insight into this will be well appreciated. I am thinking of submitting my first R01 application next year. And a new line of investigation in my lab has a pretty solid outlook for being able to create a fresh set of aims. So, thinking ahead.
Also exiting postdoclife said
Also waiting for the answer to question 2. Let’s consider a more likely scenario: let’s say if an ESI submits two grants. One is perfect and fundable with established PI payline. The other one is only fundable with ESI payline. Can we get both? Can we use ESI status for the lower scored one and then get the other one as well?
Silentlake said
I think you can get both, you can only use one ESI benefit for one grant, another one should be fundable score for established PI payline.
writedit said
Thanks, Silentlake! To clarify, the PI has no formal role in the decision and cannot ask the IC to consider one application vs the other application for the ESI award – though the PI can and should talk with both POs (assuming separate PO for each application) about the situation. This is ultimately the IC Director’s decision, so if they award the lower-scoring application first, the second application could run the risk of not receiving an award if the score is above the established PI payline (unless internal discussion results in select pay award).
writedit said
As I mentioned, both applications won’t be considered under the ESI payline (only the first one to receive an award), but I forgot to add that you can receive two applications at the same time from the same IC (or from different ICs). This does happen – ICs base decisions on scientific priorities, and in the case of ESI, the PI will not be so well funded as to warrant closer review at Council (unless first R01 is a monster clinical trial with budget >$750K-$1M).
writedit said
Really happy to hear that your lab is managing more than one line of research. Regarding #1, the SRO instructs each reviewer to treat each application on its own merit and not to compare with or consider any other application under review in the SRG (whether or not that reviewer has been assigned). That is, if a PI has two applications under review at the same time, reviewers cannot take that into consideration in their review of either application, and it is not part of the discussion. For strategic and management reasons (time to thoroughly polish each application, challenging to start up to projects simultaneously, simultaneous RPPR due dates, overlapping publication-presentation schedules, etc.), it is probably generally better to stagger submissions, but it is not required to ensure a fair review of each application. Regarding #2, although you are considered ESI based on your status at the time of submission, only the first application to receive an award will receive the ESI payline bump per NIH ESI policy: “Only one substantial NIH independent research application can be awarded as an ESI. When an ESI-eligible application is pending and the PD/PI has been awarded another R01 or R01-equivalent application, the ESI status of the pending application will be updated after release of the summary statement to indicate the application is no longer ESI-eligible.” (see https://grants.nih.gov/policy/early-stage/determining-status) This means the second IC won’t get “credit” for an ESI award (or if the same IC, the second application won’t “count”), but in some cases with a close score, application status (ESI) might help during internal paylist discussions.
JJ Anderson said
Hi all,
I applied for the F31 (NCI) Cycle 1 (April 2022) and ranked 17th percentile (impact score 24). My PO said that my score was outside the temporary interim payline but said that the full FY 2023 budget will be finalized in June 2023. I am wondering if there’s anything more I can do besides contacting my PO again for an update. My summary statement had only minor weaknesses with the major one being “figure resolution could be better”. I’m too advanced in my PhD for a resubmission and to wait another year for a funding decision, so I’m wondering if there’s anything else to do besides contact my PO again for an update.
writedit said
ICs definitely have their final FY23 cycle awards made or lined up (those with start date ~July 1), so you should contact your PO again and be sure they remember that you do not have another shot at this. Select pay decisions are being made now to spend down the FY23 appropriation by the end of September, and you want to be sure your application is on that paylist, with fingers crossed that NCI reaches your application before they run out of $$.
JJ Anderson said
Thanks for the advice! I e-mailed my PO and for NCI FY2023, 17th percentile is outside the payline. Just FYI in case anyone sees this with a similar score!
Paywalls said
Any idea what the payline actually was for NCI F31 FY23?
Sun22 said
Thank Writedit for your amazing forum. I’d like to share my timeline as below: Timeline for an A0 NIH-R01 application (NIGMS): 20 percentile; ESI.
02/03/2022: Application receipt date (Cycle 1)
02/08/2022: Application assigned to NIGMS
06/14-15/2022: Study section meeting
06/17/2022: Scientific review group completed.
07/14/2022: Discuss with the PO about the Summary Statement. The PO said the score is a fundable score.
07/19/2022: Submitted a rebuttal letter: 1-2 pages (not required/optional)
07/21/2022: JIT Documents submitted.
09/19/2022: Council Review completed.
06/15/2023 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
06/29/2023 Grants Management Specialist (cc the PO) requested the additional information on JIT materials – any changes in JIT report.
07/16/2023 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
07/26/2023 Application awarded (Award Notice Date): NOA in eRA Commons Account.
Silentlake said
Did you call PO or just email discussion?
Thanks
Sun22 said
I did set up the phone call after getting the summary statement. The PO told that this is a very excellent application with competitive score. He advised sit tight and waited for him. Every 1-2 months I emailed him and he replied immediately “the application is still being considered for funding.
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you so much for sharing your excellent timeline, Sun22! Best wishes for success with your research.
Silentlake said
Thank you so much! I sent an email to PO this Monday and ask suggestion and next step, no response yet.
Sun22 said
Please email him next week. Sometime the PO is just too busy.
Emily said
Dear Writedit, I submitted my competitive renewal application, but it was triaged. If I resubmit the application as a new application (A0), can I still apply as a competitive renewal?
writedit said
If it was an A0 that was triaged, you can (and should) submit the A1 as a competing renewal (Type 2) application. If your A1 was triaged, then you need to submit a new (Type 1) A0 application that will not be treated like a continuing renewal.
Emily said
I was told (could be wrong) in most of cases triaged applications would be difficult to obtain a fundable score at A1. I am debating whether I should submit it as a new application. If so, can this new application (A0) be treated as Type 2 application?
writedit said
No. A new A0 instead of an A1 would be treated as a new Type 1 application, not as a second attempt at a competing renewal. I agree that usually it is better to go with a new A0 rather than an A1 after being not discussed, but you don’t have a choice. However, I feel as though Type 2 A1s (after an ND A0) are more likely to get to a fundable score, or at least in R56 range, because often they need to publish from the prior award period or address other fairly straightforward concerns. I am working with one PI who went from ND on their competing renewal A0 to 19th percentile on the A1, which was a good enough improvement for the PO to secure R56 bridge funding to keep the study going until a new R01 could be submitted (not a competing renewal).
Emily said
Very helpful, Thanks a lot!
RC said
If it can be of help. I have had a triaged A0 application and resubmitted A1 received score within payline (albeit on borderline for FY23). I also have a good friend who’s A0 was ND and A1 received 4th percentile. In both instance- we did address everything that was asked during A0 and applications were revised extensively.
writedit said
Thanks for sharing your experience, RC – helpful and encouraging for many readers, I’m sure!
R01submit said
Hi, Thanks for the nice resources. I am a new investigator (not ESI) and have a R01 which was reviewed and scored 14% in NIAMS. The secondary IC is NIBIB. It is not under the payline of NIAMS, as they don’t have any specific score for new investigator. The score is within payline of NIBIB. Is there any possibility of transferring the application to NIBIB? Thanks in advance.
writedit said
You cannot ask to have an application “transferred” to the IC with a better payline, and ICs listed as the secondary institute almost never consider secondary assignment applications for funding (some ICs take themselves off when assigned to avoid giving PIs false hope). ICs cannot afford to pay all the competitive and high-priority applications for which they are the primary IC and do not have spare change lying around to pick up secondary applications as well. In the rare case in which this happens, first, NIAMS needs to decide that they will not fund the application, which is not a given based on score alone. When you receive your summary statement, check with your PO about next steps and whether you need to submit again. If the NIAMS PO is sure the IC will not consider your 14th percentile application for an award and does not want to see the resubmission, you can check with your NIBIB PO to see if they are interested in accepting the application. If your science is of high priority to NIBIB and the PO is interested, they (not you) can contact the NIAMS PO about relinquishing the application. If NIAMS relinquishes the application and if NIBIB has the funds to pay the award, then it might happen.
Tracey said
Hello I’m a new treatment court coordinator and we have applied for a grant. I keep checking ERA Commons but I’m not sure if where we are at in the process is positive for funding or not. Just looking for guidance. Thanks so much! This is our time line below and what it currently says is: Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
06/29/2023 Council review completed.
06/22/2023 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
05/11/2023 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
03/10/2023 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
03/06/2023 Application entered into system
writedit said
This generally looks like good news, and you can confirm with your PO (program officer). Your application was reviewed en bloc electronically in advance of the actual Council meeting and is already being processed for consideration for an award. You should have received a request for Just in Time information back in June, to which I assume you responded. If you did not receive a JIT request, check with your PO about why the application is listed as Pending administrative review and whether any information is needed from your team. If you did receive a JIT request, then you will hear if they uncover any issues related to making an award that need to be addressed (e.g., IRB approval, other regulatory or data sharing concerns, etc.). In this case, no news is good news – and be aware that the Pending status (with radio silence) can last weeks to months. You will definitely know the outcome before September 30, though.
Tracey said
Thanks so much. Regarding the JIT request, I received an email for clarification and requests for further information during the middle of May. Do you think that was the JIT? It was from someone at SAMHSA. Thanks again for your insight!
writedit said
Aha – if this is for a SAMHSA vs NIH application, then the request for information in May probably was their equivalent of JIT. The pending status is still good news (and not surprising that it has lasted so long). You could reach out to your program contact at SAMHSA about whether they need anything else and for a status update, but you could also sit tight and know that they will reach out to you if they have questions. As I said before, you’ll know the outcome soon in any case.
SAM said
Hello. I have reached out to NIH researchers (senior investigators) and requested them to share their recently published research material (plasmid DNA). However, it appears that many of them are ignoring my request. Aren’t NIH fund recipients supposed to share their published materials? What is the point of having “resource sharing plans” in the grant applications, if NIH people themselves disregard such requests?
writedit said
The published article should indicate if the plasmids were deposited in a public repository (e.g., addgene) or how they can be accessed if not. If the journal requires that authors share these resources (check the journal policy), let the editor know you are having difficulty securing a response from the corresponding author. If you are referring to intramural NIH researchers, they are governed by separate policies from those for extramural research, and I am not sure if resource sharing is required (data sharing is). If the corresponding author is not responding (not sure which author you are contacting), you can decide whether to reach out to the intramural branch chief or appropriate supervising personnel for the relevant IC’s intramural program to confirm whether the plasmids can or should be shared.
Biomedresearcher said
Dear Writeedit,
I have a question regarding submission of a two R01 applications to the same study section in the same cycle. I am preparing an A1 application and a different A0 application for the next cycle. I am not sure of the exact reason, but I have heard it is not generally a good idea to send 2 applications to the same study section in the same cycle. I do not see other standing study sections that are a closer match to my area, but I could choose another one if there are any downsides to sending to the same study section. Do you see any downsides to submitting more than one R01 application to the same panel? Thank you for the help.
writedit said
Assuming the science is different in each application, there are no downsides to being reviewed in the same SRG. Reviewers are instructed to review each application on its own merits with no consideration of or comparison to any other applications under review (whether by the same PI or other PIs). One potential concern could be if there were a limited number of regular members qualified to review your science, which is why I added the caveat about the science being distinct (which it should be in any case for obvious reasons). The SRO won’t want to assign the same reviewer to both applications, and if there are not at least 6 qualified reviewers available on the regular roster, the SRO will need to find someone ad hoc or pick from someone less qualified. There are considerations outside the SRG choice, though. If you are applying to the same IC, you would want to be sure your PO is confident that both projects are of sufficiently high priority and interest that the IC Director would fund both in the same cycle (especially if the NIH appropriation is flat or minimally increased). Again, funding both is more likely the more scientifically distinct they are. If they are going to different ICs, then this point isn’t relevant. Also, if both receive awards, you would be facing simultaneous start up demands and annual reporting deadlines (vs staggered, if you held off on one submission). Finally, you want to be sure you can give each application the attention to detail it needs for a flawless submission, something that can be challenging with just one application for a lot of PIs.
Neuro007 said
Hi Writedit,
My A1 R01 submitted Feb 2023 scored just outside the ESI payline. Hypothetically speaking, if my application gets considered for select pay, would it be funded only at the end of the fiscal year (which is probably in summer 2024) or does select pay awards will also be funded along with cycle 1 applications in Jan 2024. Thank you
writedit said
Some select pay awards can happen in the cycle in which they are considered, but most do wait until the end of the FY, and the Cycle 1 awards will not be reviewed for quite some time, depending on what happens in Congress. The House passed a 5.9% cut, while the Senate passed a 2% increase for the NIH, which hopefully will not result in anything worse than a flat appropriation (which would translate to fewer new awards, though). When you get your summary statement, you can check with your PO for advice on next steps, but I suspect the recommendation will be to submit again (as new A0) for insurance given the budget uncertainty and delays that lie ahead.
MG said
Hi Writedit, my A0 R01 submitted in Feb 2023 scored 10 percentile in NIDDK. I am an established investigator and I have not received a JIT request yet. When can I expect this grant to be funded? Thanks!
writedit said
Your February submission will be considered in FY24. You should get a JIT request later this fall, but NIDDK will not begin processing applications for awards until 6-8 weeks after the FY24 federal budget is signed into law. Given the current state of Congress, you probably should not anticipate an award until sometime in 2024, hopefully earlier than later.
smh said
similar situation, here. 11% at NIDDK as an A0 at Feb2023 and wondering what paylines might look like in FY24 if there is a continuing resolution. What do you think writedit? thanks for overseeing this great forum!
writedit said
ICs don’t typically make a lot of awards under a continuing resolution, which will likely be especially true for FY24, since the House passed a 5.9% cut to the NIH budget, and the Senate passed a 2% increase. Even if they agree on a 0% increase, per the debt ceiling negotiation, that will likely mean the same or slightly lower paylines in FY24 to cover all current noncompeting renewals (which will also have temporary budget cuts until the NIH appropriation is final). Applications in the 10-11th percentile range aren’t in any danger of falling below the payline, and some ICs may start paying these applications during the CR once the outcome of the FY24 appropriation is more clear, but you shouldn’t count on it. When you see the FY24 budget bill has passed, you could contact your PO for confirmation that you are within 90 days of award if your institution allows pre-award spending. Keep in mind that the ICs do not receive their final appropriation until 6-8 weeks after the federal budget is signed into law, and then there will be a large backlog of applications awaiting final processing for awards (especially if this drags into calendar year 2024).
Silentlake said
When the FY24 budget bill be passed?
Thanks
writedit said
Oof – with this Congress, no idea, but not any time soon. All I can suggest is to watch the news out of Washington. Once Congress passes and the President signs the budget bill, you can add on another 6-8 weeks before any IC will receive their appropriation and can begin processing applications for awards.
NewPI-RQ said
Hi Writedit, I submitted an R01 in June, which should be reviewed in October. I started my lab a year ago and by the time of submission of this R01 I only had 1 RA in the lab (on my R00). I have since recruited a really good postdoc candidate (experience in the proposed research and excellent publication record) and another RA. Since candidate recruitment has been an issue in general, especially for junior PIs, I am wondering if this post submission update helps with the reviews? (I asked budget for this PD and RA in the grant). Thanks.
writedit said
Although I recognize the challenges of recruiting/hiring for research positions (congratulations!), I am afraid this will not be eligible as post-submission material.
NewPI-RQ said
Thank you. Just realized that the biographical sketch updates due to hiring were only for key personnel.
AnxiousOne said
Thanks, writedit, for this amazing resource. Thought I’d give back and post my timeline for NIAAA K23 A0:
4/11/22: Zoom call with PO to discuss proposed aims and see if in line with institute’s priorities and goals.
10/7/22: Application entered into the system
10/21/22: Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
2/10/23: Scientific Review Group review completed (impact score = 18, no %): Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
2/24/23: Summary Statement available
3/10/23: Request from PO for brief rebuttal letter
3/31/23: Rebuttal letter submitted.
5/10/23: Council review completed.
5/17/23: Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
5/30/23: Request for additional documents: NIAAA Data Archive/Data Sharing Plan (or exemption) and DSMP
5/31/23: Data Archive form submitted.
6/1/23: Personalized JIT request.
6/6/23: Data Sharing Plan exemption form submitted
6/8/23: JIT documents submitted.
6/20/23: Request to submit cost estimate for DSMB, which was not originally proposed in application but NIAAA internal risk review deemed it necessary to have one.
6/21/23: Cost estimate for DSMB submitted.
8/14/23: Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
8/15/23: Application awarded.
Main takeaways:
-The pending phase isn’t as uneventful as I was expecting. There was a lot of activity, requests from and interactions with PO/GMS for an otherwise straightforward application.
-This resource provided by writedit kept me sane as I waited for the process to unfold.
Fuzzy Dunlop said
Thanks for uploading this (and for all your insight as well writedit). I’ve had an application from the October cycle that’s been Pending since mid-may w/ personalized JIT requests as well, so this timeline is reassuring 🙂
writedit said
Thank you for sharing this amazing timeline AnxiousOne, and especially that Zoom call with the PO at the outset – so important. Congratulations again and best wishes for success with your project and career in biomedical research!
NewSBIR-PI said
Hello,
We received an impact score of 29 on our NCI SBIR phase I submission (April 2023 submission). I think the score is on the borderline. We did receive an automated JIT request and I am in the process of talking to the PO. We did receive the summary statement. I would really appreciate any feedback on the probability of getting funded based on this score. It says the council meeting is happening this month.
writedit said
Aside from your score, science and programmatic priorities also come into play, so your PO will be the best source of guidance. Be sure to ask explicitly about whether you should apply again while waiting for the FY24 budget. The NCAB meets Sept 6-7, but they will mainly focus on applications considered for Cycle 1 in FY24. Unfortunately, the FY24 appropriation for the NIH will be delayed and is currently unclear (House passed 5.9% cut, Senate passed 2.0% increase, debt ceiling negotiations agreed on net 0 increase in discretionary spending), so it will be difficult for ICs to set interim paylines, which will likely be quite conservative at the outset until negotiations become more clear.
NewSBIR-PI said
Thanks so much for the valuable information.
Biomedical Scientist said
Thank you for this helpful resource! I’m wondering if you have any advice on the etiquette of contacting Program Officers. After receiving my Cycle I F32 score about one month ago, I emailed my PO to ask about likelihood of funding, and they said my score was several points below the current FY23 payline but didn’t know what the payline would be for FY24 due to not having the budget yet. I received my Summary Statement last week and am wondering when it would be appropriate to reach back out to the PO. Should I wait until after the council when they would have more information?
writedit said
Your PO won’t know anything unt
established PI said
Dear WriteEdt,
I would much appreciate your input on my situation.
My R01 with NIDDK scored 4th percentile . I reached out to the PO regarding some questions but did not get a response.
The council was supposed to be in September. However I just noticed that the Commons status just changed to ‘Council review completed’. There is no other information and there were no JIT requests.
I am very nervous about what this all means. Could it be that they decided not to fund and even bring it to the council meeting?
Thank you very much in advance!
writedit said
Nothing to worry about. Your PO is busy with end of FY23 activity, whereas your application is for FY24, which is months away from any award processing activity. Your status changed because your application was among those scoring close to the current payline (which won’t be the payline for FY24, at least at the outset) sent to Council members in advance of the meeting for electronic approval en bloc (entire list at once, not individually reviewed). The Director of NIDDK now has Council’s blessing to consider your application for funding (not guaranteed, just possible). With your exceptional score, you almost certainly will receive an award, but the timing won’t be clear until after the FY24 federal budget is signed into law – which I don’t expect to happen any time soon. You won’t get a personal JIT request until after Council formally meets, and then your status will be pending for a very long time – probably well into 2024, given the current climate in Congress. I say all this so you don’t become concerned in the interim – and I only qualified my comment with an “almost certainly”, because you need to be sure the administrative review does not identify any possible overlap or other concern (but you would know about anything they might encounter). I am not sure what you asked your PO, but they won’t know about payline or funding timeline until the FY24 budget is passed – unless there is a slim chance your application could get picked up for FY23 (ie, funded before Oct 1) – but that is not likely and is not something you can request. It would only happen if NIDDK found itself with enough unspent FY23 dollars to start looking at FY24 applications (again, almost never happens, and usually involves a very high priority research area).
established PI said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you for the detailed reply. I went through many of the posts where you have already made this point. I very much appreciate your patience in responding to my question. Your service is invaluable to the research community!
I am a bit relieved but will cautiously await the next steps.
Regards
established PI said
Dear Writedit,
I am writing to follow up my previous post. We did get a personalized JIT request for my 4% R01 one day before the September 12 council date. The status also changed to ‘pending’.
I guess this is positive news and I assume if this funded it will be this FY23. But I have another question I would very much appreciate your input.
The start date listed on the grant is November 1. Would it be risky to request to a start date of December 1? I have legitimate reasons to request the delay since I am changing institutions on this date. But I am not sure if this is even feasible given this goes in to the next FY.
I am wondering if I can check with the GMS about this.
Thank you
writedit said
If your application is Pending, then it is probably being considered for an FY23 award, which would mean you cannot delay the start date, since your IC needs to get this on the books before Sept 30th. This would be good news, though, since FY24 will be chaotic. If your application is pending for FY24, your start date won’t be sometime until early 2024 at the earliest. You would want to monitor the news, and once you see the President has signed the FY24 budget bill, add about 2 months, and that is the earliest you could expect to hear anything.
SaG said
Agreed!!!
MaryS said
Hi,
I received an R56 starting in September. I want to re-send the improved R01 as a new grant for September 7th. It is of course largely overlapping with the R56. I just realized it could be a problem. How big of a problem is it?
writedit said
The R56 is bridge funding intended to support the continuation of an ongoing project or the generation of new data to support a more robust resubmission. If your new R01 is funded before the R56 award runs out, the first year of the R01 budget will be reduced by the amount left on the R56. If the R56 will generate data that could support the new R01, you might consider delaying submission, but if you are confident the application is strong enough without those data, then you don’t need to worry about the overlap in terms of submitting the application (overlap and rebudgeting is addressed at JIT).
FirstTimePI said
I have been told I am on a waitlist for consideration for an application from May 2022 (common fund) that would now be housed in NIMHD. As we approach September 30 deadline, up until when could I hear back (positively)? and how quick they would need the JIT if/when I did? Thanks.
writedit said
You will only have a couple days (at best – maybe only a day) to turn around the JIT, so you should have it ready now. If they ask and you aren’t ready, they will simply move on to the next application on the paylist. This is why the paylist has many, many more applications than the IC can afford to support. ICs will keep issuing awards into September. They stop when they run out of $$.
FirstTimePI said
Thank you!
tokyamamoto said
Hello – I’m writing an R01 involving a “delayed start” (not delayed onset) multisite clinical trial. The current plan is to get IRB approval and establish a single IRB during the award, but I’m wondering if this will actually work. Will IRB approval for a delayed start study be needed at JIT (before the award)? I’ve been getting vague answers on this but trying to get a definite answer because this would make a huge difference in the timeline.
writedit said
I would first strongly suggest you talk with your PO about whether your target IC will accept a multisite R01 clinical trial or whether they require an R34 application/award (which funds 1 year of planning/preparation for multisite clinical trial) in advance of the R01 application (submitted during the R34 award year). Some ICs will not fund a multisite trial application without the R34 year because they have been burned too many times paying out huge budgets for clinical trials that don’t get off the ground for years (or ever). If your IC is okay with the R01 submission directly (no R34), your delayed start application will require all the human subjects documentation as part of the application anyway, which is what should go to the IRB. You can ask your PO for confirmation as part of your communication with them, but since the science won’t change (e.g., protocol, target cohort, analysis plan), I expect you will need to provide IRB approval at JIT – or the IC will withhold funds until IRB approval is in place – since they will want to ensure the trial is not delayed due to IRB issues related to the study as reviewed.
tokyamamoto said
Appreciate your input. The target FOA does allow a multisite clinical trial. I reached out to the PO but he did not provide a clear answer. It looks like we will need to get IRB approval from all participating sites’ IRBs even before we don’t know the likelihood of funding…
writedit said
If your institution’s IRB will serve as the single IRB, then only your institution will need to provide approval for JIT. The other sites should agree to the single IRB at the time of application, not as part of the trial planning process. If your institution has a CTSA (Clinical & Translational Science Award), they should be able to provide regulatory support in helping set this up, as should your office of research subjects protections.
tokyamamoto said
Thanks. Yes, our institution’s IRB would serve as the reviewing IRB, but there is a foreign institution that would not join the single IRB. I assume we would need to provide this foreign institution’s approval as well as our institution’s approval for JIT?
writedit said
As long as your IRB provides approval, all sites working under the single IRB could receive funding. The funds would not be released for the foreign site until their IRB approved the protocol. I would suggest you talk with your PO about this as well – I assume they know there is a foreign site involved and are okay with that.
K99question said
K99 resubmission here.
GMS requested personalized JIT. It was requested additional information 02 times regarding the JIT. All information sent to the GMS 10 days ago.
I am “pending administrative review” for one month.
1- Is this positive?
2- Should I receive an update until September 30th?
writedit said
Yes, and yes. Positive but not guaranteed, of course. IC personnel are frantically processing applications to spend down their FY23 appropriation before September 30. They will ask for JIT from more applications than can be funded because some may not get their JIT ready in time, some may have issues upon review, etc. If your JIT is straightforward, you can wait hopefully. You do not need to reach out for an update or to ask if they need anything else – your best course of action is to wait and hope for good news, which can come any time up until the end of September. Fingers crossed!
K99question said
Thank you for your reply.
So, if I don’t get an update till September 30th does it mean I will not be funded?
writedit said
You will not get a specific update by September 30 if you are not being funded (unless your PO reaches out), but if your status does not change by September 30, you will not receive an award in FY23, and the application will not continue to be considered in FY24.
Silentlake said
Hi,
I sent an email to PO after I received the statement of K08, but no response. Last Tuesday was the advisory council meeting. But the status online has not changed and it is still pending council review. Is it council review is not done after advisory council meeting? Should I contact her again about the chance of award or just wait? K08 resubmission score within payline of FY2023.
Thanks
writedit said
Your application will be considered for an FY24 award, and your PO is probably very busy trying to help close out FY23 and help investigators with October submissions, so it’s not too surprising you have not had a response (though still not especially professional of the PO). If you are going by the Council date listed in your eRA Commons account, then check your IC’s website for the actual Advisory Council/Board date – eRA Commons does not use IC Council dates but rather sets a generic date for each cycle. I suspect your IC’s advisory board has not yet met, but if it has, and it was a meeting at which applications were reviewed (some ICs have extra meetings that do not involve discussing extramural applications), then they are just late updating the system, possibly due to the holiday and end-of-FY craziness. Either way, you don’t need to read anything into the delay in status update.
Silentlake said
Thanks! writedit.
The IC advisory council meeting was 8/29/2023, but the council meeting is 2023/10; not sure which one is right, both listed on eRA.
writedit said
You need to go to your IC’s website to see the actual date and then check the meeting agenda to be sure extramural grant applications will be considered.
Silentlake said
Yes, the online status changed to “Council review completed”. When should we know whether the grant is awarded or not?
Thanks
writedit said
Unfortunately, you will not know about this application until about 2 months after the FY24 federal budget is signed into law, which probably won’t happen until 2024. Your PO will not have any insight on whether the FY23 paylines will carry into FY24 until the FY24 budget is more clear, but you can contact her to ask if you should submit again in the meantime (since it will be a long delay). A question about when/whether you will receive an award is less likely to receive a response (since the PO will have no response right now) than a request for guidance on resubmission.
Silentlake said
Thanks! writedit!
SBIR NotSoNewbie said
Hi, I am preparing an SBIR phase I application for the next cycle (this one just past) in response to the NIH omnibus solicitation. I just found that the particular IC I am targeting has a solicitation specifically for the topic I am responding to on their website, under a different funding opportunity announcement. I wonder which funding opportunity I should tailor and submit my application to… Omnibus or the specific/narrow one? One the one hand, the IC may have funding ear-marked for the topic (I am not sure). On the other hand, if I submit to the specific opportunity, I may be limiting myself and cutting other IC’s out, who may be interested in my application. Could you please give me some advice?
writedit said
The benefit of the targeted NOFO is that you will be more likely to have customized set of reviewers who appreciate your project, whereas with the parent NOFO, you will need to find an SRG with the right mix of expertise. I recommend that you contact the PO on the targeted NOFO for direction on which way to go, but I suspect they will advise the targeted opportunity, assuming your R&D does match the NOFO objectives. If you have already been working with another SBIR PO at your target IC, you could ask them as well.
Anxious said
Good morning,
My revised R01 to NIMH (submitted in March) was submitted for the advisory council review that occurred yesterday (9/7). It was a “closed” session, which I assumed that they were reviewing to approve (or not). Haven’t seen any update yet on eRA Commons, but wondering when would be reasonable to reach out to PO. He said I am in “good shape” for this round of council review. He has been responsive and helpful and I don’t want to pester him more than necessary. I considered revising it to submit as a new application targeting the October due date, but given the positive messages, I have not prepared. It may be too late. I am getting very nervous and read thru this site for similar questions. Still wasn’t sure.
Thanks for this great resources!
Anxious said
Just to clarify my questions:
1. When would I expect to hear about whether I was selected for funding after the Council meeting? I understand that because of budget issues, I may not get the funds until later, even if selected.
2. When would be an appropriate time to reach out to the PO asking questions? Give him a week from the Council meeting? More?
3. If my application was included for approval (en bloc) by the Council, does that mean it would get eventually funded?
writedit said
I apologize for the delay in getting to your questions and assume by now your status has changed to Council review completed, which has no bearing on whether you will receive an award. Council approves applications for the IC to consider for funding, so it is required for an award but does not in any way guarantee an award. You don’t mention your score or percentile, but if your PO feels confident, then that is very good news, as POs are always conservative so as not to put any investigators at risk of missing an application submission. Unfortunately, your PO will not know about when your application might be funded because that will need to wait until the FY24 federal budget is signed into law, which probably won’t happen until 2024 at the earliest. I would suggest you contact your PO to confirm whether you should submit a new R01 application in October. What would be great is if you had a second R01 on a different line of research that ideally could go to a different study section and different IC.
establishedPI said
Dear Writedit,
I am writing to follow up a previous post above. We got a personalized JIT request for my 4% R01 one day before the September council date. The status also changed to ‘pending’.
I guess this is positive news and I assume if this funded it will be this FY23. But I have another question I would very much appreciate your input.
The start date listed on the grant is November 1. Would it be risky to request to a start date of December 1? I have legitimate reasons to request the delayed start. But I am not sure if this is even feasible given Dec 1 is FY 24.
I am wondering if I can check with the GMS about this.
Thank you
CravingForFunding said
I actually received an NIDDK award today. I saw some people are concerned about the JIT something. JIT was not requested until PO requested internally to send JIT to me last week. My award is actually from current budget year’s remaining money. It seems 2024 budget is not available yet so they don’t promise large awards.
s said
What time were your grant reviewed and council review completed? Is it for FY2024?
thanks
CravingForFunding said
It was reviewed in June this year. Council review was done in September this year too. As I mentioned, award is actually from current budget year’s remaining money.
writedit said
Congratulations and best wishes for success with your research! Awards made through Sept 30th are FY23 awards, and no, the FY24 budget probably will not be signed into law for quite some time.
alessaycy said
First time write a MPI R01. Do I need to specify what % of the budget goes to which PI’s lab? If so, do I specify in the budget justification or the MPI leadership plan? Thank you in advance.
SaG said
You don’t have to say it explictly but the budget and budget justification pages can force you to. For instance if the other PI is at a different school you will have to setup a consortium subaward that says how much money is going to that school/other PI. If you are at the same school then you will likely have to justify the number of students/PDs you each get. Supplies dont have to be divived up , unless you need some expensive like large amounts of sequencing that only 1 PI does.
writedit said
I agree with SaG (thank you!) and would add that if even all the PIs are at your institution, you will need to split up the budget on your internal sponsored programs forms, and of course each PI will want to know exactly how the money is being divided. If the NOFO has a certain % effort requirement for each PI, then this would dictate the distribution to an extent, which would be detailed in the budget forms and justification. None of the award distribution is described in the MPI plan, though. That is all about who is responsible for what, how you will communicate-coordinate oversight, and how you will resolve conflicts and any need to replace a PI.
question said
“Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.” in era commons status since Monday.
But so far no NOA.
What do I do?
Brian said
Just wait. It’ll come.
Silentlake said
What cycle do you submitted? When was the council meeting? My status is council review completed. Just curious how long should I see next step.
Thanks
question said
submitted on November 2022.
personalized JIT was requested almost one month ago.
“Award prepared” status on Monday.
And you?
SaG said
Congress gets 1-2 weeks to see the award before the NoA goes out. This gives your Congressperson a chance to to take credit for bringing $s to the district. Sometimes they even send you a congrats letter.
writedit said
As Brian and SaG said, you don’t do anything. This is normal. Just wait. The award will be there by Sept 30. No need to contact your PO or GMS, who are frantically busy closing out the FY.
UncertainR01 said
Hi Writedit and SaG, Was wondering if the impact scores/percentiles will be uploaded to eRA commons during the govt. shutdown? My study section will be done next week (Sep 30th) but I imagine it’ll be a few days before the SRO can upload the scores.
writedit said
If the government shuts down, the NIH review process will stop. If you are lucky, your SRO will try to get scores up before this happens, but if not, as far as I know, you will have to wait for federal operations to resume.
laetitiayan said
Hi, I have an R01 submitted to NIA and was scored right on the boarder line of ESI payline for ADRD (30%). Contacted PO in June after summary statement was out and she said the council is on October so my proposal will go to next fiscal year. I will have to wait. But on Sep 20th, it shows council review completed and PO asked for rebuttal the same day. I checked the schedule of council meeting it indeed finished in Sep 20th. PO gave me 5 days to respond back, and still strongly suggested me to resubmit this October cycle. It is quite confusing since rebuttal is typically used in the council meeting.
SaG said
Might be trying to pay it this fiscal year. But probably depends on how much money is left in their piggy bank. So, no guarantee and plan on resubmitting.
writedit said
The NACA did meet Sept 19-20. I suspect your PO was probably referring to the generic use of “October Council”, which generally refers to applications being considered for the first funding cycle of the fiscal year (in this case, FY24). It sounds like your PO was taken off guard by the request for a quick response turnaround, which suggests there is a slim chance your application might be processed in FY 23, perhaps because your science was of interest. But as both your PO and SaG recommend, keep working on the resubmission (I assume an A1 in November) unless your eRA Commons status changes before Sept 30.
SBIR NotSoNewbie said
Hi, I am just wondering if it is a good idea to turn down an SBIR grant from the NIH? The reason I am asking is because I fortunately got good results for 2 concurrent but separate SBIR phase I projects (from 2 different IC’s at the NIH) and now I have the opportunity to apply for their phase II’s. My problem is that my team and I may not have the bandwidth to pursue 2 phase II projects at the same time, and boss wants me (the PI) to focus on only one project and make it successful (she is firm about this). I lean toward applying for only 1 phase II, but there is no guarantee that I will get it. If I apply to both, the chance of getting at least one is higher, but I wonder what would happen if I get awarded for both of them and have to turn one down. I know it is a luxury to consider this scenario, but I just don’t want to get into a situation where I would leave a bad taste in the mouth of the IC that is turned down…
Is there a process to turn down an SBIR award? What would you recommend that I do? Your advice is much appreciated. Thank you!
rickyb323 said
If tuition was not included in a funding request, can tuition be paid by the grant after awarded? Thank you.
writedit said
You would have to talk with your PO about whether you would be allowed to rebudget and move some money around to pay for tuition. You would not be given additional funding – you would need to cut the money from supplies, travel, or some other line item, assuming paying for tuition is an allowable expense for your grant activity code (again, question for your PO).
CSR Veteran said
Hello, I recently completed a 5-year team as a regular member of a CSR study section. I submitted a grant in the Feb Cycle that was review in July by a SEP and received a favorable (but not fundable score). We are in very good shape to resubmit in November but will the A1 be reviewed by a SEP again or will it go to my old study section? How long am I in conflict with the study section after my term ends?
Thank you!
writedit said
You should no longer be in conflict as soon as you rotate off, so I assume the A1 will go to the full SRG. This didn’t happen in July because the review assignment was made before you rotated off at the end of June. You can confirm with your SRO.
Waiting for my R01 award said
Dear Writedit,
Now that the Government is working under CR, and I have heard so many people talking about interim paylines. Can you please educate me about the above? For example, if the current FY2023 payline for R01 is 16, what will be the interim payline look like? Assuming the Congress pass the budget in November, how soon will the payline return to “normal” (i.e, not interim)? Thank you.
writedit said
A continuing resolution allows the federal government to keep operating based on funding approved for a prior FY or a percentage (e.g., 90%) of a prior FY appropriation. The current CR is based on FY23, but Congress could have pegged the CR to any past FY. Because agencies do not know when or if Congress will pass their appropriation for the current FY – in this case, FY24 – the are very conservative in their spending and do not make new obligations until they know they will have the funding to meet these obligations. This is why at the NIH, the few interim paylines set by ICs are much more conservative than the prior year paylines. ICs do not know if Congress might cut the appropriation they are anticipating, especially in the current chaotic climate, so they cannot risk funding new awards until they are sure they will have enough to first pay all their noncompeting awards. I don’t think we can assume Congress will pass an omnibus spending bill in November, but if they did, and if the President signed it into law, then it would take another 6-8 weeks before ICs actually receive their final FY24 appropriation. The Labor, Health, and Education appropriation would get distributed among the relevant agencies, and HHS would skim some $$ for evaluation and reporting before sending the NIH its FY24 appropriation, and the NIH would also take some $$ out for evaluation and reporting before distributing to the ICs. Then the ICs sort out what they received against what they expected, their FY24 obligations, and how they would like to spend the unobligated $$. ICs that set interim paylines would update these 2-3 months after the FY24 federal budget is signed into law, and the change – hopefully an increase in payline – is retroactive.
K.L. said
Dear Writedit,
I just realized that my R21 was reviewed by the Advisory Council in early September, although the Council Meeting is scheduled for Oct. What is the difference between the two Meetings? Should they be the same?
SaG said
NIH has a process called Early Concurrence to expedite the funding of well scoring applications that have no potential issues. They have Councilors approve an app for potential funding a few weeks before the full Council meets. This lets grants staff and POs start working up possible awards. No guarantee that you will be funded though.
K.L. said
Thank you.
R01-Rpy said
Hi Writedit and SaG, Would it be appropriate to change study section of scored ESI-R01, if the scores were really bad and the discussion/reviewer comments mean taking an entirely new approach/experiments that we don’t have expertise or money to do? Also, comments about lack of senior author papers/productivity (which unfortunately I can’t do much about in next few months since lab is only a year old).
writedit said
You should only move the application if there is one better suited to your science – not because you don’t like the comments you received. You can check for a more appropriate study section using the CSR Assisted Referral Tool (paste your title and specific aims page here: https://public.csr.nih.gov/ForApplicants/ArtHome) and also ask your PO for advice, since they know any potentially appropriate study sections for your science. If you request a different study section that is not appropriate, your application will get sent back to the original one.
SaG said
I agree with Writedit. SS assignment is based on the science in your app. Definitely talk to you PO too. They can help point out the major score driving issues to focus on with a resubmission.
Linda said
This is such a helpful blog and I learned a lot from the Q&A!
I am an ESI who just got my percentile back for my first R01 application (A1 resubmitted in July, 2023). The percentile is right at 25. I am curious about my opportunity of being funded in 2024, and the best next step in addition to waiting for my review comments and communications from my PO.
Thank you!
writedit said
Congratulations (not sure what happened to the rest of my original reply but thank you, SaG!) – you should plan to reach out to your PO (vs wait to hear from them) once you have your summary statement and have thought about how you would address weaknesses raised in the Summary of Discussion paragraph, which is what your PO will be interested in hearing about. You will probably want to have this written up as a ~1 page response to send in advance for discussion (and some POs prefer to do all communication via email, so be sure to ask communication preference, if you haven’t already – but I assume so with an A1). You shouldn’t ask about funding likelihood, since the PO will have no idea until the FY24 budget is signed into law, but you should ask whether to submit a new A0 in February, which, as SaG notes, is what you will probably be advised to do and would be a good plan for insurance even if your score were a little better.
Fisher said
I have one question regarding R21 application in NHGRI. We have a spatial transcriptomics related R21 application for NHGRI. The score is 17% percentile and raw score of 28. Since NHGRI does not post its payline, what should we do when we contact PO? What’s the right questions to be asked during this meeting or in email? Thank you so much! I learned a lot from this blog.
SaG said
It depends a lot on the Institute that might fund your app. NIH has a policy to TRY to fund 25% of ESI apps. Some institutes get close to and over that number some fall short. I suggest you consider resubmitting while you wait for a decision. Unless your PO says otherwise.
Fisher said
I have one question regarding R21 application in NHGRI. We have a spatial transcriptomics related R21 application for NHGRI. The score is 17% percentile and raw score of 28. Since NHGRI does not post its payline, what should we do when we contact PO? What’s the right questions to be asked during this meeting or in email? Thank you so much! I learned a lot from this blog.
writedit said
If you applied to an RFA or PAR, your score could be competitive since award decisions for these programs often take into account more than the impact score and percentile. Otherwise, that might be on the high side to be considered for funding. When you receive your summary statement, you will want to send an email to the PO asking about next steps and specifically if you should you plan to submit again (either to another receipt date for your RFA/PAR or as a new application to the parent R21 NOFO). There is no point in asking about funding likelihood or timing, since the PO will not have any insight until after the FY24 federal budget is signed into law, which is a long way off. You should also include a sentence or two with your high-level thoughts about the concerns raised in the Summary of Discussion paragraph and ask whether the PO would prefer to communicate via email exchanges or a scheduled phone conversation. Their insight into how to improve the application and make the project even more appealing to NHGRI will be helpful no matter what happens next – though I suspect it will be another application, since you will not want to wait several months and miss the next application cycle waiting to hear the budget outcome.
drchongwu said
Thank you. It’s so helpful. It’s for parent R21, I will ask input from PO to improve our research plan.
waiting said
What is the process and timeline for releasing impact scores following a study section? Are scores from a study section released in a specific order or does everyone get their scores at the same time? Thank you!
writedit said
Everyone all
Hulo said
Hi writeedit, One of my MPI R01 applications with 3 percentile (I am not the contact) is sitting with council review completed, and such happened just after the fiscal year that just got concluded. Issue is that the new fiscal year just has been started, and I noticed a competitor is awarded via another NIH institute in another R01 which is bit overlapping. Do you think our team should be concerned?
Thank you in advance.
SaG said
That wont be a problem. Only if there were overlapping PIs on the apps would it raise issues of double funding the same science.
writedit said
As SaG noted (thank you!), funding a different PI in a different institute will not have any impact on your pending award. You don’t need to worry. Even if it had been a similar study funded by your IC, they would not skip your application unless there were several projects already being funded in the same area (ie, with more than slight overlap), and leadership felt a need to diversify the portfolio. Your PO would have brought this up, though, and suggested ways to tweak your work to address portfolio gaps.
firstR01 said
My R01 received a score of 28 and 10th percentile, and I have ESI status. This is submitted to an IC that does not publish payline, but can I be optimistic? I guess I’ll need to wait for the summary statement before reaching out to the PO? Thank you in advance for your comments and thanks for creating this space.
writedit said
Magic EightBall is right again! You will want to wait for your summary statement before reaching out to your PO, but they should be able to reassure you and suggest that you focus on publishing or other (unrelated) grant applications in the meantime (since it will be a long meantime).
Magic EightBall said
Signs point to yes! But, could be awhile until you get news.
KL said
My R01 received a score in June, which is two points lower than the FY2023 published payline. I also have recently received a JIT request from the Grants Management Specialist. The Advisory Council met last week. The PO would not comment much about funding likelihood, which is understandable because technically we still do not have a FY2024 budget, but told me that she is working on the JIT. Should I be optimistic?
Hong Shi said
I think it is a positive sign, what did GMS tell you? I had a fundable score from June too. Not hear any JIT yet.
KL said
Thank you Hong Shi! Congrats to your fundable score as well. I consulted a few colleagues and they came up with the same prediction as yours. The concern that I have now is that even I got a fundable score (according to FY2023 payline), but with all the talks about cutting government budget from some of our Congressmen, I do worry if my two points below the old payline is “safe” when the new budget is approved.
I actually have not talked to my GMS. i just got the detailed email from him about all the documents that I need to prepare. What would you suggest me to say to him if I ever communicate with him?
writedit said
Congratulations on being scored below the FY23 payline, which, as you note, may not reflect the FY24 payline. The JIT request is not a guarantee of funding, but ICs know how late their appropriations will be and want to have as many applications queued up as possible, recognizing that the appropriation may come in lower than anticipated, resulting in several administratively reviewed applications not receiving awards. You shouldn’t ever need to talk with the GMS. They will email if they need specific pieces of information and documentation, and this all goes through your university sponsored programs office. If there is no federal budget by January 2024 (very likely – sounds like continuing resolution could continue through next spring), you probably want to check with your PO to confirm whether you should plan to resubmit as insurance in Feb or March (not sure if application reviewed in June was A0 or A1) or to sit tight with your June score (it could be the PO has strong programmatic justification for advocating for award even if payline drops below your score).
CK-M said
My R15 (NIAID) received an impact score of 23. The interim payline is 20. Does NIAID show any flexibility regarding the payline for R15s? I have been under the impression that NIAID is quite strict with their payline policy. I am awaiting summary statements and I hope my PO can give some insight. I was just hoping someone here might have some experience with near-misses at NIAID.
CK-M said
I should add, that I am an ESI, but I understand that this status is not flagged for R15s. Could this status play a role for select pay?
writedit said
NIAID does have a hard payline with few select pay awards (based on programmatic priority), and you are correct that the ESI policy does not apply to R15 applications. In a typical FY, the interim payline would go up later in the year once the federal budget is signed into law, but even if it does, NIAID has held the final R15 payline at 22 for the last several FYs, and it definitely will not be higher in FY24. When you receive your summary statement, you can check with your PO for advice on next steps (you will want to have thought about how to respond to the concerns in the Summary of Discussion paragraph before communicating with PO) and how to approach your A1 submission.
sgs said
The A1 version of my R01 was scored at 19%. The current payline of NIDDK is 16%. Do you think if I have a chance to be funded. In addition, what is your expectation for 2024 payline?
Thank you very much
SGS
writedit said
Unfortunately, given the current state of Congress, I do not expect the NIH to receive an increase that would support raising paylines, so you should definitely plan to submit a new A0 either in February or June. If the NIH has a flat budget, that essentially means a cut for new applications, since all current commitments must be met before allocating funds to new awards. Any select pay decisions would not be made until the end of the FY, and you cannot afford to wait that long to hear. When you receive your summary statement, review the Summary of Discussion paragraph and consider how you would respond to concerns raised (not that you will write an Introduction, but your PO might want this in writing, and you need to consider how to improve the application based on the most recent review) before contacting your PO for advice on submitting again.
Sgs said
Thank you do much for your kindness. As you suggested, I will prepare my submission doing the next cycle. From your reply, your meaning I have a chance for select pay although the possibility is lower.
Thanks
Sgs
writedit said
Correct. You should still get in touch with your PO once you have your summary statement. Your science could be a high priority, or they might have another reason for wanting to promote your application, so while the odds are low, you should start by communicating with the PO about next steps.
CB said
Hi writedit,
I have ESI status and just received this week scores for 2 R01s. The first one is AD-related submitted to NIA, which scored at 19%. The second one is non-AD related submitted to NINDS scored at 14%. Both are scheduled for the council in January 2024. It seems that for the NIA R01, I may not need ESI status to be funded even if the payline for AD projects slightly dropped below the 25% for FY23. However, I would definitely need ESI status for the second one from NINDS. I am concerned that if the NIA R01 is awarded first and I lose my ESI, the NINDS R01 will not be funded. My question is how to communicate these concerns with both POs? and what are the limitations to how POs can help with these situations?
I understand that I can not choose to apply my ESI status to a specific application.
Thanks a lot,
writedit said
Well, neither of these applications are likely going to Council in January (or whenever the actual meeting is for each), given the situation in Congress. You will want to wait for your summary statements, of course, and think about a brief response to the concerns raised in the Summary of Discussion for each. Then you will want to ask each PO about next steps and whether you should plan to submit again. Neither will have any idea about funding until the FY24 budget is signed into law. If they both say to sit tight as ESI, then you can explain your situation and see if their advice changes. I am not sure what is going on with NIA’s bypass budget for AD/ADRD awards, but if it is significantly cut, which is not impossible, then you might have a different calculation. You will certainly get one of the awards, but the possibility of getting both will likely depend on what happens with the NIH appropriations for FY24, which won’t be clear for several months.
writedit said
Unfortunately, given the current state of Congress, I do not expect the NIH to receive an increase that would support raising paylines, so you should definitely plan to submit a new A0 either in February or June. If the NIH has a flat budget, that essentially means a cut for new applications, since all current commitments must be met before allocating funds to new awards. Any select pay decisions would not be made until the end of the FY, and you cannot afford to wait that long to hear. When you receive your summary statement, review the Summary of Discussion paragraph and consider how you would respond to concerns raised (not that you will write an Introduction, but your PO might want this in writing, and you need to consider how to improve the application based on the most recent review) before contacting your PO for advice on submitting again.
B.F. said
Dear Writedit,
As we are all waiting anxiously for our Congress to pass the FY2024 budget, I read from the ASCB website that the followings:
“….The NIH funding bill for FY2024 approved by the House Appropriations Committee includes a 2.6% cut in the NIGMS budget, the NCI budget is reduced by 2.9%, and the NIAID budget is slashed by 22.9%…..while the
The Senate Appropriations Committee bill for the NIH includes an overall increase by 2.4%. The NIGMS budget is funded at the same amount as last year, NCI sees a 0.9% budget increase and NIAID is funded at the same level as last year as well….”
Meanwhile, other ICs are less affected than the above-mentioned in the House bill. So, at the end, no matter what the cuts will be, will the NIH Director have to stick to the recommendations or will he have some freedom to spread the cut across the IC’s? Also, if my grant is going through one of the other IC’s, does it mean that I will be less affected by the proposed cuts?
writedit said
The chamber mark-up bills do not necessarily reflect what the final appropriation will look like (especially this House), but it will at best be flat, which represents a cut in terms of new awards. The NIA bypass budget for AD/ADRD awards will likely be lower, which will have a bigger impact there. Each IC appropriation is defined in the budget bill that is signed into law. The NIH Director has no control over or access to individual IC appropriations (though ICs themselves do commit funding to trans-NIH initiatives). In the meantime, FASEB provides a portal to contact your Congressional delegation, which I recommend that you do to communicate the importance of NIH research funding to their constituents and to the local economy in their district. https://www.faseb.org/partnerships-and-outreach/legislative-action-center
K.L. said
Dear Writedit,
My grant has changed from JIT to Pending. Is it a good sign? Thanks!
writedit said
It is a positive sign – it means they are processing your application – but the status will almost certainly remain pending until the FY24 budget is passed unless you have an exceptional score/percentile at an IC with an interim payline. Your PO can clarify whether the award will need to wait for the final FY24 appropriation or if an award will be made under the CR.
l1zerdbreath said
I submitted to the new NIH Reward R01 mechanisms (first cycle) and received an impact score of 42 (no percentile since it’s NIDCD and also first cycle). I know my chances of funding are not high, but is there still a chance? I am in Oklahoma, so we have IDEA funding and an ESI but this is a weird mechanism and I heard the actual $$ aren’t necessarily coming from the ICs themselves but perhaps the directorate? No summary statement yet and I will of course talk to my PO but was hoping to get any additional insight folks might have.
Link for the R01 guidelines https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-23-122.html
particularly the end where it says that location and topic will be considered.
writedit said
There will be a lot of programmatic discretion in making award decisions, but your PO will not have any insights into funding likelihood until after the FY24 budget is signed into law, which won’t happen until next year (and won’t be pretty). This program does not have a specific amount budgeted, and the “number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations”, which will almost certainly be lower than when this program was planned. You will definitely want to apply again in February rather than wait for the FY24 budget to be resolved, so be sure to ask how to improve the application when you communicate with your PO.
SS said
Hi there! I am considering applying for this mechanism. If you received your summary statement, I will really appreciate if you would share your sense of what they are looking for as to “exceptional DEIA” and how that factored in the overall score along with the science?
l1zerdbreath said
They had four reviewers, one specifically looking at DEIA and they hated my application mostly because I did not have sustained, significant, and impactful contribution to DEIA since I am an early career investigator. So they really screwed me in that regard since it’s not an addressable critique. I am discussing today with my PO.
SS said
Hi again, thanks for your response. Would love to hear if your discussion with the PO clarifies some concerns. Best.
jingdh836 said
Hi Writeedit, thank you for running this very informative forum. My PhD student just got an impact score of 31 with ranking of 28%ile for her F31 application. Any chance to get it funded at NCI? Thanks.
writedit said
In a normal year, that score would probably be on the bubble of funding consideration – you can search this page for F31 to check outcomes for various scores in FY23. We won’t know about FY24 until next year, so when she gets her summary statement, you both should consider how she might respond at a high level to concerns in the Summary of Discussion (to be prepared in case you are asked about it) and then email the PO for next steps. My guess is that advice will include resubmission for insurance, given how long it will be before NCI knows their appropriation.
Ellis said
Hi! I got my NIA ADRD K99 score two weeks ago, which is a 29. I also an automated email from era commons for JIT request. I’m still waiting for my summary statement. Based on current predictions, how likely is it to get funded? When should I reach out to PO? Should I start preparing JIT now or should I wait for a personalized email request? Many thanks!!!
writedit said
Congratulations on your score, which of course is within the FY23 payline. You should definitely wait for a personalized request for JIT, which probably won’t be issued for a several months but could come as soon as after the Council meeting. When you receive your summary statement, you will want to think about how you would respond to the Summary of Discussion paragraph at a high level and then reach out to your PO for advice on next steps. NIA will not have any idea about their FY24 appropriation until after the federal budget is signed into law, which won’t happen until next year. Right now, the NIH budget is likely to remain flat, which would mean fewer new awards in FY24, and there are concerns about some cuts. Nothing is clear at this point, so your PO will have no idea about funding likelihood or timing, which is why I suggest you ask about next steps, in case they have concerns that a resubmission may be needed.
Ellis said
Thanks a lot writedit! I appreciate the suggestions! An update of my current status, I received PO’s request for a response to summary statement, and I already submitted the response. However, should I still wait for their personalized request for JIT? I did asked PO, he said it’s always good to have that ready as soon as possible. Regarding the other support for the JIT of a K award, does it mean that I need to include all key personal including mentors? although they will not be paid by the K award?
writedit said
You will want to wait for a personalized JIT request but, as your PO said, submitting as soon as possible once the request comes is always best, so if you need any regulatory approvals, you would want to get those protocols in for review. Regarding your mentors, unless they are included as Other Significant Contributors, I believe they will need to provide Other Support; the GMS can confirm when the request is sent, or you can ask your PO. The NIH also wants to be sure a key personnel who has committed time to your application has not received awards in the meantime that will put their contribution at risk (ie, not enough % effort available).
Robert D. Smith-Dvorak said
Hi all! My student’s F31 (NIMH) went from ND (A0) to an IS of 21, 17 percentile (A1). I’m not able to find any info on paylines or likelihood of funding through NIMH with this score/% (amazingly, there isn’t single F31 at MH in this thread). Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
writedit said
Great job on the improvement in score, which will mean something to the PO. You could search the archived pages for NIMH F31 scores and their outcomes, since paylines have been pretty stable over the years. Unfortunately, FY24 will not be a typical year. Depending on what happens with the federal budget, best case scenario is a flat budget, which would translate to fewer new awards in FY24. If there are any cuts, paylines would get even tighter. When your student’s summary statement is available, go through the Summary of Discussion paragraph to have a high-level response in mind and reach out to the PO for advice on next steps. It will be months before they have any idea about paylines or award timing, so the advice may be to submit a new A0 for insurance, since your student can’t afford to miss a submission cycle.
JimboJones said
Hi – I recently received a Impact Score of 27 on a NIA-sponsored U01 application (similar in size and scope to an R01, but the RFA fit my work well). I am eligible for ESI status for an R01, but it’s unclear if I will receive any benefit through this funding mechanism as the glossary for “R01 equivalent” seems to only indicate that ESI status is only factored in for NIGMS and NHGRI include R01 adjacent awards like U01s. I’m waiting for my summary statement and will contact PO once it’s released, but figured I’d check to see if I’m missing something here. Unfortunately the PO prior to submission never answered this question. Wondering if you have any insight on this? Thank you for this incredibly helpful resource.
writedit said
ICs take ESI status into account for R01 and R01 equivalent applications (including U01) when making award decisions. However, since this is an RFA, the IC payline will not apply, so there will be no ESI payline break per se. However, if your application is on equal footing with a non-ESI application (based on score, programmatic priority, etc.), it should get a bump since the IC will want to keep its ESI funding rate up. You mention NIA but not whether AD/ADRD research comes into play, which, of course, is a distinct set of paylines (that will likely be affected by the federal FY24 budget impasse, however). Also, shame on the RFA PO for not replying – not professional at all. If you work with another PO at the same IC (or even a different IC), you can always let them know the RFA PO is not responding (it’s their job to do so) and ask policy questions such as this that are not specific to the RFA itself.
Youyou Lensky said
Hello, writedit,
Thank you for maintaining this very helpful resource. I have an R01 (A0) for NHLBI with a percentile of 10 reviewed in June. PO previously responded that it could be funded in FY’23. Unfortunately, it did not happen. Recently, I just found that the status was changed to “Pending administrative review” on Nov. 3rd. I did not get a personalized JIT yet. I have two questions for you.
1) Does it mean NHLBI will fund our project during a continuing resolution?
2) One of my collaborative MPI (I am the contact MPI) just moved to another university this fall. Do I need to inform NHLBI at this point or when I get the personalized JIT? The grant support officers at my university told me they can do a subcontract to the university that my collaborative MPI moved to. Do you think this option is good?
Thanks a lot!
writedit said
The “pending” status could mean they actually do intend to fund the award during the CR, but the application could also remain in the pending status for months until the FY24 budget is passed. You can check with your PO about the possibility of a CR award. You will address the MPI institution change when you receive the personal JIT request, and issuing a subaward to the new institution will not be a problem (assuming that university has the resources and environment to support the research as reviewed, which I expect is the case).
Youyou Lensky said
Thank you so much for your prompt response. Yes, my collaborative MPI has even better resources and environment for this research in his new institution.
Andrew R Coggan said
Be aware that the subcontract will require that you pay the recipient institution’s F&A out of your direct costs.
Youyou Lensky said
Thanks @Andrew R Coggan.
BF said
Hello, I am in a similar situation as yours. Did you ask your PO whether they will issue new grants during CR (or the second CR) as Writedit suggested? I have written my PO, but she has not replied yet. Thanks
Youyou Lensky said
@BF My PO just told me that “Everything is moving in the right direction.” If you get any info, please share. Thanks.
BF said
Hello, this is BF. My grant was funded last week (i.e., got the NoA). Hope your has the same outcome.
writedit said
<
div dir=”ltr”>Congratulations and thank you for sharing your happy update! Glad some ICs are making a few awards during the CR. Best wishes for success with your research.
<
div dir=”ltr”>
<
blockquote type=”cite”>
LNS said
I have a trainee who received a 2 year diversity supplement on my R01. The trainee is considering another opportunity that would be good for her both personally and professionally. If she takes that opportunity, are there any consequences to her (or to me as PI) if she ends the supplement early (ending after only 1 year instead of completing the full 2 years)?
writedit said
There will be no consequences to either of you, other than not receiving the second year of funding. If her work on the first year of the supplement help set her up for this opportunity, you can mention that in the RPPR to convey the value of the support to her career development. You’ll want to let the PO know as soon as her plans are confirmed.
K.L. said
The status of my R01 (A1, with a 14 percentile improvement) application reviewed in June was changed to Pending Administrative Review about two weeks ago. Yet, the second CR will last till Feb, 2024. Should I still consider a new submission in Feb? Please advise.
writedit said
You don’t mention the actual percentile (just the improvement, which is great) or whether you received a personalized JIT request, but any administrative action suggests that they are considering your application for an eventual award (though not guaranteed). I would suggest you ask your PO if you should plan for a February submission (for this project) or sit tight (and maybe work on a different application – or manuscript submissions, if that would help your current application).
K.L. said
Thanks Writedit. I did get the personalized JIT request. My score is a few points above the FY23 payline, but not 1st or 2nd percentile either.
Anyway, I checked the status today and it said “Award prepared”, So I guess it is a positive sign even though we have not got the NOA., right?
writedit said
Congratulations! If you do not have the NoA yet, you will soon. Award prepared means the GMS prepared the award contract, and the IC Director needs to sign off on it. They don’t prepare awards unless they will be issued soon (i.e., they won’t wait until after the final FY24 budget is signed into law). Even if your impact score is not exceptional, it must be within the interim payline and/or your work must be of high priority to your IC.
hs said
Congratulations! I think you will get NOA prior the starting of award.
JITquestion said
I received an automatic JIT email. Should I not respond to that and wait for the personalized JIT? Is there a point in reaching out to PO to ask about this? Thank you.
hs said
No need to response to automatic JIT emails.
Once you have summary statement, you can contact PO for suggestions
Jason Liang said
Hi I recently received my K99 score from NCI, 24. When I asked my PO about should I prepare a rebuttal for the concerns raised in the summary statement, the PO replied no necessity. Should I prepare a rebuttal and send it to the PO or just do nothing and wait?
hs said
Just do nothing and wait
writedit said
Your PO is saving you time, since that is a competitive K99 score at NCI. You can invest your time in your research and manuscripts in progress.
Grantseeker said
Hi, did anybody see status change of NIGMS R35 or receive NOA? My status has no change since early September after council meeting. I wonder if NIGMS has started issuing new grants.
writedit said
Assuming you mean the MIRA program for established investigators, start dates aren’t until December (which even in a good FY doesn’t really mean until January usually), so there would not be any awards issued as yet. If you are anticipating an award based on your score, you can touch base with your PO about next steps and how they will handle this program during the extended CR.
Grantseeker said
My concern is currently FY24 budget is not solid yet. The rest of this year is still on “Further Continuing Appropriations and Other Extensions Act, 2024”. Not sure if they are still working on issuing new awards this year.
writedit said
That’s why you need to check with the PO. I don’t know how GM will handle MIRA (i.e., wait for FY24 appropriation or make some awards during CR).
Grantseeker said
I just checked. Mine is also changed to Pending! Thank you so much, and thank Jason below for sharing!
Jason said
My NIGMS R35 application (submitted in January, council review in September) status just changed to Pending on 11/20/23. Score is 31. Hope yours will go through soon.
writedit said
Good news! Hopefully the status will not remain stuck at Pending until the FY24 budget is signed into law.
Jason said
PO just reached out to inform that my R35 application was recommended for funding, but it will take several weeks for the award to be prepared.
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you for sharing this update to help others! Hopefully these awards will not need to wait until the FY24 budget is passed. Even in the very rare year in which the federal budget is signed into law for Oct 1, the Cycle 1 awards are always late due to the holidays and the time spent in October closing out the prior FY books.
Z said
We recently had an sbir phase iib bridge application reviewed and scored 36. Any idea what might be a fundable score for this mechanism from the NCI. Thank you
TD said
Dear Writedit,
I have not been able to convince the Chiefs of the Review Branches to support my requested study section assignments for my applications, although I think that I have presented a robust rationale. Could you please advise on the next steps I should take?
Thanks!
writedit said
There are no next steps. The Review Branch chiefs have the final word. Since you are using a plural, this sounds like a recurring problem. I would suggest you examine the expertise on the SRGs where you want your applications reviewed and tailor your science to match their focus and priorities (per CSR website description) so you are not at odds with the SROs and chiefs. I advise all NIH applicants to identify their target SRG (if not prescribed by the NOFO) before or while developing their application and then write to this audience. If you are continually asking for a SEP, then I am not at all surprised this request is not granted. CSR is minimizing the number of SEPs and expanding their range of applications, so you could actually do worse there due to insufficient appropriate expertise. Gone are the days of an SRO pulling your favorite reviewers together for a private review.
Z said
We recently received a score of 36 on a Phase IIB Bridge application to the NCI to extend a current Fast-Track SBIR. Wondering what the success rate for this mechanism is. Has anybody applied and what were their scores.
Thanks
writedit said
Your score might be on the high side, but I really don’t know for that mechanism, which might be more lenient. When you receive your summary statement, ask your PO about whether you should plan to submit again and any other next steps while you wait (they probably won’t know about funding until the FY24 budget passes).
hardawayja8a1ec4c2fa said
A paper was just published by a competing lab whose PI served on a study section for two previous R01s that went ND. The results in the paper are on the exact topic I proposed and one of the figures is eerily similar to the central model figure I included was supported by preliminary data. The first R01 A01 of mine was reviewed in Feb 2022 and the paper was not submitted to the journal until October 2022. Is there any recourse here? How is an individual reviewer on a study section supposed to ethically review a proposal on a competing project? How do I protect myself in the future?
writedit said
You should send the background and documentation of your concern (eg, figure from your A1 application with figure from competitor article, etc.) to [email protected] . Each reviewer signs a Security, Confidentiality, and Nondisclosure Agreement, and breaches are subject to criminal, civil, and/or administrative penalties. The NIH takes this very seriously – they often learn of potential breaches from applicants in your situation – and will follow up with the reviewer and their institution (see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-22-044.html – Notice includes links to more resources). In the future, if you see a direct competitor on the SRG roster, you have the option of asking that they not be assigned to your application (again, providing objective evidence of the competition and potential conflict based on prior awards and publications in the same area); you could also submit preprints to establish your work and data that you can then cite in your application (biosketch and research strategy). Now, I don’t know the typical timeframe for research in your field, but since you apparently were not able to submit a paper after your November 2021 A1 by late 2022, it could also simply be that your competitor had already been working on their project before your submission; however, they would need to provide dated documentation to demonstrate there was no breach in confidentiality (and possibly plagiarism), if the NIH is concerned such may have occurred.
NEW PI said
Thank you very much. This is very helpful.
Tianhong Dai said
Dear Writedit,
I have observed that the NIAID has released its FY24 interim paylines, which appear to be more conservative than the interim paylines of FY23. For instance:
R01 percentile: 8% (FY24) vs. 11% (FY23)
R21 impact score: 23 (FY24) vs. 27 (FY23)
Does this suggest a budget cut within NIAID?
Thanks!
SaG said
Yep. The House wants to cut NIAID’s budget quite a lot. The Prez and Senate suggest small increases. So likely, a flat budget or a small cut which can significantly hurt paylines. ~80% of NIAID’s budget is already committed to ongoing grants.
TD said
Thanks, SaG, for the information!
Has the NIH FY24 budget been approved?
https://ww2.aip.org/fyi/fy2024-national-institutes-of-health
writedit said
The FY24 budget first needs to pass the House and the Senate (following reconciliation of the two bills, which are considerably divergent). It looks as though the House wants to pass two sets of appropriation bills vs a single giant omnibus bill for the entire budget. The Labor, HHS, & Education Appropriations Bill is one of the ones that has a later end date (Feb 2 – how appropriate) for the CR, which suggests the House assumed this would take longer to hash out, and it probably will (e.g., see opening Chair statement at Nov 13 hearing: https://appropriations.house.gov/news/statements/aderholt-remarks-during-floor-consideration-hr-6363-further-continuing). You will know when it is approved when the President signs it into law (will be in the news). Then plan to wait 6-8 weeks before any information is available on funding likelihood-timing, since that is about how long it will take before ICs learn their final appropriation (passes through HHS and NIH first, and both skim off a little for reporting, evaluation, etc.).
TD said
Thanks, Wrtiedit, for all the information!
F31 said
If I received a score of 20 on F31 (A1). My PO suggested I submit a new submission given the funding climate. Is it authorized to say something in the cover letter like “This is a new submission of an F31 that received a score of 21 on the prior A1 submission.”? Or are things like this frowned upon/not allowed. Thanks for any advice.
writedit said
Cover letters are not shared with reviewers (only read by CSR/SRO), and you should not refer back to a prior review comment or score anywhere in the application. Each application is reviewed on its merit. Reviewers of A1 applications should not look at the prior summary statement until after completing their review of the application in front of them, so the prior score does not affect their assessment of scientific merit. Only after completing their review can they assess whether the applicant was responsive to concerns raised previously.
SC said
NIA just published an interim Payline. It has a huge cut from last year, especially for ADRD related research. Sad.
writedit said
NIA needs to see what happens with their AD/ADRD bypass budget (ie, bypasses IC appropriation negotiations), which is what funds the higher paylines for these applications.
sc said
Thank you! Is the bypass budget part of the “senate/house committee report” in the link GNR referred below? The interim payline for NIA ADRD related research is only 12%, a large drop from FY23. Hopefully there is still a chance to see a higher payline. Very nervous now….
writedit said
Right now, the House bill shows a small cut to the NIA request for FY24, which was the same amount as was enacted in FY23 and therefore already included a cut to competing RPGs (102 fewer than in FY23). If overall NIA funding is cut below this request, then the number of new/renewing RPGs will drop even further, so NIA is being very conservative with interim paylines, but they will be lower in FY24.
SC said
Thank you. Hopefully the NIA would not have to cut too much of its payline. It is quite stressful for researchers.
NewInvestigator said
When will the decision regarding the bypass budget be made? Same time as the general budget (i.e., Feb)?
writedit said
Yes, they are all part of the final appropriations bill. The bypass is separate from the NIA appropriation but still part of the larger budget bill.
anoopbal said
Yes. https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/grants-funding/nia-interim-funding-line-policy-fy-2024
The general pay line for < 500K came down from 15% to 8%!!
NIGMS R00 said
I recently took an approved AP job and submitted my R00 to NIGMS. I assume it would be awarded.
My question is, is R00 treated as new awards or an existing award?
Based on the information in this forum, if it is a new award, I need to wait 1.5-2 months after the bill is signed, which means no award until at least later March or April, even assuming no more CR, correct?
Thank you!
hs said
I think R00 is treated a an existing award.
writedit said
You will not need to wait for the FY24 budget to be signed into law. This will be a Type 4 award (extension/transition award) for the first year for which your IC has budgeted.
GNR said
Dear Writedit,
Thanks for this informative resource. The House proposes budget cut to a few institutes (significant cuts to Directors Office, NCI, NIAID, NIGMS, NIEHS), while for others the budget is allocated at requested levels or marginally lower (https://ww2.aip.org/fyi/fy2024-national-institutes-of-health, committee report excerpt). If this bill passes (I hope not), does it mean that the institutes that will receive requested budget will have paylines similar to the previous year?, and those with reduced budget the paylines will likely be proportional to the cuts? Or NIH could re-allocate the budget once the bill is passed. Thanks for your feedback.
writedit said
Each IC’s appropriation is stated in the bill and is not accessible to the NIH Director. Now, the NIH will skim the same proportion off each IC appropriation for reporting and trans-NIH activities (ICs will be aware of this) – as will HHS before that. ICs will not. know their final appropriations until they funnel down from HHS to NIH to the ICs. Even ICs getting the same as FY23 are essentially getting a cut to new awards, since all existing obligations need to be made first, which leaves less for new awards. Those receiving cuts to their FY23 appropriation will be hit harder. Each IC will need to decide how to apportion the cuts, which in turn will affect specific programs and paylines, but the paylines will likely all be lower.
GNR said
Thank you!
NewInvestigator said
I was checking the NIA budget for previous years and I noticed that even in the years that the budget for competing grants decreased compared to the previous year, the pay lines did not go down much (maybe 1 or 2 percent). With the proposed 102 fewer competing RPGs than FY23, how much realistically the pay lines go down? Is it really close to what they have in the interim pay line of FY24 (which is like 10-12% lower than FY23)? Or it would be more close to 1-2% decrease? I am just trying to have a realistic estimate of the actual pay lines for FY24.
writedit said
Assume all the paylines will be lower. Keep in mind that even with a flat budget, 102 fewer RPGs is more than 11% of all competing RPGs (in FY23, that was 814 new and 69 renewal RPGs), so while the number doesn’t sound like a lot, it is not an insignificant percentage. How much lower paylines will be depends on how much of a cut NIA ultimately receives and what happens with the bypass budget, none of which can be intuited at this point.
R61application said
Hi writedit. You are a wonderful resource! We just got an impact score of 33 for an R61 application (to support drug development work). In your opinion, what is the likelihood for funding? Thank you for any information!
writedit said
That should be a reasonable starting score for consideration, but I suspect most decisions will be made based on programmatic priority. When you have your summary statement, you will want to consider your high-level response to the Summary of Discussion concerns and get in touch with the PO for feedback and next steps. With the FY24 budget in limbo, they won’t have any concrete information on funding likelihood or timing, but they can indicate if your work is of particular interest and whether they would advise that you submit again for insurance in the meantime.
ESI at NHLBI said
Hi Writedit – Thanks for the wonderful resource! I am a ESI with a recent R01 %tile that is the same as the FY23 ESI payline at NHLBI… Given the current situation, still no update after Oct council meeting – I guess I would need to just start preparing a resub 🙂 ? or do you think there is still a chance for ESI here? Thanks for your input.
writedit said
You should check with your PO for advice on next steps, but I suspect they will suggest submitting again for insurance (though NHLBI might stretch further for ESI, which is why it would be good to check). You don’t want to risk missing a submission cycle if there is a possibility the payline will be lower than your score.
ESI at NHLBI said
Thanks Writedit!
hs said
Hi writedit,
I received JIT request from grant manager on 11/30, submitted JIT on 12/1, but still not hear anything. Will it be possible that the grant can be started on 1/1?
Thanks
SaG said
Very unlikely. What Council round is your application assigned to?
hs said
Submitted in 02/2023, reviewed in 06/2023, council meeting in 9/2023.
writedit said
Still very unlikely. The JIT request does not mean they will process the award immediately. Many ICs want to have their planned awards reviewed and ready to go but still wait for the FY24 budget to be passed. If your score was exceptional and within a posted interim payline, you will probably receive your award before the FY24 appropriation is passed but still not by Jan 1 due to the holidays and staffing issues. Even in the rare year when the federal budget is in place by October 1 or sometime in the fall, the Cycle 1 awards are almost never processed in time for start in December due to time needed to close out prior FY before applications for new awards can be reviewed. If you need to spend in advance of the award and your institution will set up a preaward account for you, the PO or GMS might be able to tell you if you are within 90 days of award.
hs said
K08 starts today. I really appreciate all the help I received from here. My timeline:
06/2022 A0 submitted
10/2022 reviewed, not fundable score
03/2023 Resubmitted, A1
06/2023 Reviewed and fundable score
11/30/2023 Personal JIT
1/25/2024 NOA
2/1/2024 Award starts
writedit said
Congratulations and best wishes for success with your project and your career in biomedical research! Also, I need to update my response above to note that 8 ICs made 21 new K08 awards between Dec 1 and Jan 16, so it is unlikely but not impossible to receive a Cycle 1 award on time-ish, even during a CR.
Sun22 said
my new R01 with a start-date of August 01, 2023. The employment was ended on November 30, 2023 because the Department Chair did not want to activate and renew the employment and the University could not activate it. Thus, this R01 was fresh. The University asked me to find a new institution and transfer the award. However, the time was very sudden. The job market just open and I have multiple onsite interview in January – February 2024. I informed the NIH about the status and look for a new job at new University.
1. The NIH asked the University to relinquished the award and closeout. And in my eRA Common Account showed the RPPR, stating that the award was relinquished, and no report on the progress of the work and spend money. In addition to the interim RPPR, the Final Invention Statement was also uploaded.
2. The Director of Grant Program Administration at the University informed that the award has been relinquished and the current University has no role in the award.
3. I updated my job search to my PO and GMS that all interviews asked me a high rank require this NIH-R01 award. I will have a job soon.
4. I emailed to the PO and GMS to ask about the information about the transfer. They have not answered yet.
5. During my gap of the employment (2-3 months) whether it may affect this award?
6. Whether the old University wanted to take back and replace a new PI although they relinquished the award?
The best solution now is I will get a new offer ASAP.
Please kindly advise. Thank you.
writedit said
It’s a little difficult to follow exactly what is going on here, but you indicate that your prior university returned the award to the NIH, which means they cannot appoint a new PI now. Your PO will need to explain whether the transfer is still possible and how everything will be handled if so – but this will now wait until 2024 due to the holidays and will take months to process. Even if the transfer is not possible due to your lapse in employment, your new institution would at least recognize that you are capable of submitting a competitive award.
Sun22 said
Thank you, writedit for your valuable guidance and advice. Because I didn’t understand the rules/regulations, I was terrified. The good news is that (1) my previous institution has not yet activated this award, and (2) it has been relinquished to the NIH, as stated in the final Research Performance Progress Report. The NIH issued a revised Notice of Award (NGA/NoA) that reflected the revised budget/project period end dates, deobligation of remaining funds, and deletion of any future-year support at the original/prior institution.
My colleagues told me that the award had been relinquished, so the transfer process will be accelerated if I receive an offer letter from a new institution soon. Again, thank you so much.
Sun22 said
Dear Writedit,
As you anticipated, the NIH notified me that the award is not transferred and required a closeout. In addition, the NIH advised me that “Once affiliated with a new organization, I can work with business officials to submit a new application for potential funding consideration”.
Given that my publication record is very good (I just published a top-tier research article), what is the likely outcome if I sa new, competitive application will be submitted on behalf of the PI by the new institution? thank you.
writedit said
The outcome depends on your application and how the study section rates its scientific merit. Once you are hired, you will need to rework your prior application for submission from your new institution to undergo peer review again. Given your past success and apparent publication record, it sounds like you could remain competitive.
Sun22 said
Thank you very much for thoughtful comment and critical advice. I’ll do as you suggested.
SSO said
Does a 16th percentile for NIDCR R01 established PI have a possibility of funding for FY 2024 given the current budget climate? PO says to resubmit but also provide a rebuttal for Council in Jan 24th. Thanks so much for this exceptional resource.
writedit said
You have a great PO. Looking at the NIH Data Book (https://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/category/23), your score is well within their funding zone but not guaranteed. In FY22, 6 of 7 R01 equivalent applications at the 15th percentile were funded, 1 of 3 applications at the 16th percentile were funded, and both applications at the 17th percentile were funded (though one with an R56 award). If your application was in response to a specific solicitation (RFA, PAR), then you could be more likely to receive an award. However, even in the best-case scenario of a flat budget, that means a cut in new awards, so your science will probably need to be of high priority to NIDCR to get bumped up the paylist. Your PO thinks that you might have a chance based on all this but is realistic about the budget situation and has given the right advice to submit again.
wingsofdarkfirefly said
Hi writedit,
My resubmission for NIH SBIR Phase1 application (in Sept. 5 cycle) received a score of 44 in November. And then a month later, I received a personalized JIT request, which I fulfilled with the documents on Jan 4th.
I was wondering does the JIT request mean that my application has good chances despite the low score?
What is typically the timeline for the full decision with the council meeting scheduled for February 6?
Thanks!
Brian said
Is the institute NHLBI? If so, I think they’re unique in casting a wide net for JIT even before funding decisions are made.
wingsofdarkfirefly said
Yes. The institute is NHLBI.
I am curious though, about the general process there as I want to decide on my next steps and I have noticed that JIT request usually lead to NOA. But I am guessing with NHLBI they can decline requests as well. Do you know when (ballpark) would they usually decide ?
Brian said
If the application is funded, the NOA won’t arrive until much later (say May or June). The funding decision will be made before then, anytime from shortly after council meeting to a year from now if they push the application to the next cycle. Your best source of information will be your PO, but he/she also won’t know about funding until 1-3 weeks after the council meets.
I would advise you to temper your expectations; in most cases personalized JIT responses mean a good likelihood of funding, but it is not so clear with NHLBI SBIRs. The funding line for R43 was 30 in 2023, and I expect it will be lower or around 30 this year. (FYI my firm is in the same boat as you with a similar score on an R43. We also received the personalized JIT, but I do not expect an award–but anything’s possible). I suspect they ask for a lot of JIT documents in anticipation of funding some select pay awards from that pool, and they want to be prepared to do so.
writedit said
Thank you for sharing your experience, Brian! For both you and wingsofdarkbutterfly, while NHLBI and other ICs do request JIT for more applications than they can fund, this is typically later in the FY (closer to the October 1 deadline for spending their appropriation), when they need to be able to process awards in a day or two rather than over the course of weeks (as can occur if approvals are needed, administrative issues need to be resolved, etc.). However, given the delays in the FY24 budget, they may be accelerating this strategy so they can triage and rank applications early. The PO can shed more light on funding likelihood – but this is not tied to the Council meeting in our current situation. Your PO will not know about funding or timing until the FY24 budget is signed into law. However, you can ask your PO now, if you haven’t already, if you should plan to submit again (for April 5 at this point). Across the NIH, FY24 funding decisions cannot be made (beyond relatively few applications of high priority with exceptional scores) until Congress passes and the President signs into law either an omnibus spending package or the appropriations bill for Labor, HHS, and Education (these agencies are always bundled together). The continuing resolution for this bill ends in February, so watch the news for updates on Congressional action on the federal budget. Once the FY24 budget for HHS et al. is signed into law, then ICs (including NHLBI) will wait another 4-6 weeks before they get their final appropriation and start to make award plans. This would push IC appropriations to March or April (or later, if another CR is needed in Feb), with paylists organized within a few weeks after that. The FY24 appropriations will almost certainly be flat at best, which means fewer new awards, since ICs need to meet all noncompeting obligations first. If the science in your applications is of particularly high priority, though, your scores may not preclude an award. Your POs can convey whether your projects fall in that category.
wingsofdarkfirefly said
Hi Brian and Writedit,
Thank you for sharing the details and shedding more light on the situation. I wasn’t too optimistic about the award given the score, but wanted to know the reasoning behind the unexpected JIT request. Your explanation makes sense to me now.
I have reached out to PO to finalize next steps.
Zhuoli Zhang said
my R01 first submission got 35%, but some of the comments are very picking and difficult to respond. should I resub or make changes for a new submission.
Thanks,
Mika
writedit said
I would recommend a new A0 so the next set of reviewers focuses on the application in front of them rather than your prior summary statement. The A1 is most beneficial when you are close or on the funding bubble and want to show you have addressed whatever minor concerns were raised previously. With a wide range of concerns to cover, it’s best just to have reviewers focus on the new science rather than your response to the prior review.
Youyou Lensky said
Dear writedit,
I posted questions about our NHLBI grant application to you before. Our application was reviewed in last July and the council meet was Oct. We recently got the NOA. Unfortunately, NIH reduced the project duration from 5 years to 4 years without any discussion with us. We knew that only after we got the NOA. Our DSP approached the GMS at NIH, who handled our award. She cited NHLBI’s current FY2024 Funding & Operating Guidelines for the reduction.
“Until FY 2024 appropriations are enacted, the NHLBI will issue non-competing research grant awards at a level below that indicated on the most recent Notice of Award (generally up to 90% of the previously committed level). See NOT-OD-24-007. This funding strategy will be updated when FY 2024 appropriations are enacted and final funding policies are determined.”
However, the policy seems applicable to the non-competing research grant awards.
My question to you is that if this is normal for NIH to reduce the duration of a funded project without any discussion with the PI, or it could be a mistake. If there is a way to contact NIH to figure it out?
Many thanks,
Youyou
writedit said
Shortening R01 applications that are not from ESI applicants and do not fund a clinical trial from 5 to 4 years is standard NHLBI policy (clearly stated on their policy website), and you should have planned for this from the start:
Duration of Research Project Grants The NHLBI will fund approved investigator-initiated R01 competing applications within established paylines, regardless of percentile or priority score, for up to four years. The only exceptions to this policy are awards made to Early Stage Investigators (ESIs), clinical studies and clinical trials with patient accrual and follow-up timelines that cannot be accomplished within four years. These excepted applications generally will be awarded for the full length of their NHLBAC recommended project periods.https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/current-operating-guidelines
TG said
Hi writedit,
My R01 resubmission (NIA, ADRD) scored 19% last October. However, the interim NIA payline for non-ESI (ADRD) is 12%. I was planning to resubmit my application as a new A0 this February, however, my CoI warned me that this might make my current application void and that 19% is already promising and no need to resubmit. I reached out to the PO and asked for clarification regarding if a new submission will make my current A1 application void. The PO responded: “Your current application will remain pending if you do submit a new application, however, keep in mind that the new application cannot be essentially identical to the A1.”
The new application will be basically identical, with a few changes suggested in the summary statement. Can you advise on this situation?
Thanks,
writedit said
The PO is correct in that any application that has not been administratively withdrawn can and will still be considered for funding.
The PO is not correct about the overlapping application. Essentially similar applications cannot be under review at the same time, and an application is considered under review until the summary statement is issued (not the study section meeting date). Your PO should know that you have your summary statement but perhaps thought you had just received your score (in which case a Feb submission would not be allowed). Here is the NIH policy: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/HTML5/section_2/2.3.7_policies_affecting_applications.htm?Highlight=duplicate#Submissi I think your resubmission is a good idea, as the ADRD payline will likely be lower for FY24. It could still be as high as 20th percentile, but if you think you can make a few tweaks to lower the score, this could be important, and it would push your application to FY25 (which may or may not have a better budget situation). However, there is really no need to rush in an application in for February 5, since the FY25 budget will also be late, both due to the ongoing Congressional CF and the upcoming 2024 election. I would recommend waiting until June since the timing of the award would be about the same, you would know if a new A0 was needed, and you may have additional data (from your lab or the literature) and/or publications-preprints to support the next application.
SC said
I am in the same boat. Got 18% for ADRD related application A1. I spoke with my PO. He recommended me to submit a new application, although he said it is up to me whether I want to wait or submit. I am still debating. Similarly, if I submit, the application will be very similar to the previous one, except for a few clarificaitons.
Writedit, I read it somewhere that ADRD bypass budget will only be effective till 2025? I could be totally wrong, but if that is true, does it mean that ADRD funding will be signficantly reduced in coming years? Thank you!
TG said
This is very helpful. Thanks writedit.
SC, but even if you decide to submit as A0 this February, your PO did not mention that it will negatively impact your 18% A1 once FY24 paylines are finalized?
SC said
No, the new application will not impact the current pending application. My PO said we could just withdraw the new application if the current one is funded.
writedit said
To further expand on this, some PIs hesitate to submit again in case their score goes down, but as long as the second review did not uncover a fatal flaw that was missed (but present) in the prior application, NIA can reach back and fund the A0 (or prior A1). I have seen resubmissions not discussed in which the prior application was still funded (PO felt confident in science and topic was a priority).
writedit said
The rationale for the bypass budget was to accelerate AD/ADRD research so the NIH could achieve all 6 goals in the National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease by 2025. The first goal is to Prevent and Effectively Treat AD/ADRD, and we won’t get there by 2025 (but a lot closer, thanks to the past 6 years of dedicated AD/ADRD research funding). However, the National Alzheimer’s Project Act (NAPA), which is public law, will sunset in 2025. Justification for the bypass budget has been predicated on progress toward achieving the 2025 goals and how much additional funding above NIA & other IC appropriations is needed to get across the finish line on time. NAPA gave the HHS Secretary authority to use their discretion in all budget requests and approvals, which will be gone after 2025. The NIH will need to ask Congress to appropriate special AD/ADRD funding as part of the NIH budget process thereafter, such as through the 21st Century Cures Act, but I have not heard what planning is in the works (as I am sure it is).
SC said
Thank you for your insight!
MMK said
Hi Writedit,
My R01 resubmission (NIA, ADRD) scored 23 % last August. However, the interim NIA payline for new investigator (ADRD) is 15%. The PO asked a two-page response to reviewers which I sent it. Just wondering of likelihood of funding. Thanks
writedit said
Likelihood of funding won’t be clear until the FY24 budget passes, and NIA receives its final appropriation, which won’t happen until 6-8 weeks after the President signs the budget into law. Even if the New Investigator payline does not reach the 23rd percentile, NIA can make select pay decisions based on scientific priorities and investigator rebuttals to reviewer concerns.
weizhanghms said
With an NIGMS R00 just started, what is the best time to start applying R35 (NIGMS) or R01 (from other ICs)? My understanding for R35 is that it does not need to have data, but I can not have it during R00.
Should I talk with the R00 PO or the R55/R01 PO? Thanks for suggestions
writedit said
You should certainly discuss all options you are considering with your R00 PO and any questions about MIRA with the R35 PO. If you applied for and received an R35 before your R00 concluded, I believe NIGMS can adjust the budgets if the R00 and R35 overlap (so you have 51% effort on R35, which counts toward your 75% research obligation during R00), but that would be a question for the POs. For the R01 approach, you could apply in the first year, but you probably want to wait until you have preliminary data and publications-preprints to support the R01 application. If you want to pursue a different direction from your R00 science for an application to an IC other than NIGMS, you could consider a Katz ESI R01, which does not allow preliminary data; you could discuss this option with the appropriate Katz R01 PO (see contact tables in each NOFO – NIGMS does not participate).
weizhanghms said
Thanks for the comments!
I did a little research, NIGMS R00 would need to be relinquished before the start of MIRA (if I am lucky to get it). I think it’s not bad to get R35 before R00 ends, since if considering the time from now to the earliest funding date (July 2025, for application this Oct), it’s >1.5 years, more than half of R00 is used. However, is it common or possible to request delay of starting a grant?
I did not the exist of Katz ESI R01, just learned it’s a good option, although reviews outcomes seems to be somewhat unpredictable. I do have a research direction different from R00 that might be suitable for another IC. It looks like I can apply Katz and R35 to different IC at the same time, but can only get either one, right? Either one should be good for tenure.
writedit said
Relinquishing an R00 for a more robust award is never an dilemma, since they provide only $250K in total costs, which is a rather small award with which to establish an independent research program. If you received the R35, you would absolutely want to take that instead (you would not be able to delay, especially 1.5 y). Now, a regular R01 also works for tenure, so you may want to focus on a line of research for which you have preliminary data and a track record and submit to an appropriate NOFO and SRG whose review approach you can intuit through information on CSR and via funded awards reviewed in that SRG (identified via RePORTER) vs those focused on innovation and individual promise (both somewhat subjective), such as MIRA and Katz.
l1zerdbreath said
Any idea how they decide to give out R56? I doubt my R01 would get picked up for this (and council meets 1/25/24 and I haven’t been asked for anything for council review, but I am ESI though the submission was for the ReWARD mechanism). But I am overall curious since I know some folks have gotten these in the past. Is it determined before council? Is it something council can recommend?
writedit said
Council does not make funding decisions. They approve grant applications to be considered for funding by the IC Director. For the R56, POs nominate applications for consideration, and IC leadership makes decisions on the full paylist (though many applications toward the bottom will not receive awards) and bridge funding through the R56. Your PO would probably ask for a rebuttal to the summary statement if your application were being considered for bridge funding. The R56 mechanism is used sparingly – only 3 R56 awards have been issued so far in FY24, and only 279 were issued in all of FY23 (vs 5,044 R01s) – but more tend to be made at the end of the FY, when money needs to be spent quickly, and when POs see PIs they would like to help (high priority science, productive lab in danger of closing, prevent gap in data collection from special animal or human population, etc.) may not receive a full award. Usage varies widely by IC, too.
B.F. said
Dear Writedit,
As we are approaching the end of the second CR and a third is coming its way, I would need some advice on one of my grant applications. I have an R21 grant scored at 7%-TILE at the June 2023 review cycle. The PO said it is likely to be funded based on FY2023 payline, but the IC is waiting for a budget to be in place. If I understand correctly, NIH and most government agencies are funded at current levels during CR, so why can’t they get my grant funded because it is within FY2023 payline? What will happen to my grant if we have a year-long CR? (The PO has not recommended resubmission at this point). Thanks.
writedit said
Congratulations on your exceptional score. I would certainly hope the PO wouldn’t suggest resubmission at the 7th percentile, and a few (but not most) ICs might pay your award during the CR, especially since it is only a 2-year commitment at a low funding level. ICs are cautious because they cannot predict what the final appropriation might look like – a concern borne out by the 2013 sequester that left some ICs needing to lower rather than raise their interim paylines and implement higher budget cuts. There have been years where the CR funding level is converted into the final FY budget (vs negotiating different funding levels), and that could happen for FY24, but ICs will wait for the enactment of the FY24 budget into law to be sure no unexpected surprises leave them fiscally overextended.
B.F. said
Thank you for your insights (as always)!
SC said
It seems that we are going to have a 3rd CR. Any implications for the payline? Thanks!
writedit said
Just th
GNR said
Dear Writedit, I have an ESI A1 R01 application at the NHLBI reviewed in June-23 and scored 24th %ile. During the initial discussion late June, PO was enthusiastic and advised me to sit tight and wait until FY24 budget and that it might work out. PO also asked me to provide a rebuttal on the comments (no major concerns), which I did. I had also provided details of my current funding (which is limited) as requested.
After the council meeting late Oct, I had a discussion in Dec23 and the PO suggested me to consider new submission due to budget concerns. I am no longer ESI at this time. I requested IDEA co-funding nomination given I am in an IDEA state. But it looks like NHLBI considers contribution to IDEA co-funding as a select pay, and that it will be difficult to nominate as there will likely be fewer, if any, select pays for FY24.
Now, in my eracommons, I see a different PO being assigned to my A1 application. I am not sure, if all previous interactions have been communicated. Should I reach out to the new PO and discuss funding situation and potential. Is there any potential for IDEA co-funding? Should reach out to new PO and a PO in NIGMS for Idea funding nomination. Any suggestions to communicate with POs for potential funding with or without co-finding is appreciated.
writedit said
It’s disappointing that, even though you were within the FY23 payline, your first NHLBI PO did not think ahead to the potential budget strife and suggest a resubmission while you were still ESI eligible, just to be sure. You should reach out to the new PO, both to confirm they are aware of your prior situation (including prior PO recommendation to not submit again) and just to touch base and introduce yourself. You do not need to contact anyone at NIGMS about IDEA funding. They do not make those decisions for other ICs. NHLBI leadership will submit to the IDEA program (which is administratively housed within NIGMS but independent from NIGMS in terms of award decisions) 3-4 applications for possible co-funding. You can remind your new PO that your application would be eligible for co-funding, to be sure it is among those under consideration for submission by NHLBI. If NHLBI cannot fund your A0 as an ESI award (due to lower FY24 payline) and does not submit it for IDEA co-funding, at least your new PO will be aware of all this in advocating for your A1, depending on its peer review outcome.
GNR said
Thank you! I will reach out to the new PI.
Promacta said
Hi Writedit, thanks for all the information. I just got my NCI K22 review score and it is 20. There is no payline information. What is the chance of my application being funded? Thank you in advance.
writedit said
Your excellent score should be in the funding range, hopefully even with the reduced budget for FY24. When you receive your summary statement, you should contact your PO about next steps. Hopefully the current Continuing Resolution will have been converted to the final FY24 federal budget at around the same time (by March 8). Your PO will not know about funding until later in April, but they will be able to advise on whether you should send a rebuttal to the review and/or consider applying again for insurance (though, again, I would hope not with your score – but NCI needs to see how much of an appropriation hit they will take).
Promacta said
Thank you so much for your reply! Once review comments are available, will touch basis with PO. Thank you.
ESI_A1 said
Hi writedit,
I submitted at Katz R01 May 2023, the last time I was ESI eligible. The A0 was scored with a 26% percentile (NIAMS) which is not going to be funded.
My understanding is that I can still resubmit and my application will still be flagges as ESI as I had submitted in time before I lost my ESI as per guideline below.
https://public.csr.nih.gov/FAQs/ApplicantsFAQs/InvestigatorCareerStageBenefits “I submitted an application within my ESI eligibility window, which ends this month. If this application is not funded, I plan to submit a resubmission version of this application at the next receipt date, which will be after my eligibility expires. Will my resubmission application be ESI-eligible?
There is a 13-month period during which an investigator can submit the A1 resubmission application to retain ESI status. That is, if an original application is flagged as an ESI application and it is resubmitted as an amended application (A1) within 13 months after the submission date of the original application, it will retain its ESI status even if your eligibility period has expired. However, if the resubmission application (A1) is submitted more than 13 months after the submission date of the original application, the ESI status will be recalculated based on the submission date of the resubmission application. In addition, if you have successfully competed for a substantial NIH research award at the time of submitting the A1 resubmission, then you cannot have ESI status.”
Would you happen to know if this guideline is current (it was last updated 2019)? Also, the PAR was reissued with a new number.
TL:DR – Submitted A0 for Katz R01 on May 26, 2023. Lost ESI status May 2023. Can resubmit A1 until June 26, 2024?
Thanks
writedit said
The policy allows for 13 months (rather than 12), since A1 applications are typically submitted 1 month after A0 applications. The new PAR number simply extends the same program. You should be fine, but I would recommend that you confirm this via email with your PO, in case there is any question next June.
ESI_A1 said
Thank you!
Summer_Katz applicant said
Hi ESI_A1, I’m planning to submit my A0 Katz application and was wondering if you could shed light on how the reviewers judged the change in research direction. Does it have to be drastically different from what you are currently doing or can it be slightly related to our current work. I asked the same question to the contact person listed in the PA but they said it is very subjective and up to the reviewers. Any insights would be appreciated.
Thank you for your time
writedit said
I have not seen a Katz R01 summary statement, so I can’t help you there. These applications are reviewed by standing study sections, not a SEP, so each panel would be completely different. Only 7 Katz R01 awards have been issued under the original PAR, so you might see if there is anyone you know or an awardee reviewed by your target SRG whom you would feel comfortable contacting for insight: RePORT ⟩ RePORTER
| | | | RePORT ⟩ RePORTER
|
|
|
hs said
Is Katz R01 similar to other ESI?
writedit said
The Katz R01 uses the standard NIH definition of ESI, if that is what you mean.
Peter Pan said
Katz R01 is to support a project that represents a change in research direction for an early stage investigator. Specific to this mechanism is that preliminary data are not allowed, and a New Research Direction statement is attached in the application.
R34_A1 said
Hi Writedit,
Thanks for all the information. This is a great resource.
I just received my NCI R34 review score (resubmission) and it is 23. I haven’t seen too much about pay lines for R34 across any of the institutes (none for NCI). Any initial thoughts on the chance of my application being funded as I await the summary statement and subsequently talk to the PO? Thank you in advance.
writedit said
That should be a competitive score. If the clinical trial you will use this award to plan is of high interest-priority to NCI, even better. However, NCI might be taking an appropriation hit in FY24, so your PO probably won’t have a lot of insight on funding likelihood until the FY24 federal budget is in place, but they will still be able to advise on next steps once you have your summary statement.
R34_A1 said
Thanks!
Kimberly said
I’m really grateful for this resource and for your insight here.
My NoA just came, and I wanted to share my timeline, esp for those waiting on their NoA during CR:
02/2023: A0 R01 submitted to NHLBI
06/2023: fundable score, within 3%ile from cutoff for ESI
10/2023: personalized JIT and Council Meeting
11/2023: status changed to “pending”
nothing, nothing, nothing
end of 01/2024: NoA
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you for sharing your CR timeline! Best wishes for success with your research.
Georg said
Hi Kimberly,
Congratulations – could you clarify “within”: was your score above or below the ESI cutoff?
Thanks!
Georg
hs said
For K01/K08 award, how long does the receiver need to stay in mentor lab before setting up independent lab?
Thanks
writedit said
<
div>This should be laid out
New_K22 said
Thanks for all the helpful information. I recently received K22 review score from NCI. Did NCI post interim payline for K22? I spoke with PO, who did not share any interim payline information, but kept saying just wait till June/July until final payline is determined. Thank you!
writedit said
<
div>Your PO is correct. There is no interim payline, and the delay
John said
Hi, my company is an NIH SBIR awardee and last year, I inadvertently overdrew about $25K from PMS due to the difference between the actual/drawn indirect costs and the approved indirect cost rate. I’d like to return the overdrawn amount to PMS (Payment Management Services) and was wondering if you can give me any advice about how to do that. Should I contact my Program Officer at the NIH about this? or should I just deal with the PMS? Thanks!
writedit said
Sorry, John, but this is nothing I can give advice on. I would suggest contacting your GMS or communicate with the PMS folks.
AH said
My R01 grant submitted to NIMHD was scored with an impact score of 21 and 5th percentile in June 2023. However, NIMHD does not fund it. According to their latest advisory council, they didn’t fund 3 grants with impact scores less than 25 or single-percentile. This was from their program director’s presentation. Click the link to NIH video cast on their website, it’s at 26:48. https://www.nimhd.nih.gov/about/advisory-council/ It’s frustrating and disappointing that prior to my submission, an NIMHD program officer encouraged this submission saying it was their priority. They didn’t explain why they don’t fund a R01 with a 5% score. All email inquires are unanswered.
writedit said
I am so sorry to hear that your 5th percentile award was skipped. It looks like NIMHD skipped 1 application at the 4th, 5th, and 6th percentiles in FY22 as well (see NIH Data Book). Competitive applications can be skipped if the PI has a significant amount of funding already ($1M+ in direct costs, though some ICs have different policies), or if the topic is already being funded. It could be some scientific overlap occurred with an application funded after your PO encouraged you to apply; since NIMHD has a relatively small portfolio, they could be especially sensitive to funding multiple applications in similar areas. If your PO is not explaining what happened, you can contact the director of extramural research or the director of the division where your research would be funded for some guidance.
| | | | NIH Data Book
|
|
|
sc said
if the applicaiton was reviewed in June 2023, I assume it would fall into FY2024 budget? Maybe the institute is just waiting for their final budget?
writedit said
It is true that an application reviewed in June 2023 would be funded in FY24 and that no ICs have a budget yet. I had assumed that AH had been told by NIMHD that they would not fund the application, but if the application is simply waiting in limbo (with no official word that it will not be funded), then yes, the decision could simply be on hold until April or May (or later) this year.
jameswyngaarden said
Hello, thank you for sharing this helpful information.
I submitted an F31 application to NIA during the Aug 2023 cycle. This submission received an impact score of 25, which is below the payline for the previous fiscal year (40 for AD/ADRD). I was invited to submit a response to reviewers in early Jan 2024, but I haven’t received any updates or seen changes on the status of my application since then. Have others heard back about applications from this cycle? What are the odds of my application getting funded?
writedit said
Your application is within the FY24 interim AD/ADRD fellowship payline, and NIA has made 5 F31 awards so far in FY24, so your application should be in the queue for processing in March (or April, if they are behind). Your PO won’t know when it will be administratively reviewed (they are directly involved in the grants management processes), but they should be able to confirm whether you can anticipate an award this spring.
Anonymous said
I just wanted to share my situation as a resource for others. I submitted an F31 to the NIDDK for the August 2023 deadline. Received impact score of 33. Summary statements scores as follows:
Reviewer 1:
Fellowship Applicant: 2
Sponsors, Collaborators, and Consultants: 2
Research Training Plan: 5
Training Potential: 4
Institutional Environment & Commitment to Training: 2
Reviewer 2:
Fellowship Applicant: 2
Sponsors, Collaborators, and Consultants: 2
Research Training Plan: 3
Training Potential: 2
Institutional Environment & Commitment to Training: 1
Reviewer 3:
Fellowship Applicant: 1
Sponsors, Collaborators, and Consultants: 1
Research Training Plan: 1
Training Potential: 1
Institutional Environment & Commitment to Training: 1
Conducted a meeting with the PO to discuss fundability. Was told grant was outside the fundable range. Was told low 20s would be what I need to aim for. Got the impression that anything under 25 would be considered good chances for funding.
Resubmitted F31 to NIDDK for the December 2023 deadline. Meeting was held today. Received impact score of 28. Waiting on the summary statement to see what the reviewers said in the coming weeeks. Really wish this institute would publish percentiles or paylines for F31s, so students wouldn’t troll around forums desperately trying to figure out what is fundable. Anyway, I’m currently thinking this will be outside the fundable range, but I would love to be wrong. Any input from others who applied these recent funding cycles appreciated.
writedit said
Most ICs don’t publish fellowship paylines, and it sounds like your PO gave you an idea of where their funding line is. Since your score improved, you will want to get in touch with them once you have your summary statement in case a rebuttal would give them some wiggle room in picking up your application.
lllll said
I have a student in my lab that received a 28 impact score (NIDDK F31) last year (2023) and was not funded (A0 application). I think you need to be below ~20 impact score to be confident in funding, especially with possible upcoming budget cuts.
writedit said
Thanks for sharing your student’s (unfortunate) experience, IIIII. Hopefully if your student applied/applies again, their score will drop to a fundable range. For Anonymous’s student, it will depend in part on the summary statement and any room/rationale for the PO to advocate. But – if the cycle is full of applications scoring below/in low 20s, that could be a tough argument to make.
middleagedPI said
in case it is useful info – my student was awarded F30 with impact score of 22 in FY23
writedit said
Thank you so much for sharing your student’s experience – and congratulations to them!
K99_guy said
Dear Writedit,
As a postdoc with a desire to become a faculty member, I stumbled upon this blog and would like to thank you very much for a perspective into grants I had never seen before.
I have a K99 with a fundable impact score (26 at NHLBI) that has had the following timeline:
02/07/24 Council review completed
11/17/23 Scientific review group completed.
06/26/23 Scientific review group review pending
06/08/23 Application entered into the system.
The eRA commons status is currently pending (2/16/24). After the initial scientific review meeting I received an automated JIT request and responded. On Monday of this week I received another JIT request and responded on 2/14/24.
From the previous comments I understand that I am in good shape, and the next step should be a NoA. However, I also understand that the FY2024 budget hasn’t been set yet and that could delay the start date (04/01/2024).
Could you please give me your insight into when I should expect to hear further about the grant?
Thank you very much!
hs said
I think your award will be starting on 4/1/2024.
writedit said
Congratulations on your K99/R00 score! NHLBI has already made 5 new K99/R00 awards for FY24, so they seem to be issuing NoAs during the CR. You could ask your PO to confirm whether your award will be made during the CR or need to wait until the FY24 budget is settled, though I assume your case will fall in the first category.
masonsweat said
Thank you, Writedit and hs, for your replies! I am glad to know the NHLBI seems to be funding awards during the CR. I think I will wait a few weeks to bother the PO, as I do not want to seem pushy, although I am for sure overly-eager.
Once again I appreciate this great resource!
Emily said
Hi Writedit, My RO1 A1 competitive renewal was triaged. Is there any chance to request consideration for an R56? Last time, the PO said the R56 would support maintaining transgenic lines.
writedit said
No R56 for a triaged application. If the A0 is still in the system, it would be possible though not probable to receive R56 support for that application (and if you did receive an R56 award after that application, you would not be eligible for another one). You can ask your PO about funding to maintain the transgenic line, but I would not expect them to be able to help. Your institution should/could have some resources to bridge this gap, though (just for maintaining/banking the transgenic line).
SSY said
Hi,
I have two questions and would greatly appreciate any advice.
My wife just received the Notice of Award (NoA) for her A0 K99/R00 this month. She has three co-mentors, and two of them (a husband-wife pair, primary and co-mentor) have moved to a different institute. My wife is planning on changing institutes during the K99 phase to follow her primary mentors. Does anyone have experience with changing institutes during the K99 phase of the grant?
My A0 K99/R00 application received a borderline score (fingers-crossed!). The Scientific Review Committee meeting was two weeks ago (Feb 1st), and I am awaiting my summary statement to discuss with my Program Officer (PO). I am also considering moving to another institution (the same as my wife), and I am wondering when is the right time to broach the topic with my PO. If the PO indicates that my grant is likely to be funded this cycle (after receiving the summary statement), should I tell her then, or should I wait until after the council meeting (May 15th)? Or should I wait for the NoA (expected in June) before broaching this topic with my PO? In my case, the project and training plan will remain the same, but my primary mentor and institute will change.
In both of our cases, the new institution is better (reputation-wise and resource-wise) than our current respective institutions.
Thank you so much!
writedit said
Since your wife is moving to the same institution as her mentors and the new institution provides a stronger research environment, moving the K99 should not be a problem, though it will take some time. She’ll want to let the PO know as soon as she is sure about moving to avoid gap in funding after arriving at the new institution due to administrative processing. Your case is a little more complicated since you didn’t have a mentor move to the new institution, but as long as you can find an equally qualified mentor there with funded research in the same/similar area (to ensure you have the appropriate research training environment on-site), you should be okay; you would continue with your original primary mentor via remote meetings. Of course, you would need to find an appropriate mentor at the new institution no matter what to hire you and thus enable the move. If you don’t already have someone lined up, I would suggest you work on this while awaiting your summary statement. If upon discussing your summary statement with your PO, she thinks you could/will receive an award, then you could ask about the possibility of issuing the award to the new institution and explain the new co-primary mentor at the new institution – and also let the PO know about your wife’s situation, so she understands this was not an arbitrary decision on your part just to move. The PO is mainly concerned about changes that might require peer review again, so it is good that your science and training do not need to change.
Anonymous said
This is such a wonderful resource for getting advice, suggestions and encouragement. Just wanted share my recent R01 to NCI.
02/22/2024 Application awarded.
02/12/2024 Award prepared.
11/03/2023 Pending administrative review.
09/11/2023 Council review completed.
06/26/2023 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Impact Score: 26 and 6th percentile.
03/16/2023 Scientific Review Group review pending.
03/06/2023 Application entered into system
09/06/2022 Council review completed.
06/28/2022 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Impact Score: 43 and 38th percentile.
02/11/2022 Scientific Review Group review pending.
02/03/2022 Application entered into system.
writedit said
Congratulations on your exceptional score (& exceptional improvement in score!) and award! Thank you for sharing your timeline, especially the lengthy pending period between administrative review and NoA prepared and between prepared and awarded. Best wishes for success with your research.
Anonymous said
Writedit
Thank you so much for maintaining this resourceful Qs/As and providing advice to numerous scientists here. All the questions asked and answers provide applicants invaluable lessons what to stress and what to avoid when preparing the applications and how to work with PO when patiently or impatiently waiting for the news of NOA.
R01 Issues said
Hi Writedit,
I have an R01 that was discussed at a study section A and scored. I submitted another R01 with similar focus but no scientific overlap in the aims, and requested study section B. But it was assigned to new study section C. Upon requesting a reassignment, I was told that study section A is a better fit for this and was reassigned to A (given the similar scope I believe). The major issue I have is I am resubmitting the the first R01-A1 back to study section A and I don’t think the review panel would be happy two submissions at the same time.
Can I request this be sent back to study section B? Thanks.
R01 Issues said
Forgot to mention I am an ESI.
R01 Issues said
Edit: Meant to say request if it can be assigned back to SS-C. Also, SS-C is a better fit based on the expertise compared to A.
writedit said
If the Review Group Chief put the application in Panel A, that’s where it needs to stay. You don’t need to worry about having two applications in the same SRG, other than the potential issue of not enough reviewers with appropriate expertise to cover both applications. The SRO always instructs reviewers to focus only on the scientific merit of the application in front of them, not in comparison or consideration of any other applications in the pool. No reviewer will be able to refer to your A1 application during the discussion of the A0 and vice versa. SRGs do not make funding decisions – it will be up to the IC to decide if they want to make 2 awards to the same PI in the same cycle (it does happen). If you applied to 2 different ICs, and both applications receive competitive scores, each IC will make their decision relative to their portfolio. Only the first award made will take your ESI status into account. The funding decision for the second application will be based on established investigator status.
ms said
Dear Writeedit,
I realize that it is very tough to predict, but how much are the AD/ADRD paylines expected to be impacted this year? Given that last year’s AD/ADRD general payline was 25, can this year’s be expected to go to 22-23, or even worse?
Thank you so much for this very useful blog.
writedit said
I have not had a chance to check the updated appropriations bills awaiting House review, but NIA was facing a cut in AD/ADRD funding in earlier versions, so getting back to a 25th percentile payline could be difficult. There could also be a lower payline and a lot more discretionary (select pay) awards, which wouldn’t rule out funding of higher scoring applications of high priority. A drop in AD/ADRD paylines is likely imminent in any case: FY25 could be the last year for an AD/ADRD Bypass budget since the National Alzheimers Project Act ends December 31, 2025 (so conceivably one quarter of funding in FY26).
anonymous said
Thanks Writedit. This website was really helpful to me.
I would like to share my R01 – NIGMS. I was ESI.
01/15/2024 Awarded
01/05/2024 Award prepared
11/24/2023 Pending administrative review.
09/12/2023 Council review completed
06/09/2023 Scientific Review Group review completed – impact score 33: percentile 15%
02/21/2023 Scientific Review Group review pending.
02/06/2023 Application entered into system
writedit said
Congratulations on your first R01 award and thank you for sharing your timeline! Best wishes for success with your research.
BHASKAR DAS said
I received17% R01 revised application from NIDDK. Do I have chance to get it.
writedit said
It depends on your situation and summary statement. More likely if you are ESI and/or the science is of high priority to NIDDK. Your PO will let you know once the summary statement is released.
wangwc9340efa71 said
I have a question I would like to seek advice on. I was planning how to utilize the research support budget from the second year of my K99 grant, which was granted $25,000. However, I was surprised to find there is less than $10,000 remaining. The institute’s financial manager showed me the financial report, which indicates the research support funds have been allocated to cover my increased salary and associated fringe benefit cost increases. I am uncertain if using the research support funds in this manner is appropriate, as I thought they were separate from salary and fringe support and intended only for career development and direct research expenses. I would appreciate any guidance on how to handle this situation. Additionally, as my mentor is currently experiencing funding difficulties, I wonder if allocating the research support funds this way to cover the salary increase has become some sort of ‘standard’ practice. I appreciate your insights on what would be suitable actions to take!
writedit said
Your institute can rebudget career development award funds among direct cost categories without prior approval from the NIH, though it is unconscionable that no one informed you, so you could plan accordingly. You don’t have a course of action to take, though your mentor might be able to get an administrative supplement, depending on the amount of time left on their grant(s) – or they might be able to request intramural bridge funding (from your home institute) to ensure both of you obtain the data you need for future grant applications and your R00 phase.
netrin said
I received a 3rd percentile score for my first R01 submission, which was submitted last October to NIDDK. Can I expect it to be funded? I am in ESI status.
writedit said
I certainly hope so. You should get your award on schedule in July, too, since the federal budget should be in place well before then and ICs should be caught up from the backlog of cycle 1 and 2 awards. When you get your summary statement, check in with your PO about next steps – and congratulations on your exceptional score the first time in!
MLGP said
Hello!
My PI got a 22 percentile on an R01 for a NIMH PAR. The PO asked for a rebuttal letter and according to my PI sounds promising, even though the PO cannot say anything because of the Congress not passing the bill yet. My PI says that there are chances since it is a PAR but I am a bit pessimistic. What are the chances of getting funded?
Thank you!
writedit said
It is true that the PO cannot give any insight until the FY24 federal budget is signed into law, but the fact that the PO requested a rebuttal and sounded optimistic is good news, since POs are extremely conservative. In FY23, NIMH made 23 R01-equivalent awards at the 22nd percentile or higher (2 made at the 29th percentile), and they issued R56 bridge awards at the 22nd, 23rd, 28th, and 30th percentiles. You can see these data at NIH RePORT (NIH Data Book).
| | | | NIH Data Book
|
|
|
aliciahong2020 said
I want to give an update on my R01 submission to NIMHD. Prior to submission, the PO was enthusiatic and very supportive. It was scored in June 2023 with impact score=21, pencentile 5%. But it was assigned to a different PO, who never responded to emails. Finally after months of waiting, I sent an email to the division director (the PO’s supervisor), and was told that the grant was not funded. I asked why? It fits their current research priorities and was responsive to a current NOSI. He acknowledged it was a good score and fits their priorities, but no funding and no explanation. BTW, I do not have other NIH grants. It was a very disappoiting experience with NIMHD. In FY 23, three applications under impact score of 21 were not funded. If anyone has a similar experience, pls contact me.
anonymousPI said
Perhaps your grant proposal focuses on Asian Americans, and the NIMHD has already fulfilled its quota for funding research involving this population in FY23.
“…between 1992 and 2018, only 0.17% of the total NIH budget went to projects focused on Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander participants.”
aliciahong2020 said
That’s what I heard too. Asian American scholars and Asian American-focused research projects are discriminated under NIH funding policies.
writedit said
Please give the source for this quote with the data for FY19 to present and the source for your statement that any IC has a quota for funding research a specific population.
AnonymousPI said
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2738623
writedit said
I agree that public health funding disparity exists for all marginalized groups, and while it is a start, searching RePORTER by project titles and abstracts as was done in this paper (now 5 years old) will not capture all NIH-funded research in which a specific population participates. I do not appreciate any blanket statement lacking rigor, which remains the case here. I see no basis for a quota claim, and the authors themselves do not suggest this. In any case, this tangential interjection had nothing to do with the NIMHD R01 application at the start of the thread – unless you personally know the application – and the R01 application could be (probably is) still in line for an award whenever NIMHD receives its FY24 appropriation later this spring. If you have concerns about the biased distribution of funding for specific populations, take it up with your Congressional delegation and appropriate Congressional Committee leaders. FASEB offers tools for legislative science advocacy.
Anonymous said
The lack of funding is a fact. No source for the ”quota” comment. This is perhaps an inappropriate comment out of frustration for the difficulty in getting funding to study this population. It is how PIs doing this work often feel. Apologies.
SaG said
Asian American Scholars are doing pretty well at getting multi-NIH grants. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2801787
And they seem to do better than other groups at getting an NIH grant.
https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2023/03/16/analyses-of-demographic-specific-funding-rates-for-type-1-research-project-grant-and-r01-equivalent-applications/
Check Table 1. 25.6% of applicants and 27.8% funded as a PI.
This doesn’t address their under representation in Clinical Research.
writedit said
You can reach out to the NIMHD Director of Extramural Research Activities for an explanation, and I suspect it will be that NIMHD is not making any awards until the FY24 budget passes (there are no new R01 awards for NIMHD this FY). It is important to keep in mind that NIMHD has a tiny budget (lowest quartile among ICs with funding authority), especially for R01 awards; they only budgeted for 62 competing awards — new, renewal, revision — in all of FY24 and will get less than they requested. In FY23, they skipped 4 R01 awards for applications at the 2nd, 5th, 6th, and 7th percentiles – and made a total of 33 awards through the 10th percentile. Their award pattern seems to spread the funding across a wide range of percentiles, with a lot of programmatic discretion, essentially making awards through the 28th percentile (lower percentage of awards as scores go up) plus an award at the 37th percentile.
aliciahong2020 said
I did reach out the NIMHD Director of Extramural Research Activities. He, like my PO, never replies my emails. The only person replies my email is the division director (my PO’s supervisor), but he acknowledges the grant has a good score and fits their research priorities, but doesn’t give reasons for not funding. The RePORTER only contains data for those been funded. I wonder if we can request data on who are other unfortunately researchers (received 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th percentiles but not funded by NIMHD) and their research topics. If NIMHD has any unspoken policy, that needs to be made public. How disheartening and traumatic it is to go through this process! This is a concern not just from a researcher, but from a tax payer.
writedit said
Again, NIMHD has not made any new awards for FY24. It’s not just your application. Please wait unt
aliciahong2020 said
Sorry to take your extra time about my NIMHD application (impact score=21, percentile=5%, but not funded). It was scored in June 2023 and was told by a division director it’s not funded. Quote from his email “Unfortunately, your application was not selected for funding. This is not a reflection of major flaws in the project, but the level of competition with other highly regarded applications.”. Prior to my submission the PO was very enthusiastic and supportive. But the grant was assigned to a different PO later who never replies email. This division director is the only responding to emails. In a separate email in response to my inquiry, he said “I can certainly understand your disappointment. However, there is no entitlement to funding regardless of an application’s impact score after scientific review. Your application competed for selection with other applications that were responsive to NIMHD research priorities, as well.”
Anyway, appreciate Writedit for maintaining this great site and allow fellow researchers to communicate their NIH experiences.
writedit said
So, the Division Director did explain why your application was not in line for an award. As I pointed out previously, this reflects their typical practice in making their relatively few new R01 awards each FY (see the RePORT Data Book link I posted previously). NIMHD always skips some low-scoring applications to accommodate higher-scoring applications and thus ensure a diverse and inclusive portfolio of projects being funded. SaG makes a good point in this regard in that they need to cover an incredible range of populations, disparities, and inequities. Your initial PO was not wrong in encouraging you to apply, but they could not have predicted the applicant cohort or what topics would be of highest priority to NIMHD leadership in that cycle. Their apparent departure is not the reason that you were not selected for the paylist. Also, again, NIMHD has not made any awards for FY24 (which includes applications reviewed in June 2023), and you never want to burn bridges in case some of the selected applications on the paylist do not receive awards for other reasons (e.g., uncovered at administrative review). As SaG suggested, you should consider reworking your scientifically meritorious application for the IC in which it would be most appropriate from a disease-focus perspective, especially one of the larger ICs with higher appropriation levels. They are all working to ensure the science they support is conducted in diverse populations, and your science might fill a critical gap in their portfolio.
SaG said
NIMHD does lay out their funding policies and priorities. https://www.nimhd.nih.gov/funding/nimhd-funding/funding-strategy.html
Given the small number of new awards over the past few years (and likely even fewer in FY2024) they probably spread the awards over a large number of under represented groups. A lot of NIH Institutes fund health disparities research that falls within their mission area. Could your research fit with another Institute at NIH?
Lisa said
That’s disheartening to hear.
Peter Jackson said
Hi Writeedit,
I currently hold the status of an ESI, and last October, I submitted my first R01 application to the NIAID. The score was released last Friday, and I received a score of 23, placing me in the 13th percentile. After discussing this with several experienced colleagues, they all congratulated me and believe that I stand a good chance of being funded, especially since NIAID’s interim payline typically increases by one to two percentage points later on. However, I can’t help but feel pessimistic, as I’m concerned about the possibility of significant cuts to the NIH budget. I would greatly appreciate any advice you could offer. Thank you very much.
writedit said
At the 13th percentile, I think you can remain cautiously optimistic. If their appropriation is flat, the payline will stay the same as FY23 (final) or drop a percentile to the 15th. If their appropriation is cut, it could drop to the 14th percentile, but even if it dropped to the 13th percentile, you would still receive an award. By the time you receive your summary statement and check in with your PO, the federal budget situation might be more clear, and your PO will be able to advise you about next steps.
a733302000 said
Thank you so much, Writeedit,
Without you, we inexperienced PIs would really be at a loss. You’ve been a tremendous help and offered invaluable advice. I forgot to mention, the current interim payline for ESI at NIAID is 12. This means that according to the original payline, I wouldn’t have received funding. If, as you say, the ESI payline still has the potential to be 13 or even 14 despite budget cuts, that would be absolutely fantastic. Wishing everyone good luck.
writedit said
Yep – I know the interim ESI payline is currently at the 12th percentile and certainly hope it moves up at least one point to the 13th. If the unlikely event that this doesn’t happen, your PO still has room to advocate for select pay, and I think ESI would be a priority for select pay decisions if the NIAID appropriation does take a hard hit.
a733302000 said
Hi Writedit,
I’m sorry to bother you with more questions.
First, if the score of a resubmission in July (A1) is worse than the original submission (A0) and the payline subsequently increases, would A0 still be funded, or could the lower score of A1 negatively impact its chances? Wouldn’t the best strategy be to resubmit?
Second, I just received my summary statement, which was quite positive. The committee seems enthusiastic and believes in the proposal’s success. When should I contact my Program Officer? Some have mentioned there’s little point in reaching out now, as they won’t be able to do much until August or September.
Third, while nothing is certain, I’d appreciate your thoughts on the NIH budget and, specifically, the NIAID payline.
Thank you so much.
writedit said
As long as the A0 is still active (ie, not administratively withdrawn), it can be considered for an award, and generally is. I know of several PIs whose prior low-scoring applications were funded despite an increase in score or even ND (!), and others have posted similar experience here as well. I do remember one comment a few years ago about one PO at NCI who warned about the possible negative impact of a subsequent low-scoring resubmission, but I don’t recall a follow-up, so I’m not sure if it was an official NCI SOP or possibly just a new(ish) PO who was unclear on how that situation might be handled. You can certainly ask your PO for confirmation so you can rest easy about resubmitting – but also ask if they recommend resubmission. If they suggest you sit tight, then you can feel pretty confident about an award, because POs never want to put PIs at risk of losing out on funding (including skipping a cycle when they shouldn’t have).
a733302000 said
Hi Writedit,
Thank you for sharing earlier in our online user. I also checked and saw that the proposed NIAID budget for FY24 is $6.5 billion, compared to $6.2 billion for FY23 and $6.0 billion for FY22. Could you analyze whether this budget is considered flat or if it represents a cut?
Additionally, I’d like to inquire about my Council Meeting scheduled for May. Does the decision on whether my R01 gets funded rest with the Council Meeting? When is the latest I can expect to learn about their final decision? Is it after the Council Meeting concludes?
Honestly, I haven’t contacted my program officer yet due to lack of courage.
Thank you so much for your always help and support.
Best,
writedit said
The FY23 enacted level was $6.562B, the same as the FY24 appropriation, so a flat budget, but that represents a cut to funding available for competing awards, since the IC must first meet prior year obligations and operating costs. However, at least NIAID wasn’t starting with a cut to the overall budget, which did happen at some ICs and will be even worse for FY24 competing awards. The Advisory Council does not make funding decisions – they approve applications to be considered for funding by the IC Director (who is the one ultimately responsible for all award decisions). Your application status will change to Council review completed before Council meets since it will be approved electronically en bloc (ie, one list of applications approved in a single bloc) in advance of the actual meeting. Your PO probably won’t have any new information for another 6-8 weeks, so no rush to reach on in that regard, but NIAID updates their paylines in a very timely manner, so you should know in that timeframe no matter what. If you haven’t already, you could ask your PO about next steps and whether to consider resubmission, and their response will tell you what you want to know, since they would not advise you to sit tight if they had any doubts about funding.
a733302000 said
I apologize for the additional question. Based on the current provisional budget, do you think the payline might increase from 8th/12th to 9th/13th even higher?
Thanks!
writedit said
I have no inside information from NIAID, but I would expect the payline to bump up at least to the 13th percentile for your ESI R01. I would not expect that ESA payline to get back to the 16th percentile, but hopefully somewhere in the middle (of FY24 interim and FY23 final).
a733302000 said
Hi Writeddit,
I have another question. Now that we know Biden signed the bill on March 23rd, I’m wondering, generally speaking, when do most of the NIH IC, including NIAID, update their paylines? Do they typically wait until the end of the third cycle to do so? What’s the latest we might expect to be informed? Thank you very much for your support.
Best,
writedit said
Most ICs wait until they actually receive their appropriation, which isn’t until 4-6 weeks after the bill is signed into law. This is not direct deposit – the funds go to HHS first, and often they take a little from all the agency appropriations (evaluation etc.), and then the NIH funds go to the OD (again, ICs lose a little funding here) before being distributed to the ICs. The OD does not take actual appropriation funds to “redistribute” the wealth, but each IC knows they owe a certain percentage of their appropriation (again, for evaluation, shared initiatives, etc.), so none of this is a surprise, but they usually don’t want to make final plans until they have their final appropriation. This is typically close to what they were expecting, of course, based on the signed appropriation bill. First they cover all prior year obligations and internal operating costs. They then try to anticipate the number of competitively scoring applications yet to arrive in deciding how far the remaining funds for new-renewal awards will go. All this takes a bit of time and discussion internally.
a733302000 said
Hi Writedit,
I just noticed that my eRA Commons status has changed to ‘Pending.’ However, I have not yet received a personalized JIT request from the GMS. I only received a notification from eRA on Tuesday requesting JIT information for our institution. Should I reach out to the GMS to inquire about this?
Thanks,
writedit said
If you submitted in October, your application won’t be processed for an award until after Council and probably closer to July, especially since NIAID is busy catching up with all the delayed Cycle 1 and now 2 awards. With the update in payline (13th percentile – phew), the Pending could reflect someone opening your file to tag it for future processing, but I do not know for sure (just that someone was in your application). You could ask the PO or GMS if you should wait for their request or get your JIT together now.
a733302000 said
Hi Writedit,
I have just received a personalized JIT. The primary issue it raises, which pertains to me, involves a request to respond to the committee’s recommendation to reduce the funding by approximately $20,000 annually for a specific experiment.
I am considering submitting a rebuttal to this recommendation and would appreciate some clarification on the review process. Specifically, will my rebuttal be evaluated by PO directly, or will it be reviewed by the committee?
Additionally, I am concerned about the potential repercussions of challenging this decision. Would it be more prudent to accept the committee’s recommendation to avoid complications, or is there merit in submitting a detailed justification for maintaining the original budget?
Your guidance on this matter would be greatly appreciated as I weigh my options.
Thank you for your time and assistance.
Best regards,
writedit said
This goes to your PO, not the study section. Rebutting won’t put the award in danger, but you will want to address the underlying scientific concerns that led to the recommendation (significance and/or approach). If they were okay with the experiment but thought the cost was too high, you will want to explain why your costs are higher.
a733302000 said
Thanks for youre quick response.
I wanted to clarify the meaning of the phrase “Rebutting won’t put the award.” Does this imply that rebutting the committee’s suggestions is ineffective? And does it mean that the reduction of my budget is already a decided matter?
Thank you for helping me understand this better.
Best regards,
writedit said
Not at all. I just didn’t want you not to explain why the experiment was worth funding because you were afraid to. They don’t have to agree with your rationale for the request, but they could (& keep the funding in) if you explain why. That’s why they asked.
a733302000 said
Hi Writendit,
I’m really anxious, so I apologize for bothering you again. My pencentile is 13%, and NIAID’s final payline is 14%. Theoretically, I should have a good chance of getting funded. My status changed to ‘Pending’ on April 30th. On May 9th, I received a personalized JIT request. The scheduled AC meeting was completed on June 3rd. Since I lack experience and am unsure if I will be awarded the grant, I wrote an email to my PO last week asking if I should resubmit by July 5th, but I haven’t received a reply yet. Could you advise me on my next steps? Should I continue to politely try to contact the PO or GMS, or should I just wait?
Best regards,
writedit said
No apology needed – but I apologize for the delay in getting back to you (and for the problems with my prior responses not posting correctly – not sure what is happening). You can sit tight. Your application is within the payline and will receive an award, barring any completely unforeseen administrative concern (you would anticipate any problem that might actually be lurking – if you can’t think of any issues, there probably aren’t any). I am sure both the PO and GMS, who also both recognized that you are in good shape for an award, are super busy with urgent priorities right now – the PO with upcoming receipt dates and current portfolio, and the GMS frantically catching up with the backlog of applications to process for all 3 funding cycles.
a733302000 said
Hi Writedit,
I hope you are doing well. I am writing to inquire about the eRA system and the wait times. My original status was “Pending” as of 4/30. On 5/16, I submitted my personalized JIT response. Since then, I’ve been waiting, and on 6/26, the status date changed from 4/30 to 6/26, but the current application status remains “Pending.” I have two questions:
Thank you for your help.
a733302000 said
Hi Writedit,
Thank you very much for your ongoing support and assistance. As you mentioned, NIAID has updated its paylines. The payline for Established PIs has risen from 8 to 9, and for ESI from 12 to 13 (My payline is 13th). I also noticed this morning that my application status has changed to ‘Council review completed.’ I would like to seek your advice on my next steps. What should I expect? Do I need to contact my PO? Could there be any surprises? Additionally, I would like to know if these are the final paylines, or is there a possibility they might increase further?
Best regards,
writedit said
The R01 paylines are still interim, but you are now within the payline (payline is inclusive of applications scoring in the 13th percentile), so any additional increases will not matter. You can sit tight – the PO or GMS will request JIT and any other information they might need during the administrative processing. You would likely be aware of any potential “surprises”, such as issues with research subjects protection (you aren’t at risk of being overly well funded, obviously, or having overlapping funding sources), so you shouldn’t worry about unforeseen obstacles.
AlwaysHopeful said
Hi writedit,
Firstly, kudos to you for maintaining this very helpful site – such a wealth of information!
I am an established investigator, and recently our NIDA R21 application received an 11th percentile (32 priority score). I am waiting for the summary statement to be released before reaching out to the PO. Given that NIDA does not publish paylines publicly, unclear if we are in the fundable range. Any insights you (and others in this forum) can share?
writedit said
You can get an idea of NIDA’s R01 payline by looking at the NIH Data Book Funding Priorities Graph (NIH Data Book). NIDA funded most R01 applications through the 13th percentile in FY23 (skipped 12 applications from the 1st to 13th percentiles and reached all the way up to the 36th percentile). Usually the R21 payline is a little tighter than the R01 payline, but 11th percentile should at least be in the zone of consideration. Hopefully your PO will have some positive input when you receive your summary statement, especially if the FY24 HHS appropriation bill is signed into law by then. Interesting score-percentile combination – I am guessing the study section was new(ish) or recently recalibrated.
| | | | NIH Data Book
|
|
|
Junior PI said
Hi,
I am waiting to hear about funding decision on my R44 from the NIDDK with score of 27. Currently ” Council review completed” and got a initial JIT request after the Scientific review and a second, more specific JIT request after the council meeting.
PO shared that due to the FY24 Budget not being approved everything is taking longer than usual.
Any update in this regard?
writedit said
Receiving a direct JIT request is positive news, but your PO is correct that final decisions and timing of awards will be delayed. The NIH appropriation is part of the package of bills waiting to be passed by March 22. If they pass the appropriation bills vs another continuing resolution, ICs will know their final FY24 appropriations 6-8 weeks later (they have to wait for the $$ to funnel through HHS and then NIH, each of which will take a little for administrative costs), so by early May. Applications scoring within prior paylines will probably start getting processed sooner, since NIDDK will know roughly what to expect. Depending on the appropriation passed, those closer the FY24 payline or just above will need to wait for the final appropriation to arrive so NIDDK can sort out how far the $$ will go in relation to the FY24 applicant pool and prior commitments.
Shayna said
Hi Writedit,
What a wonderful resource! I have a question about dual assignments. I submitted a K01 for the February cycle targeted to the NICHD. However, my institution did not include the institute reassignment form in the application package, so my grant was instead auto-assigned to the NIMH. The problem is that I’m ineligible to apply for a K01 at NIMH, as it has been more than 6 years since my PhD. I contacted the Division of Receipt and Referral and asked them to reassign my grant to the NICHD. They told me that “Per the program staff at NICHD, they are willing to accept this application as secondary assignment and recommend that if you have not done so already to discuss with NIMH staff to confirm their interest.” I talked to the PO at NIMH and they confirmed that I’m ineligible unless I qualify for an extension. I plead my case that I might be eligible based on significant change of fields but if they say no, what is going to happen? When I get my scores, NIMH will say they cannot fund it, so will it go to NICHD?
writedit said
No application is “auto-assigned”. Someone at NIMH accepted your application when CSR asked. You could have asked the PO at NIMH why they accepted the application if you are ineligible (probably not worth it or a good idea at this point, though). NIMH needs to review your request for extension quickly, so, if they opt not to grant an extension, they can relinquish your application to allow NICHD to become the primary assignment. ICs with secondary assignments almost never pick up applications for funding, so you don’t want to wait until after the review to request a formal change in primary IC assignment. However, I can’t tell if the way CSR relayed the message from NICHD means they (NICHD) only want to have a secondary assignment (ie, they wouldn’t accept primary assignment even if NIMH relinquishes the application), or if they were following policy and politely waiting until the IC with primary assignment (NIMH) decides what they want to do. If you talked with a PO at NICHD – which I would hope that you did while preparing the application (for their input & advice) – you would want to be sure they are aware of what is going on.
GRC said
Hi Writedit, Thank you for this extremely helpful resource. I have been a frequent visitor. I am a new investigator and have been so far unsuccessful in NIH awards despite several discussed grants. I have two questions; 1) I have an R21 at NIAID that received an impact score of 27. What is the likelihood of this application being funded in Fy24 and is it ok to convey my limited fund situation to PO. 2) I submitted two R01 applications (with ~20% overlap) this cycle, with similar scope but different mechanisms, to increase my funding chance. Despite my effort/request to have these applications assigned to different study sections, both are being assigned to the same study section. How do you think this will be viewed by reviewers and impacted? Should I request to assign one of the applications to another SS? There are more that two SS that at-least one of the apps can be assigned to. Thank you for your insights.
writedit said
So sorry to hear none of your scored applications have gone on to receive awards. Re: your R21, yes, you can let the PO know your funding situation and your many close but unsuccessful applications. The science still needs to be of special interest, but POs do consider if a lab or investigator is in trouble. If this is important for your tenure trajectory, be sure to note that as well. Re: your R01 applications, if the assigned SRG is appropriate for both applications, that shouldn’t be an issue in terms of the review, unless there are only one or two specially qualified reviewers on the regular roster (ie, who are best qualified to assess your science). The SRO instructs each reviewer to focus only on the application in front of them, not prior submissions or other applications within the same cycle by the same PI. It is up to ICs, not SRGs, to decide if you deserve 2 R01 awards in the same cycle. There will be no consideration or mention of your other application in either review. Because you submitted the form requesting a different SRG, for the application that did not go where you wanted, you probably want to be sure first that the requested SRG is still appropriate (ie, no changes following an ENQUIRE review of the RB). If you feel strongly that another SRG is truly better in terms of evaluating scientific merit, you can communicate with the appropriate Review Branch chief (I assume both SRGs are in the same RB) about your (objective evidence-based) rationale for preferring the other SRG – but you need to politely accept whatever the RB Chief decides. Again, your applications are both fine sitting at the same SRG in terms of no bias against having 2 applications from one PI in the same cycle (or consecutive cycles etc.).
GRC said
Writedit, Thank you for your suggestions. I reached out to SRO and the branch chief, and requested R01 assignment to another related study section. RB Chief agreed to move one of the application to a special emphasis panel with similar expertise that will review overflow applications.
NIHBudget said
I read Biden signed H.R. 4366, a package of six Fiscal Year 2024 appropriations bills. Does this mean NIH budget is now finalized for the FY24, and we are supposed to hear back about payline in 1~2 months?
writedit said
Thanks, SaG! We will need to wait until March 22 to see if Congress sends the Labor-HHS-Education appropriation bill to the President for signature into law. When that happens, yes, ICs will know more 1-2 months after that.
SaG said
It doesn’t include money for HHS or NIH. They are still under a continuing resolution.
BF said
Dear Writedit,
For NICHD, what will a flat budget mean in terms of payline? Before the start of the CR, my PO told me that my R21, which received a 7 percentile, is very likely to be funded. They funded R21 up to 9 percentile in FY2023. Do you think they will drop below 7 percentile in the final FY24 budget if it is flat, as most people think? Thanks.
writedit said
It looks like NICHD will receive a ~$11M increase, which is essentially flat. While this will translate to slightly tighter paylines, you should be okay at the 7th percentile, since NICHD did not at least lose any funding (several ICs did), and R21s are relatively small, short-term commitments. Your PO will have a better idea of their appropriation and your award likelihood by the end of April. I assume you already asked about whether to resubmit.
BF said
Dear Writedit,
Thanks for your insights. No, the idea of resubmission never came up during my limited interactions with the PO. Regardless, since the budget is passed, how soon can I reach out to the PO again? When exactly will NICHD know how much money they got? I read some news saying that the NIH Director wants to spread the cut across the different IC’s. Can she do this? As you said, NICHD did get ~11 M increase. So will it end up with a cut? Thanks for this valuable site.
writedit said
The NIH Director cannot redistribute funding among the ICs – the appropriations are Congressionally mandated and signed into law by the President. Possibly she was referring to trans-NIH initiatives into which all ICs contribute (ie, lessen the load on ICs that received cuts), but I would need to track down the statement to understand the context. For NICHD, the minimal increase will mean a slight cut to new awards, but the Director will look at the final appropriation amount received (after passing through HHS and NIH) and how much is left after covering all existing FY24 obligations and then discuss the competing award strategy with leadership. Now, if your PO did not suggest resubmission, then you can feel pretty positive with your 7th percentile – POs never want PIs to miss an opportunity to submit again if they (PO) have doubts about an award. You could check back in with them at the end of April or so for a status check and to see if they want updated JIT information.
BF said
Dear Writedit,
Thanks again for your insight. Just to add this, my PO actually feels optimistic, so I hope he is right. Thanks.
writedit said
If your PO is optimistic, you can be, too. They don’t want to get a PI’s hopes up unless they feel pretty confident.
SC said
Dear Writedit- it seems that the final package of FY24 Appropriations has been released yesterday? If I read the bill correctly, NIA will get an increase of $90 million for ADRD research? This increase is smaller than previous years. Any thoughts on the potential implications on the ADRD payline? It was 25% last year and currently only 12%. Thank you !
writedit said
Unfortunately, you read correctly, which is why NIA interim paylines are so low and why they will be raised back to FY23 levels in FY24. The National Alzheimer’s Project Act ends December 31, 202, so FY24 will be the last full year of bypass budget funding as well. Hopefully an aging Congress that wants to reduce CMS spending will recognize the importance of restoring priority funding to AD/ADRD research in future appropriations.
RGP said
I’m trying to figure this one out too….When you look at the latest NINDS Council, they took their $10 million dollar increase to mean $10 million above FY23 levels which was $75 million for ADRD and now they were projecting it to be $85 million if the Senate appropriations were passed.
The text of the original House bill said no less than the FY23 levels which was like $230 million….so now I am wondering if the extra $90 million is on top of the FY23 levels (which is an increase).
writedit said
Nothing currently on IC websites reflects this bill, which is the only language that matters at this point. Folks – don’t overthink this!
sc said
Thank you for insight, Writedit. Did you actually mean that NIA would NOT raise their ADRD payline back to FY23 level? I have a pending applicaiton with 18%… and I am very anxious..
Also now CMS has made new policies regarding the data use, which will substantially increase the costs of projects using the CMS data. As the data costs will be absorbed into NIA budget eventually, I assume the number of future new grants from NIA will be reduced….
writedit said
Correct – I would not expect AD/ADRD paylines to be restored to FY23 levels. The AD bypass budget requested $321M but only got $100M, ~ $90M of which went to NIA. It will be at least 6-8 weeks before NIA knows what they have to work with and how they will manage their appropriation.
SC said
Thank you again, writedit. I also noticed in the bill that NIA’s budget is ~4.5 billion, which is about ~90million increase from FY23. Does this amount already include the ADRD by-pass budget?
Also, I understand it is hard to predict, but what is your expectation of the payline cut for ADRD applications? Thanks
Ellis said
Thanks for these discussion, Writedit and other. I’m really nervous now hearing about the news about AD bypass budget. I have a K application scored 29 at NIA last October and have already waited for several months. With the previous FY23 payline at 35 and now interium payline at 25, what could be my chance of getting funded? Many thanks!!
SC said
Also as NIA only got 1/3 of what they requested for new ADRD applications, does that mean they would only fund ~1/3 what they funded last year? and thus the 12% interim funding line is not very likely to increase? We are all very nervious…Thank you
writedit said
NIA did receive some AD/ADRD funding, so the paylines should go up a bit, just not to the full FY23 levels, depending on how competitively scored the current pool of applications is (lots of low-scoring applications waiting for decisions could also prevent raising paylines very far) and how much $$ NIA might want to hold back for discretionary (select pay) awards at higher scores. Again, the final appropriation and how far it might go won’t be known for another several weeks. Just understand that this is why ICs set very conservative interim paylines – so they don’t have to later lower the payline if their requested funding level is not written into law.
newR01 said
Dear Writedit and all: Thanks for maintaining this very informative webpage!
The final budget has been released today:
https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20240318/WDI39597.PDF
On page 495 it shows that the budget for NCI will be 7.22 billion, which will be slightly higher (about 100 million) than last year’s final budget (excluding the 216 million Cancer Moonshot).
Earlier this month, we received the NOA of R01 from NCI, but according to their interim funding policy (https://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/grantspolicies/interimfundltr.htm), there was a 17% reduction from our original requested amount.
Assuming by this weekend Congress can pass this final budget, it is very likely that NCI will increase the pay line for R01 (current interim level at 9%). My question is: will they also retroactively reverse that 17% reduction and provide us at 100% level? Can we reach out to PO to discuss this possibility?
Your experiences and insights are much appreciated!
writedit said
Actually, NCI will lose ~$100M ($7.2B FY24 vs $7.3B FY23 – Cancer Moonshot funding ended in FY23, too), but even if they were gaining $100M, you would not receive 100% of your requested budget. If you look at their budget policy across FYs, the 17% reduction is standard, so unless you are ESI, you should not anticipate having any of that restored. Your PO won’t know the final appropriation status for another 6-8 weeks, but they could tell you now whether there is any possibility of reducing your cut from 17% to something lower (highly doubtful, especially this year).
Mc991220py said
Dear Writedit,
Do you expect the NCI will increase the pay line for R01 to above 10% from the interim payline (9%)? We have a pending R01 just scored at 10% and we are very nervous about this. The FY23 payline was 12%. Thanks
ESINCI said
What about ESI payline? Currently NCI ESI payline is 14%, do you think it will go up to 17% as FY23 or lower?
writedit said
Since they are facing a cut, NCI FY24 paylines will be lower than in FY23. Whether or not there is wiggle room to raise the interim paylines a percentile or two will depend on how conservative leadership was in setting the interim levels, what the scoring range is for the current pool of competitive application (ie, lots of very low-scoring applications will bring down the payline since the reduced $$ won’t go as far), and the amount of funds for discretionary awards leadership wants to hold back to maintain a diverse portfolio (which could require paying select higher-scoring applications). While NCI is committed to raising their hard payline, FY24 is a very challenging budget situation that may require a pause in this initiative.
AlwaysHopeful said
Congratulations @newR01 on your new NCI R01. You got funded during a CR – kudos! May I ask what your score was?
newR01 said
Thank you @writedit and @AlwaysHopeful, we received a 7th percentile.
HC said
Writedit and SaG,
I applied for the Pioneer Award DP1 and received a score of 34. Do you have any insights regarding this funding mechanism? What are the fundable score range for DP1? It was stated that programmatic priorities are often used in funding recommendation. What are the priorities that might be considered when making decisions for DP1?
Thanks!
writedit said
I do not have any special insight into the Pioneer awards beyond the role of programmatic discretion. Your score should secure serious consideration, and then it probably depends on what other sorts of investigators and science are in the mix.
SaG said
Hard to say but likely outside what the NIH OD can pay. It is possible that another NIH Institute will like it enough to pay it. But, given that DPs tend to be expensive and that the NIH overall got a flat budget it is probably not going to happen.
anxiouslywaiting said
My program officer (NICHD) said that he recommend funding my R01 application through the Director’s discretionary fund. The grant scored outside of the normal payline (17%). This was back in November, and I know we weren’t expecting to hear anything until the budget passed. Do you know the likelihood of his recommendation being approved, and when we might hear something? My lab is in trouble without this funding.
writedit said
NICHD will know what their final appropriation looks like in 6-8 weeks, and decisions will be made after that. Your PO probably won’t know anything before then since they are out of the loop in terms of final paylist discussions. If you didn’t let them know about your lab situation back in November, you could reach out again to ask for advice on waiting for this award and submission advice (assuming you didn’t submit any applications in Feb-March) and to let them know the lab will shut down without this award. If your PO knows about your lab situation, they could also push for an R56 award, if the budget situation (flat for NICHD) makes a select pay award less likely.
anxiouslywaiting said
Thank you. I did submit another new grant, similar to the one that scored 17% (17% grant was an A1), but it was ND. Will this make it less likely that the 17% will go through? My PO does know from November the lab situation. Given that, should I just wait for the ND summary statement before contacting him again? About a week ago (before I had the ND on the new grant), he said something about keeping his fingers crossed the budget passes, and then keeping his toes crossed that the director approves his funding request.
writedit said
You have a great PO who clearly doesn’t want your lab to fold. The ND doesn’t help, but it shouldn’t knock your A1 out of consideration. If you don’t hear from him before then, wait for the summary statement to reach out for an update on next steps.
R01Seeking said
Hi Writedit and SaG,
Thank you for maintaining this helpful and informative blog.
My R01 has a score of borderline. The council meeting was held last month. I emailed my PO again about funding prospect and my PO replied that “Currently, your application is on “hold” status. We will continue to evaluate the hold applications throughout the year including the June Council cycle. Funding decisions will be dependent on our FY24 budget which has not been released to us at this time.”
Can you help me understand the funding prospect of my R01 application? Of course, I have resubmitted my application already.
Thank you very much.
writedit said
Your PO is telling you that your application is in line for select pay, but those award decisions won’t be made until after all 3 cycles of applications have been funded (ie, after July 1) and they see how much $$ they have left for select pay awards. If your resubmission score drops, that could help the PO advocate for funding the current application (rather than wait until your resubmission comes up for Council review), but if the score goes up, that won’t necessarily knock your current application out of contention, but it still leaves you waiting for all the applications in line ahead of you to be reviewed for awards first.
wmy32552316wmy said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you for your insightful explanations. I have three more questions.
Thank you very much.
writedit said
In a typical year with an increase in budget, select pay decisions could potentially be made any time in the FY once the appropriation is available. This year, because the appropriation is so late, select pay consideration will wait until after cycles 1 and 2 awards have been processed and your IC has a better sense of how far their final appropriation will go. However, because ICs are also receiving a cut in their appropriation for new awards, they will probably wait until after the cycle 3 awards are processed as well before considering select pay awards from any submission cycle/Council date. While it is not impossible for your FY24 A0 to be funded in FY25 (since it will still be administratively active), it is highly unlikely, and you can assume it will not be considered for an award in FY25, which will also have a very late and potentially another flat budget due to the upcoming election.
R01Applicant said
Dear Writedit and SaG,
Just want to update the community, as I have learned so much from here. In the end, I got the select-pay in September, which is the last month of the financial year. The application was originally submitted in 2023 June and was resubmitted in 2024 March. The A0 application was ultimately funded. A1 percentile was improved from 34 to 25.
Looking back, as an early-stage investigator, the lesson that I learned is that (1) you really need to establish your research niche; (2) try to respond to NIH’s NOSI and special funding opportunity, which will give PO a good reason to advocate for your application.
Thank you very much.
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you for sharing this thoughtful update and advice! As in your case, ICs will often go back and fund the A0 application rather than wait until the A1 comes up for an award so the PI doesn’t lose a year (or more) on research the IC wants to support. Best wishes for success with your research.
STTR newbie said
I am working on an STTR application and based on standard NIH guidelines I would be allowed a 2 week late submission for an R01. I tried to find any information for late submission of STTR applications and all I could find was the following:
“NIH will not consider accepting late applications under the following circumstances… those that have declared, in the Application Due Date field, No late applications will be accepted“
Based on lack of this statement on the STTR RFA, a late submission should be allowed, but I want to be certain. I reached out to multiple individuals but all they do is send me this link with no good answer. Anyone have experiences with this?
SaG said
No one at NIH will give you permission top submit late. But, if it is a special STTR RFA with one receipt date you can not submit late. This is trues for all RFAs with a single receipt date. Is this the parent STTR/SBIR or a special one?
STTR newbie said
Thanks – this is for the parent RFA, so perhaps it will be fine.
writedit said
It seems like the PO of the RFA should be able to confirm that your continuous submission status (I assume) would allow your application to be considered if submitted within 2 weeks of the due date. You would need to have a signed explanatory cover letter with the application documenting your allowance to submit late for acceptance of the application to be considered. But, if the PO has not clearly confirmed they will accept late applications (and you communicated your justification for the 2-week extension), and if you have any doubts, are the extra two weeks really worth the risk?
Andrea said
Thanks for the answer. The reason I ‘need’ the late submission is my EIN is still pending with the IRS. I have the EIN number, but the IRS does not populate databases with it immediately. And I need it to be int he databases so I can complete my Sam.gov registration. Id like to ‘try’ to get it in for the deadline, but I am at the mercy of the IRS.
writedit said
I don’t think that will qualify as an acceptable excuse for late submission, but you can ask the PO. All applicants are required to complete all required registrations well in advance of applying, and “failure to complete or renew required registrations in advance of the application due date” is not an acceptable reason for a late application per NOT-OD-15-039 (which could be why everyone you ask points to this Notice – they are citing the list of reasons late applications will not be accepted).
STTR Newbie said
Thanks – I am not trying to use the registration as the reason. The reason I am using is because I served on the study section; however, you had ask if the 2 weeks are ‘really work the risk’. I was just indicating that I have no choice but to wait for the EIN to populate. So although ‘this’ is the reason, it is because I served that things are delayed. And it is currently out of my control, thus the late submission. Hope that makes sense.
WIS said
Can you please tell me how the NOSI works? Is it advantageous to respond to a specific NOSI rather than a regular FOA? Any input would be greatly appreciated.
SaG said
It depends on the NIH Institute and the PO who wrote it. Some Institutes will use an app coming in through a NOSI as a reason for select pay/ reaching beyond the payline. Others just like to advertise their interest and hope to get more apps in below the payline. It doesn’t hurt to include a NOSI number on your app and could help.
WIS said
Thanks so much for the quick response, SaG. Greatly appreciated.
writedit said
In addition to SaG’s great response, I’ll just add that sometimes a NOSI allows you to apply to a NOFO in which the NOSI IC does not otherwise participate (e.g., parent R21 PA). You want to be paying attention to NOSIs since they communicate current IC priorities and are replacing the prior use of program announcements (other than parent announcements) for soliciting applications in particular areas of interest (NOSIs are faster and more flexible than PAs).
WIS said
Thanks for the additional information.
AspiringGrantee said
Since it seems relevant to many here, looks like NIA has posted updated paylines. If you are in the same boat as me, you may not be thrilled to see these. https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/grants-funding/update-nia-funding-line-policy-fy-2024
a733302000 said
Hi,
Sorry, I’m not from the NIA, but I’ve still been keeping an eye on things. I noticed that the NIA’s interim paylines went from 8%, 11%, 13% to an updated payline of 13%, 16%, 18%. That seems like a very good, significant increase. Isn’t that a good thing? Also, the bill was just signed, and the NIA has already announced the updated paylines. Isn’t there a need for internal discussion (>///<)? We’re all in the same boat, wishing us all a smooth application process.
CB said
The paylines for ADRD research went from 25% non-ESI and 30% ESI in FY23 to 15% non-ESI and 20% ESI in FY24. This is a huge cut.
Alan Lewis said
Fair point regarding change from interim payline. The main issue is an impressive drop regarding AD paylines vs FY23.
SC said
It is so sad…my resubmitted ADRD application went from 28% last year to 18% this year…but still out of the current funding line My lab will be at risk without this funding. Should I email the PO for the next step? or there is no need to discuss given the published funding line. Very frustrated now.
writedit said
You still want to discuss next steps with your PO after you have your summary statement, and you do want let them know that your lab is at risk, in case they can consider your application for an R56 bridge award – though I expect many PIs pursuing AD/ADRD research will be in the same situation.
writedit said
All ICs will have a lot of internal discussion about borderline applications once they get their final IC appropriations, but in the case of AD Bypass Budget (distinct from regular NIA appropriation), NIA knows exactly where they stand – and have known for many months (but were hoping the cut might be restored), which is why the interim paylines were so conservative.
anoopbal said
I received 14% for R15. I resubmitted to get 33%. The NIA PO said my A0 will be active and he will support if funding climate changes.Since the current pay line is at 13% and my %ile is 14%. Do I have a slim chance for my A0?
writedit said
You still have a (very) slim chance. Even though the AD/ADRD bonus funding was severely cut, NIA wants to protect its entire portfolio, so they could reach for a few non-AD applications, and it’s nice to know your PO is an advocate. The R15 is not as big a lift as an R01, too. However, it’s a rough FY all across the NIH, so ICs probably can’t be as generous as they would like in terms of select pay.
writedit said
So, as I mentioned earlier, the huge AD/ADRD drop is because the AD Bypass Budget (which has been funding the generous AD/ADRD paylines) was cut from $321M to $100M for FY24, and it looks like NIA received $90M of this. In addition, because the NIA could be wary about making long-term commitments when they don’t know if Congress will continue the AD Bypass Budget after the National Alzheimer’s Project Act ends on Dec 31, 2025 (only 1 quarter into FY25). Plus, of course, the upcoming election means we won’t know about the general future of NIH and other federal funding until Novemberish at the earliest. I do not know for certain, but I suspect NIA will make more R56 awards in the hope they get a lifeline to continue many of these R01s after FY25.
rwadhera4097959ce6 said
Thank you for this incredible resource @writedit
I recently found out that my R01 application scored at the 14th percentile (NHLBI). The non-ESI payline for NHLBI in FY2023 was 14th percentile.
On reviewing the NHLBI budget for FY2024, it looks like they plan on funding nearly the same number of new applications (higher total $ amount) as FY2023, despite the flat budget, but are making cuts in other areas.
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/sites/default/files/media/docs/NHLBI-FY-2024-CJ.pdf
Based on the above, do you have any sense of whether the payline will stay the same at 14th percentile in FY2024 (vs. go down). If it does the latter and my score is just above the cutoff, how would you recommend navigating this with PO… and is the likelihood of select pay low given current funding climate?
writedit said
You are referencing a document produced in 2023 in support of the FY24 budget request for NHLBI. They requested $3.985B but received $3.982B, or a cut of $3M. Even so, their budget request indicates that they planned to cut support for RPG awards (mainly R01) by $6M in FY24, which means they were planning to make fewer new awards. The cut in their FY24 appropriation means the amount available for new awards will be cut even more. Whether the payline will drop will depend on the range of application scores waiting in line for awards. The payline might stay at the 14th percentile, but a drop by 1-2 percentiles is also possible. When you have your summary statement, you will want to check with your PO about next steps and whether to be thinking about an A1 in July (or A0 in June, if this was an A1). You can’t request select pay consideration, but if your PO is concerned about the payline dropping and thinks your application fills a programmatic priority, they will let you know and probably ask for a rebuttal.
bills2019 said
Thanks Writed – incredibly helpful! Do you know when NHLBI will post its payline, and is this something POs have insight into even before information is publicly posted? I’ve noticed other institutes already updating their paylines. If the payline does drop by a point (and I’m just above it), does it still have a shot at getting funded?
My application was an A0, but I already submitted and resubmitted a version of it during prior cycles (so this was basically a third submission!).
Thanks again!
writedit said
If you don’t have your summary statement, it doesn’t matter whether your PO has insights about any upcoming payline changes (unlikely). Your PO needs to see your summary statement before commenting on your funding likelihood in relation to the payline. NHLBI will have updated information within a month, and there is nothing else you can do even if you learn the updated payline (since you have already submitted again), so I would advise you to wait until you have your summary statement and NHLBI has posted their paylines.
GNR said
@rwadhera4097959ce6….thanks for highlighting this…I believe you are referring to tables and charts in page 15/NHLBI13 in the above link. I am in the same boat as you are…a borderline FY24 score and curious to know.
hs said
Hi Writedit,
Will I loss ESI if I promote to Associate Professor?
Thanks
writedit said
No, the timing (within 10 years of terminal degree) and award history (no R01 equivalent or other disqualifying award) are the key determinants for ESI status. It’s unusual to be promoted to Associate without an R01 equivalent or other major research award, but the promotion itself has no impact.
hs said
Thanks. Clinician promotion can happen after 5 years
writedit said
I assume you mean clinical vs tenure track appointment, which would make sense. In your case, as you probably know, the 10-year clock starts at the end of postgraduate clinical training.
l1zerdbreath said
I got an impact score of 38 for my AREA R15 application renewal with NICHD. I know 34 was the cut off FY 23. I assume it won’t be “better” with the new budget, but my state is eligible for IDEA co-funding and my original R15 was IDEA co-funded. Do we know if they budget cuts affected the IDEA program? How far above the payline do they still consider for IDEA co-funding?
writedit said
You will want to talk with your PO after you receive your summary statement and, if your PO feels your score warrants consideration, the NICHD IDEA Coordinator. I think your score is probably okay, but the concerns raised in the summary statement will also play a role in the decision to nominate for IDEA, since each IC only gets to nominate a few awards for co-funding. As to your other question, IDEA did receive a $5M boost for FY24, so their funding will not go down, but that increase does not mean a significant jump in the number of applications that can be supported.
Toulouse said
Is there a blog like this for NSF?
writedit said
I used to work on NSF applications regularly but haven’t in several years. I do not know of a similar blog devoted to NSF submissions. I am happy to try to answer questions if I can. The NSF, in many ways, is much more straightforward than the NIH in terms of grant development strategy.
anon said
Our (MPI) R01 got 11 percentile and the latest payline seems to be 10 from https://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/grantspolicies/interimfundltr.htm. Is there any chance? I am not an ESI but a new investigator. The other PI is a senior one.
NCIPAYLINE said
Is this link about finalized payline for grants submitted to NCI? Seems like it… R01 = 10%, R01 ESI =17%. So, no change for ESI payline, but 2% reduced for established investigator compared to FY2023. Am I understanding right?
a733302000 said
For the record and future reference, the NCI 2024 interim paylines to the updated paylines are as follows:
R01 from 9% to 10%,
R01 ESI from 14% to 17%
R21 from 9% to 10%.
writedit said
This is interim, so there is a chance NCI could still bump up the payline one more percentile. I know they were working toward a regular payline at the 15th percentile, so I would hate to see them backtrack too far from the FY23 12th percentile, but I am sure it will depend on what they have left after sorting out all their commitments, special initiatives and application pool and where their priorities lie for FY24 (more investigator-initiated RPG or program selective pay awards). The presence of an established PI means no special consideration (not that NCI gives new investigators a break anyway).
anon said
Thanks for explaining. It’s just terribly frustrating.
Hugh said
Hi there
Thank you for this resource and all the time dedicated to answering questions.
Now that the NIA paylines are set, do you have a sense of when we may start getting NOAs? I have an ADRD ESI R01 that scored well (11%) at review in November 2023. Was updating to ‘pending’ in mid Feb and then some additional JIT things were requested mid March. Since we are beyond the start date – April 1st – I’m a bit confused how to proceed. People were planning on dedicating FTE to this project but I obviously don’t have money – and I don’t know if it will be a few weeks or a few months.
Is there any point in contacting the PO? Any idea how long these things typically take?
writedit said
The requested start date is not an expiration date, and it often does not reflect reality. NIA will be busy paying cycle 1 awards (which had hypothetical start dates of Dec 1, 2023) first, then getting to cycle 2 awards, which had the aspirational start date of April 1. You should be within 90 days of award, which your PO or GMS can confirm (though both will be very busy, so your query would need to be clear and concise with informative subject line); if your institution supports pre-award accounts that allow you to spend in advance of the NOA, the NIA confirmation should allow you to start spending – though you don’t want to support salary if the project is not yet underway, especially if you need to see the NOA terms before making certain decisions. There will, for example, be a cut in your budget.
an said
Hi all,
Does anyone know how the timing works for starting continuous submission eligibility as a standing member of a study section.
Specifically, I am slated to start as a standing member on July 1.
Can I submit an R01 application by the August 10 deadline (https://grants.nih.gov/policy/peer/continuous-submission.htm) for consideration on the June cycle even though I did not have continuous submission eligibility at the time the June submission was due?
Thanks for anyone sharing their experience.
writedit said
I believe not, since you will not be eligible at the time of the application due date (June 5), but you would want to confirm with your SRO.
qiud said
Hi writedit,
Thanks for providing such a useful resource. For NIA’s FY24 budget, pg 14 on this link: https://www.nia.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/nia_congressional-justification_fy2024.pdf
the FY2023 enacted budget for competing research projects is $740M, and the FY2024 requested budget is $654M and there is a $100M increase for the total final appropriation above the requested (though not sure how much of the increase will go to competing projects).
Based on these numbers, do you think the ADRD paylines will go up? A back of envelop calculation would be 654/740 x 25% = 22%. Of course, I don’t know how much increase in the number of applications it was in FY2024 over FY2023 and didn’t factor this in.
Thanks!
writedit said
You don’t want to be looking at budget requests, which rarely reflect the enacted amount. More importantly for your question, the FY24 AD/ADRD bypass budget requested $331M but only received $100M, ~$90M of which will go to NIA. ADRD paylines will not be going up.
WIS said
My R01 A0 to NHLBI was reviewed at the end of February and scored 25th%. Council meeting is supposed to be held on June 4th. However, the status turned to “Council review completed” today. What does this mean? My grant focuses on women’s health related research. I would appreciate your insight.
writedit said
It means your application was on a long list of scored applications emailed to Council members for electronic approval en bloc (entire list at once, no reviewing individual applications) in advance of the actual meeting. This happens for each application cycle at each IC. Council approval gives the NHLBI Director permission to make awards to any application on that list – Council approval does not mean that you are guaranteed an award. If you receive a personal request for JIT, then you will know your application is more actively being considered for an award.
WIS said
Hi Writedit, thanks for the reply. Very helpful.
bills2019 said
Similar question. I have 2 R01s that were scored this past cycle (one above the payline, the other right at the FY2023 payline) and are both at NHLBI. The R01 that’s right at the payline still says “council review pending”… while the status of the other R01 that’s above the payline just changed to “council review completed.” Confused as to why both R01s (same cycle, same institute, both scored) would have different statuses, and whether it signifies anything? Thank you!
writedit said
An application to a special NOFO (RFA or PAR) might fall in a different Council meeting, or it might have a detail that requires Council review (eg, foreign component, large budget, well-funded PI, etc.). It doesn’t necessarily mean anything in particular, and you can sit tight until you hear from your PO (before or after Council meets) about JIT for either application.
bills2019 said
Similar question. I have 2 R01s that were scored this past cycle (one above the payline, the other right at the FY2023 payline) and are both at NHLBI. The R01 that’s right at the payline still says “council review pending”… while the status of the other R01 that’s above the payline just changed to “council review completed.” Confused as to why both R01s (same cycle, same institute, both scored) would have different statuses, and whether it signifies anything? Thank you!
POconfusion said
On this website: https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2023/09/06/understanding-what-program-officials-can-and-cant-do-for-you/ it says that a PO “Can’t advocate for a specific application’s funding”.
This confuses me – see a lot of discussion here about POs advocating for grants and recommending grants for funding that are outside of the payline? Could someone clarify?
Thank you!
writedit said
POs do promote specific applications that fill portfolio gaps or have other programmatic reasons for recommending select pay consideration, which falls under the lead-in line, “POs make programmatic judgements for applications and grants”. They cannot advocate for an application just because they want to advocate for that PI – there needs to be scientific and programmatic rationale for the recommendation. They ask for a short rebuttal in case they need to explain how concerns in the review can readily be addressed in a manner that would not require peer review again (eg, minor concerns about approach). This is part of why communicating with the PO in advance of applying – while still planning your application can be important – to be sure you are addressing IC priorities and needs (that would result in programmatic recommendations).
SaG said
Also, keep in mind that to advocate means to represent on someone else’s behalf. POs can advocate for NIH’s scientific goals or policies (e.g., ESI funding) but can’t advocate for a PI or an institution. POs work for the federal government and taxpayers. They don’t work for PIs or submitting institutions.
PS. I thought I posted this awhile ago but forgot to hit the submit button. I agree with WE’s response.
BudgetcutR01 said
Just have a quick question. I understand that there will be certain % of budget cut if R01 ends up being awarded (like 15~20% cut compared to original proposal). Does NCI apply the same % of budget cut to ESI R01 or do ESIs have less budget cut in general? Thank you in advance.
writedit said
Typically, ESI applications do not have their budgets cut unless this was recommended in peer review. You can check with your PO as to whether you should anticipate any budget cut. NCI posted for FY24 a 6.5-8.5% cut on modular budgets and 17% cut on non-modular budgets.
Normarie Torres said
any information about NCI K08 payline?
writedit said
You should be able to check with your PO (or hear from them) in a couple weeks (early May) as to the status of career development funding lines.
Patiently Waiting said
Thank you! Hope to received updates soon.
Patiently Waiting for K08 said
GMS assigned today, what to expect next?
writedit said
If your application is in funding range, your PO or GMS will ask for JIT information (or perhaps an update, if you already submitted). If you have not checked with your PO about funding likelihood, they should be able to give you some guidance now that NCI has their paylines set.
SM said
My A0 R01 is outside but close to the payline by NHLBI and it is nominated for IDeA co-funding to NIGMS. What are my chances of getting it funded? Thank you in advance.
writedit said
The IDeA co-funding is hopeful. Your PO should have an inkling about funding likelihood in a couple weeks. The paylines you are looking at are from FY23 and need to be recalculated still for FY24.
SM said
Thank you!
MIRA question said
I applied for a new established investigator NIGMS MIRA last May and scored a 37. The PO has not been very responsive. When I first got in touch, he replied with the link to historical funding and said that I would need to wait until the budget goes through to know more. Based on the chart, 37 seems to be in a pretty safe place to be funded. Over the past month, I tried getting in touch twice and he did not respond to my emails. I am trying to get a better sense of when awards might be known (earliest start date is April 2024), and if he suggests I apply again. With only having until May 16 to submit again, I am thinking of submitting another application and if funding comes in the meantime I can withdraw the new application. At the same time, I would rather not put time into this if funding is coming in a few weeks. Is there any downside to submitting another application just in case (other than investing time)? Any other strategies?
writedit said
You will not know by May 16, so if that is the only criterion (especially if you have not received a personal JIT request), then you should plan to submit again. Every IC is behind on making both their Cycle 1 (Dec 1 start date) and Cycle 2 (April 1 start date) awards, and they are just receiving their appropriations now (late April-early May). They need to assess how far their final appropriation will go in the context of the paylist of competitive applications before they will know paylines and pay ranges. Take advantage of the opportunity to think through this work again and improve on the approach you will use (only a grant application deadline will force you to do so).
laetitiayan said
I have a ESI R01 proposal scored 30% with NIA. PO asked for rebuttal last September after council meeting but emailed me this month with no hope. However, this week I got an email from PO and office of NIA Summary Statement Response, asking for a rebuttal again for upcoming council meeting. I am getting really confused. Does anyone have similar experience with this? Email said this is just a regular funding decision-making process.
SaG said
It is strange that they asked for it twice. But, given that you are an ESI and that NIH has goals for funding a certain number of ESIs, it is possible that NIA is falling behind the goals and is reaching to fund your application. Given NIH’s flat budget that is no guarantee of funding though.
writedit said
As SaG said, the duplicate request isn’t indicative of a problem. NIA was struggling with staffing, so that could be an issue, or they could just want to see if you have any updated data or other responses to the prior summary statement given the passage of time. You would definitely want to let them know about any preprints or publications since September (or submission, if you neglected to mention these last fall).
Junior PI said
Any experience regarding the timeline for approval of a Foreign component in a SBIR ( a Fee for Service for a CMO or CRO in Europe). Apparently this needs to be approved by the State Department.
Thanks!
writedit said
In recent years, any involvement of the State Department has resulted in award delays, since they have been so understaffed. The timing probably depends on the country(ies) involved and the staffing for those offices. The NIH cannot do anything to speed this up, unfortunately.
Junior PI said
I see in this official link that “For most countries, if no action is taken, the request will be automatically approved after 14 days.”
I hope this is not only theory and it is actually automatically approved! I will share the timeline once it is cleared.
https://www.era.nih.gov/about-era/services-for-agency-staff/award-management/facts.htm
writedit said
If your collaborator is in Canada, Europe, most South American and Asian countries, etc., then you should be fine (and I should have pointed this out previously). I am not sure which countries require close scrutiny now, but any flagged by the State Department could entail delays.
impatient31 said
I haven’t used all of my institutional allowance in Year 1 for my F. I would like to carryover to Year 2. To my knowledge, NICHD doesn’t carryover automatically. Who do I ask about carrying over those funds into Year 2–GMS or PO?
writedit said
You could talk with either, but GMS would be the one to handle carryover. Depending on your award timing, contacting them sooner rather than later might be important since they are just receiving their FY24 appropriation and scrambling to process all the delayed Cycle 1 and 2 awards.
Lotusgirl said
NIA has adjusted paylines today. https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/grants-funding/update-4-24-2024-nia-funding-line-policy-fy-2024
anoopbal said
Wow.. My R15 for FY2024 scored a 14%. I resubmitted, but went upto to 33%. So does my A0 still has a chance since now the NIA pay line cutoff is 16%?
writedit said
Yes, even with higher score for the A1, the A0 still falls within the payline. Your PO might ask you to comment on major concerns (in the Summary of Discussion) in the A1 review when that summary statement comes out, but probably not. They can fund the A0 as reviewed. The percentile might have been affected by a study section recalibration, too.
ESI-ky said
I know NIGMS does not have a payline (or they don’t report one). But I often heard that NIGMS has a higher payline than other ICs from more senior colleagues. Is that true?
SaG said
It is true for established PIs who have a MIRA grant from GM. Not sure about R01s. They publish lots of this data on their website. For instance..https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/2024/03/application-and-funding-trends-in-fy23/
Note that they also skip funding a lot of established PIs too..
AgingPI said
NIA has adjusted paylines as of yesterday. https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/grants-funding/update-4-24-2024-nia-funding-line-policy-fy-2024
How likely is it that they will update again (improve %tiles) before the end of the fiscal year..?
writedit said
Possible, but not all the activity codes, and not by much. More likely, if they still have a little slack, they will make additional discretionary (select pay) awards.
K0124/25 said
I received a JIT request after my IC (NCI) came out. The request specifically said this:
REQUEST FOR JUST-IN-TIME INFORMATION
THIS IS NOT A NOTICE OF GRANT AWARD NOR SHOULD IT BE CONSTRUED AS AN INDICATOR OF POSSIBLE AWARD
This is a standard notice and request for information from all principal investigators with grant applications receiving an impact score of 30 or less (regardless of the IC’s payline) which reflects NIH’s current tightened paylines and new Impact Scoring system…
Is that what means ‘personally asked you for JIT’? I keep seeing that phrase being used here. Or is there another JIT request people might get?
I applied for an April funding cycle and my PO believes I got a good score but I haven’t heard anything yet.
writedit said
For a personal JIT request, you will receive an email from your PO or GMS. If you need to get any regulatory approval (IRB, IACUC, etc.) or complete any required trainings-certification, you would want to get that done now but not necessarily submit JIT. If your summary statement includes any SRO comments about your resource sharing plan or other application components, you would want to address those now, too, so you are ready when the JT request does come. If you submit now, they will ask for an update, especially about any potentially duplicative funding that might have arisen since your original JIT submission, and any specific information when (and if) they perform their administrative review.
K0124/25 said
Thank you!
patdub said
Any word on when NHLBI will post their 2024 paylines?
writedit said
Probably in the next few weeks – they are just getting their final appropriation now and evaluating how far it will go in the context of scoring trends and priorities this year.
patdub said
Thanks! I thought maybe I had missed them as many other instititues already posted updates. Do you think a K score 1 to 2 points above last years payline has a shot? Trying to decide if i should just revise right away or wait for revised paylines.
writedit said
As you now know, the payline did not change from FY23, so it sounds like you are still over the payline. You can ask your PO, but I suspect they will advise submitting again for insurance (or as required based on your score).
Patdub said
My status went from saying: (1) Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official, to saying (2) council review completed… and now it just flipped back to (3) Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
Is this just a glitch or does it mean anything… Is it just that not everything is discussed in council?
Do just in time requests occur before or after council?
writedit said
Probably someone doing something
NGR said
NHLBI pay-lines announced
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/current-operating-guidelines
writedit said
Timely! Thank you for posting.
EndlessCycle said
I submitted an A0 a while back that was not funded. In the A1 I addressed reviewer comments, essentially making the grant much more ambitious. The A1 scored a lot better, but not funded. So, I submitted a new A0. The new A0 did not score well and one reviewer thought it was too ambitious. The grant will not be funded. I am mustering up the energy resubmit an A1. Of course, I am not allowed to say the project became more ambitious in response to prior reviews. Any suggestions? By the way, I serve on my study section and my grants go to Special emphasis panel, which has different composition every time.
writedit said
Tough news that your application goes to a SEP. I assume there is not another SRG that might be a good fit for your science. Your PO should have some insight, and you can focus on the concerns described in the Summary of Discussion, in case trying to satisfy all the individual critiques is expanding your scope of work. As you know from your own reviewer service, addressing one set of concerns doesn’t mean different concerns won’t be raised, and addressing the A0 concerns is not sufficient to ensure a better score (prior summary statement should not be read or considered until after the application has been reviewed on its own). I would recommend focusing on the science you want to do, assuming it addresses your IC’s mission and priorities (i.e., is significant/important to do) and employs a rigorous, reproducible approach, and work on engaging the reviewers in how you write and present your material.
meditango973eb5e07c said
Hi, I just got a summary statement for my NIH SBIR proposal. The score is not so good and I need to resubmit. One of the reviewers obviously did not read my application at all, not even the abstract, and was just nasty. I mean, I don’t expect the reviewers to skim through more than 1/3 of my writing, but this reviewer did not read it at all. I mean, he is way outside of the realm of other reviewers I have encountered. Is there a way to report this to the CSR (Center for Scientific Review) and perhaps have that reviewer put on the list of persons who should not review my resubmission? Or are we just subject to reviewers’ potential abuse without any recourse? I appreciate your advice. Thank you in advance!
writedit said
You can discuss this with your PO, but you do not want to request a formal appeal. If you go with an A1, you can complete the PHS Assignment Request Form and point out objective reasons that A0 Critique x was in error and that you would request that this individual not be assigned again (SRO reviews this form).
meditango973eb5e07c said
Thank you for your advice! Unfortunately I already submitted the A1 without mentioning the Reviewer who should be excluded in my PHS Assignment Request, because I didn’t know that I could just exclude Reviewer X without knowing who he is. At this point, is there still something I can do? Can I call the SRO?
writedit said
No, but if the review was th
Survival mode said
Hello, I just got a personalized JIT from GMS. This is an NIDDK proposal with a priority score of 27, no percentile (reviewed by SEC). I previously emailed PO and was told that they would know more around council meeting date. What is the approximate chance of this one being awarded? Trying to make a decision to hire two trainee candidates and this is a key deciding factor.
Thanks for what you do!
writedit said
A personal JIT request is promising. You can ask the PO to confirm whether you are within 90 days of award (likely if you had an April 1 start date … also possible with July 1 start date). If so, you can see if your institution will set up an account to allow you to pre-spend funds in advance of the award based on your PO’s confirmation. If your application has not gone to Council, your PO may need to wait until after that paylist is approved before confirming an award is likely (but not guaranteed – never guaranteed until the NOA arrives) within 90 days.
BF said
Dear Writedit,
Do you happen to know when NICHD will post their FY2024 Funding information? It has been more than 6 weeks since the budget was passed and my PO kept telling me that she still did not know the funding zone. They have been doing this for decades, so it should only take a couple of weeks to settle on the numbers, right?
writedit said
It takes ~6 weeks for the final appropriation to get to each IC, and other ICs are just starting to release payline information. Some wait to see what the third cycle scores look like to better gauge how far their $$ will go. The question you should be asking your PO now is whether you need to submit again. If not, then you can wait until your application undergoes processing, and the timing will depend on your application cycle (they’ll work on Cycle 1 awards with Dec 1 start date first, then Cycle 2 applications with April 1 start date, and the Cycle 3 applications should be relatively on time for July 1). If so, you want to get an application ready for June (A0) or July (A1) rather than wait to see the final fiscal plan before deciding.
LosingHope said
My program officer recommended my application for funding (it was a higher percentile score, so was recommended under NICHD discretionary funds), but no JIT at this stage. My grant was cycle 1. My collaborator was cycle 2 and scored 7% and got the JIT today. Does that mean my cycle 1 grant is unlikely to be funded?
writedit said
Usually select pay awards are made after the Cycle 3 awards have been issued, when the IC has a better handle on how much $$ they have left for discretionary awards. You might not hear until July or August (or even September but definitely before Sept 30).
not sure said
I submitted a personal JIT request at the beginning of February, but until now, I still haven’t received the NoA. Is it okay to reach out to the PO or should I wait a little longer? Thank you!
writedit said
They are probably just starting to process awards, and each IC has a backlog of applications to process, so just be patient. The GMS is scrambling to catch up (PO not involved
Not sure said
Thank you for addressing my question. I just received another personal JIT request, this time for the new submission with the identical project. Does it mean the previous A1 wouldn’t be considered? If so, it will affect the timing of the funding as the A1 proposed start date is 4/1/2024.
writedit said
<
div>The personal JIT indicates th
ESIBUDGET said
Hi Writedit. I recently awarded R01 as an ESI form NCI. They cut my budget by 17%. I heard that usually there is NO budget cut for ESIs, so I’m very confused. Is it normal that NCI applies 17% budget cut rule to ESIs as well? Thank you in advance. If not, can I ask NCI adjust budget again even after I got NOA?
writedit said
Typically, ESI applicants have no or minimal budget cuts, but this is not a typical FY, so NCI may be making uniform cuts to be able to fund more applications (and to be sure they can cover these commitments for 4-5 years). They can adjust the budget after the NOA is issued. You can ask your PO if any of your cut will be restored later in the FY. You will want to be able to explain how the restored funding (or cut) will impact your work, rather than just say you want/need all the $$ (so does everyone else).
ESIBUDGET said
Thank you for your comment. As you recommended, I will talk to PO and explain the importance of getting full funding. Thank you.
NIA R36 2024 said
Hi Writedit,
Submitted a R36 to NIA in October, got an impact score of 26. PO was not super optimistic given the current climate but then requested a rebuttal letter for advisory council. With the new announced NIA payline, what are my odds of getting funded? Council is meeting on 5/21, what’s timeline after that? Thanks!
writedit said
The rebuttal means they are discussing your application for inclusion on the paylist, which ranks applications in priority of getting paid (many more applications on the list than will receive awards). The Council meeting won’t have an impact on whether you receive an award, but how far their money goes will. You probably won’t know for sure until later in July or August (definitely by Sept 30 – your application won’t be considered after that).
Happy Now said
Posting my grant timeline:
Timeline for R01 competitive renewal (yrs 21-25!):
July 5, 2023 – application submitted.
Sept 13, 2023 – post-submission materials (publications)
Oct 17, 2023 – study section
Oct 19, 2023 – dared to look at scores (priority score = 18, 3.0 %ile)
Feb 17, 2024 – council review completed
March 8, 2024 – pending administrative review
March 14, 2024 – JIT request
May 22, 2024 – award prepared
May 29, 2024 – awarded! Start date June 1, full five years, but approx. 9-10% cut in each budget yr
Needless to say, it’s been a long year, especially with the prior award period going into 1.5 yrs of NCTE!
writedit said
Congratulations on your exceptional renewal score! (what a relief on your last chance to continue past year 20) Thank you so much for sharing your timeline. Best wishes for continued success with your research!
MT said
My NIA R01 was awarded today with a start date of 06/01/24 and an end date of 02/28/25 for the first year and 02/28/29 for the whole project. Is this something I can request to be modified, given that my first year is only 9 months?
The submitted application had a start date of 04/01/24 and an end date of 03/31/25 for the first year.
writedit said
NIA needs to keep applications aligned with the cycle in which they were submitted so all applications are not on the same timeframe (a distinct possibility since Congress never passes the federal budget in time for an on-time October 1 start to the FY). I don’t know how they decide the back-dated start-end dates for specific applications (ie, why they did not use the April 1/March 30 timing on your application), but you cannot do anything about the short first year of funding. Some of the funds might end up getting carried over past the 02/28/29 end date as a no-cost extension to make up for the 3 months lost in Year 1 (though not any funding cuts).
fundinginquiries24 said
I have a question about how “council” works. For instance, the NIMHD council meeting for making a funding decision on our current R01 application is today (5/31/24), as listed in era commons. This is also listed as a public meeting (i.e. you can view the meeting webcast). Does this “funding decision” discussion happen after the public meeting adjourns? Is it even related? Who is on the “council”?
Thanks for insights!
fundinginquiries24 said
**edit: I mean “funding recommendations/approval” not funding decisions. Sorry!
writedit said
I apologize – I thought I replied in May. Each Council “reviews” and approves the bulk of applications under consideration for an award electronically en bloc (all at once – entire list is approved together vs individually) a few weeks prior to the in-person meeting. This approval gives the IC Director the authority to consider those Council-approved applications for awards (having Council approval does not guarantee funding). At in-person meetings, each Advisory Council discusses applications with special questions or concerns as well as appeals during closed sessions; the public part of the meeting is to discuss new initiatives, policy changes, intra- and extramural research findings, meeting reports, leadership changes, n’at. You can probably find something about how the Advisory Council or Board works at your IC(s) of interest, but the NIGMS material is generally applicable: https://www.nigms.nih.gov/about/council/Pages/councilmeetingsandfunctions.aspx
Tony Blair said
Hello Writedit,
My NIAID R21 application was discussed on April 4th and received an impact score of 20, which is well below the final payline of 28. However, I have not received any updates, including a Personal JIT request from the Program Officer. Do you have any information on the current timeline? Should I reach out to the Program Officer now?
Thank you for your suggestions!
writedit said
It sounds like you submitted to a special receipt date funding opportunity, so you want to check when the first possible start date is, which may be in FY24 (ie, October 1 or later). In that case, your status is likely to be Council review pending still, and nothing will happen with your application until November at the earliest. If it’s just a late Cycle 3 review and your status is Council review complete, your earliest start date would be July 1, but most ICs are still catching up on Cycle 1 and 2 awards, so you don’t need to be worried. You don’t need to contact your PO unless you need clarification on the FY in which your application will be considered for an award; if in FY24, it’s probably just a matter of waiting for NIAID to catch up on their application processing.
Tony Yang said
Today it shows Council review completed.
Thank you!
SM said
I am eagerly awaiting the results of the IDeA co-funding for my grant, which was nominated by the NHLBI in April. In a previous thread, a grant recipient mentioned that his grant status on eRA Commons changed to ‘pending administrative approval’ on June 2nd. As today is June 4th, I am becoming anxious. Do I still have hope? Please advise.
writedit said
Even as of June 13th, you still have hope. Each IC is different in when they engage the IDeA program, and the applications are considered in rank order. Your application will be considered all the way up until September 30, 2024. Your PO will probably not know your application’s exact status or outcome as yet, but they can give advice on whether you should submit again.
Jayachandran Sumalatha said
Thank you so much!
Izlude said
Hi,
I had a question about serving on a study section and PIs who reach out. I was asked to serve on a study section to review two grants in my area of expertise. It is a relatively smaller field so people tend to know each other (not personally but at least know who is who and all that). I was assigned two grants and one of the PIs recently reached out via email to talk about “collaboration.” I don’t think the PI knows I was assigned his grant since I was just assigned and the member list is obviously is not released but is sort of awkward. I haven’t responded to the email to talk. I wasn’t sure what to do, I don’t want to ignore the email to meet but at the same time I really don’t see what collaboration is possible. How do people handle this?
I will say that this happened to me once a few years ago when I served on a study section and when the list of members was release x weeks before the study section review, a PI emailed me a day after the list was released to see about “collaboration” which was very clear what they were after. I sort of blew off the email and said I was busy and would reach out after x date (after the study section meeting) and since that time the PI (we are in the same specialty) definitely has held some weird grudge when their grant was a ND. I thought the grant was good but the overall score from the other reviewers placed it as an ND so they clearly attributed that to me.
I just want to want to avoid the same thing here. Not sure if people have similar experiences and what they have done. I know it is a small world so don’t want to make anyone upset but at the same time I also don’t want to be put in a awkward position.
Columbia Chemist said
It does not hurt to respond to the email to talk. If you do think a collaboration would be beneficial, you would have to recuse yourself from reviewing the grant and let your SRO know.
If the “collaboration” conversation is a pretext to tell you about their grant and how awesome it is, especially after the study section roster is released, I think you would want to let your SRO know.
writedit said
Thanks, Columbia Chemist – this is good advice. As you note, if it was an honest, innocently timed request for collaboration, and it makes sense for @Izlude to move forward with the partnership, Izlude would contact the SRO to recuse themself from reviewing that application. If the request was not genuine or not a good fit, the SRO should still be told about the inappropriate contact (even if no request was directly made with regard to the application under review). SROs can’t have PIs attempting to pick off their reviewers through insincere “collaboration” requests timed in advance of study section meetings, and they need to know which PIs are bad actors in case they have a pattern of reaching out to potential reviewers they don’t want to have scoring their application.
ThatPostdoc said
Just received my NIDDK K99 results (A1, impact score = 20). Anyone has past experience on the approximate payline since NIDDK does not publish data? The waiting & guessing game is consuming me…
hs said
Excellent score and you will get it.
Congrats!
thatpostdoc said
Whew! I have been hesitant whether to contact PO at this point. My mentor suggests to leave them alone.
Again thanks for setting up this super useful place, as somebody said down below, this is a rescue to our sanities…
writedit said
As hs notes, your score is competitive, and your mentor is correct in advising you to sit tight. You definitely want to wait until you have your summary statement, and then your only question for the PO is whether you might need to submit again (for insurance). Since your application is for FY25, though, you would have a very long wait before the federal budget passes, if NIDDK does not make K99 awards during a continuing resolution.
thatpostdoc said
Sorry for making it back here earlier. Thank you so much writeedit. I did get my summary statement and they seems to be mostly okay (and addressable).
I contacted my PO somewhere at the end of June and he told me to email him again to schedule a call when I receive and went through my summary statement, does this mean I should prepare a rebuttal?
Then I did contact the PO again after receiving SS, but got ghosted since. I assume this is summer and there were a July 12 deadline so he was swamped.
In any case I am adapted to this waiting game now. Will post again if more updates come along.
writedit said
You should draft and send your PO a one-page rebuttal to the concerns raised in the Summary of Discussion paragraph (no need to cite positive comments – the key is to focused on consensus weaknesses from the discussion). When you send this, you can ask about whether you need to apply again this fall.
thatpostdoc said
Thank you writedit! Prep rebuttal ahead of time is definitely a great idea. I did hear from PO this morning after 1mo, and we are going to discuss about my review soon.
Unfortunately I had ran out of eligibility and this is it for me with K99.
writedit said
Glad your PO got back in touch – be sure to remind them that this application is your last chance.
thatpostdoc said
Thank you writedit again for maintaining this supportive community!
I received my NOA recently for this A1 K99 proposal and just want to drop my timeline here in case anyone is interested:
02/2023: A0 submission.
06/2023: Study section, Not Discussed.
08/2023: Received Summary Statement. Phone call with PO. After talking to PO realized I am potentially eligible for an one-cycle extension.
08/2023: Through HR/Grant office sent out extension request.
09/2023: Extension granted.
03/2024: A1 resubmission.
06/2024: Study section, promising score (20).
07/2024: Received A1 Summary Statement. Scheduled phone call with PO. PO requested a rebuttal to reviewer’s concerns.
08-09/2024: Rebuttal submitted.
11/2024: Email from PO indicating that IC is proceeding with my grant. Received personalized JIT request ~1 week later.
12/2024: JIT submitted.
12/2024: ~ two weeks after JIT submission, email from grant administrator indicating award is pending.
12/2024: 1 day after the previous email, eRA commons updated with the NOA document.
Best luck to everyone, don’t take no for an answer!
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you for sharing this very helpful timeline! Best wishes for success with your project and career in biomedical research.
anjaliphd said
Thank you for this wonderful platform. My NINDS ESI R01 just received a 23 percentile in first submission. It was submitted in Feb cycle. They are funding at 22%. The PO said my application would be considered for select pay. What is the likelihood of it being funded? and when will I come to know the outcome? Thanks
writedit said
Your application is for the first cycle in FY25, so you would not know about funding likelihood until after the FY25 federal budget passes, and possibly not until later in 2026 (after all within-payline applications have received awards), depending on how NINDS handles their select pay decisions. Given how long it will take before a select pay decision is made, you might want to ask your PO if you should apply again (for insurance) … and I assume your PO will recommend an A1 submission to be safe.
K0124/25 said
Hello, thank you so much for this platform! It really helps one’s sanity. I finally received the K01 from NCI!!!! I just want to say Thank you.
I also have a question. The budget was cut by about 25% through all the years. This affects my proposed 75% effort because my salary was also cut. Is there a chance to renegotiate or for them to bump it up? Is this something, I should discuss with my PO or is this an over the board thing that might have something to do with the overall NCI budget. Any advice would be helpful!
writedit said
Oof – 25% cut is a lot for a career development award, and while I know NCI is struggling to make ends meet, that still surprises me. You should talk with your PO about the cuts and whether you can rebudget to ensure your salary is covered, especially since your % effort is dictated by the award. I would hope subsequent year budgets could be restored, but NCI makes the cut proactively across all years to limit their out-year commitment, in case their future FY appropriations stay tight or, worse, are cut further.
K0124/25 said
Ok thank you. I will set up an appointment to speak with my PO about it.
IC TransferQuery said
Dear Writedit,
I submitted an R01 to NIGMS in the Feb cycle, and I just received a 5% score, but the PO told me that it is unlikely to be funded since I have another grant at NIGMS that scored in the fundable range recently, and they do not give two grants to the same PI. My current PO suggested I talk to a program officer from another IC and if they accept it, the grant can be reassigned. But the PO from the alternate IC said that a transfer cannot be made if the review is already completed. Which is true? or is this IC specific?
Secondly, at the time of IC assignment just after submission, the NIH had listed a secondary IC, which I thought meant that the grant would be considered a scientific fit for the secondary IC in case NIGMS won’t fund it. But this no longer shows up in my era commons. At this point, is there any way I can get this R01 funded?
writedit said
Some ICs, including NIGMS, will remove themselves as the secondary IC because they (almost) never fund applications without a primary assignment. Although many ICs allow transfer of applications after peer review, some have the pre-review switch requirement because they don’t want PIs to shop around for an IC if their score is too high for the primary IC but within funding range at other ICs. Because you scored in the 5th percentile and are bumping against NIGMS limitations for single-investigator awards, it seems as though a secondary IC should be willing to give your application another look (ie, your application would be within the funding range of every IC); if you didn’t explain this to the PO who turned you away and their IC would be a good fit for your work, you could respond with more detail about your situation, including your PO’s recommendation. If that fails and you can’t remember the original secondary IC at the time of submission and referral, you should be able to make an educated guess based on the science in your application and reach out to the PO(s) whose portfolio(s) match your research. You could also ask your NIGMS PO if he has specific contacts at other ICs to suggest.
Patiently Waiting said
Dear Writedit,
Here is my K NCI timeline, when to expect a change? Pending is a good?
Timeline:
05/08/2024: Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
09/11/2023: Council review completed.
06/30/2023: Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
03/15/2023: Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
03/10/2023:Application entered into system
Thank you for this useful site,
Best,
Patiently Waiting
writedit said
Pending is good news – your application is being processed for a possible award (nothing guaranteed). Since you applied over a year ago, I assume this must be a select pay decision … or NCI is ridiculously behind on making awards. You can sit tight. The GMS will let you know if they need anything.
hopeful investigator said
Dear Writedit,
I submitted a previously ND R01 through the NCI Cancer Moonshot Scholars and received an impact score of 27. There is no percentile because it was SEP, but looking at other posts on social media, this score for NCI would be around 8-9 percentile for R01. I have reached out to the PO and am awaiting a reply. For this mechanism, it goes to NCAB for ‘council review’, which will likely be in Sept meeting. This mechanism says it has allocated $9M for up to 15 new R01 each FY. This is the last cycle for this RFA, for FY25. I am wondering how this works for unclear funding for Cancer Moonshot in FY25. For this specific RFA, does it mean these funds are already set aside and should be there, or is it at the mercy of the congressional FY25 budget? Also, looking at REPORTER, some of the last two cycles were converted to R37 MERIT. I think this is usually based on percentile, so I am not sure how this would work with only an impact score from SEP. I am proud of my score and hoping I get some good news. Thanks for your thoughts.
writedit said
You should not contact the PO until you have your summary statement and then only to ask if you should submit the application again (as an A0 application to a different NOFO). You cannot gauge a percentile based on social media posts – SRGs are regularly recalibrated, so the connection between scores and percentiles is always changing and, as you note, completely irrelevant for a SEP (or a different standing SRG). Also, Moonshot applications are funded on factors beyond the Impact Score, so yours could be skipped for a higher scoring but higher priority application based on its science (alternatively, yours could be funded over a lower scoring application for the same reason). However, you will probably not know the outcome of this application until well into 2026. FY25 officially starts on October 1, 2024, but if we are lucky, there will be a continuing resolution in place that will likely continue to be extended until after the election and then possibly (likely) until after inauguration. If we are unlucky, the federal government will shut down until a continuing resolution or federal budget is passed. NCI will not know how much money it has for these applications until the federal budget is signed into law. What NCI intends to spend and what it is able to spend may not align if the Moonshot program is specifically cut by Congress or the overall NCI appropriation is cut.
hopeful investigator said
Just wanted to submit a follow up. I received a call from my PO in the summer to prepare a rebuttal on some specific parts of my summary statement. She was positive but did not definitively tell me if I would be funded. Council happened in September, and then a few back and forth emails with PO saying nothing had been finalized but also not advising me to resubmit. Today I received a personalized JIT and my grant status changed to ‘pending’. It looks like NCI has been pushing through some new R01s for FY25 this month, despite CR, so I am hopeful this is good news for my grant.
writedit said
Thanks for sharing this very positive update! The pending status could still last into next year, but ICs are getting awards out during the CR, so you might not need to wait until the FY25 budget is final (which now won’t happen until March 15 or later).
hopeful investigator said
Just found it my grant was converted to R37 Merit! Looks like they will push through the NOA during the current CR.
writedit said
Congratulations on the R37! Glad you have a good PO advocating for your application and that NCI is among the ICs processing awards during the CR.
R01Applicant said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you for maintaining this great resource for funding discussion. My R01 A0 is in line for select pay (I am ESI and the proposal responds to a special funding opportunity) and I just learned that my A1 percentile is improved from 34 to 25. I notified my PO and my PO replied that “Great news. We are in the process of making funding decisions on your A0 and will be in-touch soon”.
Do you have any comments on my situation? How my A1 improvement would affect the funding prospect of my A0?My lab is really on the edge of making it or breaking it, dependent on this R01.
Thank you.
writedit said
The improvement in score for your A1 makes it easier for your PO to advocate for funding the A0 – no need to make you wait until next year to receive an award for the A1. I assume you have told your PO about your lab’s funding crisis, but if not, it never hurts to mention this, as it can help increase the priority for a timely award.
TransferAbroad said
Dear Writedit,
I have received an offer for a faculty position at a prestigious University in the UK. I am currently a faculty at a US University, and have recently started a 5 year R01 (NIAID). I wanted to ask if you have any advice on how a transfer abroad would work. I know from NIH REPORTER that this is definitely possible, but I did notice that the budgets were cut substantially.
Thank you very much for your help.
writedit said
You want to talk with your PO as soon as possible as the process takes months, especially when going to a foreign institution. The award, of course, is made to your current university, so they need to agree to relinquish the award to you. They will keep as much of the award as they can, based on who else at your current institution is receiving funding (ie, co-investigators, collaborators, trainees, etc.). The NIH will need confirmation that you can conduct the work as reviewed – that you have all the required facilities and equipment, access to necessary research subjects (whether human or animal), appropriate technical support, etc. I assume all prestigious universities in the UK are part of the federal grants management system, but that would be another requirement as well. Again, your PO will appreciate as much notice as possible.
jingdh836 said
Hi Writedit,
I have a MPI U01 scored 17 at NCI. There is no payline for U01 mechanism but the PO said this is a very competitive score. We discussed in early March and she was positive. However, I had not heard from her since then. The AC meeting was held on June 11 but my application is still marked as “pending council review”. I emailed PO but did not get a reply. Should I be worried? thanks for any input.
writedit said
That is a good score, so I would have thought it would have gone on the list for electronic approval en bloc in advance of the meeting with the BSA and hence would have had a Council review completed status prior to the meeting. Otherwise, there would have needed to be a reason for your application to be discussed during the closed session (eg, foreign component, well-funded PI, etc.), but you and your PO would have anticipated this. Perhaps NCI updates the status for all applications at the same time now – not sure. It’s only been a couple days since the meeting, and all ICs are scrambling to catch up on the backlog of applications to process, so I don’t think you need to be concerned. If nothing has changed by the end of next week, you could try contacting the PO again as to whether she needs anything, such as JIT, and whether your team should be considering another submission, which will give her something to respond to other than the application that is now out of her hands.
catash said
Hi writedit,
Last time I was here was 5 years ago for my K08 application. Thank you for maintaining such a great resource. I eventually got my K funded.
Now I am applying for R01 as an ESI. The A1 scored 26%, 1% above the NIDDK payline for ESI. I asked my PO whether I should set up a meeting to discuss resubmission. His answer is very ambiguous but did tell me that it is wise to be pessimistic given the current funding situation.
I know that the select pay can take a while so I am planning to resubmit but do you have any idea about the possibility of funding?
writedit said
Funding is still possible, but you wouldn’t know until August (or September). It depends on how far down their paylist they can get before the $$ runs out. You will likely only have a day to submit or update JIT, if needed, so be sure everything is ready in case you get the request. They need to make the final awards quickly, so PIs who cannot turn around their JIT quickly or have any administrative may be skipped.
K99/NIA/ADRD? said
Hi Writedit and SaG,
Thank you for all your valuable feedback for all!
I would like to have your insights on my case,
– A0 new submission of K99 at the NIA, Feb cycle 2024
– ADRD-related study (My application title directly has Alzheimer’s disease)
– Impact score: 21, just received today.
I am unsure whether it is a good score or not.. Additionally, I was wondering my application can be considered for ADRD payline, I submitted it through regular K99/R00 pathway.
Thank you!
writedit said
This is a good score, and it sounds like you would be considered under the ADRD payline. You can confirm with your PO. In FY24, NIA was making awards to any K application with a score of 22 or lower, so you would have been fine either way. FY25 might have another drop in ADRD paylines, but you are still well below the FY24 threshold of 30. The K paylines might start below 21, though, so don’t be surprised or necessarily alarmed, since they should be raised once NIA has their FY25 appropriation, but that might not happen until sometime in 2026. If your eligibility window is closing, you can ask the PO if you should submit again for insurance or sit tight with your application scored at 21 (again, this should be good for funding, but let PO confirm whether another submission would be recommended).
InTheGray said
Got a 22 impact score on my A1 NIA K99, it’s going to be a long 6+ months isn’t it?
writedit said
Yep, especially with GOP proposals on the table to consolidate the NIH into 15 ICs.
Glory said
Thanks for hosting a wonderful site on NIH applications. My RO1 A1 to NIDDK just got a 13% score, which is the current 2024 payline. Is there any chance of being considered for funding in 2024 with this score? If not, what are the chances of getting funded in 2025? Thanks.
writedit said
Your application is for FY25, though some ICs will pick up a few next-year applications at the end of the current FY if they have $$ to spend before Sept 30 (very much the exception rather than the rule though, and this probably happens for the very lowest scoring applications, well below 10th percentile). Your PO will not be able to comment on funding likelihood now, but when you receive your summary statement, you can ask if you should sit tight or submit again. I would say if you have a different application (different science) to submit, definitely work on getting that in. In normal times, you could probably expect your 13th percentile to eventually receive an award next year, but with the election and GOP plans to overhaul the NIH, it’s really hard to predict what might happen with the NIH budget or when appropriation bills will be available.
Glory said
Thanks, writedit. This is very helpful.
WIS said
Dear Writedit,
Do you foresee any problem if I submit two applications at the same time in response to the same NOSI? The applications should be reviewed at different study sections. Thanks so much!
writedit said
As long as the science is different, there is no problem with the submission of 2 applications to the same NOSI (also no problem being reviewed in the same SRG, though always better to reach different reviewers). You would want to confirm with your PO that the funding IC is okay making two awards in the same cycle to the same PO, but this also happens – though if you are bumping up on the well-funded PI limit, then you might be limited to one award.
WIS said
Thanks so much! I will contact my PO.
ESI-R01 said
Hi Writedit and SaG, I am an ESI and have an R01-A1 scored at 19th percentile, within the ESI payline for my IC. This is a FY25-cycle 1 application. Any chance this can be funded in FY24? I am preparing a response to some reviewer concerns before reaching out to my PO. Wanted to check if this okay or if I should ask about a potential resubmission, not knowing next year’s payline?
writedit said
An award in FY24 is not impossible, but it’s not probable, especially in a flat budget year when funding is already tight. FY25 will not be any better, and has the potential to be worse, depending on what happens with the election this fall. It’s a good idea to have your initial response to weaknesses cited in the Summary of Discussion paragraph ready, in case your PO does want to make any recommendations for this FY. They won’t be able to comment on next year’s payline, but you should ask if they recommend another submission for insurance, since the FY25 budget probably won’t be signed into law until some time in 2025. If you have another project to develop into an R01, that would be a good option to pursue while you wait, too.
James said
Hi Writedit and SaG, I am an ESI and have an R01 scored at 18th percentile, and the payline of our IC is 17th percentile. Is it possible to get funded? What’s the best thing I can do next? Thank you!
writedit said
Your application will be considered in FY25, and that federal budget won’t be enacted for many months, probably not until next year (2025). When you receive your summary statement, you can talk with your PO, but I suspect they will advise you to submit again for insurance, since paylines won’t be known until 2025 (you don’t want to wait that long to submit again) and could go down next year, depending on your IC and what happens with the election.
R21 said
Hi Writedit and SaG,
A sincerely appreciate your effort to my guide many of us who are either new or unaware of the current funding scenario.
I have a question. My R21 (A01) for NIA got 12 percentile and 32 impact score. Considering the current budget, do you think it will get funded? Thank you.
writedit said
If you were just scored, your application is for consideration in FY25, and those paylines will not be known for several months – probably not until sometime in 2025. You don’t mention if your application falls under the ADRD payline, but even that will not be generous next year unless Congress restores the bypass budget for AD/ADRD (ends 12/31/24). When you receive your summary statement, you can talk with your PO about next steps, including whether to sit tight (perhaps work on a different application in the meantime) or submit again for insurance.
santoshkumar3edb7ffe75 said
Thank you Writedit, this is helpful. It is not ADRD application. Keeping fingers crossed.
santoshkumar3edb7ffe75 said
Hi Writedit, I reached out to PO and he suggested to submit as a new one this October cycle. If the new application gets worse score, which one will be considered for funding decisions? The recent score on my R21 is 12 percentile and 32 impact score. I am little hesitant to resubmit as I am also resubmitting my R01 and they both end up in the study section, as the study sections have been reorganized. What do you suggest?
I sincerely appreciate your guidance. Thank you.
writedit said
If the R21 A1 application gets a worse score, NIA will still consider the A0 application for funding. You don’t need to worry about 2 applications going to the same study section for the same cycle – they will be reviewed on their own merits with no consideration of the other application. They would be discussed at different times, and, again, no mention of the other application would be made nor allowed to be considered by the Chair or SRO. However, if they are both submitted to the NIA, especially if they are similar (though not overlapping, obviously), you might want to confirm with your PO that NIA would fund both awards (eg, if a particular area of their portfolio is saturated with awards and they only have room for one, not both, even if both scored well). If the science is distinct, that shouldn’t be an issue, though. Of course, you would then be managing two awards with RPPRs due at the same time, which could be challenging, but only for 2 years.
NIHfundingseek2024 said
At what point, if ever, is it appropriate to follow up with your PO after the council meeting? Our R01 scored in the fundable range with a very positive summary statement, but institute does not have payline. PO asked me to submit a rebuttal memo prior to council meeting, which I did. PO also previously said to resubmit, just in case, so that we don’t miss a submission cycle, so we also just resubmitted. Anyway, council met a month ago and I haven’t heard anything. Should I follow up with PO regarding my A0? Or do I just keep waiting? Is there a point at which it is or isn’t funded? Thank you for any guidance.
SaG said
There is probably nothing the PO can tell you at this point and nothing you can do to improve your chances. NIH will be funding apps all Summer so that fact that you haven’t heard anything yet isn’t bad news. Now when Sept rolls around and you haven’t heard anything you can worry. Side note: the PO probably doesnt know either if you app will be funded or not.
writedit said
As SaG points out (thank you!), your PO is not in communication because they don’t know whether your application will be funded. You can be assured that your PO will be in touch if they need anything else from you regarding a possible award. If you have a genuine need to know the award status before Sept 30 (last possible date for an award) – e.g., you will need to lay off lab personnel otherwise, you have a tenure decision coming up, etc. – then you could alert your PO to the situation, though it may not make a difference. Asking about the application status just to ask won’t help, though.
twoapplications said
Dear Writedit, I am submitting two applications in one cycle. How can I request them to be assigned to different study sections/reviewers? I put the request in the cover letter. Is there anything else I could do? Thanks
Tianhong Dai said
You can PHS Assignment Request Form in the NIH ASSIST.
writedit said
In addition to what Tianhong and SaG noted (thank you!), I will add that having 2 applications at one study section is not a problem, so don’t panic if they both end up at the same SRG. Each application will get its own reviewers, and the SRO and Chair will ensure that the second application is never mentioned during the discussion of the other. They need to be scientifically distinct with no overlapping aims, of course, but otherwise, each application is reviewed and discussed on its own merits, not in relation to any other applications being reviewed that cycle (whether a second application from you or any of the others).
twoapplications said
Thank you all!
SaG said
You can ask but the final decision will be up to CSR and it will be based on the science in the apps. You need a argument to show that they are scientifically distinct.
MaxxY said
Dear Writedit – I submitted two NIH grant applications with partial overlap:
If I receive a last-minute JIT for the first application, it will likely involve a 40% budget cut. Given this scenario, I have several questions:
Thank you for your guidance on this rather complicate scenario!
writedit said
You cannot modify the research strategy either to accommodate a budget cut (unless >25%) or to preemptively prevent overlap with the second application submitted as insurance. The first application must be awarded as reviewed, so you cannot submit a modification of the science after peer review. If this first application receives an award and the second application scores well enough for an award, then you would need to look at removing the overlap from that application, which, if possible (ie, some of the work can still be funded once overlap removed), would mean a smaller budget (again, you can’t modify that science either once it has been reviewed to reapply the overlap budget to different science). You can contact your PO to check on the likelihood of an award for the first application and, based on any insight they might have, decide whether to withdraw the second one before it is reviewed (so you can rework to have no overlap with the first application and submit in the fall).
k08Applicant said
Hi, I received an impact score of 23 on NCI K08 – what do you think the likelihood of funding is, and do you get an email when the summary statement is posted? I didn’t get any email that the score was posted, so just wondering if I should be nervously refreshing 🙂
Thank you!
K08Awardee said
I got K08 with score of 28, so your score should be fine. The real question is when they will award your K08. Assuming you just got your score back, likely your will be considered for FY25. But, if you are lucky, they may consider funding your K08 in FY24. Fingers crossed!
Hp said
can you share which cycle and year you were awarded The k08
writedit said
Thanks for sharing your experience (and congratulations!), K08 Awardee. Given the tight FY24 situation, k08Applicant will almost certainly need to wait until FY25, unless their PO feels the application has enough priority to push for an early award due to concerns about FY25 (election delays etc.).
writedit said
I thought everyone just kept the window open to hit refresh. 😉 Your score seems competitive for an application, but your PO can give you guidance on next steps – including whether to sit tight or submit again – once you have your summary statement.
SM said
Thank you for this wonderful resource on NIH applications. I received a 10% score on my R01 A1 submission to the NHLBI, which is within the payline. My A0 grant was nominated for IDeA co-funding consideration, and I will receive the results shortly. Is it possible to request the cancellation of the co-funding? The budget for the A1 grant is better, and it provides me with the opportunity to relocate without being restricted to IDeA states. I would appreciate your advice on how to cancel the IDeA co-funding before a decision is made, and if there are any potential issues in doing so. Thank you.
writedit said
Your A1 would not be awarded until 2025, and its budget will almost certainly be cut. Unless you are ESI, given the political climate, I am not sure your PO would be able to guarantee funding of the 10th percentile application in FY25 despite the long history of a much higher payline at NHBLI. I would think long and hard about declining the A0 and waiting a year with the possibility the A1 may not receive an award. You could certainly ask your PO for their advice on declining the A0 and waiting for the A1 award (again, timing of any insight much less an award unpredictable due to election).
SM said
Thank you! My PO gave me the same advice. It was my lack of understanding of the funding mechanism that led me to ask such a question. My A1 has a slightly larger budget than A0, which prompted my inquiry. I understand the situation now.
writedit said
Also, NHLBI only gets to nominate a few applications for IDEA co-funding, and your PO will not be happy that part of your rationale for waiting is to avoid being limited by IDEA. If you thought you might want to relocate, you should have let the PO when they asked about IDEA co-funding so they did not put the effort into nominating your application instead of another deserving application. Not a good look, and you want to maintain a good relationship with your PO (ie, if you couldn’t be honest about not really wanting IDEA co-funding due to relocation plans/aspirations, they may not feel as invested in advocating for you in other situations).
SM said
It was a mistake on my part. I understand the situation well right now.
writedit said
Great – glad your PO could help explain the situation as well. I didn’t mean to pile on, but since you had asked, I wanted to be sure everyone reading who might be considering IDEA co-funding did so carefully, keeping in mind their long-term relationship with their PO. You have a great PO, so you should always feel comfortable asking them for help.
SM said
Thank you! I am fortunate to have a great PO who is always supportive and patient with me.
nervousgradstudent said
Hello! I’m a PhD student who applied for an F31 (NINDS) for the April 8th deadline and just got my scores today. My impact score is a 20, and I saw the “likely to be funded” range for my IC is 20 or below. However, it’s 4%, so I’m not sure if I should be hopeful yet. Do the funding decisions like these come down to impact score or percentile? I know they use percentile to keep things more standardized, and if a 20 is a 4%, it seems the study section was just a tough one. Any thoughts? I will wait to email my PO until I get the summary statement.
writedit said
The 4th percentile should guarantee an award (lower is better, just like the impact/priority score), especially on top of the impact score of 20. You are correct to wait until you receive your summary statement before contacting your PO about next steps, but you can wait with optimism.
nervousgradstudent said
Thank you, sorry if the comment wasn’t clear as I was still in shock from seeing 4% on my first ever submission! I was confused by the percentile as I’ve had friends get funded with a score of 20-22 ish but most were 10-12%. Since NINDS is my primary IC (NCI secondary), I was a bit concerned about having a 20 as that’s the max score on their funding range. However, if people from other study sections have a 19 but it’s 8% or so, they might get funded over me even though I scored relatively lower in my SS. I’m worried my score is a bit high for my percentile and NINDS bases funding on score. Do they normally take percentile into account at ICs like that? Especially one like NINDS where we can end up at so many different study sections who may be easier/harsher than others!
writedit said
You should be fine. The low percentile communicates that your SRG was tougher scoring. The PO was probably listening in to the panel discussion, too, so they will know whether minor concerns were sufficient to produce a score of 20 vs in the teens. Fellowships are discussed within NINDS (ie, they don’t go to Council), so there is typically a lot of discussion of the applications with competitive scores (not necessarily a hard cutoff).
Fisher said
Thank you for this excellent resource. I have one question. We have one R21 (A0) with impact score of 28 and percentile of 17th for NHGRI. The PO told us this R21 will be reconsidered in the June cycle. We have resubmitted this per PO suggestion and the score is not discussed. I wonder if the R21 (A0) can still be funded? Do we need to contact PO? Thank you!
writedit said
The ND outcome for the A1 should not affect any decision to fund the A0. The A0 will receive an award if it comes up on the paylist before the funding runs out, so it mainly depends on where the IC leadership ranked it in the paylist. You will know by Sept 30 whether you will receive an award (after that, no award). You can get in touch when you receive your A1 summary statement, but your PO will probably recommend getting a new A0 ready for October, and then only submit the new A0 if the current A0 does not receive an award.
Fisher said
Thank you so much for your guidance! It’s very helpful!
KEMJ said
Thank you for providing such a wonderful platform. I have learned so much. I resubmitted an NCI K22 in the March 2023 cycle and received a score of 20. The council meeting was last September/October. Although it was not selected for funding last year, my PO informed me in Jan 2024 that it could still be funded in July. However, I haven’t received a JIT request from NCI staff yet. Does this mean that my application is no longer being considered?
writedit said
Your PO meant after all Cycle 3 awards have been made in July (probably a little behind schedule due to the late federal budget for FY24), which is when ICs get to their final select pay lists and make awards in rank order until the $$ runs out. You could be contacted about an award any day up until September 30, and you will need to turn your JIT around in a day or so or risk being skipped for an award (so be ready).
KEMJ said
Thank you so much for the insight. Should I contact my PO now for any possible updates, or should I just wait?
writedit said
Your PO won’t know any sooner than you and won’t have any insights to share. I know it’s tough, but you can sit tight with fingers crossed that your application is processed sometime later this month or next (September is possible, too, though most awards are wrapped up in late August, unless they are really behind – which is possible in a year like FY24).
KEMJ said
Thank you very much! My last question is: What can I do right now to prepare for the possible JIT? I don’t want to be unprepared or miss anything important.
writedit said
You and your institution’s grant administrator can anticipate what will be in the JIT request. If you need any regulatory approvals (IRB, IACUC, etc.), you want to secure that now, plus complete any certification (and training) needed. You will need to update the Other Support information (active and pending support for all senior/key personnel in the budget). If your budget might need to be adjusted due to concurrent funding for the same work that might have come in (eg, foundation or internal award, other NIH award), you will want to consider this in advance of receiving the request. If there were any administrative concerns raised by the SRO in your summary statement (e.g., Resource Sharing Plan not satisfactory, budget reduction recommended, biohazards not properly addressed, etc.), you will need to address these concerns before an award can be made. You can read the NIH policy statement on JIT for additional insight: 2.5.1 Just-in-Time Procedures
| | | | 2.5.1 Just-in-Time Procedures
Outlines Just-in-Time procedures which allow certain elements of an application to be submitted later in the app… |
|
|
KEMJ said
Thank you so much! I thought I asked a silly question, but it turns out it’s not. This is all new knowledge for me. Thank you for being so tremendously helpful!
KEMJ said
Thank you so much! I thought I asked a silly question, but it turns out it’s not. This is all new knowledge for me. Thank you for being so tremendously helpful!
k99pd said
I applied for the New Early K99/R00 Award – NCI (cancer.gov) with the deadline of Feb 14, 2024. The impact scores and percentiles were just posted today. I’m curious if anyone has applied to this or has any information on the payline or score cutoffs for this award.
I understand that the Early K99/R00 is a very new grant mechanism, so if you have insights or experiences with the Parent K99/R00, that would be incredibly helpful as well. Thanks!
Samuel O. said
The Ks typically don’t have paylines (i.e., %), but most institutes have impact score cutoffs. Your PO should be able to tell you what that cutoff was for last year.
writedit said
K99s are typically fairly competitive, so scores of 20 or below are most likely to receive awards, but if NCI has allocated a good chunk of their budget for this activity code, scores up to 30 might be in the running (I do not know the amount allocated to each NOFO). You can search this page and the archived pages to get an idea of the scores for NCI-funded K99/R00 applications (when they participated in the parent announcement). NCI may take other factors into consideration in making final awards, ut that would be on a case by case basis, based on a PO recommendation (ie, nothing you can do to make it happen).
k99pd said
Dear Wriedit,
I wanted to circle back and let you know that my proposal was considered for funding, and I have submitted all the required materials for JIT. I also requested a later start date, and the officers have approved the delay to July 1, 2025. Do you know if I’ll be receiving the NoA soon, or if it will likely come closer to my proposed start date? I’m a bit concerned given the current administrative challenges. Thank you!
writedit said
Congratulations on getting one step closer! If Congress can’t get its act together and only passes another continuing resolution on March 14, then NIH awards should continue through the next CR period, but that will end well before July 1 – and probably by April 1 to avoid recision. The NIH FY25 appropriation remains unknown, even with the current budget resolution bills, but I would assume a cut from FY24 given the current aggressive cost-cutting climate. Assuming your status is Council review completed, if there is any way to accept the award sooner than July 1 (and as soon as possible), that would probably be safer. If there is a major cut to the NIH appropriation, ICs would be forced to limit new awards to meet all their current noncompeting renewal obligations. Of course, this assumes that the White House allows ICs to resume posting in the Federal Register so they can resume SRG and Council meetings for FY25 applications/awards.
F31 NINR Sponsor said
I am a sponsor for a F31 submitted to NINR. They do not have any pay lines, but wondering if anyone has a sense of what scores are typically in the fundable range. For reference, the application received an impact score of 22 (no percentiles provided). Thanks in advance.
writedit said
Even though NINR is a small institute with a small budget, a score of 22 should be competitive for an award. When you receive your summary statement, you can check in with your PO about next steps, including whether you need to reply (hopefully the PO will tell you to sit tight, which is a good sign).
SBIR Question said
Hi, I recently got a JIT request from NIGMS for an SBIR grant application that was reviewed 4 months ago. My impact score was subpar (really not that good as I believe the Reviewers did not read my application or did not spend much time to understand what I proposed). The council meeting happened 2 months ago. I wonder if the JIT request means anything – whether the NIGMS is still considering my application for award or is the NIGMS asking everyone for JIT now? Thank you in advance for your insight.
writedit said
The personal JIT request is absolutely good news, so please do not delay in responding! The priority score is only one component of the funding decision, and your PO may have recognized (if you did not reach out to discuss this) the subpar review. The JIT request is not a guarantee of funding, but it means NIGMS is considering your application for an award. Once you send the JIT material, you can sit tight – they will contact you if they need more information or have any questions about the JIT information.
AnxiousWaiting said
Hi Wriedit, thank you so much for this great online resource. My ESI R01 has been “pending administrative review” since April. Right before then, we submitted a personalized JIT. The application scored at 10th percentile, though the IC does not publish pay line. I have been patiently waiting for any updates, and hopeful for an award. Since it’s been almost three months, is it time to reach out to the PO?
writedit said
Not yet. ICs are still catching up after the delay in receiving their appropriation, so awards with a July 1 start date are not really late yet. The GMS or PO will contact you if there are any questions or problems processing your application for an award. No news is good news, and reaching out will just cause a further delay, since they will be interrupted and simply reply that you are in the queue but they can’t tell you when the award will come through. Sit tight and wait with a positive mindset.
AnxiousWaiting said
Okay, thank you. My application’s start date was April 1, would that still be considered within normal range given the delay in getting their appropriation?
writedit said
It’s not impossible that your IC is still backlogged (some are also struggling with limited staff), but with your score as an ESI, yours should have been toward the front of the line, so you might check with your PO for an update. I expect you will receive reassurance to sit tight.
Izlude said
Hi,
I had a few questions about a SBIR Phase IIB grant mechanism. I was asked to review a grant within my area of research. I have served on study sections reviewing R21s and U01s but not this mechanism. I am assigned as R1 so likely heavy lifting for the review. Talking about the science is not the issue but in terms of evaluating within the mechanism I am not as familiar with. I tried to look up things around this mechanism but not as much compared to something more ubiquitous like an R01. I was going to at least write a draft review focused on the science and reach out to the SRO to talk via it more but wanted to see how others look at these grants as a reviewer. thanks!
writedit said
I hope an experienced SBIR reviewer chimes in with their experience, but you should definitely reach out to the SRO, possibly for guidance before you draft your review, since you want to be sure you touch on the commercialization aspects of the application as well. I assume you looked at all the SBIR review guideline materials on the CSR website (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/review-guidelines/R41-R42-R43-R44-guide-for-reviewers.htm) and the SBIR website (including Phase IIB FAQ: https://seed.nih.gov/faqs#11792). You can look at NIAID SBIR sample applications and summary statements, but they are all quite old obviously: https://www.niaid.nih.gov/grants-contracts/sample-applications#r43r44
SBIR_hopeful said
As a representative from a small business, I really appreciate that you asked this question.
Your SRO should provide you with guidance, but in general, SBIR has more of a focus on product development, as opposed to pure scientific advancement. You will need to evaluate the significance/impact of the proposed innovation to public health, whether it is indeed innovative, its technical merits, its commercialization prospects, and the capabilities of the proposing company/PI. If it’s a Phase II application, there will be a whole commercialization plan that you will need to evaluate. Definitely start at the website mentioned above.
Mc991220py said
Dear Wriedit, thank you so much for this fantastic resource. We have a SBIR phase II application scored 25 at NCI last November. The GMS requested JIT info in late January 2024 before the council meeting (early February). We submitted the JIT info in early March due to various reasons of our own. The status still shows “Council meeting completed”. Is it possible we got skipped due to the late submission of JIT info?
writedit said
NCI has only issued 6 new R42 awards so far this year over a 6-week period in May-June (right after appropriation arrived), so your timing would have been fine. I don’t see any new awards since June 18th. You can certainly check with your PO to confirm whether your application is being considered for an award and whether you should apply again in September.
Mc991220py said
Thank you so much! We contacted the PO and GMS. Looks like they have no idea if our application will be funded or not. You previously mentioned that at the end of the fiscal year NIH may skip an application if the JIT info was not submitted in time. That’s why I was wondering if our application was also skipped as we submitted JIT info late.
writedit said
Fingers crossed! The rush on getting JIT in only occurs after July 1, when ICs are trying to quickly spend down their appropriations to $0 by September 30th. Then they don’t have time to wait for an applicant to submit JIT and will move on to the next application because they don’t have time to wait. Earlier in the FY when reviewing applications for each submission cycle, the timing is less critical, though it would have been good to let your PO/GMS know that you were going to be delayed in responding when they asked in January (not a problem – but good to give them the heads up).
K23_Hopeful said
Hi!
Thanks for such a wonderful resource! I submitted a K23 to NIDA in February, and after study section in June got a score of 23 (8th percentile). Council is scheduled for September. My mentors are very optimistic, although when I spoke to the PO they were much more measured saying this was “a really great score” but “Ks are really competitive so it could go either way.” They recommended I draft a 1 page rebuttal for reviewer comments which they could look over and give feedback on before adding it to my file. Any sense of how hopeful I should be?
writedit said
While I agree that a K23 in the low 20s is usually pretty solid, I know NIDA is more competitive, and since this is for FY25, your PO could also be a bit concerned about what might happen to the budget next year, depending on what happens with budget negotiations this fall (House and Senate are in parallel universes) and the election outcome. Their asking for a rebuttal is positive news – they want to advocate for you – but you should ask whether they recommend submitting an A1 in November for insurance since you won’t know the 23rd percentile outcome until 2025.
K23_Hopeful said
Will do thanks! The PO hadn’t recommended I start an A1 yet when talking with her initially, but will follow up when I send this in. I’ll be sure to update this post when I have more info for future applicants.
K23_Hopeful said
Will post an update to this below with the same username, but for people looking at this in the future this grant ended up getting funded!
csfdlp said
Dear Writedit, thank you for such insightful posts. I received a score of 53 in a MIRA S35, which seems to me is out of range for funding. I did not see any percentile, and I wonder if this is because the study section was a ZRG1 (maximizing investigators research award) and not any of the common MRA study sections. I’m planning to discuss my proposal with the PO, but I’m not sure how to approach the conversation, because the score is so low. I wonder if because I am a new investigator there may be any chance that my proposal could be considered for funding and whether I should bring this up with the PO. I know in the recent past funding scores for MIRA proposals have been close to 50 for ESIS. Is this still the case and does it apply to new investigators? Any suggestion on how to discuss this or ay other point with the PO would be great. Thank you so much!
writedit said
There isn’t a percentile for MIRA (yes, due to the special panel for each submission cycle), but the awards are made on factors beyond the score alone. When you have your summary statement, you can contact your PO to see if you should prepare a rebuttal and whether to submit your project to MIRA again or to a different funding opportunity (you should plan to submit again somewhere no matter what).
csfdlp said
Makes sense. One more question: is the new investigator status considered by the PO when considering to support a proposal? the information in the NIH is very confusing in this respect. Should I bring this up when I talk to the PO. Thank you so much for your advise.
writedit said
Your PO is already aware of your New Investigator status, though it probably won’t make a difference with this mechanism since the separate MIRA for ESIs ensures they are supporting young investigators in parallel with established investigators. New investigator status covers very established investigators who are simply new to NIH funding (eg, former intramural scientists, foreign scientists, those supported by foundation fellowships, etc.), which is why it gets less consideration, though for applicants who are simply just beyond ESI status, a PO might bring it up (even though the IC doesn’t get formal “credit” for supporting an early stage investigator).
JIT update said
Dear Wriedit, thank you so much for this valuable resource. I am writing to seek guidance regarding the JIT updates for my R15 application.
Background: I submitted NIGMS/R15 in Oct 2023, and received a score of 24 in Feb. We have submitted requested JIT (other support) on March. After the council meeting on May, PO replied that my application was recommended for funding. However, my status is still showing pending for administrative review since May. With the start date set for August 1, I am concerned about whether we will receive any updates in the upcoming weeks.
My question: During the JIT (other support) submission in March, I did not have any funded grants. However, last week, I was awarded a collaborative R01 where I am serving as co-PI, committing two months of summer effort. Given this new development, should I inform my PO or the administrative specialist and update my JIT for the R15? Furthermore, should I check with my R15 co-PI to see if they also have any new updates that need to be included in our JIT submission?
Thanks for your time,
writedit said
You probably should check with your MPI and then get in touch with your GMS about the update in award status (for you, if your MPI has no additional awards since JIT). The August 1 start date is not an expiration date, but they will certainly move forward with your award processing soon, if they haven’t already.
BF said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you for this wonderful site. I recently got a fundable score for my R21 and my PO already said that it will be funded for sure. I got the “personalized” JIT in june, but because of various administration issues, including the lengthy IACUC protocol amendment/reviews required by my University, I do not think that I can send everything back till August 10. I have alerted the GMS, but he does not really comment much on my delays other than saying that “thank you for letting me know”.
Do you foresee any problems in getting the NoA in this case? I am fairly new to this, so my question could sound naive. I guess I am concerned that the later I got this JIT done, the less award money is left for my grant because they probably paid out the other awards before mine. Please advise.
writedit said
An R21 is a small, time-limited award, so I think the risk of being skipped is less, especially with your exceptional score (POs never say you are being funded “for sure” except in exceptional cases). Delayed JIT is an issue for select pay applications being considered after all the “for sure” awards are made. You wouldn’t want to be much later than August 10, but they should be able to turn the award around quickly once the IACUC approval is in hand, or they could make an award for components of the work that do not require vertebrate animals and make the rest of the award after receiving the IACUC information. Your GMS is swamped with applications to process and doesn’t have a lot of time for explanations or updates – their thanking you means they are paying attention, so you don’t need to be concerned. If you will be later than August 10, you might want to check with your PO about partial award possibilities, if there is risk for significant delays.
ESI-R01-status said
Dear Writedit, I have been a frequent visitor of this great resource. I have an NHLBI ESI R01 grant on the payline (24%, reviewed in June2023, FY24 cycle1). The application is pending admin review since May 2024. Last week, in an email response my PO mentioned that everything looks good on his end, and asked me to contact GMS for further updates. I reached out to GMS for update and GMS mentioned that that “the grant is under final internal review”. I am confused whether grant itself is under internal review or NOA is under final internal review. I thought the grants is already recommended for funding after the council review.
My question: What kind of internal reviews take place after PO and council recommends it for funding (although PO did not explicitly mention that its recommended for funding, but did say “everything looks good on my end”)?
Since this is a Cycle1 grant- I was expecting NOA by this time. Should I be concerned about additional internal review? or just hang in there for NOA to be issued? or perhaps GMS meant to say ‘final internal review of NOA’
Thanks for your feedback.
writedit said
Given that your GMS said this, they probably meant the Notice of Award, which is sent to the Office of the Director for review and approval. Probably a long line of applications there, too (so more delays – the late appropriation must have been rough at NHLBI), but you can be confident about receiving an award – hopefully sooner than later.
ESI-R01-status said
Thank you!
ESI-R01-status said
Dear Writedit, my A1 application (mentioned above, NHLBI, FY24 cycle1, ESI 24%) is still ‘pending’ since mid-May (final JIT mid-June). Meanwhile, I got to know a good friend/colleague at my institute got NOA this week for NHLBI cycle1 ESI R01 (26%) co-funded with NIGMS. I assumed mine would be up on the list and was expecting NOA by this time. I am wondering if my application is skipped for the award. Do they issue NOA in order or award randomly (as long its on the paylist) based on how busy assigned GMS is?
How likely is that NHLBI will skip an ESI award that is within the payline? Could they skip award if new A0 of this A1 (reviewed June 24) application scored outside the payline? Is SARS-CoV-2/lung biology a low programmatic priority?
Its been a long anxiety filled journey since Feb23.
PS: 3 weeks ago my PO said- everything looks good on his end for potential award, and 2-weeks ago GMS said my grants is under final internal review.
writedit said
You can put the champagne (or your celebratory beverage of choice) in the fridge and rest better. You don’t need to worry about what happened with the A1 affecting the A0 award. Your PO and GMS can make no promises in case of a black swan event out of their control, but you should have a Notice of Award soon. It sounds like your colleague received IDeA co-funding, which might have bumped up their timeline. The long anxiety-filled wait is why I generally advise applicants to skip the routine February-March cycle unless they need to get an application in while they still have ESI status, to meet tenure deadline, etc. Cycle 1 applications will (almost) always wait at least a year for an award decision and often much longer.
Jon said
Last winter we received a good score on an sbir, which the po told us was in the fundable range. We received the personal jit request, including the new disclosure of foreign affiliations form. We completed it and were then told to hold right until the federal budget was approved. Then in May we were abruptly told the grant couldn’t be funded. I met with the po who told me the grant wouldn’t be funded, but said they weren’t allowed to explicitly say why. Earlier this week, they informed me the reason was because of a foreign affiliation risk. This came as a shock because we have no foreign affiliations. The po said they couldn’t tell us what the problem was or if it would come up again on future applications. This is really frustrating because if they won’t tell us the issue, we have no way of fixing it. Any suggestions?
SaG said
NIH published a Notice that lists what could be the problem. If you don’t fall under one of those categories then maybe a key personnel (or someone high up at your company) or a sub awardee does and didn’t tell you.
Jon said
Yeah, they sent us that information. As far was we know, none of those situations would apply to us. If they could at least tell us what category or personnel is problematic, it would help, but apparently they can’t.
writedit said
Thanks for jumping in with the Notice, SaG – much appreciated! Jon, if no personnel listed (or not listed but part of the company) have any link with China, Russia, et al., you might consider any suppliers or affiliated researchers (again, perhaps not part of your SBIR but involved in testing or development).
Jon said
I suppose there are two possible links, though I think it would be extreme to flag this grant due to either of them. 1) In this grant, we would have been collaborating with a major US-based medical device company. Though US-based, they have facilities all over the world, including China. 2) We also included a local, US-based design firm as a consultant. That company also has a facility in China, but all work with both groups would be performed in the US. Could either of those have caused the issue? If so, I would hope NIH would ask for clarification.
writedit said
Either or both could play a role. You could ask your partners at each company if they have ever had an issue with SBIR awards, though it could also be that your technology is what is garnering the extra attention (ie, different device might not warrant the funding bar). The Notice explains why you have not received an explanation: “NIH, CDC, and FDA will not mitigate security risks identified as part of the due diligence program. … Generally, NIH, CDC, and FDA will not provide SBC applicants the opportunity to address any identified security risks prior to award.”
gpatelcognitalabscom said
writedit said
Other foreign countries of concern could also be involved, though most of the obvious possibilities likely wouldn’t be involved as suppliers or researchers.
gpclabs said
Yes, we even looked at extended list of countries of moderate concern but can’t find any link. While not part of SBIR declaration form, congressional committee guideline talks about cybersecurity, patent and employee assessments of SBC and we feel some of those are vague and can be incorrectly applied. They also talk about using “open source” information which again can be inaccurate if not confirmed.
writedit said
I am afraid I do not have any other guidance in terms of the NIH. A longshot, but you could contact your congressional delegation (Representative & Senators) to see if any of them can help you understand at least what might be triggering the scrutiny.
gpclabs said
Oh, absolutely. We just felt it would be good to post here for community discussion. We are thinking exactly the same as this is a bit of wild west and outside of NIH’s normal working style.
SaG said
We are a medical device company and we pay a few vendors in China for providing parts such as plastic but this should be highly unlikely cause of foreign risk.
Unless these are very special critical parts that they can patent in China and use to reverse engineer the device. Or the vendors are owned by the government.
K99_GMS said
Dear Writedit, my K99 at NIGMS scored in the gray area (according to PO), and the PO indicated there might be a chance at the end of the FY. Do you know anything about end of FY funding situation at the NIGMS this year?
I zoomed with the PO after receiving my summary statement and submitted a 1 page rebuttal upon the PO’s request. Also submitted JIT in response to the automated request because the PO said I should submit if I get the automated request. All these little details lead me to think I still have a chance, but here we are in August and anxiety is creeping up. I’m not eligible to resubmit (the PO is aware of this), so was really hoping for a positive outcome . Any insight you might be able to share would be very helpful. Thanks!
thatpostdoc said
I am also curious about some of these processes. My PO told me to ignore the auto JIT until receiving the personalized request, and additionally suggested I wait until later this year to submit the rebuttal to him (given that my award will be in FY25 and likely delayed with budget approval). Admittedly a different institute but what’s the difference in operation here?
Bkg info I submitted K99 A1 in March and got score back in June.
Hang in there! A prior training in my lab got their K funded 2 years after the submission because the institute scraped together some funding at the FY end. Wish you all the luck!
writedit said
ICs can make awards to Cycle 1 applications (Feb-March) either by September 30 of the FY in which they were submitted (the exception, not the rule) or any time in the FY to which they were submitted … for Cycle 1 awards, this typically means late winter or early spring of the following calendar year (ie, 12 or more months after submission) due to perennial federal budget delays. If the applicant is not scrambling to get a Cycle 1 award funded in the current FY, there is no need to rush on JIT or rebuttals, and the PO would rather you have any additional preliminary data to share that could support your March A1 application, especially as related to concerns raised, any preprints or publications since submission, etc. The longer you wait to send this information, the more material you may have to provide.
l1zerdbreath said
Filing my first no cost extensi
K99_GMS said
Thank you for sharing your labmate’s experience with me. Wish you the best of luck with your application!
writedit said
Sounds like you have a great PO, but they truly will not know about your award likelihood. No one will until Sept 30 (or before, if an award is processed). ICs rapidly work their way through rank-ordered paylists until the funding runs out, which needs to happen before Sept 30. This is why rapidly (within 24 h) responding to JIT requests is essential right now, as ICs will skip applicants who cannot respond within a very short turnaround time. This is why your PO asked you to submit your JIT as soon as you got the automated request – so it would be there in case your application came to the top of the list. A lot of awards will be made in August, so there is still a chance.
K99_GMS said
Thank you very much for the explanation! This makes so much sense. And yes, I’m very grateful for having a responsive and helpful PO.
K99_GMS said
Hi Writedit, I noticed a reviewer left the following comment about my budget :
Recommended budget modifications or possible overlap identified: The candidate request support for a technician during the K99 award.
Is it a problem trying to support a technician during the K99 phase? If so, shall I prepare a modified budget in case requested as JIT?
Many thanks!
writedit said
If the SRO did not include that concern among the Budget Recommendations at the very end of the summary statement (right before the list of reviewers) or mention it in the Summary of Discussion, then you should be okay. The GMS would look at that section to determine if any budget-related issues raised during the review need to be addressed, not the individual critiques. If you see the technician mentioned by the SRO in their comments, then you could talk with your PO about how to modify the budget to address the concern. I suspect the reviewer was flagging your hiring a technician while still a trainee in your K99 period (ie, your mentor should hire the technician, since it is their lab, not yours).
K99_Optimist said
Do you mind if I ask what is considered gray area for K99 NIGMS?
tiramisuxxx said
Dear Writedit, would IRB status during JIT affect funding decision?
I recently got a gray score for the Katz R01 submission. In June I was told by my PO that they will fund my application. In Mid July I received a personalized JIT request that asks for regular materials.
One of the request said: “If the proposed project involves human subjects research, a certification to NIH that all non-exempt human subjects research has been reviewed and approved by an appropriate IRB must be submitted. Pending or expired approvals are not acceptable. [Please confirm if there is a more updated IRB Approval than the date included in the application]”
I already had a planning IRB approved when I submitted the grant. Planing IRB is a mechanism in my institution to deal with short timelines such as for JIT. It has been my understanding that the planning IRB is sufficient for the JIT purpose. At the same time, I have a detailed IRB under review in my institution, which lays out all the details in the protocol for human subjects. However, the detailed IRB was still under review when the JIT was submitted. Therefore my grant staff noted “Updated IRB is pending” in the JIT submission. As of today, it is still being reviewed by IRB after several back and forth. It is a minimal risk study, and it is just that it takes IRB panel time to complete the paperwork.
It seems to be a big deal to me as the GMS said “Pending or expired approvals are not acceptable. ” in their JIT request. However, everybody around me seems to not making this a big deal. Someone told me that the funding decision has already made by the IC, and the worst scenario is that my institution won’t let me start spending until the IRB is in place. I also received mixed advice in terms of whether I should inquire the GMS.
I am nervous as we approach Mid August and others from the same cycle as me have started to receive NOA from the same IC. Would appreciate your insights.
Thanks very much in advance!
GrantGuy said
While this may not be the case for all grants, I have been in this position multiple times and so have my colleagues. Every time (so far), we have still been issued an award with a restriction that no human subjects work can proceed until the IRB approval is updated and in place. Once you submit the IRB approval, the restriction is removed.
Generally, they’re not unreasonable at NIH and they realize IRB approval delays are out of your hands. I submitted a study for IRB review in May, and it still hasn’t been reviewed by the IRB I am using due to backlog and staff shortages. There’s nothing I can do about it.
writedit said
Thanks for sharing your reassuring experience, GrantGuy.
tiramisuxxx said
Thanks so much, GrantGuy! I also submitted my full IRB in mid May, which was a couple of months before hearing the funding decision from my PO. But still, today this IRB is still under review. It is reassuring to hear that this does not kill the deal.
writedit said
Your calm colleagues are correct. The IC will make the award but not fund any human subjects research until the full IRB approval is given. You will receive an updated Notice of Award with the full amount once the IRB documentation is in place. You should leave the GMS alone – they are scrambling to meet countless deadlines – but you can confirm with your PO (for peace of mind) that part of the award can still be made until your human subjects research bar is removed. The planning IRB approval that you describe will likely never be sufficient for JIT, since the NIH cannot approve funds for human subjects research without IRB approval or exemption. I am really not sure what the point is, other than to convey the work looks to be provisionally acceptable – which, again, is not enough to secure the full award. For future reference, as soon as you receive a fundable score (ie, almost anything but not discussed), you should submit the full protocol for IRB approval.
tiramisuxxx said
Thanks, Writedit! Now I understand better the procedure. Definitely a lesson learned and did not enjoy that panicking moment.
Last week my ERA status changed to “Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.” Fingers crossed the NOA will arrive soon.
writedit said
Fantastic news – congratulations and best wishes for success with your research!
NIHnoob said
Dear Writedit, I have an ESI-R01 scored within payline. This is a cycle 1, FY25 application submitted in March this year. I reached out to my PO in early July after I got the summary statement to see if they want a rebuttal addressing some minor issues but they din’t ask for one, and mentioned to just wait and they’ll have more information in about a month. While I still haven’t heard anything yet, I was wondering if they are trying to see if this can be funded in FY24, because the council meeting is still a month away. I know the PO will be super busy at this time of year and I don’t want to be disturb them about a FY25 application again. I am preparing in case there is a quick JIT request and wanted to see if that’ll happen only after council meeting in September or could happen earlier. Thanks.
writedit said
If your application is within payline, they probably don’t need a rebuttal. There is a slim chance they could try to make your award in FY24, but your PO has no special insight into whether that might happen. Paylist decisions and rankings are made by IC leadership and will depend on how far the appropriation goes after making all committed FY24 awards. There is no reason to reach out to your PO again – they will contact you if they need any information – but certainly having your JIT ready to turn around within 24 hours would be important for an FY24 award to be possible, should the opportunity arise.
Newbie said
Dear Writedit, I have a question concerning scientific overlap. Can I use the same preliminary data in two different R01 applications while proposing different aims and experiments? The preliminary data section contains proteomics data that uncovers various targets and pathways regulated by our protein of interest. Therefore, the two grants focus on different functional pathways regulated by the same protein. A significant portion of the preliminary data section will be exactly the same in both applications. Will this be considered scientific overlap?
R01applicant said
I am wondering whether anyone with a score within the gray zone has been funded by NIA recently. My 2024 cycle-2 application is 1 percentile above the NIA funding line. I am hoping there is still a chance. Thank you.
August said
I had a similar situation for my R01 application last year (one percentile away from the payline of NIA), and I eventually got a one-year R56.
R01applicant said
Thank you! May I ask whether the R56 was recommended by your PO or it was determined by other NIA staff/leadership, and when was it funded last year? Thanks again.
August said
It was recommended by my PO, I believe. I submitted the R01 applications in 2022 for A0 and in 2023 for A1; both were just one percentile away from the payline. I was notified in mid-August 2023 that it was selected for R56 funding and received the NOA just a couple of weeks later.
R01applicant said
Thank you so much for your information.
Jewel said
The Health Services and Systems Review Branch chief states that their number of applications have skyrocketed so they are creating multiple special emphasis panels (SEP). From the email, it sounds like you are less likely to get the same reviewers when submitting the second submission of the same application. Are there success rate differences if your application ends up at an SEP?
writedit said
Oof – unfortunately, the SEPs will likely not be as good as the standing study section unless they have enough clusters of very similar applications and enough ad hoc reviewers with the right expertise to sort them into compatible groups. In the (now distant) past, SEPs were great because they were the subset of a standing SRG with the right expertise to review a handful of applications (or even just one) … typically the applicant’s friends on a SRG on which they served. Now, a single SEP needs to cover a wide range of science due to budget constraints on the number of extra panels that can be used. In this case, it could be a little better, since it sounds like the application overload is in one general scientific area, so the SEPs should at least be reviewing material in their wheelhouse. For A1 applications, the SEP SRO will assign any reviewers from the A0 review panel who might also be on the SEP, but otherwise, the SEP reviewers will just use the prior summary statement. To be honest, not having any prior reviewers should not be a big deal, because reviewers should complete their review of the A1 and only then look at the summary statement to evaluate if the applicant avoided addressing any key prior concerns (which likely would arise in the second review as well, if major or moderate weaknesses). This is an even cleaner process for reviewers who did not hear the prior discussion (ie, what they heard before, good or bad, isn’t influencing their review of the amended application).
GratefulGrantwriter said
Dear Writedit, thanks for maintaining this great resource. I have a question pertaining to our SBIR application and I’d appreciate any insight you’d be willing to share.
We received a request for financial management systems information for our company from someone in grants administration, to be returned by early next week (8/26-8/30), relating to our SBIR application resubmission. On our first submission we received a personalized JIT request, which we responded to, but they did not request the financial management information at that time and our grant was not picked up that cycle. Since receiving this new request, we’ve quickly worked with our accounting firm to make sure everything is in order and are submitting the requested information. We’ve also reached out to our PO to ask for a meeting to try to get any indication what this could mean but have not heard anything back.
We have heard from people familiar with the process that evaluation of financial management is close to the final step before a NoA, only needed for new grantees who they anticipate funding. So, while not a guarantee or official commitment and with all the appropriate caveats, it is something like a 90%+ indicator that you will receive the award. Logically, we agree that this perspective makes sense, especially given the timing, with FY 2024 ending Sept 30th, however we don’t want to be naive or overly optimistic. It’s also difficult to plan for the next few months with such an important event for our company so unknown to us, so it would be very helpful to have some idea what our chances are. What do you think?
writedit said
Indeed, like requesting JIT, ICs only request more detailed financial management information from applicants who are being considered for awards (assuming no issues come up during the administrative review). The NIH has limited resources, so ICs will only make these requests (especially at the end of the FY like this) when they are confident about moving forward to make an award. If everything looks good with the material you send, they have plenty of time to process the award before September 30 (ie, this timing is not unusual).
laetitiayan said
Hi, my R01 with NIA was scored outside of payline. I emailed PO with several updated publications and asked for potential opportunities of R56 earlier, but never got a response. Last week, this proposal turned into pending in the system. Does that mean they are going to fund my R01 or I am considered for R56?
writedit said
Could be either, but could also be someone simply making administrative updates to your application file. You should hear from a GMS if they want updated JIT for award processing – if so, you will probably only have a 24-h turnaround time, so you want to be ready.
laetitiayan said
GMS contacted this morning for updated other support from PI and other key personnel. Hopefully this is a positive sign. Regarding R56, usually what is the process of funding? Do they fund the R01 and then convert it to R56? Or do they create an R56 in the system and fund it there?
writedit said
Just what SaG said (thanks!) – the R56 would be a new award number with a year of funding to allow you to address reviewer concerns and come back with a stronger application and more data.
SaG said
They convert the R01 to an R56 then they fund the R56.
laetitiayan said
My PO finally replied after 5 months. She asked me to work with GMS for JIT and funding consideration. We just submitted all the requested JIT information yesterday. So far, I haven’t seen the R56 showing up. The pending status is still with my R01 A1 submission. I hope it is a good sign.
writedit said
Good news that they are working on an award. The R56 vs R01 probably depends on how much $$ they need to spend in the next few weeks.
laetitiayan said
PO reached out for updated DMS plan and confirmed the budget was OK. We made it a quick turnaround in 24 hours and PO/GMS approved updated DMS within minutes of submission. I am a bit relieved that there is nothing more to push from my side. Only finger crossed and wish myself good luck.
writedit said
All good news – hopefully even better news soon.
K99_hopeful said
I submitted my A1 application for the NEI K99 in March 2024 and received a score in the gray zone. The council meeting listed is 10/2024. When do you think I can expect a final desision on funding?
SaG said
Could be weeks or months. Depends on how quickly and how much Congress funds the Federal Government starting 10/1.
writedit said
If your score is in the gray zone, you will need to wait until the FY25 NIH appropriation is final, which won’t happen until sometime in 2025. Currently, the House and the Senate bills don’t agree on what Institutes the NIH comprises, and the November election will almost certainly delay all budget efforts … possibly for passage of a federal budget in December-January, before the new Congress and President are sworn in, but possibly not until after January (and then depends on size of majority in each house of Congress). A gray zone application might need to wait until the end of the FY, too, which would be July-August 2025. You can ask your PO, but you should plan to submit again if you are still eligible since a final decision could be delayed until after the February submission cycle.
R01-Curious said
Hi SaG and Writedit, Is it too late to expect a JIT for an FY24 award? I have an R01 application (submitted in March this year) scored within payline and my PO mentioned he’ll get back to me in August but I haven’t heard anything. The council meeting is next week, was wondering if there is still a chance for FY 24? If not, would this be funded on CR in Jan/Feb or will it have to wait until a budget it passed in 25. Thanks.
writedit said
An award can be made up through September 30, though you’ll know before then if you don’t receive a JIT request by ~mid-September. Some but not all ICs do make awards during a CR. You can check RePORTER to see if your IC issued competing (Type 1 or 2) R01 awards before ~ April 2024 for this FY. If not, you can hope for an award ~6+ weeks after the FY25 federal budget is signed into law, likely in 2025.
Jon Kostek said
Hi Wredit and SaG, I am applying for an NIH NIGMS R03 project in the October 2024 cycle, along with resubmitting my renewal for the AREA R15. If both projects receive strong scores and NOAs , can I serve as the PI on both, or would I need to step down from one of them? NOFO for R15 indicate that “The PI may not be the PI of an active NIH research grant at the time of a R15 award..” I do not know how to interpret that. Any clarifications would be helpful. Thank you!
hdacs said
I had a somewhat similar experience: submitted a R15 first, while it was under review, submitted a R03. Before the R15 was awarded, NIH asked me to withdraw the pending R03. Hope this helps.
writedit said
Thanks for sharing your experience, hdacs! Jon, if your current R15 award is still active when the R03 is considered for funding, then you would need to give up the R15 to accept the R03, which makes no sense (R15 is larger award and renewable). Also, if you gave up the R15, I am not sure what that would do to the renewal application under consideration (ie, technically no longer a renewal). I understand about keeping your bases covered, but I am not sure there is a scenario in which you would want to accept the R03 at this time – if you would want to keep the R15 renewal option for an A1 if needed, that is. You can confirm with your R15 PO about what happens to both the current award and the renewal (A0 and potential A1) if you were to accept the R03.
Bobby Blood said
Anyone have any insights into scores and paylines for NHLBI EIA R35 this year?
laetitiayan said
My R01 with NIA changed from pending to “award prepared” today in the status history, but then back to “pending” and then to “award prepared”. However, in the main page, it remains pending. Anyone has experience on this?
writedit said
The prepared award goes to the IC Director for approval (and communicati
laetitiayan said
Today it goes back to “pending administrative review”. I am really confused.
writedit said
You can reach out to your PO (GMS is super busy right now) for explanation/reassurance, but they will contact you if there are concerns you need to address.
EllSU said
I have a pending application with NIA since 8/15. We submitted JIT about one week ago, and currently still “pending administrative review”. “
writedit said
NIA was short-handed last year at the end of the FY and was scrambling until the very end of September, and there is plenty of time left. Now, if you were asked for JIT on August 15 (or earlier) and only sent the information in September, you may have lost your place in line, as they often require JIT back within a day or two, but if your GMS didn’t give a deadline, then you should be fine.
ELLSU said
Thank you, Writedit. I should have been clearer – the status has been changed to “pending” on 8/15, but they asked for a JIT about a week later. They gave us one week to respond, and we did. Now the status just switched to “award prepared”. Hopefully, we will get the good news soon.
writedit said
Excellent news – congratulations! The delay before you receive your Notice of Award will depend on how long your award sits at the IC Director office, so don’t worry if it takes longer than you expect.
laetitiayan said
Have you got your NOA yet? Mine is still pending for a week now.
laetitiayan said
I mean award prepared for a week now.
EllSU said
Same here. Mine has been “award prepared” since 9/6. For my previous projects, it usually only took 2-3 days to go from “award prepared” to “awarded”. Hopefully it is just because the IC director is super busy now…
writedit said
Neither of you needs to worry – there is a backlog of awards to approve at most ICs at the end of FYs, and they need to let the representing Congressional delegation for each award know about the funding being sent to their district/state.
Biddle said
I am also in the “award prepared” state for NIA for over a week. I still feel good about it, but it’s difficult not to be anxious with so much on the line! It helps to see others in the same situation.
writedit said
You should good news soon – NIA is probably short-staffed again this year.
Biddle said
You are correct! My NOA did arrive yesterday. Here is the timeline for this NIA R44.
09/04/2023 Application entered into system.
09/13/2023 Scientific Review Group review pending.
11/20/2023 Scientific Review Group review completed. Score was borderline. I did not have high hopes.
01/24/2024 Council review completed. This was during the CR, so NIH did not yet have a budget. We opted to prepare an A1 submission (resubmission) for security.
04/04/2024 Request from NIA for a response to the summary statement for the A0 application. This request, ironically, came about an hour after I submitted the A1 application! Nevertheless, I assumed this was good news, as they were still considering the A0. They gave me four pages for the response, and I spent a long time perfecting it; this was made easier because I just submitted the A1 that addressed the same points.
05/20/2024 JIT request made by GMS prior to the council meeting. JIT uploaded on the same day, except the IRB approval.
07/01/2024 A1 application reviewed and scored significantly better.
07/30/2024 Pending administrative review.
07/25-8/15/2024 Several JIT clarifications and requests from the GMS/PO addressed. The A1 application also began to be processed at this time.
09/09/2024 Award prepared.
09/18/2024 Application Awarded. A1 application withdrawn by IC due to previous application being funded.
writedit said
Woohoo – congratulations (on the A1 improvement, too – which also helped, so not a wasted effort) and thank you for submitting this thoughtful, useful timeline! Best wishes for success with your R&D work.
laetitiayan said
Mine turned into award prepared last Friday as well. Hopefully we will both get good news soon.
ELLSU said
Hopefully!! Mine is still pending today…Guess I will stop being nervous only when I get the NOA.
And thank you, Writedit, for your insight!
R01-ESI said
Dear Writedit- I have an FY25 cycle 1, ESI R01 two points below my institutes payline. Given the budget won’t increase next year, I imagine the payline would go down. I emailed my PO a month ago and they din’t have any information on next year’s payline. Wondering if its safe to resubmit and see how things go? Or should I check with my PO again?
Once-ESI said
Was in same boat as you last year. 2 points within the ESI payline for NHLBI for FY24 cycle 1. It took them a while because of the continuing resolution but I eventually got mine.
R01-ESI said
Thank you and congrats on your award. It appears that NHLBI’s FY24 payline remained at the FY23 level, for my IC its been going down, which is what worries me a bit.
writedit said
Your PO won’t know about next year until the federal budget passes, which probably won’t happen until next year. Not all ICs issue awards during the CR, so you might be waiting until next spring for an update. The election will determine what happens with the NIH organization and budget, given that the House has written their appropriations bill for institutes that don’t exist currently. If the organization stays the same, the NIH budget should be about the same or higher. In the meantime, you could explicitly ask your PO if you should resubmit or sit tight. Based on your second note, I suspect you might be at NIA, which has a different problem – namely, the end of the AD/ADRD bypass budget that topped off their appropriation to meet AD research funding goals. The Alzheimer’s Accountability Act and the National Alzheimer’s Project Act expire in 2025, and while bills to reauthorize the National Alzheimer’s Project and extend the Bypass Budget for another 10 years have been introduced into Congress, they need to pass. If you feel inclined to drop a line to your Congressional delegation, this would be H.R. 619 and 620 and S. 133 and 134.
R01-ESI said
Thank you. This is actually NINDS but not AD/ADRD. I will check with my PO to see what they say.
Jasper said
Dear Writedit,
My NIGMS/R15 application submitted in Oct 2023 received a fundable score, and in June, my PO informed me that my project was recommended for funding. The first JIT request was submitted in March, and a second JIT for a budget update was submitted four weeks ago. However, the status still shows ‘under administrative review.’ With only three weeks remaining before the Sep 30 deadline, I am considering whether to contact the PO or GMS for an update. I am reluctant to sent email during this busy period, but I am also concerned about the funding timeline. I would appreciate your advice on how to proceed. Thank you.
writedit said
They will issue awards until the money runs out, right up to Sept 30, so you don’t need to be too worried that it is still pending. They’re not done, and some ICs struggle at this time due to staffing shortages. The GMS will get in touch with you if they need any information – you don’t want to bog them down with a question about timing since their time is much better spent processing awards. Your PO is out of the processing loop and can only tell you what you already know – it’s under review. Sit tight and keep a good thought that you will have a NoA by September 30.
MMK said
Hi Writedit,
My NIA Ad/ADRD R01 was scored under the payline in 2023 but was considered for 2024 budget. The payline for 2024 significantly reduced and my score is now outside the payline. If the PO recommended my application for R56 what is the likelihood of R56 funding. Your feedback would be highly appreciated. Thank you so much !
writedit said
Still possible, especially since they can now see how much $$ they need to quickly spend down. If you are not sure your PO recommended your application for an R56, you could certainly ask, and also whether to submit again this fall (unless you already have the resubmission under review).
MMK said
Hi Writedit, Thank you for your advice. The PO recommended my application for R56. Not sure how long would take to make funding decision. Keeping my fingers crossed.
writedit said
Good news that you were recommended for the R56. Fingers crossed that you hear from them before September 30.
R36 question said
Hi Writedit,
I received a 26 on my R36 application submitter in Oct. 2023. After submitting rebuttal letter in May, my PO was not optimistic about my changes and told me it was unlikely that I would get funded but nothing final until 9/30. Today the GMS contacted me to submit IRB info in 48h but I have not received a personalized JIT. Is this a good sign or what does that mean?
Thanks!
writedit said
I think that request was your personalized JIT. They would not ask for that information if they were not considering your application for an award. The 48-hour limit is real, and they could be testing whether you have this approval available (ie, if so, then they will ask for the rest of JIT information – if not, they will set your application aside), so I hope you have IRB approval in hand. If not, send information showing your protocol is under review (even for exemption), since they might be able to process an award but not release the human subjects funds until IRB approval (or exemption) is in available.
NIHgranted said
Our SBIR with NIA got a borderline score and was being considered for funding through the remaining FY24 funds. Our PO had been very communicative and positive for the last two months and had suggested that we didn’t need to resubmit as a backup. All the paperwork was requested and approved as part of JIT including IIA with another institution. We were told by PO that we should have the NoA within a few weeks and were even instructed PO to prespend if we have to get the project started. Last week, we got a surprise from the PO saying that our grant application funded has been deferred to FY25. No other reason given. We just missed the Sept deadline for resubmission and were instructed to reapply in Jan and the best scores will be considered. This is quite shocking after all the paperwork for JIT and a numerous back and forth with them for the last two months. Is there any chance of appealing this decision? Any thoughts are appreciated?
SaG said
” the PO saying that our grant application funded has been deferred to FY25″
If this is exactly what the PO said then they either ran out of money or there are other issues getting in the way of funding your app in FY2024; Before the end of September. It looks like they plan on funding the application with FY2025 dollars. NIH can fund applications from previous Council rounds and fiscal years if they have a good reason.
writedit said
This is shocking, especially telling you to pre-spend and also not to submit again. POs only take either of those actions if they are absolutely positive about an award because they never want to put investigators at risk of missing a cycle, but even they cannot control what happens at the IC Director’s office – which is why the strongest language is typically “cautiously optimistic”. This is even more surprising given your borderline score, though perhaps your science is of high priority. Unfortunately, you have no appeal option here. Nothing is ever guaranteed until the NoA is issued.
Question said
I’ve never seen this before either, perhaps it was a newer PO. I am curious: if you go into your grant on ERA Commons, did the status ever change to “Award prepared” and what is the current status listed as?
NIHgranted said
The PO is not new. We had a previous SBIR Phase I under and this was a Phase II. The eRA commons still states Intent to Award after council meeting completed.
Question said
The “Intent to Award” is under “Correspondence” that is just the letter they sent earlier saying funding is “probable”. If you click on the link, you will see that letter. BTW it will be called “intent to award” even if they defer it, you need to see the contents of the link, not the title.
However, I was asking about what’s under “Status History” along with the corresponding dates.
Also, I’m sorry this happened to you, but I will share that I once had an R43 that NIA intended to fund in September. After being “Pending administrative review” for a couple weeks, it changed back to “Council Review Completed” in late September. Then, in November, it went back to “Pending administrative review” and was funded 3 weeks after that. So, it seems that it was a similar situation to you where they wanted to fund my R43 by end of Sept, but couldn’t for some reason, and then picked it up in the next FY (even before a new budget was provided).
Hopefully that makes you feel a bit better, but please also post your Status History and dates.
writedit said
Thanks for sharing your experience, Question – especially an NIA award during a CR. SaG pointed out that the deferred language refers to delaying the award until FY25 (vs no longer considering for award or delaying consideration of an award).
SK said
Dear Writedit,
I am planning to submit an R01 application for the development of new biomedical technology development. The new technology is applicable to any biological settings, but my proposal will be addressing applications in HIV-1 biology (and possibly a few other viruses too). My question is which standard due dates I should submit? Should I submit it to regular R01 standard due dates? or AIDS-related application due dates?
writedit said
I think the AIDS-related dates would apply, but please ask your PO to confirm.
Suma said
I received a score in the 10th percentile on my R01 A1 submission, and the council meeting is scheduled for the end of October. When can I expect a funding decision? I’m a bit confused—since the grant is supposed to be considered for FY2025 funding, what role does the council meeting play? Additionally, if the payline for FY2025 changes, will that affect my chances of getting funded?
Suma said
The grant was submitted to NHLBI
writedit said
At NHLBI, you should be in good shape with a 10th percentile R01, especially if you are ESI or new investigator, but your PO won’t have any insight until after the federal budget passes, which probably won’t happen until next year. I think NHLBI makes awards during a continuing resolution, so you might not need to wait – but that depends on what Congress does to keep the government open and whether they keep funding levels at FY24 or lower. You could check in with your PO in October (and after you get your summary statement, if you. haven’t received that yet) to see what NHLBI plans to do during the CR.
GNR said
I believe NHLBI has no special paylines for new investigator. NI is as good as established investigator at NHLBI.
writedit said
You are exactly right – my bad for forgetting. NHLBI was one of the first ICs to dump the NI status as a payline consideration, too. Thanks for the correction!
R15 said
Dear writedit,
I have a pending R15 (cycle III) that was recommended by PO. Starting early August, GMS has reached to us for JIT documents. However, due to some administrative reasons, the submitted JIT documents by our grant office have been requested by GMS for several revisions, which took more than one-month communications between university’s office and GMS. The most recent JIT update was 10 days ago. I am a bit nervous right now because we are approaching sep 30. I am not sure whether GMS will raise new issues for our grant documents that may wait longer to finalize. My understanding is when it gets closer to sep 30, less money left for pending applications. Will GMS decide to process other applications instead of ours due to too much issues in our documents? We had a very good impact score.
Thank you very much, your advices are really appreciated,
writedit said
If you have a good score, you should be okay with all the delays, since the funds would have been designated for your award. If it is just messy (digital) paperwork vs problems with the budget itself, ethical concerns, duplicate funding for the same research, etc., they should be able to complete the administrative processing in time. If they haven’t requested any corrections or other documents over the past two weeks, they probably have everything they need. You don’t need to contact the GMS, since that will just add to their email burden when they are scrambling to get all their awards out – they will get in touch if they still need anything. ICs can and do make awards right up until September 30th.
R15 said
Thank you very much for the explanation. This really helps. There were no big problems in my document, mostly were minor issues like missing information in budget, or additional clarification in budgets. It made me a bit anxious because each response to request cost one or two weeks to get new information request. Thank you for sharing that the funds would have been designated. I will wait for the updates. Finger crossed!
ESI-applicant-R01 journey said
Dear Writedit, I am very grateful for your suggestions and the website that informed me a great deal about NIH grant process and how to communicate with NIH officials. I have been an assistant professor for the last 5 years and trained on coronaviruses (6yrs postdoc) even before the pandemic. Yet, I struggled to secure a COVID19 grant all these years, despite being close to payline on several occasions. I recently received an R21 and an R01 awards and wanted to share my journey.
I submitted a total of 7 R01 applications as a PI on 3 projects (including resubmissions). I was PI on additional 4 multi-PI R01s (40-50% contribution) and submitted 8 R21 apps (PI or multi-PI, including resubmitted) and 1 SBIR (Multi-PI).
More than 50% grants discussed.
Overall I was PI or multi-PI of 20 applications to NIH alone (5-6 more apps with >200K funds each to other agencies).
Here is my R01 timeline:
1st R01 in Oct 2019-reviewed March2020- 10% outside payline- considered for select pay (CoV grant)-ultimately not funded.
1st R01- A1 in Feb-2021-worse score than A0. Not funded.
2nd R01-Oct2022-not discussed-not funded
I realized my science may not be a good fit at this institute and related study sections.
Trusted my sciences and did major changes to 1st R01 application to align with NHLBI.
Oct 2021- New A0 of 1st R01-reviewed in Feb 2022-Not Discussed
Address all the comments diligently and resubmitted A1 application.
03/2023- Application entered into the system
06/2023- grant reviewed- received 24% (35 impact)
06/2023- reach out to PO to discuss potential funding. PO mentioned this looks good (based on FY23 payline) and no need to resubmit. Will discuss further after council meeting
10/2023- council meeting completed.
12/2023- Reached out to PO. PO is not sure about paylines given CR and asked me to resubmit (but I missed Oct deadline, I wish PO suggested this in June itself)
01/2024- PO changed for the application, original PO introduced me to new PO.
02/2024- reach out to new PO (mentioned lack of funds and upcoming tenure). PO: Can’t comment on funding potential. Depends on FY24 budget and paylines.
03/2024- Congressional budget approved (2 month wait for payines).
05/2024- NHLBI paylines announced. My grant on the payline (24% for ESI).
04/2024: Only 25K left in research funds (after lab members are paid). Dept Chair helps with additional funds.
05/17/24- grant Pending Admin Review
05/2024 to 06/15- GMS email with JIT request (3 requests)
06/24- reach out PO. PO can’t confirm funding as it will need to be approved by the council later in the month.
07/24- reach out to PO. PO: everything looks good and reach out to GMS. GMS: grant is under final internal review.
08/21/24- more JIT questions (BSL-3). Answered and provide IBC letter to state work complies with IBC guidelines
08/25/21- Pending Administrative Review (since 05/17/24)
08/29/24- Award Prepared
09/06/24- NOA (Finally. 2.5 yrs after A0 and 1.5 yrs after A1 submission)
Cycle 1 submission- prepare for long wait, especially if its on the border
I have to mention- my both POs have been incredibly clear in their communication and supportive in the process.
writedit said
First, kudos and congratulations!! Wow, that is an incredible journey, and I thank you for taking the time to write this all out for your peer applicants – so very helpful and inspirational not to give up. I am surprised at the first PO advising you not to resubmit, which POs almost never do unless they are absolutely sure about an award, because they never want to risk your missing a submission cycle. This is especially true before the NIH appropriation for the application’s FY has even been discussed in Congress. But so glad your second PO could push through the award, especially if it is for the A1 application (technically an FY25 award, but ICs can fund either A0 or A1, and February-March cycle applications can receive awards in the prior FY – ie, calendar year in which they were submitted). Again – tremendous kudos for all you have worked through, and my very best wishes for success with your research, your tenure package, and your career in biomedical research.
ESI-applicant-R01 journey said
correction: 08/25/24- Pending Administrative Review (since 05/17/24)
mpeshoff said
I wrote in earlier after finding out my score on my NINDS F31 (20, 4%). Council was 9/4, after which my PO told me they are “cautiously optimistic” and to sit back and wait for a personalized JIT. My start date is supposed to be 12/1/24, but I know FY25 budget won’t be final for a long time. Does NINDS give awards during the resolution? I’ve heard of friends who submitted after me getting F99 NOAs, but I know those don’t have to go through council.
writedit said
Your F31 didn’t go to Council either (no fellowship applications go to Council). It could be possible for an award to be issued by Sept 30 for FY24, but if you need to wait, NINDS does make fellowship awards during a continuing resolution, so you wouldn’t need to wait until the federal budget is signed into law.
nervousgradstudent said
Interesting, thank you for the information. I’m a little confused then by my PO’s comments that she wouldn’t know much until council. Was that just for the payline? I submitted in April, which I thought would be FY25, but I know others who submitted then getting awards now, so I guess it can go either way?
writedit said
ICs can award first cycle applications from the next FY (eg, FY25) if they have enough funding at the end of the current year FY (eg, FY24). Fellowships are easy because they have small budgets with a short-term commitment. After a September Council meeting, though, an IC might identify high-priority R01s or other larger budget applications that it wants to try to award before the end of the FY, which would then take priority over fellowships.
nervousgradstudent said
Sorry, I think your response got cut off!
NIGMS/R15 said
Dear Writedit,
I finally received NOA today for my R15 application from NIGMS. I really appreciate your advices for the questions I posted on this website. Your advices and encouragements were extremely invaluable in helping me remain calm and hopeful in this long process.
This is my first NIH grant as PI role, and is very important to as I prepare to submit my tenure package next month. Thank you so much for your dedicated support in assisting new investigators like myself during the NIH grant application process.
I am also attaching my R15 timeline:
09/19/2024: Recieved notice of award
09/18/2024: Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
09/08/2024: GMS requested for additional budget information
08/15/2024: GMS requested for another JIT (provide additional budget information)
06/04/2024: Reached out to PO again, got response “Your application was recommended for funding by Program”
05/16/2024: Advisory Council meeting
05/09/2024: Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
04/02/2024: Reached out to PO for funding possibility, received a response “cautiously optimistic that your application will be recommended for funding”
03/12/2024: Received summary statement
03/05/2024: Received request for JIT/Other Support Request
02/26/2024: Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official. (received impact score 24)
11/13/2023: Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
10/25/2023: Application entered into system
My PO is very responsive and supportive. I really appreciate his advices in email communications.
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you for submitting your thoughtful and helpful timeline! Best wishes for success with your research and your promotion.
R01Hopeful said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you for your guidance to several investigators – new and established!
We have an NIDA R21 application (4th percentile) that was reviewed at the council in early September. eRA Commons status has not changed from “Council Review Completed”. The project start date is in December. We have submitted the JIT documents, although never received a personalized request from the GMS. PO has not been highly communicative lately – perhaps busy with other pressing priorities before end of the fiscal year.
With only 2 weeks left before FY24 ends, can we expect a miracle that an award is issued by September 30th? Or it is more likely that our application will be pushed to FY25 (looks like NIH will be under CR for a until March-April next year).
Will appreciate your insights. Thanks!
writedit said
Your application is for FY25, and your PO is probably busy with applications under consideration for FY24 and with applicants submitting in October or November. I quickly checked RePORTER and didn’t find any awards issued before March, so I suspect you will need to wait until the FY25 federal budget is at least signed into law, though with your score, NIDA shouldn’t need to wait until they receive their appropriation (6-8 weeks after federal budget signed). Another issue right now is the extreme discrepancy between the House and Senate appropriation language for the NIH, since the House bill uses a different set of ICs that do not currently exist (eg, National Institute of Substance Abuse in place of NIDA and NIAAA).
starstruck547eb765ab said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you so much for hosting this website. It’s been super helpful for me as a lurker! I’m an MD and submitted my very first grant back in February 2024 (NIA K23 ADRD focus). I only received a 37 and so my understanding is that this is outside of the payline for this year. After receiving my summary statement, I had a discussion with my PO. She did not ask me for a response letter prior to Council (9/18) and did not make any mention about funding chances for this round. Instead she just stated several times that she felt very optimistic about a re-submission. Council has now met and my eRA status was changed to only “Council Review Completed.” Does this mean that I have no chance of funding this round and should just 100% focus on a re-submission now (shooting for November ideally)? I very much appreciate your thoughts and taking the time to respond, have a great day!
starstruck547eb765ab said
Sorry it looks like your response cut off, could you please reiterate? Thanks!
writedit said
No idea what happened there. It sounds like your PO was suggesting that you resubmit, feeling your score would improve. Your applications won’t be considered for funding until FY25, so probably not until next year given the federal budget impasse. You should ask your PO about resubmitting, if you weren’t clear on that.
K22_resubmission said
Dear Writedit,
I applied for a K22 in June 2023 and got an impact score of 35. I resubmitted my application (A1) in July 2024 and got an impact score of 27. I am wondering if you can comment about my chance of funding, and my alternative options because I am applying for faculty positions this year.
K22_resubmission said
It is a NCI K22, they do not release pay lines.
writedit said
Your PO should be able to give some guidance once you have your summary statement – be sure to let them know that this is a transition time for you. The drop in score should help, though it still might a bit high, but I am not sure how competitive the K22 is at NCI. Just having a nice score on an NIH application should help with your applications, though, and you can rework your science for an R21 or a faculty K.
FY25budget said
Hi Writedit, can you share your thought on FY25 NCI budget? I read that FY25 president’s budget proposal was $50.1 billion for NIH. I also read that NCI has a professional judgment budget proposal for FY25, aim to increase the NCI R01 payline up to 15%. I wonder (1) if this professional judgment budget proposal is actually included in the FY25 president’s budget proposal, and (2) what is the likelihood of increasing the R01 payline to 15%. Thank you in advance!
writedit said
What is in the President’s budget proposal doesn’t really matter. The House bill is not worth talking about since they made up their own institutes that don’t currently exist. The Senate bill currently appropriates $7.49B to NCI. I know NCI is working toward a 15% payline, but that won’t happen in one year. Hopefully they can move back to the 11th or 12th percentile at least. We won’t know how close they can get in FY25 until December at the earliest but possibly not until after the new Congress and President are sworn in next January.
ESI confusion... said
A somewhat specific question for those who may be “in the know”: Does receipt of an R01 as PI (or mPI) from AHRQ takes away early-stage investigator status (not new investigator) from NIH institutes, since they are technically distinct? On the NIH website, they say that an ESI is someone “who has not previously competed successfully as PD/PI for a substantial NIH independent research award,” which an AHRQ R01 would not be. On this site, there is a response to this question from the “NIH Staff” but unclear who that represents. https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2019/03/01/still-have-questions-on-the-nih-early-stage-investigator-esi-policy/
I have gotten inconsistent answers, even from NIH staff, and not sure how to determine what the answer is, hence why I ask.
writedit said
No. AHRQ is not part of the NIH (yet, anyway) – it is a different federal agency, like the NSF, CDC, HRSA, DoD, etc. Many awards from other federal agencies – and foundations – are as large as an R01 equivalent but have no bearing on ESI or NI status. Indeed, the NIH created the ESI status because more senior investigators who were intramural, worked in foreign countries, held major funding from other sources (eg, HHMI), etc. were still considered “new”, because they were new to NIH awards. The ESI status adds a temporal component to ensure applicants are at the beginning of their careers and need the extra boost. You can trust the NIH staff response among the comments in the link you provided above.
Lương Công Nho said
Hi Writedit,
I submitted my A0 K99 application to NIGMS in February 2024 and received an impact score of 20. My application underwent council review in September. The summary statement indicated only minor weaknesses. I reached out to the PO at NIGMS to inquire about the likelihood of funding, but I didn’t receive a clear response. The PO mentioned that the FY25 budget for NIGMS hasn’t been finalized yet, so he couldn’t provide any information on the funding chances. He said my application would remain under consideration until September 2025, which leaves me feeling uncertain about the funding likelihood. Additionally, the PO informed me that I am no longer eligible for another submission cycle to NIGMS due to the 4-year eligibility window. However, a PO from NCI mentioned that I am eligible for one more resubmission to NCI this November because they offer a COVID-19 extension.
I’m unsure whether to proceed with a resubmission to NCI in November or wait for NIGMS’s decision. Based on your experience, could you guess when I could know the decision of NIGMS K99 funding for this cycle application? How much chance could I get funding with this impact score? Would submitting to NCI hurt the chances of my A0 application being funded by NIGMS? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
SaG said
Under a continuing resolution a PO really can’t tell you much. They have no money so can’t tell you much. I am surprised that NCI said the COVID extensions still apply. Those were ended awhile ago. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-23-095.html
ShrugT said
With a score for 20 for K99, you should be in a fairly good shape. But, given your ESI is expiring, I would go ahead and submit to the NCI for insurance after addressing the minor weaknesses. You/they can recall the application when the A0 is funded by NIGMS.
writedit said
LIke SaG, I do not see how NCI can still offer the extension, but I agree with ShrugT that you can feel positive about your score (20). I could not see anything about an NCI COVID extension on their K99 page, so you should definitely contact NCI extramural research office for confirmation on this policy or have the PO you mentioned send you the link to the policy they are referencing. You don’t want to prepare and submit an application only to have it administratively returned without review.
For FY24, I see new K99 awards from GM as early as Dec 2023, with several in Sept 2024, so they do make awards during the CR but seem to save most K99s until after the federal budget has passed going as late as the end of the FY (which would mean a long wait). You might want to talk with your current advisor as to what having to wait until next summer for a funding decision might mean.
NCL said
Hi all,
Thank you very much for your insights and advice. Like writedit mentioned, I might need to wait for a long time to know the decision due to the budget situation.
Regarding the extension of 4-year window due to Covid-19, I don’t know how NCI could allow for it, but another postdoc in our lab, who has the timeline mostly like me, could use his extension and submitted his resubmission this October.
NCL said
Hi all,
Thank you so much for the variety of useful information that you provide in this forum. I had a question regarding the resubmission to NCI several months ago, but finally I decided not to submit and wait for my A0. Today, I am excited to share with you that I have been awarded NIH/NIGMS K99/R00 after a long time waiting. This is an A0 submission with a 20 impact score, and the timeline detail of my application is as follows:
02/12/2024 Application entered into system
02/20/2024 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
06/27/2024 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
08/16/2024 JIT requested from PO.
09/20/2024 Council review completed.
12/06/2024 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
12/09/2024 Vertebrate animal section document requested by GMS.
01/06/2025 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
01/10/2025 NOA with start date 02/01/2025.
Hope my timeline will be, to some extent, helpful with someone.
Thanks SaG, ShrugT, and Writedit once again.
Best,
writedit said
Woohoo! Congratulations and thank you for sharing your experience and application timeline! I’m glad you did not need to apply again to NCI or anywhere else. Best wishes for success with your project and career in biomedical research.
as_25sept said
Hi, I am an ESI, I submitted an NEI R01 in June 2024 cycle. It got a 12 percentile and 36 impact score. What are the likelihood of it being funded? Thanks
writedit said
When you receive your summary statement, you can check in with your PO about next steps and specifically ask whether you should submit again. I think your 12th percentile should be good for ESI (you don’t need to worry about the impact score – it’s a well-calibrated study section), but your PO will have better input and advice, especially since the federal budget will likely be delayed again (and you don’t want to miss an admission cycle waiting to hear).
ESIscientist said
Dear Writedit, My ESI status ends soon and I’m confused whether to submit my application as a resubmission (A0 submitted last year) or as a new application (an ADRD PAR accepts new application with Nov 16 deadline-but expires after this date). Even though the PAR expires, would I able to resubmit that application?
writedit said
If your A0 wasn’t scored or scored competitively, then you would be better off with a new A0. I am not sure which PAR you mean, but all R01 NOFOs need to be reissued to incorporate the new review framework, so the PAR expiring on Nov 16 could be reissued soon to provide additional submission dates in 2025 and beyond, but the PAR PO can confirm whether this is the plan. If you need a NOFO that guarantees you can submit both the A0 now and an A1 within your ESI period, then you want to confirm with your PO the best strategy.
fairpoe said
Hi WriteDit,
I have an NCI K99 application with a bad score (38) with the status of ‘council review completed’ since 2022. I found the JIT action button has been removed this October. Does this means it has been out of consideration completely ever since?
Thanks,
Poe
SaG said
Sorry to say but, yes. Apps are no usually paid across fiscal years. NIH is in FY 2025 now.
fairpoe said
Thanks for the confirmation, SaG said. Somehow it feels like a bit of relief to me.
NEI_K said
Dear WriteEdit,
Thank you for providing the updates and sharing such valuable information. I recently revised the R21 application, which had not been discussed previously, and submitted it as a new application. However, the new application was assigned to a different study section and was not discussed again.
I am wondering if it would be possible to submit the A1 resubmission to the original study section for the upcoming November cycle. I would appreciate any insights or advice from you and others with experience on this matter.
Thank you very much for your time and guidance.
Best regards,
writedit said
I usually don’t recommend submitting an A1 for an unscored A0. You want to check into why your second R21 application went to a different study section. It could be the first study section was eliminated in a Review Branch reorganization (see https://public.csr.nih.gov/StudySections/CSREnquire). If not, you want to compare the SRG descriptions (if a standing SRG) and rosters for the two panels to determine which is more appropriate for your science. If you think the first SRG was more appropriate, then contact that SRO for confirmation before you submit again. With an R21, it could be a recurring SRG that wasn’t available for your second application, too. You can track them down on the CSR website or contact the SROs for help.
JoeT said
Hi Writedit:
Thanks for keeping this great resource. I submitted an R01 application this past June that was not discussed and I don’t yet have comments from the reviewers who would have provided preliminary scores. Since it was not discussed, is there any value in talking with the PO?
I am not exactly sure what my next steps would be, but any advice you could offer would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
SaG said
Almost always value in speaking with your PO. Once your summary statement is released send them an email asking to chat about the critiques.
JoeT said
Thank you, SaG.
writedit said
In addition to talking with the PO (thanks, SaG!), you can use the written comments you received to figure out how to approach your next submission, which I would recommend be another A0 application (vs A1). If the concerns mainly related to your approach, you can focus on addressing these weaknesses. If reviewers had major concerns about the significance, you will need to rework the science itself and confirm that it is an area of interest to the IC (one not overrepresented in their portfolio). In the new review framework, rigor will be critical – and in fact, you want to study the new review framework carefully so you can rework your next application for this: https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/peer-review/simplifying-review
Max Smith said
Received a score of 20 on my K08 to NCI. Anyone have a sense of what the recent payline has been?
writedit said
A 20 should be hopeful, but NCI is going to be tightening their belt, so when you have your summary statement, check with your PO about next steps, including whether to submit again.
RO1applicant said
Dear WriteEdit,
I have an ROI application was Not Discussed. I have two questions regarding submission in the next round:
1) Can the same application be submitted as a new application in the next round (as a new A0), or does it have to be submitted as a resubmission (A1)? I don’t have the summary statement yet, but based on the ND result, I think it may be better to submit as an A0. I was really enthusiastic for this application, so an ND result is very disheartening.
2) In case I revise and resubmit as an A1 application, is it possible to request a different study section? I have had some strange reviews from this study section in a row, so I am considering if requesting a different study section might help. Is it possible to do so for an A1 application, or does the A1 application always get assigned to the same study section?
Thank you for the very helpful blog!
writedit said
On #1, I would definitely advise submitting another A0 versus an A1, but clearly a revised version based on the written critiques. On #2, I agree with SaG that strange reviews do not necessarily indicate a need to change SRGs. Your PO can give advice on the best SRG, and you can use the CSR ART to confirm your assignment and other options (https://art.csr.nih.gov/ART/selection.jsp). What I would recommend is making sure you have peers, trainees, and/or any institutional grant support personnel read what you write, since you may not be communicating the message you think you are (and that’s on you, not the reviewers). The most valuable grantwriting tool is a fresh reader who can advise you on clarity and persuasiveness (and, as appropriate, substance).
Vic said
Dear WriteEdit,
Thank you for the helpful advice. I will wait for the summary statement, and work on a new A0 based on the critiques. I usually submit the PHS Assignment request form with the app to request a study section.
Can an applicant request the assignment of the app to a specific study section through the CSR ART? Or is it just to check which study sections may be relevant to the proposed science?
Thank you.
writedit said
Correct. You would use CSR ART to evaluate your SRG options and the PHS Assignment Request form to request the SRG.
SaG said
1). Yes you can but why? Your cant write an introduction explaining how you responded to the critiques and you will likely get 1 or 2 of the same reviewers. They will remember your app.
2). Study sections are based on the science in the application. To switch study section you need to either change the science in your app or convince the SRO they assigned it to the wrong study section. Getting strange critiques is not a reason to switch.
3). Of course you should talk to your PO too. They can provide more specific advice even for an ND app.
ROIapplicant said
Dear SaG,
I had requested a specific study section in the PHS assignment form, and my application was assigned to the one I requested, but the final roster did not have any reviewers with the area of expertise needed for the application. This was the reason I was thinking if requesting a different study section may help.
I have had a previous grant go from >45% to 3% on resubmission, but this is the first app that was ND. From what I have heard, getting a fundable score with resubmission of an ND application is very rare. I am just concerned that the significance may not stand out for reviewers who are not so familiar with the field.
I will talk to the PO and see what they suggest as well, thank you for the helpful advice.
SaG said
If you think the study section doesn’t have the correct expertise then certainly request a different one. I have heard of apps going from ND to funded. But, it is rare. I am not sure if it is rarer than going from 50% to funded though. ND just means it wasnt in the top 50%. If you are going to make major revisions to the app (changing 2 or 3 aims, different type of research etc) in response to the critiques a new app might be better. If you are going to be clarifying, more prelim data, or minor changes to the aims then a resubmission is better. The difference between an ND and a discussed app can be minor.
nervousgradstudent said
I received an email from NINDS a couple days ago saying “Congratulations on your recent or upcoming NINDS training award! This email is being sent to all NINDS F trainees (graduate and postdoctoral) and their mentors that were approved at the May or September 2024 Council meetings. You may have not yet received your official Notice of Grant award, please check with your sponsored grants office or NINDS grants management specialist about Just in Time (JIT) information.”
eRA has been showing SRG review completed since 7/2 and I never got instructions to complete the JIT. I forwarded the email to my PO and GMS asking if there was any action needed from me, and they told me what JIT info to complete. I turned in the JIT 10/21 and on 10/22 my status changed to “pending.” Am I being too optimistic to expect an NOA soon? I don’t know much about the pending status since most people I’ve talked to said that was their status pre-JIT, then it switched to “award prepared.”
writedit said
Sounds like congratulations are in order! If your PO said nothing more was needed from you, the NOA should be issued soon. The Pending reflects administrative review and preparation of the terms of award. They might also still be busy closing up the FY24 books, but it sounds like you won’t have to wait too long.
nervousgradstudent said
I have been patiently waiting but have heard no word, it’s still saying “pending administrative review.” The workshop is in 1 week and I don’t know if I should plan to attend with no NOA. Is this still within the normal timeframe or maybe election-related questions about budget? I’m getting a bit anxious!
writedit said
If you haven’t checked with the PO about whether to attend without a NOA, you should do so ASAP. I am pretty sure the answer will be yes. NINDS would have put the workshop on hold and told all fellowship awardees (and pending awardees) to stand by, pending the FY25 budget, if they had serious concerns about their future ability to make these awards. If you need the fellowship award to pay for your travel, you could ask the PO to confirm you are within 90 days of award, so your institution can set up an account for pre-spending in advance of the NOA.
nervousgradstudent said
I will email them and confirm. I haven’t wanted to bother the PO/GMS since I sent a “just checking in” email on 10/23 and never heard back. I guess now that it’s under a week away, I should follow up. I just know they are likely swamped and don’t have answers for FY25 either.
writedit said
They wouldn’t have replied to a check-in email, but if you have a time-sensitive query, they should reply, especially if they want you to attend the awardee workshop. You can use something like “Time-Sensitive Workshop Query” as your subject line (possibly give the date in parentheses – and the workshop name, so they know which workshop), which helps them quickly identify which of their hundreds of emails need to be checked first.
nervousgradstudent said
I just heard back from my PO, who said to plan to attend the workshop. However, the response regarding the NOA was still “Programmatic and administrative reviews are still ongoing, and we will let you know if anything else is required from you.” Very frustrating to see others receiving awards more quickly, but at least there’s no bad news.
Momo said
Dear Writedit and SaG:
I just submitted a R21 Trailblazer to NIBIB in October 2024. It will be reviewed in March 2025. Can I also submit a R35 MIRA to NIGMS in Feb 2025 with 90% overlapping research? My ESI status will be expired in Dec 2025. Would like to increase my chance.
Thanks.
SaG said
Nope. You cant have the same science reviewed at the same time. You have to wait until the R21 Summary statement is released. But, I can’t believe that you can’t propose something for the MIRA that doesn’t overlap with an R21. Is your research program only an r21 in size? An R21 is 2 years. A MIRA is 5 years. What would you do the other 3 years of a MIRA if there is 90% overlap?
writedit said
As SaG notes, you should have a couple parallel projects with different science in the pipeline to support applications for each NIH review cycle. If not, I am surprised you put your sole project in an R21 application with only a year of ESI eligibility left. Even if the R21 is funded, you apparently have nothing for an ESI R01, which is a much better funding mechanism (better review & payline, larger budget, renewable, counts toward tenure, etc.). Too late now, but you should be working on developing a new, scientifically distinct project to submit.
tastemakerdelectably98cb3f1bd3 said
Hi, I just received a 33 score on a resubmitted NCATS U44 application. Last year I received a 40 on the same proposal. The PO indicated that the app was close last year, but also advised that I should resubmit. Appreciate if anyone have a sense for the chances of the new application to make payline this year. Many Thanks
writedit said
An improvement in score is always a good thing, but the relatively small decrease might reflect lack of enthusiasm among reviewers for your project. Your PO won’t know about funding chances until after the federal budget is signed into law, which probably won’t happen until next year and, looking at the GOP House appropriation language for the NIH, could involve an overhauled NIH (all new ICs), depending on the election outcome.
ESImomo said
Dear Writeit,
Thank you running such a wonderful website. I am an ESI and just received a score of the 15th percentile (Impact score 34) on my R01 to NIA. It is an ADRD application. Do you have a sense of what the payline might be for ADRD applications at NIA for ESI?
Thank you!
writedit said
I would not expect a generous AD/ADRD payline due to the end of supplemental funding, but a lot depends on the election outcome.
emilycsoriano said
Dear Writed,
I wrote in years ago for advice with a previous F31
application and you were very helpful – thank you for
keeping up this site!
I recently received my overall impact score for a new
AO K23 application I submitted to NIDDK in June (no
SS yet) and would appreciate your thoughts/input. My score is a 30. NIDDK does not have paylines or post any other relevant guidance for Ks, though I see other ICs often have paylines ~30.
What is giving me hope/optimism, however, are the
success rates within NIDDK for the K23 specifically –
they are quite high! Within NIDDK only: In 2023, 48.7% of all K23s were funded, and the average success rate over the past 5 years was 44%.
It seems like the K23 within NIDDK is significantly less competitive, which makes me wonder if my A0 application scored at 30 actually has a shot of being funded… what do you think?
As always, really appreciate your feedback!
writedit said
I think NIDDK has been making awards in the upper 20s, so 30 should be within the zone of consideration, but it may depend on the type of concerns raised in the summary statement (your PO will have good feedback at that point) and on what happens with the election, especially, since the federal budget is very much in the air through December. What happens with the NIH appropriation (and organization) depends on the election outcome.
texashans1 said
A question on study section assignment. We queried the NIH ART tool with our specific aims page, and get suggested study sections, which we followed in our proposal. However, we found out that our proposal was assigned to a completely irrelevant study sections. Any suggestions for how to correct the error?
writedit said
If you communicated with your SRO of choice, and they agreed that their SRG was appropriate, you can contact them. If not, contact the Review Branch chief for the RB (formerly known as IRG) for your preferred SRG – hopefully the same RB as your assigned SRG – with your rationale for the request. Now, this assumes the NOFO did not designate the review group. If you give your ART-based reasoning, the RB chief may consider moving your application.
texashans1 said
Yes. We wrote to the SRO of the initial assignment. He kindly forwarded our message to the chief. The chief quickly re-assigned our proposal as NIH ART recommended. Just a bit curious what caused the initial obviously wrong assignment.
writedit said
Ah – good news. It could be your requested SRG was overloaded with assigned applications (most common reason for assigning elsewhere), so they moved it to one with a lighter load, though they shouldn’t have moved it to an inappropriate section. That is a puzzle. Sometimes RB chiefs can stick with their guns, so I am glad yours agreed and made the change.
Zhuoli Zhang said
I have two R01 proposals assigned to the same study section, and I’m concerned that the same reviewers might evaluate both. I’m worried that this could lead to them influencing each other’s assessment.
Zhuoli Zhang said
Any suggestions, please or I need to withdraw one
writedit said
Assuming both are appropriate scientifically for the same SRG, you don’t need to do anything. Reviewers are instructed to evaluate each application on its own scientific merit with no consideration of any other applications in that round, including applications by the same PI. Study sections do not make funding decisions, so it is not up to reviewers to give one or the other a better review or to review both harshly. The SRO will reinforce this. They must be scientifically distinct, in which case the SRO should be able to find appropriate non-overlapping reviewers for each (whether regular or ad hoc members of the SRG). I assume you have communicated with a PO about both applications and that they are enthusiastic about both, especially if these applications are going to the same IC. While the study section would not try to pick between applications, an IC might have to if budget constraints come into play, especially if the science is similar (i.e., if both score within the payline, the IC still might skip one, unless the PO confirmed both were of high priority).
hendy208 said
Dear writedit-
I have a student potentially transferring into my lab from another due to issues with the other advisor. She has a fundable score on an F31, but it has not been awarded yet- the council met last week. I was wondering if you had any advice on how and when to approach program staff about potentially transferring the F31 with the student. I can obviously provide a new training plan, details of her project that would fit into the institute, and any other letters of support. Any other advice? Should we approach program staff after award has been made? What is the likelihood that the award can transfer labs?
writedit said
I assume this is all within the same institution (university), so there should be no problem. You should get in touch with the PO as soon as you know for sure about the transfer so the award can be prepared with the right information – this change will not affect funding likelihood, since your lab and mentorship match the peer-reviewed plan and the IC priorities. I assume you have secure NIH funding to support the student’s project for the duration of the F31. The PO and GMS will appreciate having to only prepare the award once versus having to redo it again shortly after the transfer.
Christopher Cioffi said
Hi Writedit,
You are a wonderful resource! Can you provide some insight? We recently received a score of 38 and percentile of 15% for an R01 renewal resubmission (NIDA). What are our chances to get funded? Thank you for any information you can provide!
writedit said
The percentile is the important number, and 15th percentile could be close – NIDA is often conservative. If this is the first renewal of your first ESI R01, you should be in much better shape. When you get your summary statement, ask your PO if you should submit again. They won’t know about funding likelihood until the federal budget is signed into law, and that will depend on the election – so no insight until December at the very earliest (current CR lasts until December 20th) but more likely next year.
NINDS hopeful said
Hi Writedit,
Last FY NINDS dropped the payline from 14% to 11%. Today I checked and it is posting 8%, a conservative payline while the budget is still uncertain. What are your thoughts about an R01 that just scored 10%? Is the payline projected to go down from 11%, and when do you think we’ll know the funding outcome for a 10% grant?
Thank you.
writedit said
If the federal budget is passed in December when the current continuing resolution ends, you should be okay with a 10th percentile R01. If it waits until after the new Congress and administration are sworn in, it should still be okay – though with more hedging. Your PO will not know about funding until after the federal budget is signed into law (and probably not until 6-8 weeks afterward, until NINDS receives their final appropriation). What you can ask, once you have your summary statement, is whether you should submit again. If your PO says to sit tight, then you can feel pretty confident – though nothing is assured until the budget is settled.
Bobby Blood said
Does anyone have any interesting post-Council action yet for NHLBI (EIA or OIA) R35?
writedit said
In general, there will be (almost) no award action until the federal budget passes, especially if this does not occur in December, given the changes in Congress and the administration that lie ahead.
Bobby Blood said
Does this mean that things will stay stalled at “Council review completed” (not Pending yet) for a long time? Would it be expected to get a specific JIT request by now (one month after council) if the application is still seriously being considered? POs are not responding to anything, but I am guessing they have other concerns at NIH right now.
writedit said
ICs will typically request JIT on any application they are considering for an award, just to have that squared away so they are ready to go when their appropriation arrives, so you are more likely to spend months in the Pending status. You can ask your PO if you should plan to resubmit – they can answer that question no matter the federal budget situation.
Arpana Annie Gupta said
Dear Writedit
I had an extremely bizarre occurrence. My R01 application was scheduled to be reviewed on November 13th and even the roster was posted for the SEP. However, I just got notified that the study section has been moved to December 13th and the new roster has not been posted. I have never seen something like this happen? Do you know what is going on and why this would occur?
Thanks
AnxiousGrantee
writedit said
If I had to guess, I would say something came up with the SRO (illness-injury, family emergency, etc.) and/or enough assigned reviewers that rescheduling was required. You shouldn’t assume anything worrisome is going on with the funding opportunity or your review. The roster should be the same, since there wouldn’t be enough time for new reviewers to evaluate the applications.
GrantApplicant said
Dear Writedit,
I recently had an R21 reviewed with an impact score of 37 at the National Eye Institute. I wonder if this score can possibly be fundable based on your experience and knowledge of NIH’s pay lines. My grant well responds to a NOSI.
Thank you very much.
writedit said
That could be a little high, but responding to a NOSI should help if you are on the bubble, as could science that your PO is enthusiastic about supporting. Your PO will not know about funding likelihood until the FY25 federal budget passes, but when you receive your summary statement, you can ask if you should submit again.
GrantLearner said
Dear Writedit,
I recently had an R01 reviewed with a percentile of 16 at the National Eye Institute. I had used my ESI privilege already. I wonder what is the funding prospect based on your knowledge about paylines.
Another question is that the panel committee noted about my budget “Review committee noted that much of their preliminary work for Aim 1 and 2 demonstrate that they already have pre-existing code that can be modified for this work. It was unclear as to why Aim 2 will take 2 years and cannot be started simultaneously with Aim 1 and the review Committee recommended that the study can be reduced to four years since they already have the data.”
There are two misunderstandings. First, the models in the preliminary data are totally different from what I proposed in Aim 1 and Aim 2. Second, computational research takes time (just like experimental research), and it is not like I can start Aim 2 in Year 1, and then I can save time to get the whole project done faster. It seems reviewers thought computational research can be very much paralleled.
In my case, any suggestions for my meeting with PO to explain that I really need a five-year budget.
Thank you very much.
writedit said
Since you are no longer ESI, the 16th percentile may not be competitive unless the science is of high priority. Your PO will not know about funding likelihood until the FY25 budget passes, but you should ask whether to submit again. Your concern over the budget reduction can be addressed at JIT – wait until you have a personal request, too – so while you can talk with your PO about this, it may not change the need to shorten the project period. Most ICs fund non-ESI R01 projects for 4 years (or less), so even if the reviewers had not made these points, NEI might ask you trim the work to 4 years (or they could just lop off the 5th year).
NanoD said
@writedit Is your help still available to us?
writedit said
Yes, I am happy to answer questions and help as I can – and often others chime in with great information, too.
NIGMS K99 said
To help keep this updated. I resubmitted my K99/R00 at NIGMS July 2024. Impact score 19. Waiting to see if this will be funded.
writedit said
Very promising exceptional score – you should be getting some positive news, pending the FY25 federal budget.
DTron said
I have a pending MPI R61/R33 (5yr) award at NIA that we received a personal JIT request in mid Oct. We submitted the paperwork Oct 31.
Do you think we will get a NOA before Dec 20, or will this be subject to the full FY25 budget?
writedit said
You will probably need to wait to see if the FY25 federal budget is signed into law by December 20 or is put off until after the new Congress is sworn in. Some ICs do make awards during a continuing resolution, but 2025 could hold significant changes for the NIH, so it depends on their strategy looking ahead.
DTrong said
The RFK nomination has me concerned. He doesn’t have anything against Alzheimer’s research does he …?
It was my impression that once we receive a personal JIT request, that NIA intends (or at least wants to) fund a proposal, if there are no administrative concerns.
Is it possible given the uncertainty that they don’t fund it at all?
writedit said
A JIT request does not indicate an intention to fund an application. ICs request JIT to conduct an administrative review for possible funding consideration. Given the time and effort required for this administrative review, ICs generally limit these requests to applications under serious consideration for awards, but many applications for which JIT is requested are not funded.
In the current political context, several factors are at play. Congress (both bodies) has signaled their intention to reorganize the NIH as an agency, likely through a reauthorization bill, including presidential appointment of the NIH and individual IC Directors with Senate approval of each; the last NIH reauthorization was in 2006, with the NIH Reform Act. Musk set a goal of trimming $2 trillion from the federal budget, which won’t happen without cutting the NIH appropriation. What all this means in the short term is difficult to say, but we – and ICs – won’t know more until December 20th … and if no FY25 budget by then, until the next CR ends. The best possible outcome would be a repeat of FY24 (slight drop in paylines, if so), with no major organization changes until FY26.
DTron said
Utterly terrifying.
I had thought from earlier discussions above that this was the final most encouraging stage (and from an NIH administrative sheet). Does it help that this was for an RFA with set-aside funding?
Sounds like we’re in uncharted territory.
writedit said
The funds were designated as part of the budget request to Congress, but they aren’t in hand. With any luck, the chaos of the new administration and (hopefully) Senate preference not to overhaul the NIH too quickly may forestall significant changes, maybe even until midterms. Hard to predict what lies ahead, but Senate hearings for Cabinet nominations (or the lack thereof) could provide the first clues.
DTron said
Update on this thread. As of 1/16 the grant switched to “Award Prepared: refer questions to Grants. Management Specialist”.
Goings on at the federal government have been pretty grim today/yesterday — so I’m still holding my breath on this one — since we still don’t have the NoA.
Should I be?
Sairi said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you for all your help answering our queries. I recently received a percentile score of 11 on my R01 at NHLBI. Could you please comment on the likelihood of this grant being funded. With no updates on 2025 funding news from NHLBI, I am worried how low the paylines may drop from the current payline of 14. I would appreciate your thoughts.
Best regards,
S
writedit said
You should be fine with an 11th percentile. As SaG notes, unless the GOP can get through all its major changes and budget cuts quickly, the appropriation should be roughly the same, so paylines would be the same or a bit lower if they just continue FY24 funding levels.
Sairi said
Thank you Writedit! Can we expect a NOA after the council meeting in Jan/Feb?
writedit said
NHLBI does make awards during continuing resolutions, including two R13 awards this month. I assume your application is for an April 1 start date, and it seems likely NHLBI will be able to make that happen, though you can check in with your PO after the Council meeting and after the FY25 federal budget is more clear (if not passed in December).
Meghan said
Dear Writedit,
You commented that “You should be fine with an 11th percentile. As SaG notes, unless the GOP can get through all its major changes and budget cuts quickly, the appropriation should be roughly the same, so paylines would be the same or a bit lower if they just continue FY24 funding levels.”
Do you mean the paylines will be a bit lower or higher if the NHLBI just continue FY24 funding levels? Specifically, now NHLBI uses 24 percentile for ESI, do you expect the percentile will be <24 or >24 for FY2025?
Thanks!
writedit said
I expect paylines to be lower, but especially if you are ESI, I would not expect the ESI payline to drop below the 11th percentile (rumor that established PI payline will be 10th). Although CSR can now post review committee meetings, ICs have not been able to post their Council meetings as yet, so you would still need to wait for NHLBAC to meet – unless your application status is Council review completed, in which case your application was approved electronically en bloc in advance of Council and should be okay to move forward to processing, especially if you are ESI at 11th percentile. At least, I would hope NHLBI would feel comfortable with that score being in the funding range. Now, if your status is Pending Council review, then you will need to wait for the meeting to be rescheduled.
SaG said
Interim paylines are usually very conservative. Absent a big NIH budget cut it is unlikely to decrease.
Sairi said
Thank you!
BF said
I have just received my second year NoA for a grant from NHLBI. According to what I learned from their website, all non-competing grants are funded at 90% of the previously committed amounts until the FY2025 budget is available. I understand this policy, but am curious what may happen after indeed, we have a new budget in early next year. For instance, if the new administration decide to keep the same budget level for NHLBI, will I get my other 10% in a revised NoA? If the new administration decide to impose a steep budget cut for NHLBI, will this mean that I will never see that 10% again? How will this also affect my award for the later years?
writedit said
How much of the 10% hold-back is restored will depend on the FY25 appropriation, so revised NoAs will reflect any change in the NHLBI funding level if Congress cuts their appropriation. Each FY appropriation is applied against the approved grant award budget for that project year, so a big drop in one FY would not automatically affect future years – but a continued budget cut would.
SZh said
Dear Writedit and SaG,
My NIBIB R21 resubmission received an impact score of 27 without a percentile. The initial A0 submission had a score of 32. Since NIBIB does not publish a payline for R21, I was wondering based on your experience if this new score can be potentially fundable with NIBIB.
Thank you very much!
writedit said
An improvement in score always helps, especially if the PO is enthusiastic about your science, but I am not familiar with the range of scores receiving funding at NIBIB. When you have your summary statement, you can check with the PO about whether you should submit a new application (they will not have an idea about funding until the FY25 budget passes).
magazinefuturistic76d461f11b said
Thank you so much Writedit! I will update once I talk to my PO.
R01Applicant said
Dear WriteEdit,
Can you please advise what is the tentative timeline to receive a summary statement for ND applications? It has been more than a month since the study section met, but we still haven’t received the summary statement.
Thank you.
writedit said
SROs usually get summary statements out within a month, but it’s not unusual to take up to 6 weeks, especially if there were a lot of applications reviewed or if the application format was long or complex. The SRO might have had a planned or unplanned absence after the meeting, too. You can check in with the SRO for an update, and let them know if you are looking for this feedback to plan a new submission for February and are sensitive to the timing.
MomoPI said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you for running such a wonderful platform! We have our R01 application (A0) scored just outside of the payline. We would like to resubmit the application in the upcoming Feb cycle. However, the FOA and the NOSI that we targeted in the original application were expired. We identified a new PAR that focuses on a very similar area with the earliest submission date to be Jan 2025. Could we submit our revised R01 to this new FOA as A1? Thank you!
writedit said
You can revise your proposal using the prior reviews to submit a new (A0) application (no Introduction) to a new NOFO (update NIH terminology for FOA to align with other agencies: notice of funding opportunity), but it not an A1. You can ask your PO if your original NOFO (and NOSI) will be reissued to accommodate the change in review framework and how A1s will be handled; all research project grant NOFOs were stopped early and have been or will soon be replaced with new NOFOs that include the new forms and review criteria. If your original NOFO was an RFA, this will not be the case, though (ie, you will need to submit a new application to a different NOFO).
tonywend said
Dear writedit,
I have a RFA R21 reviewed with impact score 33. Could you please advise the chance to be funded by NHGRI of my R21?
Thanks,
tonywend
writedit said
@tonywend, the score is a bit high for an R21, but with an RFA, score is not the only factor, and you could have one of the lower scores, depending on the other applications. You will want to check in with the PO on next steps when you get your summary statement. They probably won’t have an idea about funding likelihood or timing during the CR, but you can ask if you should revise and submit this application again as an A0 to a different NOFO.
KeanuTot said
I submitted a K99 application in June 2024. I got an ND from the review panel in November. Bummer, OK, we’re prepping to resubmit.
Except I log in Friday and I see a JIT option on my proposal.
What could that possibly mean?
I’ve contacted my PO but she tends to respond slowly/sometimes not at all. I saw that the NIH just phased out automatic JIT requests in Oct 2024. Basically I don’t think that this is an automatic request. But I also don’t have any ideas on why this would happen. 2 of my reviewers really liked the proposal. The third had valid critiques, but some of them appeared to be due to mistakes in how they read my CV. Idk if that is relevant or useful.
Do y’all have any insight on why I might get a JIT for a not discussed K99?
KeanuTot said
Also – this is at NHLBI
thatpostdoc said
I have always got the JIT button appeared a couple weeks after study section regardless of the grant being discussed (n=2). It appears to be automatic in the eRA commons system. I think prior to phasing out the auto JIT request, the JIT would be sent out to everyone below 50 percentile.
KeanuTot said
Gotcha. So your hunch is that this is an automatic request?
That was my hunch as well, but it happened after the automatic JIT requests are supposedly phased out. And no language on it being automatic … so I am mostly just puzzled
thatpostdoc said
I think so. My PO (NIDDK) told me to ignore the auto JIT request or the JIT button unless receiving a ‘customized’ request email directly from the grant officials. From thereon the JIT button/link will be used to submit JIT request but no need to do anything prior to being contacted by them.
KeanuTot said
Perfect, that is what I needed to know. I’ll continue prepping for the resubmission then
writedit said
Thanks, thatpostdoc – you are correct. The NIH no longer sends out an automated JIT request via email, but the JIT button continues (needs to be there in case a PI is asked to submit JIT). Everyone should ignore the button unless instructed to submit by their PO or GMS.
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-24-165.html
Taylor Francis said
I have a NIGMS MIRA renewal, impact score of 10, council review completed 9/20/2024. I was feeling positive about funding, but the PO has been vague. Is it correct to assume no new awards will be made until a budget is passed or new CR goes into effect?
writedit said
With a perfect score, you shouldn’t need to worry about being competitive, and in the past, NIGMS has made new and renewal awards (including R35) during a CR. Only 5 ICs are making Type 1 or 2 awards right now, mostly NIAID, which isn’t typical (NIAID is typical – not the absence of other ICs making awards). I would say most ICs are sitting tight to see what happens with the federal budget as of December 20th. If the CR is extended until after the executive and legislative transitions, I would expect ICs to continue waiting to see what happens with the NIH in FY25.
joyfullye1df836322 said
Finally got the NOA a week ago.
writedit said
Woohoo – congratulations! Best wishes for success with your research – hoping this award can hold you over in the uncertain years ahead.
nervousgradstudent said
I previously wrote in about my NINDS F31 application after getting an email about joining a workshop. I noticed that my GMS randomly changed in eRA commons, and it’s still saying pending after my start date passed (Dec. 1). I reached out to the new GMS and they had no new information. I know NINDS makes awards during CR, but only 2 F31s are popping up on RePORT for me. Any ideas about what they’re doing?
writedit said
The start date is not an expiration date – your award can start any date before October 30th. I don’t see any type 1 F31 awards, so no IC is issuing new fellowships right now. The GMS won’t know, really – they are told which applications to process when. Your PO won’t have any insight until after Dec 20th at the earliest, and if the FY25 budget is pushed off until later in 2025, it could be even longer, while the ICs wait to see what happens (and how quickly anything might happen) with the NIH.
nervousgradstudent said
Very insightful, thank you. I’m seeing a few type I F31s from NINDS start to pop up in RePORT, so I’m hoping to hear something soon.
nervousgradstudent said
I just got this message from the GMS: “This Grant has been reviewed through the GMS process and is currently in line for final approval and release. You should be receiving the NOA once it is released for funding.” I assume they’re done processing it now, but what happens to the grant after that? How long does it take? I think this is good news!
writedit said
Very good news. You might have your NOA by now – if not, it is waiting at the IC Director’s office for approval. Congratulations and best wishes for success with your doctoral project and career in biomedical research!
nervousgradstudent said
No NOA yet, but my status changed to “award prepared: refer questions to GMS” on 12/23. The GMS said they signed off on it so I assume it’s just holiday delays. Fingers crossed!
writedit said
Congratulations and best wishes for success with your project and doctoral program! Your NOA is
nervousgradstudent said
I spoke too soon, my NOA arrived early this morning! This forum has been so helpful for calming my nerves and teaching me about the NIH grant process. I’d like to give back and leave my timeline since I found others’ F31 timelines insightful.
4/8/2024: Application entered into system
4/24/2024: Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
7/2/2024: Study section
7/3/2024: Score was posted (impact score 20, 4%). Status changed to Scientific Review Group review completed. Refer any questions to Program Official.
7/19/2024: Summary statement posted. Reached out to PO, who said to wait for council. I know Fs don’t go to council, but they said they wouldn’t have any information until after then.
10/4/2024: NINDS council meeting
10/16/2024: I got an email from NINDS regarding a workshop for F series mentees/mentors. The email said “congratulations” and that it was being sent to people with awards that were approved at the May or September council meetings. I reached out to my PO to clarify.
10/17/2024: personalized JIT request from GMS (confirmed my SSN, sponsor, tuition/fees, and IACUC approval)
10/21/2024: submitted JIT materials
10/22/2024: Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
11/24/2024: my GMS changed and I reached out to the new GMS to ask about any updates.
12/18/2024: GMS said that they had signed off and the grant was in the final approval process.
12/23/2024: Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
1/3/2025: Fellowship awarded! NOA arrived via email and was posted in eRA commons.
writedit said
Congratulations again (not sure why my email replies to blog keep getting cut off) and thank you so much for sharing your timeline!
l1zerdbreath said
I just received an impact score of 20 for the ReWARD R01 mechanism. This is a good sign right?
l1zerdbreath said
I am also ESI if that matters.
writedit said
With a 20, it shouldn’t matter, but your ESI status will help if the submission cycle is super competitive. Your PO won’t have insight on likelihood and timing of funding until the FY25 budget is passed, but when you receive your summary statement, you can check in about next steps and whether you should be planning to submit again … hopefully the PO will tell you to sit tight, but a NOFO like this might be under special pressure, aside from potential organizational changes, under the new administration.
l1zerdbreath said
That’s what I figured and also my fear (new administration and this particular NOFO). Thanks for the confirmation of my thoughts!
>
lasha said
Hello, could you please share any updates or thoughts on potential funding of your pending proposal for the REWARD R01? I am also sitting with a scored proposal for this and will appreciate your response. Thanks.
l1zerdbreath said
Would love to hear others perspective on this – but my take is that it is definitely not going to get funded and I am planning to submit as a regular R01. Mine was one of the councils that did not meet yet.
>
writedit said
I have no official update on this, of course, but I would not envision the REWARD NOFO returning. For competitive applications, ICs may be able to ask PIs to remove the DEI components and reduce the budget accordingly, but that will probably take a while to sort out (including the DEI-related court battles), if it is even feasible, so I would recommend submitting the science as an R01 to another NOFO (with the benefit of the REWARD application summary statement).
lasha said
Yes, thanks for sharing your thoughts. After reading the Nature article today, I have no hopes though it would have been fair to fund the science deemed meritorious. Since the proposal has distinct scientific and DEIA-specific aims, adjusting the budget to maintain compliance shouldn’t be too difficult. All the best to you and everyone in this situation.
SaG said
If the REWARD NOFO was taken down then your app wont be funded. Doesn’t matter if it was republished. Resubmit as an R01.
K23_Hopeful said
I just received an NOA for my K23 from NIDA today! I had asked for some advice in the comments above after my summary statement comes out, so wanted to close the loop and pay it forward for future applicants. For posterity’s sake, here’s a timeline of the application with eRA commons status changes and some commentary for future applicants.
Fall 2023: Initial conversations with PO, indication that research area is a priority for NIDA
2/12/24: Application submitted
3/6/24: Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
6/14/24: Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
Score available on eRA commons around 5 PM the second day of study section. Impact score=23, 8th percentile
Early July: Summary statement available
Mid-July: conversation with PO about summary statement. PO friendly but noncommittal. “This is a good score, but Ks are very competitive at NIDA.” Asks for a 1 page rebuttal, does not recommend preparing a resubmission yet
late July/August: rebuttal submitted for feedback, PO reported it looked good, no other requests. They recommend I follow up after council
09/12/2024: Council review completed.
Mid-September: follow-up email with PO asking if there are any updates. No firm updates, NIH budget up in the air as no federal budget yet (election year). Again emphasized that Ks are competitive at NIDA but “your application is at/near the funding line.” No firm answer on whether I should prepare a resubmission for mid-November deadline, but there may be updates in a few weeks
Late September: CR passed, gov’t funded until late December
mid-October: Emailed asking for guidance on resubmission since deadline was in a month. Received a reply that they were “cautiously optimistic your grant is in line for funding,” but that CR makes things tricky
11/13/2024: Personalized JIT request from NIDA GMS
11/13/2024: Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
11/20/24: JIT submitted, some back and forth on documents but all settled by deadline
12/3/2024: Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
12/10/2024 (early AM): Status confusingly back to Pending Administrative Review, but commons webpage looks messed up. Start date now listed as 12/15/2024
12/10/2024 (later AM): Application awarded. NOA available on eRA commons. NOA says award processed at 12:10 AM.
writedit said
Congratulations and thank you so much for posting such a helpful, detailed timeline (and adding the update to your original post)! Fantastic news both that your score was in their funding range and that NIDA is making awards during the CR. Best wishes for continued success with your research and your career in biomedical research!
EstablishedPI said
I had a question about grant start dates and JIT. In my experience JITs and Award notices were always issued very close to the start date of a grant, often within a couple of weeks. However I just received a JIT request for an R01 (scored 2%) with a start date of April 1 2025. I was wondering if this is usual. Is there a chance the NIH will push back the start date to earlier than April? I suppose the incoming hostile administration might be a consideration and NIH wants to dole out whatever it can quickly?
writedit said
JIT is often requested months in advance of an award, leaving the status as “pending” for all this time. This can be either to get applications that will definitely be awarded, such as yours, reviewed and ready in advance of the processing rush that occurs once the final federal budget is signed into law – or to check applications in advance of Council when preparing the paylist (not an issue for a 2nd percentile application, unless you are bumping up against the well-paid PI limit). Of course, in this crazy year, they could be pushing some very competitive applications up a cycle, but that would only be possible if your application status is also “Council review completed” (ie, award cannot be made until your application is approved for funding consideration by Council). Otherwise, your application would need to wait for the next Council meeting (and then, with the administrative review complete, could be funded soon after, in advance of April 1).
EstablishedPI said
Thank you Writedit!
My status does say Council review completed, (which is odd since the council date is 01/2025).
Will keep the forum posted on the outcome.
Thanks again for all the fantastic and kind advice you provide on this forum.
writedit said
Depending on how long your status has been Council review completed, your IC probably recently sent their paylist for electronic approval en bloc in advance of the meeting; this is standard procedure – any applications that don’t need special discussion by Council can be approved en bloc (all at once) in advance of the meeting to save time.
EstablishedPI said
Just an update on this thread. The status page changed to “Award prepared: refer questions to GMS”…
I wonder if this means NoA is coming soon although its hard to believe they will issue an NoA so early for an April start date, so maybe they are moving up the start date?
Thanks again
writedit said
Congratulations – you should have your NoA shortly, depending on how long it takes for the IC Director to sign off on it. Your application was reviewed in the fall Council rather than January, so you don’t need to wait until April, which is great news.
EstablishedPI said
Thank you Writedit. I guess the Jan council date on the status page has no relevance now.
Will keep fingers crossed.
Best
Abraham said
The NIH review criteria for R01 seem to be changed in next submission round. I am wondering whether there are any significant changes in grant format or supportive documents. I am currently preparing a submission on Feb 5.
writedit said
The forms associated with the reissued NOFO (for applications submitted after January 25, 2025) will reflect any required changes there. The Research Strategy has no required changes, but you will want to align your organization with the Factor 1 (Importance of the Research – Significance + Innovation) and Factor 2 (Rigor & Feasibility – Approach) review criteria. I would suggest major sections of Importance and Approach and organize the Approach by Aim, which I assume you have been doing in previous applications. Importance would explain to the reviewer the significance of the problem and the rationale for and innovation/novelty of your approach to addressing the research question. As a reminder, all sorts of details on the new review framework and forms for various funding mechanisms can be found here: https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/changes-coming-2025
Richard said
Hi writedit,
Happy New Year! I recently submitted an R01 application, and it was assigned to a member conflict special panel for review. My grant proposals have always been reviewed by the A Study Section, and I specifically requested this grant to be reviewed by the A Study Section as well. I served as a standing member of the A Study Section until June 2023 and am currently a standing member of the B Study Section.
I have two questions:
Thank you!
Richard
writedit said
You could ask the Review Branch Chief (formerly IRG Chief) to confirm, but I assume your conflict with SRG A, per 42 CFR Part 52h(d) (p 277), remains in effect for 3 years from when you rotated off, after which you would no longer have any regular members with overlapping service in conflict (ie, served with you on SRG A).
Since the NIH impanels fewer SEPs, which in turn must review more applications from a wider range of science, the former benefit of going to a special panel (outside one created specifically for a PAR/RFA) is long past. With a standing study section, you can write for the regular and potential ad hoc members listed on the CSR website; with any special panel, including member conflict, you will not know your reviewers. Your pre-meeting SRG link will include a very long list of all the potential reviewers from which your actual panel could be chosen (ie, it will not be a subset of SRG A).
Richard said
Thank you, writedit, for your insightful suggestion!
K24 said
Hi Richard
I hope my experience is helpful. I served as a regular member of a Study Section for 5 years, ending in Jun 2023. I had an R01 submission in Feb 2023 that was reviewed in July by a Members Conflict Panel. In Oct 2023, we submitted an A1 of that R01 and it was assigned to the Study Section I was formerly a member of and was reviewed Feb 2024. So the 3-year rule did not seem to be in effect for me. I have also continued to ad hoc on the panel in between submissions and this doesn’t seem to be a problem. I tell you this so that you may want to be prepared that you will have the A0 reviewed by a members conflict SEP and then the A1 reviewed by the original Study Section, and they cannot guarantee any of the reviewers will be the same. This hurt us in our case and we went back in with a new A0, got new reviewers again and now we are going to submit an A1 (4th submission now of this project). In hindsight, if we had known the first A1 would not be reviewed again by a SEP, then we could have just submitted an A0 so that at least we could have two continuous submissions reviewed by the same study section. Good luck!
writedit said
Thank you so much for sharing your experience, K24 – which reminds me that Richard probably submitted under the continuous submission policy. In that case, an application submitted after the standard receipt date could have arrived too late to be assigned to the regular study section (at its limit for applications, all reviewers fully assigned). A MWEG community member previously shared the advice to let your SRO know in advance of the standard receipt date that you will be submitting late under continuous submission, so they know to reserve some reviewers for your application when it does arrive (and thus avoid relegation to the member conflict SEP).
Richard said
Thank you so much, K24, for sharing your experience. I will explore whether it might be possible to request a reassignment.
Richard said
Thank you so much, K24, for sharing your experience. I will explore whether it might be possible to request a reassignment.
writedit is right in that my application was submitted as a continuous submission.
K24 said
Does anyone know if the NIH will continue to allow post-submission updated 30 days before review that allow additional preliminary data (rather than just publication updates)?
alessaycy said
I believe so. However, my experience is that reviewers rarely read it. When I served on a study section, the SRO even told us that we didn’t have to read the one-page update.
writedit said
Correct – and thank you for the additional insight. Here is where the policy dust settled after the pandemic exceptions period:
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-23-106.html
QuestionSupplement said
Then, what is the purpose of allowing submission of supplements if they are not going to be reviewed?
alessaycy said
Good question and I don’t have an answer for it. I’ve served on five different study sections, and none of the SROs explicitly told us we must read the one-page preliminary data. In fact, two of them mentioned that it wasn’t required. Personally, I’ve submitted the one-page data for my own R01 applications twice, and in both cases, it was clear the reviewers didn’t read them.
That said, I believe it doesn’t hurt to include it—just in case your reviewers happen to be someone like me, who actually takes the time to read it. However, I wouldn’t place high expectations on its impact either.
xinluolab said
Dear Writedit: I am a standing member of a study section. I submitted three R01’s for the December continuous submission deadline. I was hoping that they would be assigned to at least two different member conflict panels (and there are two suitable ones that I know of), but unfortunately they have been assigned to one single conflict panel. My question for you was: Would it be worthwhile to fight for reassignments? I had requested reassignments before (for previous submissions) and it never worked. But I am really concerned about three of these R01’s competing with each other in the same panel.
writedit said
You can ask the Review Branch Chief to consider reassignment if you can provide an objective reason for your preferred study section (ie, directly link your science with the focus and expertise described in the standing SRG overview and reflected in the roster of regular members). This is harder to do with specific member conflict panels because they are not recurring and the actual meeting rosters are not provided (just the long list of potential reviewers). You can’t ask to have an application moved just because you have 2 or more applications at the same SRG. I would never advise “fighting” with an RB Chief about an application assignment, since you need these folks on your side for future applications.
However, you shouldn’t worry about having 2 applications in the same panel. The SRO will assign different reviewers – and the SEP rosters are huge, so finding enough reviewers with the right expertise shouldn’t be hard – and reviewers will be instructed to provide critiques based on the scientific merit of the application in front of them, not any of your other applications. The SRO and Chair will ensure that each discussion focuses only on the application being presented (no mention of other applications).
The IC(s), not the SRG, will decide if one, two, or all three applications merit awards and whether you have the effort available to oversee each project simultaneously plus whether you are bumping up on the well-funded PI limit. That is, unlike the SRG, the ICs will take into account the other 2 applications (if all 3 score competitively) in deciding on an award, which would be the real reason to stagger submissions – also to avoid an annual RPPR nightmare.
xinluolab said
Got it. Thank you for the explanation and suggestions.
lasha said
I’m seeking advice on the next steps for my A1-RO1 application, submitted in response to a PAR from NIGMS (not a parent RO1). It was reviewed in December and scored in the 40s. I’ve contacted the PO but haven’t heard back yet, likely due to their busy schedule. With the next submission date less than a month away, should I wait for the PO’s feedback or begin preparing a new application? Can I revise the same proposal to submit as a new application? Thank you for all your help[ and guidance.
writedit said
As long as you have your summary statement in hand before you submit, you can revise the same proposal and submit again as a new application either to the same PAR, if it is still accepting applications, or to a different NOFO. Having your PO’s input would be useful but not required. You might not get a reply until you have your summary statement (not clear if you have than in hand yet or not).
KayohAte said
Hello – seeking advice on NCI K08 A0 submitted in February 2024, received impact score 21. Apparently above FY2025 interim payline per PO. Thoughts on submitting A1 vs. sit tight? How big has the interim -> final payline movement been historically for NCI K awards? Thank you.
writedit said
The continuing resolution will last at least until March 14th, so your PO will not have any better insight before your A1 submission date. This year in particular is a crap shoot given the change in Congress and the White House, though hopefully any major changes will not be implemented this FY (FY25). Normally I would think a 21 is within funding range, though K08s can be tougher, but if your PO is not giving any specific guidance (be sure to ask if you should submit the A1 though!), then you might want to prepare an A1 for insurance, unless waiting until July is an option for you.
Izlude said
Hi,
I was seeking some general advice for an A1 submission. My AO scored a 11th percentile and the payline has generally been 9-10% and likely is not going to get better so I am planning on the A1 for the Feb/March cycle. My previous other grants (if discussed) often have been bit off the payline so always had things to fix.
For this one, the comments were overall mostly all positive with some minor things. I did get a 5 in approach from one reviewer which asked for some stuff but overall my question was I don’t know how much more I can fix. Aside from a couple of new pubs that will help support the A1 and some prelim data, I don’t know how much more I want to revise and risk doing “too much.” I know for the A1 I likely won’t get the same reviewers so risk is that it may drop (which def has happened to me). But was curious to how people approach this situation.
writedit said
This is a situation in which your PO’s insight from having heard the discussion would be helpful. Your PO might have thoughts on what/how to tweak and what not to touch. I suspect your reviewers assumed you would get an award so didn’t put a lot into suggestions for improvement. Of course, now you will have a different review framework, so perhaps rejiggering the narrative to make this process easier for reviewers will allow you to see ways to tweak and tighten without making substantive changes to the science. If you have new pubs and new preliminary data (and if there are other new pubs that help establish rigor of your premise), though, it sounds like you have all you need for the A1 (PO insight would be great, though).
Izlude said
Thanks for the response! By coincidence the PO responded today and said that they would nominate it for “”raise-to-pay”, meaning that if there are available funds, this R01 could be considered for funding. If you would like to send me a short response (e.g., two pages) to the reviewer comments, that can be helpful in the raise to pay discussion..” I assume this means select pay which I have had before? I guess I wouldn’t know this until the end of the FY?
Also related topic for my resubmission since it is an A1 are you allowed to cite the score or is that not allowed. Obviously they will have the summary statement so I think that should be okay. I only ask, some of my LoS from my chair and another person wanted to put that in their updated letter. Any reason not to?
thanks!
writedit said
Good news on the nomination for select pay! In a normal year, you could receive the select pay award any cycle, depending on where you are on the paylist (your rebuttal could push you into the cycle 2 funding pool) and where the budget stands, though often these awards are made at the end of the FY as funds allow. This is obviously not a normal year, so it’s hard to say what will happen when in terms of funding decisions.
For your A1, the letters can note the score, though I am not sure that helps. I guess your chair could note that your prior excellent score of xx reflects/confirms their (chair’s) confidence in your research contributions n’at. They shouldn’t be including a sentence to the effect that your score of xx should have been received an award.
A45 said
Hello,
I submitted a type 1 grant application and was asked to provide post-submission materials. I have preliminary data and a number of recent publications. Do both the preliminary data and publications have to fit within 1 page or am I allowed 1 page for preliminary data and 1 page for recent publications. My confusion stems from the language used by different SROs. Depending on the SRO, publications have been referred to as “regular post-submission materials” and that preliminary data (1 pg) can be included in addition to the regular post-submission materials. Thank you in advance for the clarification!
writedit said
NIH policy limits post-submission materials to one page, so I suspect your SROs are letting you know that you can include preliminary data (not always the case) in addition to the other standard allowable post-submission materials (but all in that one page). An RFA might have a different limit, but this should be spelled out clearly. Best option is just to confirm with the SRO if preliminary data + recent publications = 1 page (total) or if preliminary data = 1 page and recent publications (& other post submission items) = 1 page (2 pages total).
A45 said
Thank you for the response. Contacting my SRO was my first course of action, unfortunately, the SRO is not replying to emails until March. I ended up submitting 1pg of preliminary data and 1 pg of publications (2 pgs total). I figured that if I made a mistake, that they would contact me and ask for a correction. I received a confirmation email from NIH today stating the document was included in the grant folder. Thanks again for curating such a wonderful resource!
writedit said
Excellent – thank you for sharing your experience! Hopefully your reviewers will take a look at both pages (in light of prior comments here that SROs tell reviewers that they don’t need to look at post-submission materials).
A45 said
Hello,
Following up on this thread. After the initial cancellation of the study section, my type 1 grant application is set to be reviewed. The grant focuses on defining the underlying mechanisms in novel brain circuits that drive sex differences in response to psychostimulant use in rodent models. These sex differences have significant clinical relevance, which was discussed at length in the significance portion. Thus the grant contains the terms ‘sex’, ‘sexually dimorphic’, ‘sex differences’, and ‘female(s)’ quite extensively.
I assume this grant was scored ahead of the first study section that was postponed, however, how will this grant be handled administratively? Will it be immediately streamlined (similar to NSF) or will it be discussed in study section then streamlined? Specifically, how far down the decision tree will this grant submission go?
Thank you in advance!
writedit said
It sounds like your science should be fine; individual terms (“sex”, “female”) might have flagged it for additional scrutiny, by a PO would have recognized that you were studying a biological mechanism, including any differences by sex. If your application is still being listed as being reviewed in your original study section, it will be discussed (assuming the assigned reviewers gave it sufficiently low/competitive scores). If not, you will get your summary statement after the SRG meeting. Applications that have been identified as “no longer effectuates agency priorities” in the intervening months since Jan 22 are no longer assigned to their original SRG and will likely remain “Pending scientific review” until they are administratively withdrawn.
A45 said
Thank you for the clarification! As always, thank you for curating such a wonderful resource.
Bobby Blood said
I am both pleasantly surprised and also very scared that this forum is not flooded with comments about canceled study sections and council meetings.
writedit said
You and me both.
I will add that the very broad communications and meetings ban across federal health agencies should be temporary, currently until Feb 1.
writedit said
A reminder that although the administration can delay awards in ways that do not involve impoundment, Congress is still responsible for authorization and appropriation for the NIH and other federal agencies. Especially if any member of your Congressional delegation (2 Senators, 1 Representative) has changed – but even if not – it is important to personally advocate for your research with these folks so they have individuals to keep in mind vs the monolith of “academic research” (and all the negative attributes currently applied) when working on these bills. Many if not most universities have a government relations-advocacy office, and you can certainly coordinate with them and get good local economic impact data from them, but an email (simple, fast), phone call, or meeting will separate you from the university at large, and maybe your work has special personal meaning to someone on the staff (ie, cancer survivor, parent with ADRD, wife with gestational diabetes, child with ASD, etc.).
FASEB has excellent resources on their website to help you contact your Congressional delegation and suggestions on how to frame your outreach:
Advocacy Toolkit: https://www.faseb.org/science-policy-and-advocacy/become-an-advocate
Main Policy-Advocacy Page: https://www.faseb.org/science-policy-and-advocacy
Losing optimism said
Thanks for this. The one area that is causing a lot of anxiety on private forums is the abolishment of DEI initiatives. Do you have any sense if currently funded things like diversity supplements will not be renewed? What about grants pending review or council that are via diversity mechanisms? Another area that is catastrophic is the hiring freeze which is preventing VA-based faculty from conducting their research. What a mess.
writedit said
I am quite sure diversity supplements will no longer be available. Federal agencies are instructed to stop funding DEI activities in the public and private sector, so I assume all pending awards will not be issued. Most ICs have scrubbed their diversity supplement pages, though the diversity-related NOFOs are still in the Guide – not sure for how much longer. Congressional delegations review each competing NIH award before it is issued, so that would be another avenue for blocking currently pending awards, should one of the offices flag the diversity award (this would happened during the application status period between “NOA prepared” and “NOA issued”, with the latter not happening if Congressional hold placed).
The hiring freeze and revoking of job offers for positions starting after February 8 will probably be in place at least until the FY25 budget is resolved and federal agencies have restructured their needs (the 2017 hiring freeze lasted until mid-April). Hopefully a blanket hiring freeze will not continue until the FY26 budget is approved.
R01 applicant said
Thank you, Writedit. This is concerning, but how about pending awards (pending to award prepared to NOA) that clearly do not have a DEI component?
Scientist12 said
Hi Writedit,
Would that mean private organizations like American Heart Association will also stop their diversity supplement awards? I was planning to submit one for this cycle. Would it be a waste of time?
Thanks
nervousgradstudent said
Any idea what this means for grants that have already been given an NOA but not yet activated? I wrote in a few weeks ago when I got the NOA for my F31D. I’ve submitted an activation notice but not received an updated NOA, so I don’t believe it is active yet.
writedit said
@R01 applicant – I assume award notices are on hold along with all other communications. This should just be a delay, especially if you don’t have any other concerns with a Congressional review of your abstract. Even if the communications ban is lifted Feb 1, don’t worry about further delays since, of course, the ICs will have a huge mess to sort out, though I suspect approved awards would be high on the list to turn around quickly.
@Scientist12 – The AHA and other foundations can continue to make their own diversity awards, assuming none are co-funded with the NIH or any other federal agency (I don’t believe so, but not current on all offerings). The administration is pressuring the private sector to drop DEI activities, but they have no authority there, and I don’t think they would be able to revoke tax-exempt status for foundations that do offer diversity-related awards (especially with the vague language in the order – should be easily challenged in court).
@nervousgradstudent – Your department fiscal administrator or university sponsored programs office can confirm whether your application was activated before January 20th. If not, you will be in the same boat of needing to wait for the communications ban to be lifted so your award can be activated.
nervousgradstudent said
Thank you for the info. I am expecting to have to wait a bit longer now, but is it possible they can rescind a grant post-NOA? I am worried about the DEIA ban meaning they will take away the award even though I already received notice since it may not be activated yet (no response from our sponsored projects office)
writedit said
@nervousgradstudent – You have been through the wringer with this application (4th percentile!). Hopefully your sponsored projects office got the activation notice in before Jan 20. If not, NINDS will need to work out if/how the new policy applies in situations where the period between award issued and activated straddles the executive order.
nervousgradstudent said
After 4 emails that sponsored projects ignored, they finally responded to me today and said that my activation was never submitted because I was supposed to do that (never communicated that to me before…) They ended up sending the form to my PO and GMS this morning, but of course I have to wait until after 2/1 to know if they’ll even be allowed to accept it. Our sponsored projects is notoriously bad and friends have warned me about this, but I never thought their negligence and an EO could stop me from getting a grant AFTER receiving an NOA. I think I can say goodbye to my awarded grant because I’m a “diversity” hire even though I landed 4% on my first try.
writedit said
@nervousgradstudent – you can still reach out to your PO to get insight into your situation. They can reply to direct messages, just not issue public communications.
sinh said
Hi Writedit,
I am writing a NIH grant proposal that requires a Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP) limited to one page for this upcoming February deadline. What would you suggest in my situation? Just submit the PEDP as originally planned or is there any point to contact the agency or PO asking for guidance? I noticed that links on the PAR page to instructions for the PEDP are leading to 404 error pages now. Thanks!
writedit said
If the NOFO requires a PEDP and the PEDP isn’t included with the application, I believe ASSIST will administratively reject the application (ie, you will get an error message that must be corrected). If PEDPs are not allowed per federal policy, you have no guidance to this effect at the time of application, so I assume ICs would just remove them and any budget allocations related to implementing the PEDP (vs dumping all those applications). Hard to say for sure, obviously, but no political appointees should see any grant application until the NOA is sent to the representative Congressional delegation in advance of the award being issued, and the IC could take out the PEDP and any required milestones and budget allocation as part of the administrative review prior to preparing the NOA.
hendy208 said
Dear writedit-
If the study section meeting to discuss my grant is cancelled, would a notification appear in my era commons anywhere?
Thanks so much!
writedit said
The date would probably just change or be replaced with a pending type status. Any SRG meetings affected by the current ban will be rescheduled, just as occurred after past government shutdowns during which SRG and Council meetings had to be cancelled.
lasha said
Hello Writedit and community,
Do you anticipate that recent events will affect the upcoming submission deadlines for NIH grants? Also, is it worthwhile to continue working on a resubmission application if the mechanism includes a DEIA component and the NOFO is still active (standard due date Feb 5th)?
writedit said
Submission deadlines are still in effect. The NIH hasn’t shut down – it just cannot engage in any public activity or communication, including the release of new NOFOs or Notices. All their other activities are continuing, including direct communication with investigators, so you could ask your PO for advice on the DEIA NOFO. Since it is an active NOFO, it could be they will be able to award grants for the science proposed but not the DEI activities (so your budget would be modified to remove these costs in the NOA) – but it would be good to confirm with your PO whether you should switch to a parent or other announcement with your research portion.
lasha said
Thank you for this clarification.
Achilles said
My graduate student is currently supported by a 2-year diversity supplement based on my NCI R01. The first year ends in March and the second year starts in April. Since the original NOA mentioned both years, do you think NIH is obligated to continue this supplement for the second year?
writedit said
I don’t know how the executive order will affect type 5 awards. No new awards will be made, but since current awards were part of the FY25 appropriation request (no restriction on diversity funding in place), perhaps the second year could be funded. However, since your student’s year 2 funding starts after the current CR ends, it could depend on whether the FY25 budget bill or next CR, whichever passes in mid-March, includes language about not funding any diversity-related awards (competing and noncompeting), in which case your grad student could lose their supplement.
Nervous MOSAIC said
Hi Writedit,
Similar question here:
Do you anticipate the MOSAIC program will be canceled wholesale? I’ve noticed the MOSAIC pages have been scrubbed from several but not all ICs.
If MOSAIC recipients are in the middle of the R00, could their final year(s) be rescinded? How about a K99 that’s about to transform to R00 – would they be denied the R00?
Thank you for this tremendous resource.
SaG said
Your T5 Diversity supplement might not get awarded. You should start looking for other sources of funding. They could roll the money into your R01 T5 but not sure if that will be allowed either.
Technically any T5 award can be rescinded but it rarely happens. They could cut your budget though which does happen. Award $1 and keep the grant active. No idea if this will happen though. Never hurts to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
writedit said
If the next CR or reconciled budget bill does not allow any FY25 spending on diversity-related programs, I assume that will be it for MOSAIC (no additional new or noncompeting awards). Given the administration’s focus on preventing “reverse discrimination”, I would also expect the FY26 and FY27 appropriation bills to bar funding for diversity-related eligibility and DEI-promoting programs (including continuation of previously approved awards), unless something happens in the courts.
DTron said
What if you have cost-carryover? We have a supplement that is in the final award year, but will likely have funds leftover. Would they take that away or would we still likely be able to spend it as NCE?
writedit said
If <25% of the total amount awarded for that budget period, possibly (but really can’t say for sure, obviously). If 25% or more, then the GMO needs to take a look, which is the point at which OMB could say those funds are no longer needed.
However, I wouldn’t assume everything below 25% will carry over as in the past, since GMOs could be instructed to set aside any awards with possible policy-related questions on carryover until there is clarity.
And it will be some time before there is clarity on how these executive orders will be implemented, but I would probably recommend that those with diversity-related funding not try to hoard $$ as carryover funds, since you may not be able to carry beyond the current award period.
This all represents my best guess – NIH doesn’t know at this point, and neither do I, but this reflects how federal appropriations generally work and when-how the administration could intervene.
SaG said
I doubt they will take money back that has already been awarded. But, you can only use the leftover supp money for whatever the supp was originally awarded for. So, if it was a diversity supp you can only use if for the diversity applicant. You cant repurpose the money. Generally true for all admin supplements.
popefavor said
May I ask approximately how much budget (like a percentage) is typically allocated to DEI-promoting programs in NIH?
writedit said
For diversity supplements and fellowships, the percentage is tiny. I don’t see anything broken out in the NIH Data Book, but it would be less than 1% of the NIH budget. It’s a little messy since the diversity set-asides also include individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds (economic-educational), so I am not sure where that falls in the Executive Orders. Adding in programs that limit applications to individuals from minority-serving institutions or backgrounds would increase the percentage a bit. Depending on what happens at the FDA with their diversity plan and final interpretation of the Executive Orders and their reach, the budget percentage would go up more if “DEI” also included all research that includes work to increase research participant diversity, address health disparities and health inequity, incorporate diverse perspectives, etc. There will be a lot to sort out, especially in the context of the FY25 budget reconciliation bill and the FY26 budget framework.
JL said
Are the study section reviews resumed?
lasha said
It seems like so. I have one next week and the SRO confirmed yesterday.
Qi Fu said
Any information about the NHLBI council meeting today?
writedit said
For the latest updates on NIH operations, I recommend following Jeremy Berg on Bluesky (@jeremymberg.bsky.social). Council meetings are being held, and, despite no official announcement, study sections are meeting. SROs continued to organize SRG meetings during the radio silence and I am sure have begun to reschedule the canceled meetings.
Qi Fu said
Thanks so much for the information.
goingcrazy said
NHLBI council meeting scheduled this morning got cancelled
Qi Fu said
Was the closed meeting also canceled? Thanks.
SaG said
Council meetings will be rescheduled for sometime in March is my guess.
writedit said
I saw in Jeremy Berg’s feed that Council meetings must have some portion open to the public (which is still not allowed) and that the closed portion cannot take place by itself. The next meeting date must be announced in the Federal Register at least 15 days in advance.
DisparityResearcher said
I am wondering whether any type of disparity research, such as socioecnomic-related disparities in healthcare, will not be eligible for NIH funding in the coming years. Any insight?
SaG said
Health Disparities probably OK. Socioeconomic not so sure.
nervousgradstudent said
An update on my F31D, my fellowship is now active and showing up on RePORT as of 2/3. Good news that it was activated during the pause/post-DEI ban being as I received my NOA prior to the EOs (NOA 1/3). Hopefully that’s good news for others who applied around the same time, at least at NINDS. I did see that the NOFO for the F31D is officially gone, so who knows how long I’ll have the grant for. Fingers crossed I at least get all of FY25 out of it.
writedit said
Congratulations – hopefully not fleeting, but you should not be surprised to hear from them in the months ahead.
New PI said
Does anyone know if POs are allowed to talk to us now>
SaG said
Yes they can. Only about the science.
R01applicant said
Can PIs email the POs regarding discussing a 2nd NCE?
SaG said
Sure. Grant admin stuff is fine.
Vic said
Dear WrieEdit, do we have any idea on whether all the recent changes are going to affect NCEs? Since the budget and institutes are tentatively set to be overhauled, will this affect any 2nd NCE request going in now?
writedit said
The NIH is still issuing awards, so I assume NCEs will go through, too, unless there is a DEI component. This is all in a state of flux, obviously, but keep doing whatever you are doing.
Achilles said
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-068.html
This cut in IDC rate is going to be pretty devastating for research.
writedit said
After a few hours of elevated cortisol levels, I read everything again without panic and slept well. Here is my take. The DOGE tech teens used generative AI to create “NIH” Notice and post it in the Guide to Grants and Contracts (only item listed since Jan 22 due to executive ban on public communications). The NIH does not have the authority to change F&A rates unilaterally, but the tech teens didn’t realize this. This should be readily addressed in court.
The NIH would never prepare a Notice like that. Read it with a detached eye – it’s crazy. Start with the title. “2024 NIH Grants Policy Statement”? 2024?? (everything is FY) The official term is F&A, not indirect. The “study” reads like a hallucination, naming institutions but no “study” details or methodology (& no citation). The table has no place in a Notice like that. The public law and footnote citations are all bizarre (their inclusion & choices). The actual median F&A rate is ~52%, not 27% (taken by AI out of context from budget table). I could go on, but if you read it with a fresh perspective, dozens of problems will jump out at you.
For comparison, here is one of only 3 Notices (issued with CDC & FDA, since they are affected, too) in the entire NIH Guide that addresses F&A costs: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-09-038.html
Also, SCOTUS dumped the Chevron deference that allowed Executive agencies to implement rules according to expert interpretation of laws passed by Congress, so that potential loophole, though it doesn’t really exist in this case, is also gone.
Now, Project 2025 still wants to take down the US research university system, and Congress could and probably will tweak F&A rate calculations, so there is still lots to be done to ensure every GOP & Democratic member of Congress (House & Senate) understands that their constituents will be directly or indirectly affected by any attempt to drop F&A rates so drastically.
Just a reminder that FASEB has great resources: https://www.faseb.org/science-policy-and-advocacy
PI2025 said
Hopefully there would not be too much cut! Too much frustration and stress already!
writedit said
Another tool to help you communicate to your Congressional delegation how important your research specifically as well as your institution broadly is to both personal health and local-regional economy. The 5 Calls app will get the phone numbers for your Congressperson and Senators, make the calls, and has scripts for you to use, if you don’t feel comfortable coming up with your own talking points.
https://5calls.org
atomic9244b97cf7 said
A junior colleague is thinking of applying for a K01 as requested my advice—I am not sure what to tell her. I assume this new directive on DEI applications will affect K01s as well?
writedit said
As R01Applicant notes below, ASSIST/grants.gov is probably screening applications for specific terms to be flagged for additional review. As long as nothing in her application specifically focuses on DEI themes, which seems unlikely in a K01, she should be fine. However, if she can skip this cycle and submit in June, she might want to wait out the chaos. The FY25 budget needs to be passed by March 14 (or CR extended), and the debt ceiling is coming up, so Congress will need to step in the fray soon, and the courts will have sorted out what they can compel the administration to do in line with the Constitution and laws passed by Congress.
atomic9244b97cf7 said
Thank you
R01Applicant said
Dear WriteEdit,
Is there any restriction being implemented in practice on NIH grant submissions using certain words, as is being done for NSF? My colleagues have had few grants submitted, and all but the ones using the term ‘female’ anywhere in the text have moved forward to IC assignment. The others only show ‘entered into system’, although everything else is similar in terms of timeline of submission. We are just worried, but don’t know who to ask.
writedit said
I assume ASSIST/grants.gov has a screening mechanism in place, similar to existing automated NOFO and policy compliance checks, to put a hold on applications that include specific terms of concern until they can be reviewed for compliance with current Executive Orders. If any of the applications are found to substantively violate the embargo on DEI activities, I assume they will be administratively withdrawn. If they are flagging applications that use the term “female”, this could take quite a while, given that applications involving either animal or human research would need to use “female” in their Approach and/or research subjects protection sections (plus literature cited – not sure how far they might be going with the checks). The new scrutiny will delay but should not prevent assignment for applications that do not raise concerns after further evaluation.
R01Applicant said
Thank you WriteEdit, that was also our concern. The ‘female’ term is used solely to address the sex as a biological variable in the grants. In fact. most applications explicitly mention using ‘equal numbers of male and female subjects’. There is no DEI component at all. Hopefully, there will be some human oversight beyond just AI flagging any and all applications using these terms.
writedit said
If there were no additional human oversight, they would just be administratively withdrawn, as with other applications that do not conform to NIH policy or NOFO restrictions. There will be thousands of applications queued up for further review – while delay of funding is a strategic tactic for this administration, I suspect they were simply ignorant of how many biomedical research applications would be flagged for using the term “female”.
R01Applicant said
Now some woebegone human(s) will have to sift through thousands of applications to figure out (hopefully correctly) which applications fall where. Government efficiency, indeed.
ABD+concerned said
Looking for any insight on parent F31 awards in this climate. I applied to PA-23-272 for my 01A1 application in April 2024. Scored in July within the fundable range (mine is sub-5th percentile). Council met in December, and my application moved into “pending” on 12/17/24. I’ve been leery to reach out to my GMS or PO, but decided to anyways and haven’t heard back in over a week. I can appreciate that they are likely swamped and maybe even unsure of what to do. Any chance there is some insight on what will happen or how long this can be drawn out?
ABD+concerned said
I should note this is for the NCI
writedit said
During the injunction, the NIH can make awards again, NCI should get to your application eventually. I don’t know if they have any inkling of timeframe to share, which can change day to day, depending on the court situation, which is probably why they haven’t responded (they are allowed to respond to administrative questions about specific applications-awards though). I would sit tight and hope that your application gets to the front of the queue soon. In some ways, I might almost expect applications with restricted F&A costs (eg, Fs, Ts, Ks, etc.) to be processed first, so GMOs don’t have to keep reworking NOAs while various challenges and legislative mandates (waiting for FY25 and FY26 bills) are in flux, but I have no idea how they are actually prioritizing application processing efforts.
Anxious-ESI said
Hi Writedit, I have an R01-A1 that scored just outside the interim payline for FY25 (cycle 1 application, reviewed in June 24 and council meeting in September 2024). My current grant support ends in the next three months. Given the current funding situation, I’m almost certain select pay is not possible, but would it still be worth reaching out to my PO about potential options? Thanks.
writedit said
I would suggest you wait until the reconciliation bill moves forward, and we know what FY25 holds for the NIH. Right now, the House and Senate are still at odds about how to handle reconciliation. However, it seems likely the NIH budget will be cut – to what extent is unknown. The House bill calls for $2T in cuts. Something needs to happen by March 14, though it could be another temporary CR. If the NIH appropriation is deeply cut, ICs will need to first cover obligations to multiyear awards before making additional new awards, at which point select pay is unlikely. If you didn’t submit a new application in February, you should certainly plan on that for June, though I suspect your institution may be unable to carry space for unfunded investigators in the face of cuts to their F&A costs (severity of which is currently unclear, but there will be a change).
Anxious-ESI said
Thanks. I did submit a new A0 but I don’t see the SS (scheduled for later this month) on federal register. So I am worried it wont be reviewed this cycle, another reason why I wanted to reach out my PO for guidance.
writedit said
Your SRG meeting probably would have been submitted on or before January 17, depending on the actual meeting date, but I see SRG meetings into March already in the Federal Register. If you have searched past issues for your SRG and see the prior meeting listed but not the one coming up, you could check with the SRO as to the status of the meeting. If there is a problem, though, it will be rescheduled (ie, your application will be reviewed). This happens whenever the federal government shuts down during a budget impasse, and the NIH reschedules all missed meetings, as they will do for SRG and Council meetings that have already been canceled. Challenging and inconvenient but not impossible.
Anxious-ESI said
Thanks again. I will wait and see how this plays out. I also have secondary IC-NICHD assigned, which has funded similar work in the past. My score (30 and 19th percentile) might be competitive for NICHD. Was wondering if I should check with a potential NICHD PO to see if they would be interested in it picking up? If so, what might be the best approach? Just email and ask directly or ask my current PO on how to proceed?
writedit said
You would still need to wait. Your current PO and IC would need to agree to relinquish the application, which they won’t do until after their appropriation is clear and they are sure they won’t be able to fund it (which won’t happen until at least 8 weeks after President signs FY25 reconciliation bill into law). More importantly, in a normal year, a secondary IC almost never picks up a secondary application (NIGMS does not accept/keep secondary assignments to avoid raising false hopes), and your score and percentile are pretty high for NICHD in any case. I would not recommend pursuing even once the budget situation is more clear since secondary assignments will not be a priority during a tumultuous period of slash and burn.
R01Applicant said
Dear WriteEdit,
Is it normal for grants submitted for the Feb 5th cycle not to be assigned to an IC yet? As I mentioned in an earlier post, all but one grant have been assigned to ICs. At this point, we do not know what is causing this hold-up, since everything else is similar for the grants except for use of some term.
If for any reason the grant does not proceed to review, will the PIs be notified? Right now there is no information except the grant being grouped under ‘applications not assigned’, which includes previous grants that were rejected and resubmitted.
writedit said
Not normal, but you haven’t had the application returned (administratively withdrawn) either – you will receive notification if that happens, and you would be able to submit again if so (after addressing whatever led to withdrawal). The delay could be on the IC end in terms of accepting the application. If you were working with a PO before you submitted, you could check to be sure they will accept the application (PO should be able to answer that type of question – but probably not why the delay).
R01Applicant said
Dear WriteEdit,
Thank you, I am quite worried about this grant now. I was not in touch with any PO before, but this grant was submitted and reviewed (not discussed) in the last round. The reviewer scores differed enormously, R1 had all 1’s and 2’s, while R2 had a review that was mind boggling to say the least. We submitted it as a new application, so I do not understand any administrative reason why the IC may not accept it. The research also falls in the scope of more than one IC, which we suggested in the PHS assignment form. Just very worried now, but not sure who to ask.
writedit said
I would have recommended you communicate with the PO listed on the summary statement about that review (even though there was no discussion) and strategies for your resubmission (as a new A0, I assume, per your Feb 5 date – which is what I would have recommended). You can still contact that PO about whether there is an issue with their IC accepting your resubmission. If you requested a different IC than was the primary IC on the summary statement, that could be causing some delay as CSR figures out who should be primary. In the future, please be sure to work in advance of submission with a PO at the IC where you would like your work to be funded. Having an advocate with whom you have a relationship on the receiving end is more important than ever.
R01Applicant said
Dear WriteEdit,
Thank you for the helpful advice. We requested the same IC, but a different study section. I see that for other grants, the Director of the division of extramural activities (DEA) in the IC is listed as the PO in eRA commons, until a PO is finally assigned. Would it be advisable to contact the DEA director after a week or so, if the application still does not get assigned? Or better to contact the PO for the previous submission, even though this is a new A0? Sorry for so many questions.
writedit said
I would start with the prior PO, but just to ask whether their IC will (or did) accept the application. The PO will not be able to tell you when the assignment might be made – neither will the IC extramural director, since assignment comes from CSR (no one for you to contact there). It could be they are waiting for the SRG assignment to be worked out before acting on the application. You will be told what happens either way, and there is nothing else you can do in the interim but wait for this to sort out. The assignment delay won’t affect its being reviewed this cycle (think how long reviewers have to submit applications after the standard due dates).
R01Applicant said
Dear WriteEdit,
I know NIH does not allow submission of the same science as 2 applications at the same time. Since the prior A0 was ND, I submitted it as a new A0. The council meeting for the previous review supposed to be in Jan end, but I have no way of knowing if this council meeting actually happened. Does Council meeting have any relevance for ND applications? Do you think this might be a possible reason why no action has been taken on the new A0 yet? Since an overlap is seen, and the old A0 is still pending council review (even though it was not discussed)?
writedit said
Applications are not considered duplicative once the summary statement for the first application is issued, so your second A0 is not an issue in that regard, and Council does not consider ND applications (only the ones on the potential paylist sent by the IC Director). Your prior ND A0 isn’t affecting the assignment of the new A0 – unless the ND A0 included the code NRFC (not recommended for further consideration), in which case they could be checking for similarity to avoid assignment of an NRFC application. However, this is extremely rare. (and, if Council was scheduled after January 17, it will be rescheduled – but, again, irrelevant to your prior ND A0 or current A0 in limbo)
R01Applicant said
Dear WriteEdit,
Thank you, there is an email address listed on the CSR website, for ‘submission and assignment questions’. Would it be advisable to email this csrdrr email address if the application does not get assigned in a week or so? All other applications have gone on to IC/PO and SRG assignment, but this one is still just ‘submission complete’, with no status updates at all after the submission date. Sorry for so many questions, but given the current environment we are just very worried and don’t know who to contact.
writedit said
Yes, that would be the right point of contact. I see that CSR indicates referral can take up to 3 weeks, so you might wait another week before reaching out. You could also try the eRA Commons help desk, in case there is a non-referral issue involved, but I suspect the chaos at the NIH (and perhaps sudden loss of CSR staff) is responsible.
Abraham said
Dear writedit,
Recently I saw the list of reviewers of the study section that will review my application. I found a reviewer who is very likely to review my application. I did not know him, and he did not know me either. However, when I visited his website, I saw that he listed the names of some collaborators on his website. One of his collaborators is a Co-investigator in my application. I am wondering whether he is still eligible to review my application.
Thank you!
writedit said
It would be up to the reviewer to recuse himself – that is not your responsibility. If he was assigned to your application, he would have seen and recognized your co-investigator among the key personnel and could check with the SRO if he had any questions about the relationship and whether it was a conflict (the SRO might have noticed the connection, too, and not assigned him or asked about it before making an assignment).
non-compete NOA timing said
I am writing regarding a non-competing award. Prior to this R01 being competitively renewed, I had submitted a final RPPR. Once renewed the final RPPR was lost and a link to an interim RPPR was in its place, which I was unaware of. The non-compete should have been awarded Feb 1. When it wasn’t I reached out the PO and he indicated that my iRPPR was not completed and that I should do that and then they would release the new NOA. I indicated that I filled out the final RPPR and that this should suffice. Ultimately they located the final RPPR and put it in place for the iRPPR, so administratively it is fine and will be funded. However, the GMO indicated that it will not go through until the indirect% issues is resolved. Any idea on the timing of this at all?
writedit said
I wasn’t aware that the NIH was holding up awards pending resolution of the F&A cost change by DOGE (not the NIH itself), which has been put on hold through multiple lawsuits. I see 2 awards in RePORTER since Feb 7 (many awards since Feb 1). One is a new R35 with normal indirects >15%) issued on Feb 8. The other is an F32 (no indirects, which is normal). There are no awards yet since the court rulings at the beginning of the week due to the normal 7-10-day delay in RePORTER being updated, so you could check next week to confirm whether your application is unique in terms of being held up since Feb 7 and check with your PO about what is going on if you see other awards but haven’t heard about yours.
lasha said
Hello Writedit and community, I was told that the PAR-23-122 is no longer accepting applications and was advised to work toward a parent R01 submission (on Jan 31st, NOFO and description on NIGMS website both showed as “page not found”). However, when I checked today, NIH ASSIST is allowing me to start a new application for Opportunity Number: PAR-25-117 (reissue of NOFO in November). What does this mean? Did I miss a chance to submit on Feb 5th? Is this also happening to other NOFOs with a diversity component? If so, do you recommend pursuing these regardless of the continued uncertainty? I would appreciate your insight
writedit said
I would recommend ignoring those NOFOs (with diversity component) and pursue the parent announcement or other appropriate non-diversity NOFOs. The NIH cannot fund any applications submitted to diversity-related NOFOs. You would be submitting a futile application, so you want to be sure your efforts are directed at an opportunity with the potential for an award.
lasha said
I thought so too. Thanks for reinforcing that, Writedit!
hopeful investigator said
I have been waiting for my NOA for a new R01 for Feb 1 start date. I was told by my GMS that everything is marked as complete in their system and I should receive it soon. What happens at this stage? It still shows as pending in ERA commons. Thanks for your insight.
writedit said
It could be a while. On Friday, DOGE and RFK fired ~1500 employees at the NIH, including some IC Directors, with the rest considered at risk for being removed on Tuesday. The IC Director must sign off on every NIH award issued. Last Wednesday, Mike Lauer issued a memo instructing ICs to begin issuing awards again but then was forced to abruptly retire on Thursday to avoid being fired. If the Director at your IC was/will be fired, your application could be pending until a new Director can be appointed and review all applications processed for awards to see if they deserve the new administration’s approval. And then there are the lawsuits about the attempt to go around Congress and change the F&A cost calculation, which the administration could use as an excuse to delay making awards.
FASEB Legislative Action Center: https://www.faseb.org/partnerships-and-outreach/legislative-action-center
5 Calls: 5 Calls
SaturnV said
Hello Writedit community, I received my impact score of K application with NIA, which is a borderline score based on NIA payline in 2024. Do you know when NIA will post their payline for 2025? Is it going to be vastly different from 2024?
writedit said
I would not expect any sort of payline news for months (I am just hoping we will get to see paylines again period). ICs need to wait for the FY25 federal budget to be signed into law before they will know their final appropriation. At this point, I don’t expect the reconciliation bill to overhaul the structure of the NIH (ie, which ICs still exist), but I guess it’s not impossible. The NIH structure will be important to watch in the FY26 appropriation bill – and NIH authorization bill, if one is written.
I want to add that I was mainly referring to any sign of normalcy in my parenthetical comment about paylines, but we do need to wait for the reconciliation bill, the FY26 appropriation, court actions, and HHS actions before being able to anticipate what happens next with the way in which the NIH is organized and funds research. Absolutely hoping that behind-the-scenes discussion and negotiation as Congress recognizes the consequences can prevent catastrophic change.
suppquestions said
Hi writedit and community, I have a question about administrative equipment supplements (NIGMS specifically). It seems like a near impossibility to find specific formatting instructions (page limits, etc). The NOSI forwards you to the master table of page limits, which doesn’t specifically address supplements. Any guidance?
writedit said
You need to use the Administrative Supplement NOFO, PA -20-272. I would recommend communicating with your program officer first – in general for any supplement but especially in this case, because the NIGMS equipment supplement NOSI expired last year and has not been reissued that I can see.
Zhuoli Zhang said
Dear Writedit, I have a question:
recently, I submitted R01 which was assigned to Radiation Therapeutics and Biology (RTB) study section. But my application is nothing with Radiation therapy. I want to shift it to another study section. Who should I contact with at NIH?
Mika
writedit said
You want to contact the Chief of the Review Branch in which RTB sits, with is Cancer Therapeutics. If you requested a different branch, you will want to note this and explain to Dr. Rahman Sesay (Chief) why your application should be assigned to your requested SRG. If you did not request any SRG, then I would suggest you first identify the best SRG using the CSR Assisted Referral Tool and then contact Dr. Rahman Sesay about moving your application to the more appropriate panel – again, giving objective rationale for the request.
NIGMS-R15 said
Dear Writedit,
I submitted an NIGMS R15 application in June 2024 and received an impact score of 13. The current status still shows “Council Review Pending.” I would appreciate any insights you could share regarding the funding likelihood and timeline, especially in light of recent changes at NIH. Thank you very much for your time and guidance.
writedit said
If you want to have an idea as to when Council and SRG meetings will be rescheduled, please monitor when the NIH will be allowed to submit meeting announcements to the Federal Register again – this is why meetings are being cancelled and why cancelled meetings have not been rescheduled (they have been, but the NIH cannot publicly announce them, which it is required to do).
Hopefully larger media outlets will pick up on this, but this bureaucratic blockage is a quiet way for OMB to get around the court order against the federal funding freeze to stop the NIH from making awards.
https://www.thetransmitter.org/funding/federal-register-hold-makes-end-run-around-court-pause-on-nih-funding-freeze/
SaG said
NIGMS Council in Feb. was cancelled. You have to wait for it to be rescheduled before they can consider funding your R15 app.
R00_questionmark? said
Hello all… I am an ESI and my 2nd yr of R00 just finished. We submitted the progress report on time and there was nothing (as far as I could tell) that signaled that we deviated significantly from the proposed experiments. There were a couple of emails from the GMS asking us to justify my efforts, which were answered satisfactorily.
Now of course, this was mid-January. But I have not heard anything since then. Is there a point in reaching out to the GMS (is that the correct person anyway?) or should I just wait to hear? Fwiw, Yr2 of R00 ended on Jan 31st.
writedit said
The NIH is making competing and noncompeting awards, so I suspect they are just incredibly backed up with the freezes and ongoing chaos (and fired employees). The GMS is no doubt frantically busy, so you might spare them and check with your PO to be sure nothing else needs to be addressed, though I am pretty sure you would have heard before now if they had any other questions. Assuming there are no DEI components to your work, I think you would be okay to sit tight and wait for your IC to catch up on their backlog of awards.
fullengineer83b4fdd823 said
Thank you so much! Yes, I agree about GMS being frantically busy. So, i have avoided reaching out to them so far. But I will reach out to the PO just to make sure that there isn’t anything else that I need to do.
New investigator said
Hi Writedit,
I heard that the study sections that are not published in the Federal Register will be cancelled, and the meeting is usually cancelled one day before they meet. Is it correct? Do you know how to check if the study section is published or not in the Federal Register? My proposal’s study section will meet tomorrow, but now I am nervous that it will be cancelled, though I haven’t heard it from the SRO. The eRA still says the meeting is for tomorrow. any thoughts? Thanks!
Not_sure_what_is_going_on_at_NIH said
One study section that I am supposed to participate as a reviewer tomorrow just got cancelled. Another study section that is supposed to review my R01 proposal tomorrow also just got cancelled. So, I assume many other study sections will be cancelled. Send an email to your SRO directly, he/she will let you know.
writedit said
You can search the Federal Register for the full name of your study section. CSR and ICs post lists of future meetings each week. If yours got in before the communication ban in January, your panel should meet as scheduled. If not, the meeting will need to be rescheduled – it will not be permanently canceled, and all reviews will be kept until the SRG can meet to discuss.
lacquerhed said
Im guessing this is at least partially responsible for the delays in IC and study section assignments for Feb cycle applications. I guess now indefinite delays in this regard.
writedit said
Well, not the ICs – CSR just needs a PO to agree to accept the application (confirm it is within their mission). And not the SRGs, since most study sections are standing, special emphasis panels can be assigned in advance of knowing membership, and the assignment doesn’t need to have the correct/final date of the meeting (easily updated – ditto for Council meetings). The delays are for applications already submitted and reviewed that are waiting for discussion and scoring (SRG) and approval to be considered for funding (Council).
JL said
NCI R01 8% for established PI…. I just got the score yesterday. Is it within funding range? I totally understand significant delay…
writedit said
No way to predict, but if the NIH continues to operate roughly as usual, that should be within funding range. Even in the bizarre House HHS-Labor-Education appropriations bill for FY25, NCI was left alone and given $7.8B (otherwise, only NIGMS and NIMH kept their names). No idea what will happen for FY26.
Henry said
Dear Writedit, do we know if NHLBI’s budget for FY25 got affected in the House HHS appropriations bill?
writedit said
Right now, we only have a House budget resolution that spans a decade but currently includes no dollar amounts for any FY. The Senate bill includes dollar amounts for each FY through 2034 and for each functional category but not by individual agencies. It will be a while before we have an inkling about FY25 appropriations, but given the cost-cutting priority, you can probably assume it will be less than FY24.
Abraham said
HI, JL,
When was your study section? My proposal should be reviewed on Feb 13-14. However, I did not find results in Era today.
writedit said
Sometimes there are delays in posting scores. You can search the Federal Register to confirm whether the meeting announcement for your SRG was published before the communications ban. It looks like several panels meeting Feb 13-14 were announced on January 15th.
JL said
ATA
JL said
Feb 13-14
herrroaa_ESI said
Dear All,
I submitted an R01 (A0) in this Feb cycle and I filled out the PHS Assignment Request Form requesting that the grant be assigned to a specific study section. The proposal requires robust reviewers’ expertise in genetics and I selected this specific study section so that my proposal receives a fair evaluation . I noticed that is was assigned to a different study section that lack these expertise.
What is the best approach to request re-assigning my application?
N.B. the two study sections are within to different review branch.
Thanks in advance for your help!
writedit said
You want to write to the Review Branch Chief where your desired SRG sits and copy the Review Branch Chief where your application was assigned and provide objective rationale for your request to move the application to your desired study section (based on reviewer expertise) in their Branch. For example, cite CSR study section description details in relation to your aims, your publications that confirm the type of reviewer who would be best (ie, reviewers publishing in the same sort of journals), and any other objective rationale for your request. With all the chaos going on, it could be a simple mistake vs intentional redirection of your application.
herrroaa_ESI said
Thanks a lot for your input.
Rob Bronstein said
Not sure how long this will take, currently stuck at “Application ID Not Yet Assigned”, though I had a PO and study section indicated in the packet. This is for Feb 12th NIDDK K01 submission, though Im sure likely delays stem from the current mayhem.
writedit said
In normal times, referral can take up to 3 weeks. With all the firings and other chaos, no one should be surprised by delays in assignment.
JL said
Dear Writedit,
Do you have any idea when the cancelled study section review will be resumed? I have submitted two proposals last cycle. One got reviewed, but the other one (supposed to be held on Feb 20/21)was cancelled (found out from study section website). Any wild idea? One more thing, what will happen to the proposals submitted in Feb/March cycle?
Appreciate your answers always
Thanks
writedit said
SROs can and will still identify and assign reviewers for applications being submitted currently. Study section meetings should be back on track by the time these applications are reviewed.
We are currently waiting for the Administration to restore NIH access to post notices of meetings (study section, Council) in the Federal Register. I saw one rumor this might happen soon for CSR – not happening so far today, though. I am not sure if the notices will still only need to give 15 days notice or, as some suggested, 35 days notice before a meeting can be held. You can assume that as soon as study sections and Councils can submit their meeting notices to the Federal Register, they will be rescheduled pronto. I would expect all to be either virtual or asynchronous, depending on if the SRO can find enough reviewers to meet together online for the selected dates (if not, probably asynchronous, which allows a multi-day window for bulletin board-type exchanges among reviewers at their convenience). You should assume at least a month lag time once the Federal Register ban is lifted, more if the 35-day advance notice is required.
SaG said
You can check here for new FRNs at NIH. https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/national-institutes-of-health#documents
writedit said
Thanks, SaG! Since there will probably be a massive dump once meeting announcements are accepted, folks can also add their SRG title to the search bar at the link SaG shared … or just wait until your eRA account posts the updated meeting date. Once NIH can resume Federal Register submissions, it is only a matter of when – not if – your study section is rescheduled.
JL said
Thanks! Speaking of rumors, I was told that R01 renewal proposals will be discouraged in this new era.
Hard to believe..Is it one of the rumors you know?
writedit said
I have not heard that particular rumor, but it sounds like the sort of “reform” that Bhattacharya would want. I was never happy about R01s that lasted decades, but renewals are no longer the slam dunk they used to be. On the other hand, the budget limitation on renewals means some PIs currently choose to submit as Type 1 rather than Type 2 anyway. Now, I would not be surprised about reforms to shorten award periods, especially limiting R01s uniformly to 4 years (per existing Congressional mandate for average length of RPGs), which might make it even harder for renewals.
confused researcher said
No new postings in federal register from NIH so far! Any new information?
SaG said
They are coming (from CSR at least). Takes time to get them published. Maybe by next week.
Anxious-ESI said
Have seen something on bluesky that says the postings will be delayed by another two weeks (will be allowed only after Bhattacharya gets confirmed).
Studysectionstudysection said
Received email from SRO, and we set up new dates for review meeting in April.
R01applicant said
Can new applications be assigned to an IC without being assigned to a specific study section? Or does the IC assignment (and assignment of a grant number) also have to wait until the application can be assigned to a study section? We are noticing that applications with requested study sections that have already met have been assigned, but a few applications which had requested study sections that have not met for this round (been canceled) are still pending assignment to an IC/SRG.
writedit said
The IC assignment comes first – CSR needs to know an IC will accept an application before the application can be referred for review (if no IC wants the application, it will be administratively withdrawn). Applications being submitted now won’t be reviewed until summer 2025, so it doesn’t matter about the current cycle of SRG meetings. SROs are figuring out how to reschedule the missed Jan-Feb-March meetings without having the two cycles of meetings for the same SRG on top of each other. But again – the need to reschedule SRG meetings for third cycle FY25 applications from last fall will not affect the assignment of first cycle FY26 applications.
Nervous K99 Borderline said
Dear Writedit,
First of all, thank you so much for this website. I have gained a wealth of information from this community. Before anything else, I would like to take this time to sincerely thank you.
I applied for the K99/R00 under NIDDK in the October 2024 cycle and am currently awaiting the results. My study section took place from February 25–27, 2025, and I am trying to figure out the payline for the K99/R00 under NIDDK. I understand that paylines fluctuate yearly, but based on your expertise and insights from this community, what is generally considered the borderline payline? Unfortunately, I have been unable to find specific payline information for the K99/R00 under NIDDK.
The urgency of my inquiry comes from the fact that I have recently received an offer from the pharmaceutical industry. They have requested my decision by next Tuesday. Given this timeline, I am trying to assess the payline for the K99/R00 under NIDDK, as the impact score will be released next week, to determine whether it is reasonable to accept/decline the offer based on the likelihood of my K99/R00 being funded. Waiting for the summary statement may take too long for me to make an informed decision.
Would you recommend reaching out to the Program Officer for guidance? What would you suggest in this situation? I truly appreciate any advice you can offer. If the community can share their insights on typical payline for K99/R00 NIDDK that would also be great.
Thank you everyone in advance.
Sincerely,
Nervous K99/R00 NIDDK applicant.
writedit said
You don’t mention your score, but it would definitely need to be below 30, with low 20s being more likely. You can search this page and the archives for K99 scores – I think others have posted their scores and timelines from NIDDK in the past. However, this is not a normal year, and I have no idea what FY26 holds – neither will your PO. We won’t know until later this year, hopefully an inkling by late summer at least, but well after your deadline. Given the chaos and uncertainty at HHS and the NIH, if the pharmaceutical job is of interest to you – something you would enjoy and learn from – I might suggest you accept the job and weather the current administration’s attack on the US university system and federal funding for research there. You would always have the option of moving back into academia if/when elections lead to restored normalcy, and you might even have a leg up from your industry experience. While I certainly hope the current system of soliciting, reviewing, and funding applications – one of the most robust scientific funding frameworks in the world – continues even if at a much-reduced level (and likely with changes to NIH ICs/structure), I recognize that a completely different award paradigm, such as block grants, could also come into play, diminishing the role of scientific merit review. Now, the PO might be willing to offer their sincere advice on this level (not about your score but a federally funded academic vs industry career over the next 4 years), and if you have a good relationship with your advisor and other mentors, they should be willing to give their honest input as well.
Nervous K99 Borderline said
Hello, and thank you for your reply and detailed guidance.
Still pending impact score… Hope they update soon… it has been already 3 days post study section…
laghs said
Are you sure your meeting really happened? All CSR meetings in that date range got canceled. I believed all non-CSR meetings were canceled as well.
https://www.csr.nih.gov/RevPanelsAndDates/RevDates.aspx
Nervous K99 Borderline said
Hello, and thank you for your comment.
My study section was Scientific Review Group: DDK-D and was scheduled for 2/25/25 ~ 2/27/25 and didn’t receive any email about being cancelled… Was it cancelled? Oh, hope not…
writedit said
You won’t receive an email about cancelled SRG meetings. You can check with the SRO. If it was cancelled, which I suspect is the case, you will need to wait longer for it to be rescheduled since NIDDK and the other ICs cannot post their meetings to the Federal Register – just CSR.
ESI-R01 said
Hi Writedit, Given that there is some talk of another CR through September 30th at the same funding level, does it mean the paylines will remain at the 2024 level? I do understand there is no certainty over anything but do you have any predictions for FY25 applications?
writedit said
We will know for sure next week, but the current plan is to continue current spending levels through the end of FY25. This should result in lower paylines than in FY24 because ICs will have less $$ for competing awards after they have covered all noncompeting awards – but I guess it depends on how much money is now available due to canceled programs and layoffs (probably uneven among ICs), since ICs need to spend their entire FY25 appropriation by September 30th.
Suzieella said
I have an application scheduled to be reviwed on 2/19. Apparently the study section got cancelled (although I never received an email about the cancellation). Today I found out on era commons that the study section was rescheduled on 4/22, and the previously published meeting rosters disappeared.
writedit said
The roster may change depending on whether the SRO tries to arrange a virtual synchronous meeting (probably a subset of original roster) or uses the asynchronous electronic discussion option (should be able to accommodate entire roster over a multi-way period of exchanges).
cfranckl said
Are NCEs actually being approved? It was claimed that this functionality was going to be returned to Commons, but we are not seeing yet.
writedit said
Hmm – I thought that option had been reactivated in February. You could try asking your GMO, in case there is a specific reason your “Request extension” button isn’t active.
ben said
My NCE submitted in early January got approved in February.
Nervous ESI said
Hi Writedit,
I had an ESI MIRA application reviewed in the first week of February, scored in the payable range, but have not received a summary statement. I assume my SRO is still employed at NIH (still on the website). How long should I wait to inquire about the summary statement?
Thanks!
writedit said
In normal times, summary statements can take up to 6-8 weeks, so I would recommend waiting until early April if it’s still crickets.
wondrouse53bf39ef5 said
hi writedit,
Would you recommend removing health disparities research as a training goal for a career development resubmission this month? My PO indicated that it shouldn’t be an issue since the proposed research doesn’t conflict with recent executive orders, which aligns with reviewers noting that this training goal wasn’t well integrated into the research plan. However, I’m concerned that keyword searches or detailed reviews might flag any mention of health disparities. At the same time, the PO advised against making substantial changes that weren’t identified as weaknesses in the summary statement. Do you have any advice on how to navigate this?
SaG said
Be cautious how you call out specific disparities. That is if you want to focus on Gender Minority health disparities you will not be funded. Same with health equity as a goal.
writedit said
As long as you stay focused on the biology of the disparity (the disease, any genetic involvement, etc.) vs the social-cultural-structural-economic factors, you should be safe. However, I am not sure I understand – if health disparities is not part of the research, why would you need training related to it?
You can get an idea of how things look from inside the NIH in today’s piece in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00703-1
lacquerhed said
My 02/12 NIDDK K01 app was recently assigned to DDK-D study section with a date of 05/14, wondering if this is legit or just a filler given no notice in federal register? Thanks!
writedit said
Date should be okay – they only need to give 15 days notice (though I had heard this might go up to 30 days), so they probably want to get all the April dates up first. Fingers crossed that your application does well this round since the DDK-D panel will change thereafter, though maybe CSR can just maintain the prior IC-specific structure under their (CSR) management structure. Not sure how that will work. And, maybe that change will happen before May, which could also explain the lack of a Federal Register notice.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-centralizes-peer-review-improve-efficiency-strengthen-integrity
lacquerhed said
Thanks for the info! My SRO said at this point the date is a placeholder and he did not have any other info to provide, which given the uncertainty is understandable.
lacquerhed said
Thanks for the info! My SRO said at this point the date is a placeholder and he did not have any other info to provide, which given the uncertainty is understandable.
Applicant said
Dear Writedit,
We have a 2nd NCE request pending for a grant that ends on 03/31/25. Given the possibility of a shutdown, we are quite worried. Typically by when is the decision on the 2nd NCE made? Does it have to be before the grant ends? What happens if there is a shutdown, and no decision about the NCE is made before the grant ends? Does that automatically mean that the NCE is declined, or can the NCE be approved after the end-date of the grant?
writedit said
No shutdown, so hopefully you will hear about your NCE soon. Applications are not immediately withdrawn from the system upon concluding, but I am not familiar with how this would be handled. Your PO should be able to answer this type of query for your application.
Dy said
Hi
My K99/R00 application received a fundable score and then was pending council meeting (NHLBI) on February 4th to be discussed. The meeting was canceled!
I could not find in the Federal Register anything posted for this council meeting.
Is there any news that the meeting will be rescheduled? Any information as what is going to be happeneing?
Thanks!
writedit said
NHLBI has posted study section meetings but not the rescheduled Council meeting. If your eRA status has changed to “Council review completed”, then your application was approved via expedited concurrence en bloc in advance of the meeting (and may not need to wait for the rescheduled meeting). If not, then you will need to wait for the next Council meeting. At this point, since Council meets synchronously (ie, difficult to reschedule all those busy members), they might just combine the winter and spring meetings (or at least for grant application discussions), but I do not know how they plan to manage the rescheduled meetings.
PI Newbie said
Hi, I am a first time PI for an NIH phase II SBIR grant. My team has worked on the project for a few years and the project is coming to an end (we’ve gone through no-cost extension and used up the funding). Unfortunately, of the 4 Specific Aims we proposed, we only managed to accomplished 2 and a half, despite our best efforts. The project turned out to be very challenging and we were bogged down by the first 2 aims. I wonder if I would get into trouble for the mediocre results… How would the NIH Program Officer take a failed project and react to the results? Would the PI get into trouble for failing to deliver (viewed poorly for future grant applications or worse, be asked to pay back some of the grant)? What should I do? As you probably can tell, I am not experienced in this and I am worried… Please advise. Thank you!
Biddle said
You’re not going to get in any kind of trouble; these are grants, not contracts. Research is inherently risky and sometimes things aren’t going to work out. This is why government support for research is critical. As long as you spent the grant money legally on appropriate grant-related activity, you should be fine.
writedit said
Biddle is correct – you are definitely not in trouble and will not have to pay anything back. On future applications, you do not need to talk about not meeting aims for a prior award and will not be judged on this, though your ability to secure future funding will depend on the data you did obtain (i.e., are they rigorous & sufficient to support your application premise). Since you are a new investigator, I suspect some of your reviewers may have commented on your project being ambitious (common concern with new investigator applications); either way, this experience should help you understand what is feasible within given grant award length and budget constraints (and what could cause unexpected delays).
R01-Curios said
Hi Writedit,
Any thoughts on how long would it be before the FY25 paylines will be updated? Specifically interested in NINDS, which set a conservative payline of 8% and 16% for NI and ESIs. Do you expect this will go up/down based on potential drop in FY26 budget?
writedit said
Paylines will be lower for FY25 vs FY24. How much lower depends on how ICs handle their appropriations. They won’t receive their appropriation for another 6-8 weeks, so updates won’t come before May.
I have no idea what FY26 will look like beyond knowing it will likely be completely different from prior FYs. The NIH itself could/probably will be reorganized, funding priorities will continue to be realigned, and the method of soliciting and reviewing applications and issuing awards could also be changed. Keep your Congressional delegation on speed dial as details about the future of the NIH emerge.
Gxgg said
Dear Writedit,
I just received the 2nd year NOA for my NIA ADRD R01 — compared to the 1st year’s full budget, I found that they applied a 10% cut in my 2nd year’s budget. Do you know if this is the “default” operation in FY25 for NIA given the ongoing uncertainties? Should I reach out to my PO to figure this out?
Thanks!
SaG said
That is the default cut when NIH is under a continuing resolution. Once they figure out a funding plan (and how much money they have to actually spend) none, some or all of the cut will be restored. Depends on the funding institute and their budget.
65798 said
I have an R34 that was (miraculously) reviewed in February by a SEP and scored 27. It was assigned to the NIA and NCCIH (secondary). We are meeting with the NIA PO soon to discuss. It seems that 27 is above the current NIA payline and from what is written above, this payline may drop even further. I want to reach out to the NCCIH PO to gauge their interest in funding this application. Are things currently on hold since the ICs have not received their FY2025 appropriations? I am thinking of re-submitting in June to try to get a lower score.
writedit said
You should definitely apply again. You need to wait for NIA to relinquish the application before NCCIH can consider it, which will probably not happen before June and more likely in July or August (ICs will not get their final appropriation until May and will need time afterward to sort out their priorities). More importantly, secondary ICs almost never fund applications. Once your NIA PO is positive NIA will not make an award (ie, later this summer), you can ask if they can comment on whether they think NCCIH might consider your application (asking now is a bit odd, especially since you will want NIA to look upon your current and future application positively). Even if NIA relinquishes and NCCIH agrees to consider the current application, yours would be one of the last applications in line at NCCIH, so you would not know the outcome until October 1.
WFE said
Hi Writedit,
One of my RO1 applications (A0) was scored above the payline in September, and the PO asked for responses to the comments. The response was submitted in October. I just saw that it is Pending administrative review. Given that there are no council meetings yet, what does this mean?
Thank you for your help.
writedit said
It means your application received expedited approval/concurrence in advance of the Council meeting (see prior responses for an explanation of electronic approval en bloc in advance of Council meeting) and is approved for consideration for funding … and that your IC is processing your application for an award. The change in status is not a guarantee, but they are actively working on it. If you need to do anything to update your JIT, you should get on that ASAP so there are no delays. Your PO or GMS will reach out with what they need – you can wait to hear from them (they are all super busy – and stressed – right now).
Meghan said
Hi Writedit,
My first R01 received a score that is 2-3 percentile above the payline (not within payline). I included a NOSI in the grant application. I contacted the PO and was told that the payment will be made by the PAs not NOSI. I was wondering if a NOSI is helpful in selective pay above the payline and how helpful it is. Thank you!
writedit said
The NOSI could be helpful if your application is one of several being considered for select pay (of which only a few can receive awards) in that you responded to a designated priority for the IC.
LNS said
Would a Cycle I P01 proposal (NCI) submitted in Jan 2025 be funded within FY25 ending in September 2025? Or under FY26? It is scheduled for review in June 2025. Thank you!
writedit said
Cycle 1 is the first round of awards in FY26. On occasion, ICs will fund Cycle 1 applications in the prior FY if they have $$ left to spend in August or September and want to fund high-priority applications early. My guess is this is much more difficult for a major activity code like P01, which needs to be budgeted well in advance. ICs will have less $$ than they originally planned for FY25, which would make early payment of a P01 even less likely, but since this is anything but a typical year, it would depend on priorities at NCI.
R15-transition said
Dear writedit,
I currently have an active NIGMS R15 project expected to run through 2027. I have recently received a faculty position offer from another university that is not R15-eligible, with a potential start date this Fall.
I’m wondering what would happen to my current R15 award if I accept the new position. Would I lose the entire grant? I do have a co-investigator at my current institution, who also holds an active R15 as a PI.
Should I contact my program officer as soon as possible? I would greatly appreciate any advice on the appropriate next steps if I decide to move forward with the offer.
Thank you very much for your time and guidance.
Best regards,
hdacs said
Not Writedit, but like to share my experience. I had the exact same issue a few years ago: moving to a R15-ineligible institution with an active R15 from NIGMS. The suggestion my PO gave was for my old institution to name a new PI. Yes, I had to give it up to one of my former colleagues. Luckily, the new PI kept me as a collaborator, so I was able to get some sub-award from it after moving to the new school. Hope this helps.
R15-transition said
Thank you very much for sharing experience. It is very helpful.
writedit said
Thank you for sharing your experience, hdacs – this is perfect! The key point to remember is that awards are made to institutions, so you cannot take an R15 to a ineligible institution, but your R15 institution can keep the award if they can appoint a new PI who is qualified to take over the award and project. Now, the problem with your co-investigator is that they cannot be PI on two R15 awards, so it would need to be someone else, but that person could keep you on as key personnel via a subaward, as hdacs was. Your PO will appreciate knowing as soon as you are confident about the move, and you shouldn’t hesitate to reach out sooner if you have any questions.
R15-transition said
Thank you very much for the advices. I will contact my PO asap.
Suziella said
Hi Writedit, it seems that NIH is going to teminate projects with “COVID-19” in the project title. Do you think indeed all projects with COVID in the title will be terminated? Thank you for your insight.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00954-y
writedit said
I cannot say for certain, of course, but I would assume that all applications with COVID in the title or being addressed by the specific aims (even if not mentioned in title) will be terminated – either proactively (soon) or at the time of the non-competing renewal.
Suziella said
Thank you for your insight! Oh my…I have projects on telehealth policy. Although these projects are not focused on COVID at all, this policy was implemented during the COVID pandemic, and it is inevitable to mention COVID in the Specific Aims. I hope the decision makers know what they are looking for.
writedit said
Your application could be flagged, but NIH personnel should be reviewing these to determine if the mention of COVID is incidental or central to the science being pursued.
Rui said
Hi Writedit, I submitted a K01 application to NIA and received a score 2 points above the payline in October. The council meeting originally scheduled for January was canceled, but my application status in eRA Commons still showed “Council meeting completed.”
I reached out to my Program Officer (PO), who informed me that my application is under administrative review. However, due to ongoing budget uncertainties, he could not say for sure whether my application would be funded.
Recently, I noticed that the NIA council meeting has been rescheduled for April. Does this mean my application will need to go through a second discussion at the upcoming council meeting, which might make it less likely being funded? I would appreciate your thoughts.
writedit said
Your application was approved by Council to be considered for funding via an electronic early concurrence action in advance of the meeting. Your application will not be discussed at the April meeting. It is good news that your application is being administratively reviewed (I assume you have already submitted your JIT), but NIA will need to wait for their appropriation to determine if they can make an award. They will have less money in FY25 than they did in FY24 for new awards, but hopefully they will be able to fund your application. Your PO won’t know for sure until May at the earliest – and if your application needs to wait for select pay, then you wouldn’t know until August or September.
Rui said
Thank you for your insightful comment. I did not make it very clear in my initial post, but my score is actually 2 points above the payline, not within it. The PO indicated in a prior email about a month ago that my application may be less likely to be funded during the continuing resolution. So, it would be very surprising to me if they have had an electronic early concurrence action to move forward, though that would certainly be great news. I haven’t received any notification about JIT yet. I’ve been browsing to see if anyone else has had a similar experience, but I understand that this might be unusual given that it’s such an unusual year.
writedit said
I understood that your application is above the payline. NIA sent to Council a long list of every scored application that it might consider for funding for approval in advance of the Council meeting. This is standard operating procedure. Very few applications are discussed at the Council meeting. The long list approved before the actual meeting includes more applications than can receive funding, but this gives the NIA Director the latitude to make select pay awards as the FY draws to a close to ensure the entire appropriation is spent before September 30. Your application was on that list, which is why your status is “Council review completed”. You said your PO indicated that your application is being administratively reviewed, which means the GMS is getting it ready for a possible award. It doesn’t mean you will get an award, but because all ICs will need to make awards very quickly due to the tremendous backlog of applications, they want every possible application ready for a quick turnaround so all awards can be issued before Sept 30. That is, your application will be ready to receive an award before Oct 1 – but this is not guaranteed and will depend on how far the $$ goes. It is especially complicated this FY because ICs will need to skip many applications they normally would have funded due to content that is not in line with the current administration’s priorities and prohibitions.
NB said
I have an R01 grant that received a score in the 3rd percentile. Based on the published payline for NINDS, grants are being funded up to the 8th percentile. However, I am unsure if this payline still applies under the new continuing resolution in March 2025. Is it safe to assume that my grant will be funded? My PO has not responded regarding the next steps. Additionally, should I upload the JIT documents now, or should I wait for the PO to request them? Would the request for JIT documents come before or after the council meeting? Thank you!
writedit said
The interim paylines still apply and should go up a little. You should be good at the third percentile, assuming no issues with being too well funded or topics that no longer reflect agency priorities. If you were just scored, your PO cannot provide guidance until you have your summary statement. If you have any regulatory approvals to secure, definitely work on those now, but otherwise, you can wait for your PO to request JIT (just be sure you can turn it around quickly). JIT could be requested before or after Council, though I suspect this year, ICs will be acting on applications as quickly as possible, and yours will be approved for consideration in advance of the Council meeting (again, assuming no administrative issues or foreign components), which will probably mean JIT requested before the actual meeting.
as said
Hi writedit, my NINDS R01 received 9 percentile and was reviewed in Feb cycle this year. It was a resubmission. Since interim payline is 8, is there any chance for me? Also, when will be the council meeting, in May?
writedit said
I would hope that the payline would increase one percentile at least and put you on more secure ground, but you will likely need to wait until May before paylines will be updated (NINDS will not have their final appropriation until late April or May). NINDS has rescheduled the closed session for April 10, with the full May meeting likely to include material from the canceled winter meeting. Your application would have been approved electronically en bloc in advance of the Council meeting, unless your application has a foreign component or administrative concern, so the timing of the actual meetings is probably not directly relevant.
as said
Thank you
Tianhong Dai said
Dear Writedit,
NIH eRA shows that the Council Meeting for my grant, reviewed on 11/05/2024, has been rescheduled for 05/08/2025. Does this mean NIH is resuming all previous canceled council meetings? Thanks!
writedit said
Yes, Council meetings are resuming. I believe they plan to combine the canceled winter meetings with the spring meetings, though some may have a rescheduled closed session only.
NIHnoob said
Hi Writedit,
I am an ESI and I have two NINDS R01’s scored at 19 and 21%, both for FY25, cycle 1 and 3 respectively. Unfortunately, the interim ESI payline is currently at 16%. I had a chance to review the summary statements, but my PO was unable to provide any information yet because they don’t know what the updated paylines will be. I was wondering if NIH/NINDS will do any R56 or select pay awards this year? Thanks!
writedit said
Unfortunately, ICs won’t have any insight into their paylines until they receive their final appropriation later this month or in May (could be delayed by all the layoffs). Predicting IC priorities is difficult given the unusual circumstances and very uncertain future. I suspect they will focus on awards rather than bridge funding, but it’s impossible to say for sure, obviously. I would hope they would give extra emphasis on ESI and other young investigators with the tough road ahead though. Your PO will probably be in touch when they know anything, but if not, I would wait until June at the earliest to reach out for an update (if you haven’t yet, you could ask whether you should submit again).
Valentino said
Hi Writedit,
Thank you so much for this great resource and for sharing your expertise with us! I recently received an impact score of 30 and 17th percentile for an R01 I submitted last October to NIA (the grant is <$500k direct costs per year). Our grant scored one point above the most recent NIA payline of 16th percentile. We met with the PO a few months ago, and he said because our grant was above the payline it won’t be funded. He also said that NIA does not do R56 for grants above the payline. The status of our grant is currently ‘council review completed.’ Do you think there is any hope that the NIA payline will increase this year? Is there anything else I can do to try to get this funded? We did do a resubmission for this grant that will be reviewed in July. Thank you for any guidance you may have.
writedit said
Sounds like your PO is being fully upfront with you – and he knows to be especially conservative in the face of so much uncertainty. Your application status is “Council review completed) because your application was on the list sent to Council for approval en bloc in advance of the meeting (this allows the IC Director to consider every application on the approved list for an award). Unfortunately, there is nothing else you could do to improve your chances of funding, so I’m glad you have a resubmission about to be reviewed. NIA might find itself needing to reach up farther for awards late in the FY (ie, August), in which case your application would be available for consideration, but this would be a long shot.
lacquerhed said
Hi Writedit,
I applied for an NIDDK K01 for the Feb cycle and requested the DDK-D study section. Initially listed was the ZDK1 SRC (99) study section, which I guess is a special emphasis panel though I cant find any info about it online, then I was switched into my requested study section (DDK-D), however today after a number of weeks at DDK-D with the correct SRO and PO, I was again reassigned back to ZDK1 SRC (99). Wondering if you have any insight on what this might mean? There is no SRO or PO listed currently, just the new study section assignment. Thanks!
Mrms said
I just encountered the same issue. My first k01 submission to NIA was assigned to AGCD after a couple of switches. I thought that my resubmission would go to the same study section (based on my PO), but it was just reassigned to ZDK1 SRC (99).
CHS said
Have seen this happening at NINDS as well. Its possible that this because of NIH’s new plan to centralize the peer review. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-centralizes-peer-review-improve-efficiency-strengthen-integrity
Its possible that your old study sections DDK-D, AGCD are specific to NIDDK and NIA respectively. The plan is to get rid of these institute specific study sections and send them to CSR.
writedit said
CHS is correct in that the individual IC review groups are being centralized at CSR. ZDK1 is the CSR code for NIDDK special emphasis panels (empaneled by CSR – the DDK-D was an NIDDK IC review group, which moved to CSR/ZDK1).
I assume that Mrms research also falls under NIDDK priorities, since it was referred to ZDK1 instead of ZAG1 (the NIA special emphasis panels at CSR). Is the IC assigned NIDDK now?
You can check all special emphasis panels here: https://public.era.nih.gov/pubroster/rosterIndex.era (other tab on this page lists CSR standing SRGs)
lacquerhed said
Thanks for the feedback, seems like this is correct as this morning my eRA indicated that now my application will be reviewed by ZRG1 KUDS-Z (65) though nothing is yet available online in regards to this study section. However a new CSR-based SRO is listed, but no date as of yet.
lacquerhed said
And yes, the assigned IC is NIDDK.
writedit said
The roster for this CSR panel probably won’t be available until ~30 days prior to meeting, but you can keep checking here in case it is sooner – and look at other ZRG1 KUDS panels now for an idea of who might be involved (some of the current lists are the entire SEP roster, available for any assignment for which they are qualified): https://www.csr.nih.gov/RevPanelsAndDates/RevPanels.aspx
ThirdReviewerBlues said
Hi all – This community has been very helpful and friendly! Thank you for all of your input.
I’m looking for advice on next steps for a NIGMS K99/R00 application and whether it makes sense to prepare a rebuttal-style summary for the PO.
Questions:
Thanks in advance for any advice — I really appreciate it!
writedit said
A 27 should be competitive, especially with positive comments and especially since this is your last chance. You only need to be concerned about Reviewer #3 concerns that were written up in the Summary of Discussion. If none of the problematic criticisms were mentioned there, they wouldn’t have been score driving (reviewer didn’t update critiques if misconceptions were corrected during the discussion). You could create and send in advance a few bullets (<1 p) addressing the only the concerns described in the Summary of Discussion to cover with your PO and offer to write a more comprehensive rebuttal (if needed) after you meet.
ThirdReviewerBlues said
Hi Writedit,
Thank you for answering my previous question. I followed your suggestion and sent a draft of my response to the reviewers’ comments to the PO first.
The good news is that the PO sent me a personalized JIT request just one day after the council meeting in late May, asking for a formal submission of the response to reviewer comments and updated Other Support. The PO has been very nice, responsive, and helpful throughout the process.
Most recently (last week), he requested some additional information regarding my Other Support. I am now wondering how long it typically takes to receive a final funding decision after submitting all JIT materials and follow-up documentation.
Thank you again for all your advice!!
writedit said
Grateful that you have such a helpful PO! Typically, you could expect a NoA sometime later in July (not too long after the expected July 1 start date). Currently, it depends on how NIGMS is doing with receiving approvals to issue awards, with most awards delayed due to the extra internal review (long queues). The JIT request is not a guarantee of funding, too. If your PO is feeling positive, then you could probably be hopeful for an award notice by or during August, though awards are made well into September (especially this year).
lasha said
Hi Writedit and Community,
I’m preparing a resubmission for the NIGMS R16 mechanism, due May 28th. My original application (which received a score of 41) was submitted under a previous NOFO, but the current updated NOFO (PAR-24-144) still references the standard five review criteria:
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-24-144.html
I had understood that resubmissions would now be evaluated under the new simplified review framework described here:
https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/peer-review/simplifying-review/framework
Could you clarify whether I should prepare my resubmission according to the simplified review framework or continue using the standard review format?
Also, I had a question regarding the Biosketch format. A recent AAMC webinar mentioned that the NIH has postponed the requirement for the new format. Is it posted somewhere? Should I still use the current/older version for this submission?
I’d greatly appreciate any guidance or clarification from you or the community.
Many thanks.
writedit said
For your biosketch, use the NIH form and format in your NOFO application package. Per NIH guidance, you should not use the new format.
I am not sure why your R16 NOFO was not reissued with the new review format, but the review format does not really affect your application structure (i.e., Research Strategy includes Significance, Innovation, and Approach). The material to assess the Investigator and Environment criteria come from biosketches and Facilities and Other Resources sections, respectively, so you wouldn’t need to change the Research Strategy either way.
I would recommend paying closest attention to the Specific to this NOFO review criteria and take into consideration the criteria described both for Factors 1 and 2 in the new review framework (all excellent points to keep in mind even when writing for the traditional review framework) and the traditional 5-criteria considerations. The scoring approach by reviewers is the main difference – rigor, reproducibility, feasibility, and impact are common to both review frameworks.
lasha said
Thank you, Writedit, for your guidance on this.
lasha said
Hi Writedit and the community-
I just learned of this update from NIH, NOT-OD-25-113 that R16 NOFO is canceled. Do you think there is a possibility that a revised NOFO would be issued quickly with a new submission deadline for this cycle or maybe with the original May 28 date? Or does this indicate that the current submission cycle will be skipped entirely, regardless?
I am finding it hard to remain sane and optimistic.
writedit said
I suspect the entire cycle will be skipped, but you could ask the R16 PO about the future of the program. I would not be surprised if some programs on that list are simply canceled altogether, but the PO for your IC or NIGMS should know about the R16’s future status.
Pawan said
Hi Writedit,
My first ESI NIDDK R01 renewal application received 15% last year June and council was completed in the fall. My revised application received a score 22%. When NIDDK will post payline for fiscal year 2025? Would they pick 15% A0 application for funding if this fall under payline?
Many Thanks
writedit said
Even though your score went up, NIDDK can still pay the 15th percentile application, which is well within the FY24 ESI R01 payline (25th); FY25 paylines will be lower but should not 10 percentile points lower. However, I am not sure if/when ICs might post updated paylines, especially since there could be another layer of review by HHS/DOGE before awards can be made (so being within payline is not a guarantee). ICs are way behind in making awards, though, so you want to be sure you have your JIT ready, if not already submitted, and be ready with updates as needed if you did submit previously, since NIDDK will only be able to give a day or two of notice to respond once the JIT request goes out.
shape9526 said
Hi Writedit,
I have an A1 application for a new R01 submitted to NIGMS that scored 14%in October 2024. I’m not an ESI or NI. The JIT was submitted some time ago, and the council meeting has been re-scheduled for late May. Since NIGMS doesn’t have published payline and prioritizes R35 over R01, I’m wondering how likely it is that a 14% A1 application might be funded this year. I’d be very grateful for any insight you might have.
Many thanks.
writedit said
NIGMS is probably waiting for their FY25 appropriation rather than the Council meeting, since the final appropriation they receive will determine how far their funding will go. Your application would have received early concurrence en bloc electronically in advance of Council meeting, unless you are a well-funded or foreign PI or your application had any administrative concerns. According to the NIH Data Book, NIGMS awarded 20 of 22 R01 equivalent applications at the 14th percentile in FY23, so your odds look good on a historic basis (going back a few FYs, only 2-3 applications at the 14th percentile do not receive awards). FY25 will be somewhat different in many respects, but NIGMS will be making awards as quickly as possible to spend down their appropriation by Sept 30, which probably includes all applications in their typical funding range (up to the low 20th percentiles).
shape9526 said
Thank you so much! Fingers crossed.
Shawn said
my R21 with NIDCD got an Impact score of 38 (25th%). any idea what the payline was for last year? thank you.
writedit said
R21s are typically as or more competitive than R01s (with no ESI break), so I suspect your score is a bit high for an award. In FY23, NIDCD did make a few R01 awards at the 25th percentile, but I suspect those were for ESI applicants. If your application was just reviewed and this is for FY26, clarity on the NIH structure much less paylines is a few months away, once we see what Congress does. Your PO won’t have any insight into the funding situation until later this summer at the earliest, but once you have your summary statement, you can ask for advice on resubmitting, which I am sure they will advise in the meantime (could be many months until the FY26 budget is signed into law).
Wittgen said
Hi Writedit,
Thanks for your helpful website. I just received a percentile of 26 for my first R01 with an ESI status from NIMH. Your website says NIMH budget cut for ESI R01 is 25. I am wondering how likely it is that this grant might or might not get funded, since this is slightly outside the funding range. Thanks for your insights!
writedit said
Looking at the NIH Data Book for NIMH in FY23, it seems unlikely, though not impossible, that you will receive an award at the 26th percentile (only 1 application out of 18 scoring at the 26th percentile received an award). Once you have your summary statement, you can talk with your PO about whether to submit again (my guess is yes, especially since we will not know what FY26 looks like for quite some time) and any advice on addressing concerns raised by reviewers. Unfortunately, I suspect all the rescheduled study sections held asynchronous electronic discussions rather than a synchronous virtual meeting, so your PO may not have any insight beyond your summary statement.
Wittgen said
Thanks for your reply!
Sciencepol3 said
Dear Writedit,
The NHLBI council meeting was held on April 23. I was wondering whether you have any information on the payline for K99/R00 applications? It used to be 30 in 2024.
I received an impact score of 26 which also is my last chance for this award. The comments were generally good and this was the conclusion of summary: the panel remained highly enthusiastic despite some weaknesses and overally rated the potential impact as excellent.
Would love to know your opinion about this and perhaps your estimated timeline of the future correspondence?
Thanks.
writedit said
I think you can be optimistic with a 26. Paylines will be lower in FY25, but especially since this is your last chance, you should be under consideration if you are not within this FY payline. The ICs are waiting for their final FY25 appropriation to see how far down their paylists they can go. Your PO should be able to give you some insight by the end of May and may reach out sooner. If you need direction before then due to your postdoc situation (eg, current appointment ending soon), you could try contacting the PO in 2-3 weeks, though they may not be able to give a definitive answer by then (but hopefully an inkling).
ESI said
Hello!
I am an ESI and submitted R01 in the Feb cycle (NHLBI). My study section meets at the end of June and I know that they sometimes accept new preliminary data as part of the Post-Submission Materials – or at least they did it last year when I was an ECR for the same study section. However, I cannot find any statement about this online on NHLBI’s site.
In this case, is it the PO or the SRO that I should be reaching out to confirm what they accept and do not accept and an exact deadline for the submission?
Any insights will be appreciated. Thank you!
writedit said
Here is the NIH Notice on the post-submission material policy related to one page of new preliminary data. You can confirm with the SRO what will be acceptable. You will need to submit these data at least 30 days prior to the study section meeting date (confirm last allowable date with SRO, too). Your PO cannot provide any help between submission of the application and receipt of the summary statement, which is when you should next reach out (they cannot comment on your application situation between receiving the score and the summary statement). Good luck with your R01 and kudos on taking advantage of the ECR program!
ESIO said
It is wonderful to have this community, and I appreciate all of writedit’s insightful posts. I just received an impact score of 34 (19th percentile) for my NIDA K01. We usually contact the PO after the summary statement is available, but because this score seems outside the typical funding range, should I email my PO now to ask about the likelihood of funding?
writedit said
The timing is such that it doesn’t matter if you ask now or wait until after you receive the summary statement. This will be for FY26, and your PO won’t have any idea of what the NIH, never mind NIH paylines, will look like after October 1. I would recommend waiting until after your summary statement is in hand to ask if you should submit an A1 (July or Nov) or a new A0 (Oct – probably not enough time for June, though you could start revisions now and fine-tune once you have summary statement) application and what advice they have on the next submission. If the PO says to sit tight, then you know your score is likely to be funded – though, as you note, this is probably unlikely.
ESIO said
Thank you, writedit! That makes a lot of sense! Will contact my PO after receiving the summary statement.
Neurodev-R01 said
Hi Writedit,
Do you know if IC’s have their appropriations yet? I am waiting to hear on a NINDS-R01 from last year (also have a resubmission in place). Usually NINDS updates their paylines around this time of year but was wondering if it’ll be delayed for this year because cycle 3 reviews are still in progress and/or appropriations haven’t come in yet. Just wanted to any information before reaching out to my PO. Thanks.
SaG said
Yes, they do. But no one is quite sure how much money they will have to spend (Google budget rescission). Plus, updating websites is difficult given that communications offices were laid off.
Neurodev-R01 said
Thanks, SaG. Do you think PO might be able to provide anymore information or no point bothering them at this time.
writedit said
Thanks for sharing your insight, SaG!
Neurodev-R01, I would suggest sitting tight and not asking the PO for information right now. Since you have your resubmission in, you don’t need additional guidance on immediate next steps (for resubmission). You will know what is happening with your scored application if they ask for JIT/updated JIT and/or the status changes to Pending/administrative review. If nothing has changed by July 1 (anticipated start date, I assume), you could check in, if you need to be able to make plans for your lab (personnel, ordering, etc.) based on the likely award outcome.
Song Hu said
Dear Writedit,
I have an NIA ADRD R01, which was reviewed and scored at 5% . The council meeting is scheduled in mid-May, but I have not received JIT request yet. I contacted the PO after receiving the summary statement but have not heard back. Could you provide some guidance on what to do next? Thanks!
M said
I’m in the same boat. 17% ESI/ADRD (2024 payline was 25%) with a mid May council. My PO said they don’t have the payline yet and no action was required. They said the application might be discussed at the May meeting, and they will ask for a 1-2 rebuttal later. They never followed up and actually asked for the rebuttal however, and I’ve received no JIT request.
Appreciate any insight.
writedit said
I would hope a 5th percentile ADRD application is safe for funding this year, assuming no conflicts with any EO stipulations or institutional barriers (ditto for the 17th percentile ESI, though that could be in less secure territory). In a typical year, ICs would be getting on top of applications likely to receive awards, but that is a bit different this year, of course, and they have a huge backlog of applications that should have been funded for April 1 to get through as well. If this is a PO who typically responds to you, you could check again now but specifically ask if you should be getting an A1 application ready for July (if they say no, you can rest easy). If you still hear nothing in a few weeks and want to know whether to submit again, you could check in with the appropriate Branch chief (or Division, if you need to go up higher).
M said
Thank you!
SaG said
Hard to say. They are probably in the same boat as most of the rest of NIH. Waiting for information. But, I suggest submitting the A1 to be safe.
Tao Xie said
Dear Writedit,
I just received an impact score of 28 for my resubmitted K99 application to NIMH. The summary statement is expected to be released by May 30, 2025. This is my final allowable submission, as I started my postdoc in May 2021, and my eligibility window is closing. Notably, my wife and I had a child during my postdoc, which may make me eligible for a formal extension of the K99 eligibility window.
I have two questions: (1) Given the impact score of 28 and the current funding environment (particularly with the potential NIH budget cuts this year), what do you think are the chances of this application being funded? (2) When would be an appropriate time to contact my Program Officer to discuss whether I should request an eligibility extension and consider preparing a new submission?
Thank you
Tao
writedit said
At some ICs, your score could be competitive, but I don’t know about NIMH. If your score improved significantly, program might give your 28 more consideration, especially since it is your last chance within your official eligibility window. Since you would not be able to apply again in June, I would suggest waiting until you receive your summary statement to contact your PO about next steps, including whether to request an extension (you should be eligible with the birth of your child – congratulations!), so you can submit in October if needed (best outcome would be that they say you will not need an extension to apply again ;).
Tao Xie said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you again for your quick and helpful response. My initial K99 submission received a score of 45.
I have one additional question regarding potential eligibility for a K99 extension. Although I officially began my postdoctoral appointment in May 2021, I defended my PhD thesis in December 2020. Due to visa delays related to COVID-19, I was unable to begin my postdoc until approximately six months later. I understand that the four-year K99 eligibility window may be calculated from the PhD defense date (not the starting date of postdoc), which raises concerns. I’m unsure whether the visa delay could be considered as part of the justification for an extension.
In addition, I took two months of official parental leave during my postdoc. I’m unsure whether this would allow me to request an extension beyond the formal leave, such as a 6-month extension based on the additional time I needed to care for my child outside of the official leave period.
Given these circumstances, I would greatly appreciate your insight on whether I may still have chance to submit a new K99 application for the June 2025 or October 2025 deadlines, in the event that my current resubmission is not funded.
Tao
writedit said
All of these details would be taken into consideration by NIMH in deciding about an ESI extension, and I think they would add up to an extension, but that is their call, of course. I also don’t know how long it takes for an extension to be approved (ie, whether it would be feasible to submit next month), but now that you have pointed out the possibility of a shorter extension that might require a June vs Oct submission, I would suggest you reach out about the extension of ESI eligibility now, so this can be in place if needed. If your PO indicates you don’t need to worry about an extension, this will be good news indeed.
Tao Xie said
Dear Writedit,
I recently received feedback from my PO at NIMH regarding my K99 resubmission. My revised application received a score of 28 (compared to 45 on the initial submission), and my PO indicated: “Your application falls within the range for potential funding consideration, though we do not yet have a sense of our ultimate funding line for this Council round. In order to assist in our funding decision discussions, I would like to request a brief (no more than 3-page) written response to the summary statement.”
I have two questions: (1) Do you have any general suggestions or best practices for preparing this written response to the summary statement? (2) I plan to schedule a meeting with my PO to discuss the reviewers’ comments in more detail. During that meeting, would it be appropriate to ask whether I should prepare another submission for the upcoming cycle (due June 12) as a backup? I’ve heard that sometimes applicants may have a higher chance of being funded if it is their final eligible submission. I may be able to request an extension due to parental leave (as a father), but I’m uncertain whether submitting again might affect the current funding decision.
Thank you,
Tao
as_25sept said
Hi Writedit,
Thank you for being so helpful. I have an ESI NEI R01 scored 12. It was reviewed in Oct 2024. The council meeting happened on April 21st. I haven’t heard anything yet. Is it fundable? What could be the timeline for NOA? I also submitted a revised application in Feb, just in case.
writedit said
ICs are still sorting out how much $$ they can actually spend, so award processing is probably occurring for the top-scoring applications for now (and ICs have a huge backlog after the cancelled Advisory Council meetings and FY25 appropriation delays). It could be a few weeks before they start moving down the paylist, but an ESI R01 at the 12th percentile should be in line for funding. Excellent news that you submitted again in Feb as insurance though. If you already submitted JIT on the 12th percentile application, you will probably get a request for any updates (and if not, you will get a JIT request). You can monitor your eRA Commons status for changes that indicate activity related to your application. Unless you need to know about award timing for a specific time-sensitive reason (eg, tenure consideration, maintenance of lab personnel, etc.), I would not recommend reaching out to your PO or GMS, as they are busy catching up – and are short-handed as well, so extra stressed for time. You are in the right position to wait for eRA status updates and focus on conducting and publishing-presenting your research in the meantime.
DrD said
Dear Writedit,
I came across your website and was deeply amazed by your work and how swiftly you responded to people’s questions. I just received a score of 35 for my initial K99 application to NEI. It was submitted in Oct 2024 and the council will meet in June. They don’t seem to release the percentile so I don’t know if this will be considered for funding at all. The chance seems very low though. Do you have any thoughts on this? Apparently I will contact my PO after I receive the comments. The eligibility window closes at the end of the year, so I can do a resubmission for the July or Oct deadline.
Many thanks
writedit said
A score of 35 is on the high side for most ICs – I do not know specifically about NEI, but they probably get fewer applications so may reach higher. They pay up into the 30th percentile on R01s (career development applications are not percentiled) and seem to look at more than score, which is why your PO needs to see your summary statement. And yes, you do want to wait until you receive your summary statement to contact your PO for advice on next steps, including whether/when to apply again. FY25 could be a little different since ICs need to spend a lot of $$ before Sept 30, which could weigh in your favor – but it’s very difficult to predict what will happen this year and even more so next year.
DrD said
Thank you for the response! Very helpful.
Feb_submission said
Hi writedit,
Thank you for providing this wonderful community—I’ve got so much valuable information here.
I submitted my NIA K01 application in the February cycle. After several reassignments, the application was assigned to ZRG1 about two and a half weeks ago. However, there is still no information listed regarding the Study Review Group and the review meeting date—only the Council Meeting is shown as October 2025. The current SRO listed is the branch chief.
While I understand there are delays due to the centralization of the review process, would it be appropriate to contact the SRO for an update on the review meeting timeline? It seems the review meeting may be scheduled several months later than initially expected.
Thank you again for your guidance and support!
writedit said
No need to contact the RB Chief. As soon as they have a date, they will post it – and they won’t know the timeline for determining this until then. ZRG1 is not the study section – it indicates a special emphasis panel (vs standing study section), but the actual panel has yet to be decided. Because career development applications were previously reviewed at individual ICs, those SRG meetings are probably taking longer to schedule as CSR figures out which SROs are available to manage these meetings (only half the IC SROs were kept, the rest were fired), and whether these panels will continue being reviewed strictly by IC vs also by science (ie, combine appropriate neuroscience – neurodegeneration K applications from NINDS, NIMH, NIA, et al.). I have no inkling what CSR might be planning though. Your Council date is still on for October, so your application will be reviewed in time for consideration this fall, which is what is important to you at this point (not the exact timing).
Feb_submission said
Thank you so much for your response and your time-it was very helpful to me!
Mr. D said
Dear writedit,
First, I truly appreciate your kind efforts in the past years.
My NCI grant was scored at 9th percentile (submitted in November 2024 as an A1; reviewed in April 2025). The current scheduled council meeting is in June. How do you think the funding possibility of it?
Thanks a lot！
writedit said
I think you can be cautiously optimistic. Your PO won’t know for a little bit still about funding likelihood, and you wouldn’t want to contact them until you have your summary statement back anyway. Once you have your summary statement, you can get in touch for advice on next steps. Hopefully that will be to get your JIT ready.
Mr. D said
Thank you for your response. I will do as you suggested. I hope there will be no major policy changes in the next few months.
R01 applicant said
Any news and comments on grants with foreign components? I heard that NIH is pausing new grants that have foreign components. What about proposals for June/July submission? Can I still submit a proposal with a foreign collaborator (MPI)? Thanks for any inputs!
SaG said
No foreign subawards allowed until a new system is developed for linked awards sometime in october. You can have a foreign collaborator but cant give them any money via a subaward. So, find a domestic collaborator or wait to submit the app. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-104.html
Richard said
Updated NIH Processes for No-Cost Extensions released today
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-110.html
alessaycy said
/Just double check, this does not affect any existing NCE, correct?
writedit said
Correct – those already approved are still approved. If you need a second NCE, that will require approval (as it would have even before this new policy).
Jenny said
I saw that the NHLBI payline was just released and is 12% for R01s. My R01 application, which was reviewed in April, received a 13th percentile. Is there still a chance it could be funded?
writedit said
Not impossible but not as likely now. When you receive your summary statement, you can check with your PO about next steps.
bluesand said
I’m facing a timing challenge with my grant application. My study section, originally scheduled for March, was recently convened. The advisory council meeting is now set for the first week of June. Typically, a 30-day window suffices for the summary statement release, but this shortened timeline may not provide enough time, particularly with the select pay process. I’m concerned about having sufficient time to discuss the outcome with the PO before the council meeting. Should I contact the SRO to inquire about the expected release date of the summary statement, or would the SRO and PO already be aware of the compressed timeline? Thank you very much for your guidance!
writedit said
Thanks, SaG! Also, Council does not make funding decisions, which is why you don’t need to talk with your PO before the meeting. Council would typically (and probably still will) approve a long list of scored applications with no administrative concerns (SaG notes a few of these) electronically en bloc in advance of the meeting. Council approves more applications for funding than the IC can support so the IC Director has flexibility in making award decisions, especially at the end of the FY when $$ must be spent quickly, and not all applicants can turn their JIT around in time for an award. Your application (assuming scored) would be on the Council-approved list, but that does not guarantee an award.
SaG said
Council “approval” and discussions with POs are 2 separate actions. Unless your app has a special problem (foreign award, Human subjects etc.) You can wait until the SS is prepared to speak with your PO after Council.
bluesand said
Hi SaG and Writedit,
Thank you both for the clarification!
Meghan Crabtree said
Hello Writedit, thank you so much for your valuable help during this difficult time. I submitted an R01 renewal back in May of 2024 to NIDA, which scored in the 6th percentile (score was 20). NIDA’s advisory board, originally scheduled for February, was cancelled and is scheduled for tomorrow.
However, ERA commons status updated to Council Review Complete in early March, and then to Pending Administrative review in early April (around the 7th). I assume I received a JIT request a couple of days after the status changed, which I quickly provided. It has been sitting at pending administrative review since then.
My questions are these: Is there a reason why these status updates would occur before the council actually meets? Might I have any hope of receiving some kind of status update soon after the council meets?
writedit said
Congratulations on your 6th percentile application! Your application was approved by Council via early electronic concurrence en bloc in advance of the meeting (as part of a long list of applications NIDA sent to Council for approval before the February meeting). This early approval allows ICs to begin processing applications for awards before the actual Council meeting, which is why your application already went through JIT and administrative review. NIDA was waiting until it knew its final appropriation and until the closed Council session to begin preparing NoAs, but I expect this to happen quickly now due to the very compressed timeline for ICs to turn around applications for awards. You can sit tight until someone either asks you for some other information or until you get to the Notice of award prepared status change. Then it should be a short wait until the award is issued. No need to reach out to your PO or GMS for an updated – it’s all hands on deck trying to get the money out the door.
Hope4nws said
Thank you so much for the information!
goingcrazy said
Did anyone receive NOA from NHLBI (council review 04/23/2025)?
writedit said
Just checked RePORTER and wow – only 29 new or competing renewal awards (for all of NIH) since May 1. NHLBI has issued one F31, no other awards. Other ICs making awards in the last couple weeks include NIA (1), NIAAA (1), NIAID (8), NCI (2), NEI (1), NICHD (2), NIDA (1), NIDCD (1), NIDDK (1), NIEHS (1), NIGMS (6), and NINDS (2).
goingcrazy said
Thank you!
Jing Chen said
My postdoc got an impact score of 27 for his early-stage NCI K99/R00 application. how much change is there for him to get this funded? many thanks.
writedit said
At NCI, that is typically within funding range, but this is not a typical year … including the fact that ICs will need to issue awards at a ridiculous pace to spend their FY25 appropriation before Sept 30. Anyone out there with a potentially fundable score (even above payline) should have their JIT ready (there will be no time once the request arrives).
r01pi said
Dear Writedit,
Second year of my NHLBI R01 should’ve started on April 1, 2025, but I am still waiting for NOA. Is there any information available on when non-competing continuation awards from NHLBI might be released? The progress report has been submitted on time. Could there be other issues that might be holding the release of NOA?
Thank you!
grantit said
Hi Writedit,
Thank you so much for maintaining this very helpful website; I have learned a lot from it over the years. I recently had my first R01 reviewed at the NIA as an ESI, and it received a 19th-percentile score. Because the study-section meeting was delayed by two months, I received my summary statement only the day before the council meeting. Given my ESI status, how do you view the fundability of my application? Should I contact the PO now, or would it be better to wait?
Thank you very much for your thoughts!
writedit said
Congratulations on your excellent first R01 score! I would certainly hope that is in funding range at NIA. You can contact your PO now for insight and advice on next steps. They might want a brief rebuttal to weaknesses cited in the Summary of Discussion paragraph – or they may say to sit tight (in which case get your JIT together so you are ready to respond within a day).
Neurodev-R01 said
Hi Writedit,
I have a cycle 1 NINDS application that scored 19th percentile (ESI) and went to council in Fall 2024. I resubmitted because of interim payline, and new submission scored 22nd percentile recently. I wanted to ask if this application will be considered should the interim paylines be updated to around 20 for ESIs? Not sure if the paylines will change but was wondering if there is any chance. Thanks.
writedit said
I would hope NINDS can get their ESI payline up to at least the 20th percentile to fund your 19th percentile application (still in the running). ICs have a lot of $$ they need to spend quickly, so be sure you are ready with JIT info.
LNS said
Do you think there is any chance that currently funded R01s will be allowed to keep foreign components? I will be submitting an RPPR soon, and I am sick that we are being forced to remove our foreign subs in order to receive the next grant year. No guidance yet from my PO, who was newly assigned after my previous PO left suddenly. Feeling lost as I face the possibility of losing half of our research, abandoning our patients, derailing my career, etc. simply because we developed excellent collaborations in Canada for this research. Not sure why currently funded awards aren’t given the option to transition to the new structure that supposedly will fund foreign components in a different way…unless there is actually no intention to allow any funds to leave the US even with a new structure.
writedit said
The Notice is pretty clear that your Type 5 award will not include $$ for your Canadian collaborator: “NIH will not issue awards to domestic or foreign entities (new, renewal or non-competing continuation), that include a subaward to a foreign entity”. I believe the plan is to have applicants submit linked or collaborative applications, so the foreign institution submits their own R01 (or whatever the activity code) separately as part of the collaborative whole (same Aims, Research Strategy, etc. tailored to each site). In the meantime, unfortunately, your new PO will need to work with you to renegotiate your award to conduct as much of the work as possible in the US or to wind down the study, if you cannot continue the trial without your Canadian collaborator. If you have any kind of relationship with the branch or division chief where your award sits, you could reach out to them for advice in the absence of a response from the new PO.
SaG said
Yep, foreign sub has to go. If it is a CT you might be able to get some money for an orderly close out for patient safety. I would suggest start working on a new grant that can have the foreign sites using the new mechanism whatever it will be.
FIC grantee said
How about FIC grants? All of their grants are with a foreign component.
writedit said
Yes, the policy applies to all awardees.
r01pi said
Dear Writedit,
Second year of my NHLBI R01 should’ve started on April 1, 2025, but I am still waiting for NOA. Is there any information available on when non-competing continuation awards from NHLBI might be released? The progress report has been submitted on time. Could there be other issues that might be holding the release of NOA?
Thank you!
R01 applicant said
This is happening to several non-competing continuation projects in our institute. I guess the NOA process is extremely slow these days waiting for signature. We have a small R21 at status of “award prepared” for 3 weeks so far and still no NOA.
writedit said
There seems to be a wide range of timing across ICs, probably due to personnel loss at some. You or your sponsored programs office (since I am sure you are not the only PI waiting to hear about a Type 5 award) could inquire with NHLBI for an update … you could ask your PO or SRO. Definitely worrisome that you have not had any word almost 2 months after your expected start date, but I appreciate R01 applicant sharing their experience with a 3+ week period waiting for a prepared NOA. This is not normal, of course.
R01 applicant said
just received NoA yesterday after “award prepared” for 3 weeks. Heard several were awarded yesterday so they might release them all at the same time.
CG said
Hi Writedit, I got a 13% on my NIDDK R01 A1 for FY25 (I’m an established investigator). I’ve reached out to my program officer a couple of times but haven’t heard back. I know FY25 paylines haven’t been finalized yet, but I saw that the final FY24 payline for established investigators was around 13–15%. Is there still a shot this could be funded? And is there anything I should be doing while I wait? Thanks!
ESI said
My grant (NIDDK R01) is a first time competitive renewal of a ESI (reviewed last June, 15%). I received a JIT request last week (PO email).
writedit said
Thanks for sharing your experience at NIDDK, ESI – fingers crossed on the processing of your renewal.
writedit said
Your PO probably didn’t reply either because they were RIFed or don’t have any idea as yet (but still should have responded). You probably will be in the running, especially with the need to spend an enormous portion of their appropriation quickly, and should have your JIT all set, especially if you need any approvals or certifications. Given the timing, waiting until October to submit your next A0, if needed, would give you time to see what is happening with the NIH in FY26 and make adjustments, if needed, accordingly.
Chris said
Dear Writedit,
My R01 application submitted to NIAID received a score slightly above the payline. I spoke with my program officer (PO) and inquired about the possibility of an R56 Bridge Award nomination. He indicated that he would prefer to nominate my application for selective pay instead, although he also encouraged me to prepare a resubmission.
From what I understand, the success rate for R56 nominations might be higher than that of selective pay. Do you have any insights into the likelihood of funding through selective pay?
Thank you!
SaG said
You don’t get to chose…but, given the huge number of grants NIAID has had to cancel I bet they have lots of money for select pay….lots….
writedit said
As SaG noted, ICs have a lot of money to spend quickly, so they will probably distribute a lot more select pay awards vs R56. Your PO would advise resubmission no matter what, for insurance, so it’s not like you could sit tight if they went for an R56 instead. If you can wait, I would suggest submitting in the fall, after it becomes (hopefully more) clear as to what will be happening with the NIH in FY26.
bgrantsdaya said
Dear Writedit,
I have a question. Our A1 was reviewed a month ago at NCI and received 1%. However, we have still not received any request from PO. When we contacted PO we did see GMS assignment. However, there has been no request for any JIT. Is PO waiting for advisory council? Any advise will be highly appreciated. Many thanks for your kind help.
alessaycy said
Fellow 1% here. Study section last fall, no foreign component, no human subject, JIT submitted 3 months ago, no update since then. Besides waiting, there is nothing we can do at this moment, unfortunately. Hang in there!
bgrantsdaya said
Oh no! that is surprising. Was yours also at NCI?
writedit said
If your application was reviewed only a month ago, assuming you have your summary statement back (nothing can happen until that is issued), it will be in line behind many other applications, like alessaycy’s, that have been waiting much longer. All ICs are short-staffed and overwhelmed, so patience is your only option currently. You will have no time to turn around your JIT information, so I would advise that you get that ready now. ICs will be extra stressed to make an astonishing number of awards very, very quickly in order to spend their appropriation by Sept 30.
alessaycy said
Just want to provide an update on my R01 from NIDDK. Here is the timeline.
6/28/2024 Application entered into system
10/21/2024 Scientific Review Group review completed
2/13/2025 Pending administrative review
Submitted JIT at the end of Feb.
Patiently waiting, reached out to PO once in May, received no update.
6/12/2025 Award prepared
6/20/2025 Pending administrative review again (Almost applied for an industry job when I saw this status change. Later told by PO not to worry).
7/1/2025 NoA
writedit said
Congratulations, alessaycy! Thank you for sharing this very valuable timeline – I assume the last Pending administrative review was part of the HHS pre-approval required before the NoA could be sent (and/or delayed Congressional delegation review). Best wishes for success with your research.
bgrantsdaya said
Thank you so much writedit for the response. We did receive summary statement and had contacted PO after that…GMS was assigned after we contacted PO. PO mentioned that after primary review it goes through secondary review and then they will be in touch for documents. However, we did submit JIT just in case to speed up the process after going over many responses here by you. We are keeping fingers crossed for council meeting to be over and keep patience as you suggested. Many Thanks
writedit said
Sounds like everything is on track for you for your anticipated July 1 start, though likely delayed due to the backlog of competing and noncompeting awards to be issued (per other comments here, sounds like more are now being released). I assumed they would get summary statements for delayed review meetings out as quickly as possible. Normally your application would have undergone asynchronous early concurrence en bloc in advance of the Council meeting, but with the compressed time frame, that won’t happen much before the scheduled synchronous meeting (if at all). Your GMS will be in touch if they need anything else. In the meantime, not contacting them is the best strategy so they can concentrate on all they need to do.
lyc said
Dear Writedit, thank you again for everyhting you have done!
I have a R01 that was scored 11% (EI) last July for NIDDK. PO asked for a response to SS last month and I provided that. I have not received any JIT request. However, I noticed that the status changed from council review completed to pending administrative review.
Will I get a JIT request? What is my chance of getting this R01? Thank you.
writedit said
The Pending status means they are processing your application for an award. If you did not submit your JIT previously (before receiving a request), you could prepare and submit your JIT proactively at this point. Everyone is crazy busy trying to catch up, so it’s okay to submit without a direct request given the change in your eRA Commons status. If the GMS needs anything special, they will be in touch. None of this is a guarantee, especially in the current climate, but it is a positive change that increases your likelihood of funding.
Neurodev-R01 said
Hi Writedit and SaG, Followup question from another post above. At the NINDS council meeting, it was mentioned that they are looking into making multi-year awards. This would probably result in fewer applications funded than normal. Wondering if this means they’ll not change their conservative interim paylines, because multi-yr awards will leave little money for new awards (also a better way to spend appropriation). Thanks.
writedit said
If any ICs start giving RF1 (multiyear) awards, it will likely reduce the number of awards that can be made … or maybe not, depending on how many RF1s they might consider (I am not sure what is involved in converting to these awards). ICs have a lot of extra funding to distribute quickly – much more than they usually do at this point in the FY – so if it becomes impossible to process enough individual one-year awards, the multiyear approach could be the better strategy to ensure they spend their entire appropriation by Sept 30th (vs sending unspent $$ back and receiving a proportionately lower appropriation in FY26 – whatever that looks like – based on the fact they did not “need” all the $$ they requested for FY25). Paylines will be challenging for ICs to set no matter what … they may keep them publicly conservative (but reach above for select pay much more often) due to the level of uncertainty in several domains.
writedit said
Update: NCI payline language points to multiyear awards to avoid future obligations in light of an uncertain future.
Neurodev-R01 said
I think NINDS might be heading in this direction as well or may already have, based on their conservative paylines. During the council meeting, they reiterated their usual plan to support as many investigators as possible. At the same time, however, they’re planning to implement multi-year awards. It’s unclear how this will all play out, but given the worse FY26 outlook, it doesn’t look promising for ESIs.
writedit said
Until the Senate takes up the House bill, ICs have no idea what to expect in FY26, including whether they will still exist (or whether political appointees will take over grant award decisions). The multiyear awards avoid a potential scenario in which essentially hundreds of R56 awards are funded (ie, no FY26 funding to continue these projects – or IC no longer exists to manage/fund award), and they spend down the FY25 appropriation faster. Hopefully a lot of the multiyear awards will be ESI to help them get through the next few years.
Mr. D said
NCI R01 payline to the 7th percentile
https://www.cancer.gov/grants-training/grants-funding/funding-strategy/current-funding-policy
writedit said
Breathtaking, not in a good way. “Considering the significant budget reductions proposed for FY 2026 in the President’s budget submission to Congress, NCI’s funding strategy for FY2025 is to support current research activities, while reducing future-year budget requirements.” I assume this points to multiyear awards that lower the payline, avoid future obligations, and spend the FY25 appropriation faster. Standard budget cuts range from 6.5% to 17%.
Rui said
This is really disheartening news. I was holding out hope that my application might be considered for select pay in NIA, but now it seems even more unlikely. It’s frustrating to see how these cuts ripple through funding decisions, especially when so many strong proposals are already on the edge.
as_25sept said
Any idea on when is NINDS expected to release the FY2025 actual paylines?
writedit said
Hopefully within the next couple weeks, once they work out how they want to handle the remaining awards (single vs multiyear, priorities, budget adjustments, etc.). The paylines page was last reviewed on May 16, but it wasn’t changed to Final then.
Confused said
From when NCI 7% payline is effective? I got 8% from NCI R01 (reviewed on Feb 2025). Got shocked at yesterday’s new pay line, I e-mailed to my PO. His answer was very promising and asked me to prepare for JIT. Is it possible that my PO did not know new payline change? Or new payline applies to upcoming grants?
Confused…
writedit said
It should apply to your 8th percentile application (3rd cycle applications in FY25), so I assume your PO is going to advocate for select pay (POs may have been given the option for a select number of applications at the 8th percentile). You should certainly get your JIT in quickly and keep a good thought.
Peter Nyugen said
Dear Writedit,
The council meeting for my ESI R35 at NIGMS was scheduled for late May, but the current status of my application still reads “pending council meeting.” Could this just be a placeholder status till they make a decision?
writedit said
If you are sure your application is for the May vs fall Council meeting, that is a little unusual (and unrelated to any funding decision on your application). Assuming you received a competitive score, you could check with your PO about the application status.
Peter Nyugen said
Yeah the advisory council date shows 05/22/2025. My score is in the low 40, so probably not very competitive. What would be the typical status updates after the date scheduled for council review?
writedit said
Even if your application had been not discussed, the status should have been updated to Council review completed by now, since this is updated for all applications considered in that council round after the meeting (the status can change in advance of the Council meeting if the score is competitive, and the application is sent in advance of the meeting for early concurrence/approval for funding consideration en bloc). The delay in status change could be due to all the firings and general chaos. Again, if you have not checked in with your PO about next steps, you could now (and for advice on your resubmission strategy).
DrBessy said
I have similar situtation, but a JIT request was also received. Score 35 (not great, but this was an R16), received JIT request )4/26/25, Council Date 5/22/25, and my status is still “Pending Council Review.” Crickets.
writedit said
With the R16, NIGMS could be waiting to confirm they can still (&/or still want to) make these awards, but that does not explain why the Council status has not updated in the meantime. If you have not checked in with your PO, you could ask for a status update and whether you should submit again (both in terms of improving score and confirming the program will continue).
as said
Has any one received an NoA yet for your R01 from NINDS?
writedit said
I see new R01 awards from NINDS dated May 26 and May 30, so they are issuing awards.
as said
How can you see these new awards? Any link/website?
writedit said
You can search RePORTER by IC, activity code, award type, and recently added projects. Here is a link to my search results – you should be able to see the search parameters to repeat this yourself: https://reporter.nih.gov/search/BKGOJCSQE0aRR8yRnCPiVA/projects
Neurodev-R01 said
You can check the NIH reporter webpage and use their advanced search option to look these up. As Writedit said NINDS awarded 1 new R01 last week.
MS said
Dear Writedit- I am an ESI and my R01 scored just outside the payline for my IC. I have a secondary IC (NICHD) assigned that doesn’t have published payline but funds grants with focus similar to ours. Should I check with a relevant PO to gauge their interest or is it just a waste of time given secondary assignments are not a priority..
writedit said
ICs almost never fund applications for which they are the secondary IC. If you had already worked with a PO at NICHD, you could probably contact them for insight on any chance of being picked up, but if you would be cold-calling, given the current climate especially, you will almost certainly be turned down. It doesn’t send a good metamessage if you are not interested in the secondary IC mission (ie, no advance communication with any POs about your research, no mention of that IC on your PHS Assignment Request Form) until your application scored above your preferred IC’s payline. Your primary IC needs to relinquish your application first, too, which they might not want to do if they need to keep a set of above-payline priority applications on hand in case other applications higher on the paylist are skipped than originally anticipated.
K01 said
Dear Writedit, my K01 application submitted to NIA in June 2024 received a score that’s slightly above last year’s payline. Right before NIA received their FY25 appropriation, my PO told me it was extremely unlikely to be funded, as they were gonna set a very conservative payline for this year. However, I was then asked to submit a brief response to my summary statement for the NIA funding meeting in May. I haven’t heard anything since submitting that response, and I’m not sure what to expect. Any insights on whether there is still any possibilities to be funded? Would it be appropriate to check in with my PO again, or should I just continue to wait?
writedit said
I would suggest you sit tight and wait to hear from the PO. No decisions on select pay awards will be made for some time, and your PO will be in touch as soon as they know anything (your eRA status would change first, probably). If you did not submit an A1 application in March, you probably want to think about getting it in for July. You could check in with your PO for advice on the A1, if you haven’t already (and maybe they will tell you to wait, which would communicate their level of confidence in an award for the A0).
xinluolab said
The council met on Monday June 2 but the status of my application still says “Pending Council Review.” Is this normal?
SaG said
Yes it is. It is not an automatic change.
Priya Balasubramanian said
Dear Writedit, My first year R01 term was just over and we still haven’t received the NOA for the second year yet. Status has been “Pending” for a while. Anyone else on the same boat? Looks like the unspent funds from year 1 is also frozen and cannot be used for paying my postdoc salary. When can we expect Yr 2 NOA? Thank you
writedit said
Many (probably most) non-competing renewals are far behind schedule. If your RPPR included any terminology or concepts that resulted in it being flagged, your second year of funding will be delayed even further, but your PO should have been in touch with any issues raised during the review. NIH program staff need to wait for approval from DOGE/OMB before awards can be issued. Your institution may be able to cover your postdoc’s salary if your PO can confirm that the Type 5 award will eventually be issued (or is likely to be issued, based on their best assessment) – similar to allowing you to spend in advance of the NOA once you are within 90 days of award. Not all institutions do this, though, and probably even fewer now.
SaG said
What schools are you at? Is it one targeted by the Admin?
Kedar said
Timeline of ESI Katz R01 application (NHLBI)
A0 submission – 09/26/2023 (Percentile:42%)
A1 submission – 06/26/24 (Percentile:21%)
NOA – 06/05/25
alessaycy said
Love every bit of good news. Thank you for sharing!
writedit said
Congratulations and best wishes for success with your research! Thank you for sharing your timing and scores.
Newbie said
Dear writedit,
I have a grant that scored in the gray zone. The PO mentioned that it still has a chance, but the funding payline is currently unclear. She recommended that I (1) plan to resubmit and (2) email her a response to the reviewers’ comments.
I have a few questions about the response to the reviewers. Is it reviewed only by the PO? Does the PO decide on which gray zone applications to fund/advocate based on the response? Would the grant be viewed less favorably if I propose new experiments in the response to reviewers’ critiques (since she might feel I should just resubmit)? Or is it better to justify why I didn’t propose certain experiments or to simply provide rationale?
Do you have any recommendations for what to do or avoid when composing a response like this for the PO?
Also, do you know whether PAR grants tend to have a better chance than standard PA grants at NIMH?
Thank you so much for your help!
writedit said
Your response is for the PO to use in advocating for your application to receive an award (PO picks applications in her portfolio to present for select pay consideration). Your PO may need to explain how you would address the concerns raised. You should not propose new experiments – those would need to be peer reviewed. I would recommend a bullet response to each of the weaknesses mentioned in the Summary of Discussion paragraph (not the individual critiques, though you could use a more detailed statement of a specific weakness from the reviewer who is being cited in the Summary of Discussion). If the Summary of Discussion identified experiments that reviewers thought were important but were not included in your Research Strategy, you could clarify your justification for not including them and/or (if appropriate) note they could be considered as an alternative approach in the event such proves necessary once the work is underway (again, you can ignore those listed in individual critiques – the SRO would mention in the Summary any concerns that the entire panel discussed as part of score-driving factors). Keep in mind that you cannot change your budget request at this point either. You want to keep your response short and concise – you can ask your PO if she needs any additional information.
In FY24, the success rate at NIMH for targeted vs untargeted RPG applications was 24% vs 19%.
Newbie said
Thank you for your invaluable advice and for creating such an amazing resource!
Goingcrazy said
Dear Writedit,
I cannot thank you enough for this amazing website. Your input and compassion is invaluable. I received my NOA today for R01 from NHLBI and below is my time line
Effect Date Status Message
6/9/2025: NOA
05/30/2025: Award prepared
04/11/2025: Pending administrative review.
03/13/2025: Council review completed.
10/17/2024: Scientific Review Group review completed
06/06/2024 Scientific Review Group review pending
05/23/2024 Application entered into system
Thanks again for everything!!!!
writedit said
Woohoo – congratulations and best wishes for success with your research! Thank you for posting your timeline to help others get a sense of when they might hear something.
kb said
Is there any chance for a grant wit 11 percentile NIA to be funded.
writedit said
I would certainly hope there is a very good chance that an 11th percentile R01 or other RPG would be funded, at least in FY25. If this is for FY26, though, we first need to see if NIA still exists to make the award and, if so, how much their appropriation is. Applicants for FY26 won’t have much insight until after the Senate completes their markup of the reconciliation bill and the HHS-Education-Labor appropriation bill (and any NIH reauthorization bill that might be written).
atomic9244b97cf7 said
Dear Writedit, Thank you for maintaining this important resource that has been helpful to many of us over the years.
I submitted an R01 application last year that was not discussed. I submitted it again in Feb. this year as a new A0 and it was assigned to at different study section and scored 52 (50%). Given this score. do you think it’s worth resubmitting as an A1 application, or should I pivot to a new grant idea? Thanks!
Arpana Annie Gupta said
Dear Writedit
We received a R01 A1 score submitted to NIDDK (26%) and last year A0 (54%). Although an improvement we understand not fundable. The PO has not been very responsive probably because its not fundable. We are hoping to go in again as a new application, any suggestions or feedback you may have as the study section was not a god fit (we used the NIH Toolbox).
Thanks for your insights and strategies.
writedit said
@Arpana – if your application was submitted in March, your PO probably isn’t responsive because they do not know if NIDDK will still exist in FY26. If your application was submitted last November, they are probably still waiting to hear from leadership what FY25 funding will look like. Your next move won’t be until October, and you will hear from your PO if there is a chance of select pay funding (no need to keep asking – they have a lot going on down there, as you well know). In the meantime, as I just recommended for atomic, please use the CSR Assisted Referral Tool to begin exploring study sections. You will probably want to update your search later this summer-early fall and/or check in with your selected SRO (to confirm your application is still a good fit), as changes will continue to affect CSR organization and review panels. Once you have identified one or more SRG of interest, read all their background and SRG overlap information, check the rosters, and search RePORTER (by study section) for the most recent awarded applications reviewed in the SRG(s) – recognizing that RePORTER (& Matchmaker) are *lagging* indicators of study section appropriateness (ART is a leading indicator).
writedit said
@atomic9244b97cf7, I would recommend a new A0 application. You will want to do some homework at CSR using their Assisted Referral Tool to pick the best study section (especially as they are changing under the reorganization). I have a few extra notes above in my reply to Arpana. Waiting until October to submit a new A0 will also give you a chance to see what the NIH will look like in FY26 and what funding opportunities are available.
atomic9244b97cf7 said
Hi Writedit, thanks for the comments. Maybe I should add that I have one last submission under my ESI status and that would be this October. Do you still suggest a new A0 even though the ESI status will be expiring.
Neurodev-R01 said
You will retain ESI status for A1-resubmission if its submitted within a 13-month period. See here: https://public.csr.nih.gov/FAQs/ApplicantsFAQs/InvestigatorCareerStageBenefits
writedit said
If you can submit an A0 as ESI in October 2025 (ie, you will be ESI eligible as of Oct 5, 2025), then I think that would be a better option than an A1 in July. As Neurodev notes, you would then be able to submit an A1 as late as November 2026 for the October 2025 A0. ESI status is your status at the time of submission, not review or award (though if you submit 2 different applications in the same cycle and one is funded, the second application would no longer be considered ESI – but could still be funded, depending on the score and IC priorities).
atomic9244b97cf7 said
Thank you!
texashans1 said
Anybody getting lucky with NIGMS lately? We have a new R01 scored at 20% in October 2024. GMS requested JIT, and we submitted JIT in November. The council meeting was delayed from February to May 22. NIH Commons Status changed to “council review completed”.
This is our only NIH proposal with any hope of funding. And the PI has no other NIH funding. What should we expect?
writedit said
Cycle 3 funding decisions probably haven’t been finalized yet, but you could let the PO know your situation (only shot at funding in FY25, lab would shut down otherwise). The decision will depend on whether your science is a priority and the overall IC strategy for the remaining FY25 awards, but it helps for the PO to understand context, especially if you are ESI / facing tenure decision soon and/or need to be able to support trainees.
atomic9244b97cf7 said
Noted. Thank you!
texashans1 said
PO replied that “your proposal is under consideration for funding till the end of fiscal year”. A promising sign?
writedit said
Technically, every scored application could be considered for funding until Sept 30th (but they won’t be). Your PO is conveying that you are on the paylist and could get an award if NIGMS gets to your application by Sept 30th. There are too many factors out of their control to be more confident, but at least you did not get a negative response. Fingers crossed for everyone.
texashans1 said
Thank you so much. We will let the PO know. Some NIH institutes is funding whole multi-year projects with 2025 fund. Any idea whether NIGMS is planning to do this?
writedit said
So far in FY25, I only see RF1 awards made by NINDS (5 Type 1 awards, 1 Type 2 award) and NIA (4 Type 3 awards, 1 Type 4 award). I don’t know which other ICs might be considering RF1s for FY25. (RePORTER went offline – 504 Gateway time out – while I was doing this search, so I couldn’t then check for current status of NIGMS funding in FY25.)
texashans1 said
NIGMS has not issued RF1 award so far. The latest NIGMS R01 was issued on May 30. It uses standard yearly budget. This is a tricky time.
sharkdeepff75ea1fc4 said
Hi. Does the September 2025 advisory council will find grant scored in June 2025 study section?
writedit said
Yes, in general, applications submitted in February-March and reviewed in June-July will go to the September-October Council for consideration in FY26. Some RFAs or other special funding opportunities could be considered for FY25 awards, but those are exceptions, not typical.
LNS said
I wondered if anyone has heard anything different regarding foreign components. Originally, we were told all foreign subs had to go. Then a couple of weeks ago, my PO hinted that there was recent discussion about a possible change to allow some existing/already funded grants to keep their foreign components for the remaining years of the grant. Anyone with any experience with this within the last month? Still holding out hope before we submit our next RPPR soon…
SaG said
NIH is trying for a fix for a limited number of critical clinical trials. Won’t be able to fix all grants with foreign subs. Not sure they can fix the ones they want to.
Xuanwang40 said
Dear writedit,
Thank you so much for your very informative website! I applied for an NIH grant (K99) for the first time last year and reading through your website was very helpful.
I submitted a K99 to NIAID last summer. It was reviewed last October (2024), went to advisory council in Jan 2025. The PO let me know that it was in the ‘gray zone’.
I prepared a revision (hasn’t been reviewed yet), but last week I got an update on my original K99 submission from last year. I recieved a personalized JIT request from NIAID staff (to be submitted within 3 days), and also got an email from the PO requesting some additional biosafety protocols (within 2 days).
Is this a good sign? Does this mean its a candidate for “select pay”, based off the timing?
Thank you!
Xuanwang40 said
Sorry quick update- I also saw last week that the status on my application on era commons changed to “Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist”.
Thank you!
writedit said
All good news, especially the Pending administrative review. They are processing your application for an award – they can process and fund either the A0 or the A1 application. At this point, you should sit tight and wait with a positive attitude. They will contact you if they need anything else. If not, your application should transition to award prepared, though nothing is guaranteed until you have the Notice of Award (not sure how the judicial reversal of canceled awards might affect awards being considered now, if at all).
noisilyphantom648b871441 said
Hi Writedit,
I have an ESI R01 that scored 4 points beyond the current NHLBI payline. I asked my PO if it could be considered for select pay, and got the reply: “Your grant proposal was recognized by reviewers as being highly significant, but not enough to merit funding at this time”.
While preparing a resubmission for July, I was wondering if there are any positive signs of select pay, or this is just a polite way of indicating that there is no chance of being funded in FY2025.
Thank you so much!
writedit said
I can see where the “at this time” might give you a glimmer of hope, but you should submit your A1. If you are close to the end of your ESI eligibility but can wait a few months, you might want to consider a new A0 in October instead, so you have a future A1 as an option as well (within 13 months) and so you know what IC landscape for FY26 (ie, will you be applying to NHLBI or NIBS). Also, if NHLBI unexpectedly finds itself able to reach for your A0 in August or September, they can and would, even with the A1 submission.
GrantQuestions said
Hi Writedit,
I have an NIA AD grant scored at 6% this spring. I submitted a 3-page response letter per PO’s request in May, and the current status of my grant is “Council review completed”. Today, I received an email from the PO saying that “In light of budgetary uncertainty, I would recommend that you consider a resubmission at this time.” Does that mean my grant is not being considered for funding anymore? Thank you and look forward to your reply.
writedit said
Your application is still being considered and could still be funded in FY25, but your PO does not want you to risk missing a submission cycle in case his concerns are warranted. Of course, lowering the score from the 6th percentile won’t be easy, and FY26 is currently looking at a 38% budget cut, so the paylines will be much worse. It’s very concerning that a 6th percentile AD/ADRD R01 won’t be considered for this FY. Leadership might have identified a narrow set of priorities for which funding is deemed essential this final year of a full appropriation (and/or may focus on multiyear awards, which would crater the paylines, too).
NB said
Hi Writedit,
Do you know how long after the council meeting one might receive a JIT request, assuming the grant is selected for funding? My PO mentioned that she would know more about the funding likelihood after the council meeting. The council met recently, so I’m just trying to figure out the right timing to follow up, so that it doesn’t seem like I’m pestering her.
Additionally, I have a naive (and overly optimistic) question about R01 funding. If the appropriations committees ultimately do not approve the full proposed NIH budget cut, and NIH ends up with only a modest reduction in its FY26 budget, is it possible that the NIH would fund additional grants from the FY25 cycle? What if there’s another continuing resolution and the FY26 budget isn’t finalized until mid 2026? I’m asking because paylines for FY25 have been extremely conservative, likely in anticipation of a significant budget reduction. Would the NIH “retroactively” fund those FY25 applications that would’ve been otherwise funded under a somewhat stable budget? I am asking because often times an AO grant would not receive a good score (even though it’s really a re- resubmission). Thanks!
writedit said
I would not suggest contacting your PO again. It sounds like you are on the bubble, which means it will take even longer before she has any idea about funding likelihood. She will be in touch if she needs anything from you or has an update. Be sure you have everything you need for JIT ready to go now so you can submit it within a day of the request. Speed will be essential (application could be skipped otherwise).
Although it is possible to fund a prior FY application in a subsequent year, this typically only happens if the A1 scores worse but the IC wants to fund the work so reaches back to the A0 for an award. For FY26, the appropriation will be significantly lower than in FY25 (hopefully not so high as a 38% cut), especially if the reorganization happens, and especially if your IC is in one of the new mash-up agencies. In the current situation, you can discard any notion that the IC might go back to pick up your FY25 application (again, especially if the IC no longer exists as its own IC).
Pretzel said
Hi Writedit,
If the funding status remain “Council review completed” after the council meeting, does it mean it’s not going to be funded? I heard that, for candidates who are chosen for funding, the status will change to administrative review soon after the council meeting. Thank you for your insights.
anjaliphd said
Any idea what is going on with NEI? I was told by the PO to expect NOA in 5-7 business days 4 weeks back. I don’t see any new awards on reporter.
writedit said
All ICs are having challenges and therefore significant delays issuing awards. Each award (all types – competing & noncompeting) must be approved by the administration. Noncompeting renewals are months behind schedule, and it is likely most if not all ICs will not be able to spend their entire appropriation at this rate, which could then be used to justify the appropriation cut (ie, they don’t need as much $). Your PO won’t be able to provide any insight, so I can only suggest that you sit tight knowing they will eventually get your award out, though later than anticipated.
hoping for the best said
Speaking of all the IC delays, for grants that are well within funding range but don’t receive awards before the fiscal year ends, will they be picked up for FY26, or will we have to submit all over again and hope for the best?
If FY26 picks up grants that should have been awarded with FY25 funds, then the number of brand new grants submitted in FY26 will be even more drastically reduced?
writedit said
In theory, they could be funded at any time until an unfunded application notice is sent (~14 months after the assigned Council date), but applications are rarely picked up in subsequent FYs. One exception would be an A1 that received a worse score, leading the IC to pick up the A0, if the application is of sufficient priority. That is, in normal times. In FY26, the ICs could be reshuffled, and the NIH could lose close to half of its appropriation, so I would not anticipate any FY25 applications being picked up in FY26 (especially since the ICs that accepted them in FY25 might no longer exist as grant-making agencies).
MaxxY said
Hi Writedit – my MIRA received a good impact score in June 2025 (Cycle 1). My PO stated FY26 proposals cannot be funded under FY25, but another application with the same score from the same study section/date received a JIT request. Does this indicate FY25 funding for that application? Should I contact my PO about my funding timeline again? Thanks much in advance!
writedit said
It is not impossible to fund an FY26 application in FY25, but it is highly unlikely – especially with the delays in funding even the most meritorious FY25 applications (ie, <10th percentile). The question is whether the JIT request was automated or personally sent from a GMS. If the latter, a request is not a guarantee of funding or an indication of intent to fund (some POs are more proactive, even if it means leaving the application “pending” for many months). If the request was personal and indicated an intent to fund in FY25, the topic could be of extremely high priority, with program not wanting to risk losing the opportunity to support this work due to the potential NIH reorganization and/or budget cut.
MaxxY said
The JIT request was personally sent by their PO. What would be the best approach to diplomatically revisit FY25 funding possibilities with my PO, considering they previously stated no administrative mechanism exists for funding FY26 applications under FY25? Thanks much!
writedit said
Your PO knows the possibility to fund an FY26 application in FY25 exists. NIGMS has done this in the past. No need to educate them on this. Their message conveys that your application will not receive consideration in FY25, so there is no need to revisit. If something changes on their end, they will send a JIT request. BTW, this decision is made at a higher pay grade than the PO – someone in leadership gave the green light to your colleague’s application, not their PO. Those in leadership did not identify your application as one to promote for potential funding in FY25 (your PO cannot change their minds – especially in these chaotic times). Given how far behind ICs are with funding FY25 applications and all the extra work reviewing and securing DOGE approval for non-competitive renewals (and competing awards, of course), I would be surprised if they could get to any FY26 applications, even if approved for early awards. Given the Congressional make-up, FY26 awards will not be delayed. That is, the federal budget will be in place on October 1, albeit almost certainly with a drastically different appropriation for the NIH (size and distribution).
Daniel_J said
This is a great resource particularly during the current hard time of NIH funding! My NIMH R01-A1 score is within the 10% supporting range. The council meeting was completed last Tuesday, but there is no update in my eRA but remains “Pending council review”. Is this unusual? Should I contact my PO for this or not? Any advice is welcome!
writedit said
You can sit tight. If you scroll up to look at recent questions here, several address this very issue at a variety of ICs – a delay in eRA status change after Council meets. Staffing shortages and the need to have all available hands on deck processing FY25 awards is likely behind the slow updates, though I cannot say for sure. Your PO won’t be able to offer any insight, though (they are not in grants administration), and it isn’t urgent to address (vs assignment to a different SRG and/or IC than requested).
Anxious-ESI said
Hi Writedit,
Is there any chance you think NINDS will update their paylines for FY25? Although it was mentioned at the May council meeting that they might update their conservative paylines, it’s almost July and nothing has changed. Also, most of new awards are R01’s as opposed to RF1’s so its not like they are spending the money more quickly. Is FY26 budget uncertainty the main reason for this? I wanted to ask my PO if there is any chance of select pay because I am running out of funds but wondering if I should wait longer to see if anything changes. Thanks.
writedit said
The issue right now isn’t paylines. It’s that ICs cannot get award approvals in a timely manner (noncompeting & competing, including all those well within any paylines), and time is rapidly running out. If your score is between the FY25 interim and FY24 final paylines, you can let your PO know your lab is at risk – though you are certainly not alone in that situation – just in case NINDS manages to pay all the noncompeting and within-payline competing applications it needs to before Sept 30 (it will need to move quickly on every award made, so have all required approvals & other updates in hand).
x said
Anyone know what’s going on at AHRQ? We had a 1st submission get 13th %ile at the Oct ’24 study section. Spoke with PO in January before resubmitting in March, but the June study section never met (confirmed by email with SRO) and I can’t find a notice in the Federal Register. We emailed the PO to request a meeting, but they replied just by saying that they had ‘favorably recommended’ our initial submission and otherwise expressed uncertainty. eRA Commons still says ‘Pending Council Review’ and we haven’t been asked for JIT documents, which seems unfavorable.
A couple questions I have are:
writedit said
Study sections are meeting, but at the NIH, all IC-specific study sections were folded into CSR, leading to the elimination of IC-specific panels (eg, the study section for NCATS CTSAs is in the Macromolecule, Biophysics, & Biological Chemistry Review Branch – utterly inappropriate – led by a former NCI SRO). AHRQ is outside the NIH but uses CSR for referral and could have had its review committees folded into CSR as well. You could ask the Director of the AHRQ Division of Scientific Review and/or the SRO for your panel for an update; if you have no response, you can assume they were all fired along with most other IC-specific SROs; I see no study section dates for 2025 on the meeting schedule website, so I assume this is what happened. If you have a Council meeting date, that is a good sign, but the future of AHRQ as an independent agency (like several NIH ICs) is uncertain right now, which is why your PO is uncertain. Hopefully your 13th percentile application will receive an award before Sept 30.
x said
thanks!
James said
Does anyone have any insights into NIGMS IDeA Co-funding for this year? Our R01 was reassigned from NHLBI to NIGMS for potential funding through the IDeA program, but we have not heard anything from NIGMS and POs either don’t know anything or don’t respond to inquiries. The IDeA portal also shows only 3 NOAs for 2025. I know funding can be awarded through September, but with all the turmoil at NIH, I was just wondering if anyone has any insights into the situation.
SaG said
That is not how IDeA co-funding works. The grant wouldn’t be transferred to NIGMS for co-funding. It would stay with NHLBI. If it was transferred after review then it is possible NIGMS wants to fund the app directly.
James said
Ok, I guess I am confused then about the IDeA co-funding mechanism. Our R01 scored just above the payline at study section. When the advisory council met, our grant was then reassigned to NIGMS. The PO also told us that we were nominated for the IDeA co-funding and since the IDeA program is under NIGMS, it made sense.
But either way, I’m looking for insights into NIGMS (since that is where our grant is reassigned to) and their decision making process timelines either for the IDeA co-funding or whether for grants reassigned there. Just looking to see if anyone has any knowledge of what is happening.
writedit said
Your application would be assigned to an NIGMS IDeA co-funding coordinator, which is probably what you are seeing (vs a change in application number from R01HL to R01GM). Because the focus is on spreading the co-funding among IDeA states, I assume decisions are made based on Congressional district vs science (ie, ensure $$ is spread around by state & district vs concentrated in a few districts). Only high-priority, scientifically meritorious applications are nominated, so that layer of review is not needed at NIGMS.
LNS said
Wondering if there is anywhere to see the range of impact scores historically for NCI-funded P01s? Or do you have any idea how high they are likely to go (at least based on experience in normal years)?
writedit said
P01s have a lower payline/funding threshold than R01s, and you can see the range of scores for R01-equivalent applications discussed and funded for all of NIH and by individual IC in the Funding Priorities section of the NIH Data Book: https://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/category/23 (select NCI – FY24 is initially shown, but prior FYs can be selected)
You can see the P01 cumulative funding rates NIH-wide here: https://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/category/22
Chris said
Dear Writedit,
In response to the NCI Request for Applications (RFA), my NCI R33 application recently received an impact score of 28, but no percentile was provided. According to the NCI website, only paylines based on percentiles are published. Could you please advise on the likelihood of funding for this score in FY 2026? Thanks a lot.
writedit said
RFAs are awarded on more than just score, so at least you are in the running. FY26 will be brutal, though (don’t even look at FY25 or FY24 paylines for guidance). Once you have your summary statement, ask the PO whether you should submit again. They will have no idea about funding likelihood overall, but if your science is of special interest (and no major reviewer concerns), they might be able to provide an inkling of hope – or guidance on how to improve a future submission to be as appealing to NCI as possible.
STTR late submitter said
I have a question about the late submission policy: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-15-039.html
I qualify for continuous submission and am planning on submitting a new R41 under the parent RFA (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-24-247.html).
I believe that I qualify for a two-week late submission due to continuous submission status. However, PA-24-247 lists and expiration date of September 6, 2025. Does anyone know if late submissions that are received after the expiration can still be considered?
Two weeks would help a lot…
writedit said
The problem is that you will not be able to submit because the application will have expired. However, they added the September 6th date because they weren’t able to get the new parent announcement out. I cannot imagine even this administration dropping the small business award program (federal-wide), so you could check with the PO about when they expect the next parent announcement to be released. NOFOs seem to be on hold again, which could be part of the problem. However, that still might not help you, since the updated NOFO will be a different number, so you probably will not be able to submit September 22nd either way. The PO would also be the one to indicate whether there is a workaround when the NOFO expires (especially if a replacement parent announcement is released before Sept 6).
STTR late submitter said
Thanks for your reply, writedit. Looks like I will plan to submit on time!
Submission plans aside of course, who knows if SBIR/STTR funding will continue (looks like some dismal cuts are on the way)…
writedit said
As I said, you should check with the NOFO PO about late submission. It could be there is a workaround somehow in ASSIST. The SBIR/STTR funding is a percentage of the R&D budget and therefore will drop proportionally.
TK99 said
Dear writedit and others,
I submitted an R01 on June 18th (two-week extension due to serving on study sections), and the status still shows “entered into system”, without an assignment of a grant ID. I guess it might be flagged for a further check as I did use the words “female” “male”, although it is nothing related to DEI. How long is such a check typically taking? Should I be worried? Thank you so much!
Neurodev-R01 said
Most of the recent submissions are taking ~ 4 weeks for the IC and study section assignments, so I would give it another few weeks. Its probably due to staffing and other reorganization related issues at CSR.
writedit said
Thanks, Neurodev-R01! TK99, if you scroll back up a bit, you will see several investigators reporting extended delays in IC and SRG assignment (even longer for SRG often). I think it is an issue of staffing, CSR reorganization, and NIH reorganization (based on FY26 NIH budget request). It will be a real nightmare to reassign all the applications not going to a continuing IC (NIA, NIAID, NIGMS, NCI), and I assume they will just administratively withdraw applications to ICs that are terminated (FIC, NINR, NIMHD, NCCIH … NIEHS moves from NIH to Admin for Healthy America).
TK99 said
Thank you, Neurodev-R01 and writedit!
LiverCancerR01 said
Hello everyone,
I recently got a 5% (impact score of 24) for an R01 for NCI (cycle 1). I believe this will be for FY26. Do you think this will still be within a fundable range even with the budget reduction, etc? Getting anxious since my R01 is ending March ’26. (Speculations are welcome, I know we won’t know for sure until Oct). Thank you!
writedit said
That could be close. When you get your summary statement, check in with your PO and note your funding situation. They are having trouble spending their FY25 appropriation in time due to delays, so if your application is of significant interest, they could push to fund this year vs FY26. If that isn’t possible, your PO could give you advice on next steps, though it would be very difficult to improve a 5th percentile if the advice is to submit again.
originalreallyb043b10207 said
I emailed my PO yesterday after this post and he replied right away. I asked 3 questions: 1) if this could be funded in FY25, 2) should I prepare for JIT, and 3) should I prepare to resubmit. He said no to FY25, prepare for a JIT this end of summer, and did not tell me to resubmit. He said score is excellent and in other years, it is safe to say it will be funded but with the proposed budget cut, we are unsure. He said we will know more by the end of the year or before that. I am hopeful…
writedit said
Phew – thank you for sharing this very positive news (though it would have been even better if there were any chance of an FY25 award – but that would have been a longshot). With these exceptional scores (5th percentile or lower), I am not sure there is ever good reason to resubmit since the score is not likely to get lower, and your time is better spent on manuscripts or applications for other projects.
MouseResearch said
got 4% and advice is to resubmit. we can speculate all the way we want but i think that NCI (and NIH) will first fund already existing grants in years 2, 3..4 so if the cut will happen as proposed, there will be simply no money for new grants in FY26…. if most of the cut will actually go as 15% IDC cap, then 4-5% sounds reasonable to be funded. But we never operated under the threat of 37% cut (or whatever it is)… so kind of difficult to predict….if budget stays flat (a big if), then 5% likely be funded..
writedit said
Ouch. I knew folks at the 6th percentile were being told to resubmit. I think mainly, POs have no idea how this will play out and don’t want PIs to take any chances. However, the IC appropriation requests for FY26 do all include funding for new awards (https://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/insti_center_subs.html)
For FY26, NCI will fund 755 new (up from 610 in FY25 but down from 1089 in FY24), 117 renewal (up from 73 in FY25 but down from 132 in FY24), and 3475 noncompeting (down from 4598 in FY25) awards. Cancer centers/SPORES, Ks, Fs, Ts, and SBIR/STTR all take a major hit. No administrative or competitive supplements.
Award budgets will almost certainly be cut by 10% or more on top of the reduction of indirect cost rate to 15%. The requests also note the continued use of RF1-type awards: “The FY 2026 request will continue the FY 2025 NIH policy of allocating half of the budget for competing RPGs for awards that fully fund their outyear commitments as part of the initial grant awards.” (which further limits the total number of competing awards)
I was relieved to see funding for noncompeting awards in the new amalgam IC requests (was somewhat worried they might all just get terminated when the administering IC disappeared as an independent agency, analogous losing tenure when the issuing department is eliminated).
Now we wait and see what the Senate does, if anything.
alessaycy said
Thank you for the link. The proposed budget for the new NIBS institute is brutal.
MouseResearch said
Thanks, in that link the most puzzling is 1000 non-competing not being funded, like 20% of all portfolio. Is that how many grants they already cancelled or this is something which is still coming?
is 15% IDC a law of land now or still can be rescued by Senate? any possibility that they restore ID C but not i ncrease the budget? that would be brutal for new and non-competing grants
writedit said
Congress could adjust the IDC rate up and/or increase IC appropriations. If NIH leadership does not push for this, though, an improved appropriation is less likely. Applying the savings with a 15% IDC rate kept the award rate from looking even worse, but House reps should be hearing from local institutions affected (and the economic impact in their districts), and the Senate has long maintained bipartisan support for biomedical research. On the other hand, looking at Senate tolerance of what is happening at the CDC and FDA lowers confidence in the potential for improvement.
Regarding the noncompeting numbers, that likely results from a combination of award terminations, drop in competing awards in FY25 (due to the HHS-DOGE review delays), drop in NCEs (not sure how these show up in the budget), and awards concluding as anticipated.
stressed said
Help! I have a grant that scored well (NINDS, FY25, Cycle 3), and the PO mentioned over a month ago that it was on track to be awarded. However, I still have not received the NOA.
I am running out of funding and will soon be unable to support my postdoc and graduate student if the award is not issued soon. I’ve communicated this to the PO but haven’t received a response.
Is there anything else I can do to expedite the process? I’ve asked my institution about setting up a pre-award spending account, but they declined, stating they need the NOA to proceed. Also, do you know whether a pre-award spending account can be used to cover personnel salaries? Do you think it would be appropriate for me to reach out to the GMS, given the lack of response from the PO? Thank you for your advice!
alessaycy said
I just went through this. R01 submitted in July 2024, received an almost perfect score, and just received NoA last week. They are still processing applications from Cycle 2 right now. You did all the right thing. There is nothing else you can do at the moment other than waiting. You can request a phone call with your PO. They may provide some insights over the phone. My institute doesn’t allow us to set up a pre-award spending account. However, my chair did promise me gap fund to keep the lab running. Fortunately, I didn’t need it after all.
stressed said
Thank you for the helpful info! Okay, I will sit tight and hope that it gets processed in time.
writedit said
Thanks for sharing your positive outcome, alessaycy!
stressed, as alessaycy notes, you can’t do anything else to expedite your award processing, so you are best off sitting tight and not interrupting the frantic work to process awards as quickly as possible. The hold up is with HHS/DOGE approval, not the NIH, so your PO would have no insights on timelines to share, even if you got them on the phone.
At BICO, the priority is on supporting students and postdocs during award delays, so your chair, dean, or other leadership should be able to cover those stipends until your award comes through. You definitely want to investigate what resources are available since yo do have an award on the way (vs investigators without an award on the horizon). They won’t do it through a pre-award account, since the federal grant making process is so unpredictable right now, but they should fill those specific gaps (trainee support) until your award comes through.
ps said
I am also in the same boat. Submitted NINDS R01 in cycle 3, got fundable score, NOA is still not here. Status says ” council review completed”. No update after that. The PO says everything is on track with my application, it’s just taking time.
LongWaits said
NIA K99 Timeline –
6/12/2023 A0 Application Entered into the System
6/27/2023 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
10/25/2023 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
11/27/2023 Summary Statement Released, Score 30
Meet w/ PO who suggests resubmission
3/11/2024 A1 Application Entered into System
3/19/2024 Scientific Review Group review pending. Refer any questions to the Scientific Review Administrator.
6/17/2024 Scientific Review Group review completed: Council review pending. Refer any questions to Program Official.
7/15/2024 Summary Statement Released, Score 22
Meet w/ PO, optimistic but nothing assured until paylines
9/18/2024 Council Review Completed
1/6/2025 PO Requests 1 page Rebuttal
1/9/2025 1 Page Rebuttal Submitted to PO
~Some changes in the government~
3/28/25 Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.
4/1/25 Personalized JIT
~Some back and forth over human subjects & a GMS change~
4/11/25 Final Personalized JIT submitted
6/08/25 Award prepared: refer questions to Grants Management Specialist.
07/09/25 NOA
Keep battling y’all.
writedit said
Woohoo – congratulations and thank you for sharing your wonderfully helpful timeline, Longwaits! Thank you for persevering – best wishes for success with your final training, project, and career in biomedical research.
Scientist007 said
Hi Writedit,
Same story here. Cycle 3 R03 application scored 3%. Status: ‘council review completed’. No updates after that. We need this bridge funding to keep the lab going until our R01 gets funded. Worried and anxious if it will get through before the end of the fiscal year. Thanks.
writedit said
I hear your anxiety – so many noncompeting and competing awards in limbo as the clock ticks down on FY25. With a 3rd percentile R03, there isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a question about whether, but unfortunately, no one at the NIH can answer the question as to when, so all we can do is wait. I am really hoping the NIH can catch up on all awards that should have been made since ~June 1 by early-mid August to avoid any pocket rescission, though that’s a very tall order.
Scientist007 said
Hi writedit, I was asked for a revised DMS plan for this R03 last week (if that means anything). But the status is still “council review completed”. Is there still hope for this grant to be funded this year? Thanks
writedit said
They would not ask for a revised DMS plan if they weren’t considering your application for an award. I would view this as a positive – and maybe the status stasis is due to staffing shortages or other chaos inside.
crazytime2025 said
Dear Writedit,
Submitted my first R01 in 6/2024, received fundable score and PO recommended a conversion to R37 due to ESI status. sent a few times JIT. award prepared back in 3/2025 but eventually went to council meeting last month. Still pending. I am a bit worried considering all the things happening. what else should I do besides waiting? should I consider a resubmission? thanks
writedit said
Congratulations on your exceptional first R01! I can’t tell if you mean the status is still Award prepared or Pending administrative review. Either way, award approval by HHS/DOGE is holding up hundreds of awards, including yours (if you scroll up, you will see many others likewise waiting). Your PO won’t know about the timing of your award, since the processing and approval process is not in their domain, but you could ask your PO if you should resubmit as insurance or sit tight.
crazytime2025 said
still award prepared.
writedit said
Award prepared is better than Pending. It seems as though they are finally getting back to making Cycle 2 awards, so hopefully yours is among them. If your status has not changed by August, you might check in with your PO about whether you should be considering another application in the fall (ie, was there a problem on the HHS/DOGE side with your application).
ESI-R01 said
NINDS appears to have a new council meeting in early August. This is a new meeting before their regularly scheduled September meeting. Wondering if there will be any discussion of interim paylines for the remaining FY25 which weren’t updated since September 24. Clinging to any hope that a borderline score ESI R01 gets funded.
writedit said
Advisory Councils don’t set paylines (never have). This will probably be about the NIH shaking up Advisory Councils, possibly also input on integrating NINDS programs under the new IC organization, depending on Senate actions by that point. Possibly also discussion of what happens if a pocket rescission is announced August 15th.
NINDS currently only has 4 of the 18 Advisory Council members it needs (only NCATS has fewer, at 3). The NIH is replacing Advisory Council members to include those sympathetic to administration priorities (Council members are not paid, so it is not a cost-saving measure). Probably any pending members for the NINDS Council will be disinvited at the August meeting – not sure if any new candidates will be announced. Nature reported this today: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02221-6
zhaoj817 said
Dear Writedit,
I just received the score for my first R01 (AIDS-related, submitted to NIA this May and reviewed last week by CSR). It came back with a 25th percentile. I understand the FY24 payline for ESI is also 25%, but given the budget cuts, I’m concerned about the likelihood of funding. Should I assume it’s unlikely to be funded and begin preparing for an A1 resubmission? I originally submitted this R01 as a diversity application in January 2025 (Cycle 3), but it was never reviewed due to its diversity status. After contacting my PO, I was advised to withdraw and resubmit it as a regular R01, which I did this May.
My R15 grant expires on February 26, so I’m eager to understand my chances even before the summary statement is released. Would it be appropriate to reach out to my PO now for advice, or should I wait until the summary statement is available?
Thank you!
writedit said
Unfortunately, even in a normal year, it would be unlikely (though not impossible) for your R01 to be considered in FY25. However, ICs are still struggling to make FY25 Cycle 2 awards plus all of Cycle 3 and a huge backlog of noncompeting awards, so I highly doubt they will be able to consider processing any FY26 applications in FY25. Even with your summary statement, your PO will not have insight into funding likelihood since no one knows yet what the NIH will look like in FY26 (budget or organization). The 25th percentile will likely be too high no matter what for funding consideration, though, so you should probably consider a submission for August, if feasible – preferably a different project than the R01 just reviewed, so you have a couple options to toggle between in different submission cycles. You will need to have your summary statement before you can submit the May R01 again in any case (application is under review until the summary statement is released). If a different project application in August is not feasible, then your December A1 application will benefit from knowing the NIH status and priorities plus your reviewer input.
zhaoj817 said
Thank you for your helpful insights and suggestions.
Daniel_J said
Dear Writedit,
Following my question on June 24 and your suggestions about my R01 application, I waited for a few days, and my eRA status was changed to “Council meeting completed”. Then, I have reached my PO with an email, and his answer is “Will be in contact once the funding plans are finalized.” After that, nothing has been changed, and no JIT was received even though my score is within the 2025 payline (within 10%er) at NIMH. Is there any chance to get it funded? Should I contact my PO, GMS, or both? Or just waiting? Thanks!
writedit said
I know it’s hard, but you can just wait to hear from them – neither will have any insight about decisions being made higher up. The NIH is billions of dollars behind on issuing both noncompeting and competing awards due to very slow HHS review of awards. Also, NIMH is among the ICs issuing competing RF1 awards, which pays the entire project up front (vs over multiple years), and which will affect the number of awards that can be made. IC leadership will determine how many and which applications are paid (not your PO or GMS). If the link to submit JIT is open, you could submit if that would help your mental health, though you will need to be ready to update it quickly if/when asked (ie, within a day). Certainly if you need any approvals, you should get those in hand since you won’t have time once a decision about your application is made.
Daniel_J said
Thanks! Following your suggestions, I have uploaded documents for JIT. Let’s hope it can move forward some day.
writedit said
They will contact you if they need anything additional or updated. Fingers crossed.
ESI said
Hi all,
I submitted my first R01 in Feb 25 at the NHLBI and received a fundable score (11th percentile with FY24 payline at 12th/22nd for established/ESI). I have of course not yet received the summary statement. However, I wanted to find out when JIT requests usually get sent out – is it before or after council meetings? I want to get all my information in order in case this application does get selected for funding. I have human subjects (exempt) and that is rather new to me. So, I want to start as early as possible to avoid any delays from my end.
I know it has been extremely uncertain to predict anything at the NIH. So, sending out positive wishes for everyone.
ESI said
I should add that I am an ESI.
writedit said
Congratulations on your excellent score for your first R01! Your application is for FY26, which will start October 1, with the first cycle awards issued in December (best possible circumstances) or (more often) early in 2026. When you get your summary statement, check with your PO on next steps, which could include advice to submit again (if so, you can ask to talk about resubmission strategies). If you receive your summary statement soon, you could also ask if your application will be sent to the August Council (vs October, which is when it would normally be considered) – highly unlikely, especially this year. But just in case, you would want your IRB exemption in hand by then. Otherwise, if your application is considered for funding in FY26, you would get a JIT request probably shortly after Council meeting, which would still give you plenty of time until a December or later start date. You can ask your IRB about the current review time for exemption requests and plan accordingly. At the end of the FY, timing is very tight, but not at the beginning, so you don’t need to worry about a rapid JIT turnaround.
ESI said
Great! Thank you so much for the quick reply. Yes, I am not holding out any hopes that it will be sent to August council – but good to ask as you suggested, lest my PO thinks that this gets picked up to be funded with the unspent dollars because of slow processing throughout the year. Even then, I am not going to celebrate until I see NoA because I don’t even know if NHLBI will continue to exist when it’s time to actually process the awards.
But yes, I guess I should start working on IRB exemption from my institution – it’s usually at least 2-3 weeks long wait but i have heard that they will expedite it if funding is dependent on this. Nonetheless, it’s good to note that the timing is somewhat relaxed for the beginning of the FY.
Prashant said
Dear Writedit, I submitted NIGMS R35, ESI application and received the summary statement with score 36. Do you have Pay lines info for NIGMS from last year? I have been asked to submit JIT. Summary statement said minor concerns and i think i can address them easily. I am planning to schedule meeting/talk with my PO. Any recommendations/suggestions for PO discussion?
writedit said
The ESI MIRA awards are issued in August-September, so this is all good news, and you will want to get your JIT information promptly, if you haven’t already. If you applied in February 2025 (vs Oct 2024), your application would normally be considered for FY26, but – given your JIT request – you could ask your PO to confirm whether your application is being considered for an FY25 award. Otherwise, your PO will not know about the timing or likelihood of an award, but you can ask about next steps including whether to be working on another application (whether a MIRA resubmission or a different R01).
Valentino said
Dear writedit, I recently received a 10th percentile for an R01 resubmission (A1 application) to NIA. The grant was submitted in March 2025. This is for the general payline (non-ADRD) for grants <$500K per year, which had a payline of 16th percentile in 2024. What do you think of my chances of funding? Should I contact the PO? I’m assuming the PO will just tell me he won’t know anything until the next fiscal year’s budget passes. Thanks for your guidance.
writedit said
FY24 paylines do not apply in FY25 or, even more so, in FY26. If the Senate goes along with the administration budget request, paylines will be drastically reduced, almost certainly below the 10th percentile; even if the Senate reduces the severity of cuts, paylines will be lower, especially if there are high-priority FY25 applications HHS did not approve for payment by September 30th. We need also to see what the Senate does with the requested reorganization of the NIH ICs, which will also affect funding at all the ICs being consolidated. I would suggest waiting until the future of the NIH is a bit more clear – Senate Appropriations Committee takes up HHS next week – and then contact your PO about future NIA priorities in this administration and how to revise your application accordingly (you will probably be advised to submit a new A0 in October).
Chris said
Dear writedit,
I submitted my NCI R33 application in response to an NIH RFA in April. It was reviewed in July and received an impact score of 28. The Council Meeting Date listed is 2025/10, but the Advisory Council (AC) Meeting Date is 09/03/2025. Does this mean my application is being considered for funding in FY2025 rather than FY2026? Also, what is the difference between the “Council Meeting Date” and the “Advisory Council Meeting Date”?
Thanks!
writedit said
Your application is for FY26. eRA Commons lists the generic fall Council timing (2025/10), but you want to check your IC for their actual Council date, such as 9/3-4/2025 for NCI. Council = Advisory Council or Advisory Board (in the case of NCI, NCAB). The NCAB September meeting will include a closed session to discuss FY26 first-cycle applications.
Gamble said
Dear writedit,
My March NHLBI R01 A1 application was reviewed last week and scored a 9th percentile. My PO obviously can’t tell me anything yet (although he said he had cautious optimism), but my question is around the putative FY2026 paylines, especially if there is an IC re-org. I saw a table of FY26 Proposed budget (I do not have the source) that shows that the FY26 success rates for the new National Institute of Body Systems (NIBS) will be 7.3%. Have you seen this table forecast and would this track with future paylines? How much will paylines decrease for FY26?
Thanks!
writedit said
The future of the NIH is still unknown. The House Appropriations Committee was scheduled to take up the Labor, HHS, & Education appropriation bill this week, but that was postponed until September due to the Speaker’s hasty calling of an early August recess (for reasons unrelated to this blog content). The Senate has no hearings on HHS appropriation scheduled yet. However, the House did approve an appropriation of $184.5B, which is down only slightly from 185.8B in FY25. This suggests the 40% budget cut requested by the administration will not be taken up, but it’s impossible to say for certain at this point – ditto for whether Congress will reorganize the ICs. Keep an eye on the news, but I am assuming we will enter FY26 on a continuing resolution based on FY25 appropriation levels (or a percentage of them, such as 90% – only an example based on past Congresses).
bluesand said
Dear writedit,
Is it likely that MYF will continue progressing this fiscal year? Given the budget delay, when do you anticipate final funding decisions will be made? Do ESIs immediately lose their status upon receiving the NoA? Thanks!
freelybbc4f42c72 said
Thank you!
writedit said
I am sure ICs will continue making multiyear awards as they are able, especially with the administration’s FY26 appropriation language emphasizing this strategy. I thought NCI might have transitioned to this approach, given their current payline at the 4th percentile (!), 10th for ESI, which is intended to reduce their obligations in FY26 so they can still make new awards next year if the administration’s 40% budget cut is adopted by Congress. However, I don’t see a spate of new RF1s from NCI or any other suggestion that they are emphasizing multi-year funding yet in FY25.
Regarding ESI status, it is updated once the first NOA is processed. If you had 2 applications under consideration during the same cycle, the second IC can still consider you an ESI if they choose to, since you were ESI at the time of application, but NIH policy limits ESI applicants to one a substantial award. I have seen this go both ways. In the current climate, my guess is that ICs will be less generous, but they will focus on their funding priorities, which could include a formerly ESI application with science of special interest to them.
bluesand said
Dear writedit,
Thank you for the explanation. To follow up on ESI status, if I applied for an R03/R21 grant requiring ESI status at the time of submission, but I receive a substantial award and lose my ESI status during the review or pending phases, would I still be eligible for the R03/R21? Can I assume that the drastic payline reduction applies only to FY25? Thank you!
writedit said
I wasn’t aware of ESI-specific R03/R21 NOFOs (do know of NOFOs limited to specific IC K awardees), but I suspect those are to help ESIs generate the preliminary data needed for competitive R01 applications, so my guess is that ICs would not issue an award if you receive an R01 award before the R03 or R21 application is considered for funding, since you would no longer need the R03/R21 boost to get you to an R01.
Unfortunately, paylines will not get better if the policy of multiyear funding continues in the context of the NIH budget declining slightly or, especially, drastically (ie, administration’s requested 40% cut).
bluesand said
Thank you!
PILIPONSKY said
The status of my NIAID R01 A1 (submitted November 2024) changed to “award prepared” ten days ago. Anxiously waiting for NOA + wondering whether I should contact the grant management officer at a certain point. Thanks!
writedit said
No need to contact anyone (they need the time to focus on processing awards), but know that there could be a substantial delay due to the need for HHS/DOGE to review each award before it is issued. There is nothing anyone at NIAID can do to expedite this. Fingers crossed for a rapid turnaround and best wishes for success with your research.
mushahid khan said
Dear writedit, My R01 (NINDS) scored 9 % last week. I am a new investigator and was wondering the likelihood of funding. Your feedback would be appreciated. Thanks
writedit said
Please see my reply to Gamble (who also has a 9th percentile application) above. Until the House and Senate hold hearings on the Labor, HHS, & Education appropriation bill and on any reorganization of the NIH, no one will know for sure what FY26 will look like, though it seems unlikely drastic changes will occur (on the legislative side, anyway). Given that nothing will happen until September now, I assume we will start FY26 with a continuing resolution and no reshuffling of the ICs.
Vic said
Dear Writedit,
I know it is early to assume, but if there is a continuing resolution for FY26, does it mean that the budget for FY26 will be the same as that for FY25? Also, if an year starts with a continuing resolution, does it mean the final budget (by Sep 2026) will stay the same, or does this get revised sometime in March? Lastly, what does a CR mean in terms of paylines – do we expect them to decrease a bit under a flat budget? Or do we just have to wait till next year March/April to know what the final budget will look like?
I apologize for too many questions, but a lot of us with encouraging scores in round 1 are pinning our hopes on FY26 budget, or facing the tough decision of closing labs.
MK said
Thank you!
writedit said
No worries about too many questions – we all have scores of questions but not many answers, unfortunately. A continuing resolution is typically based on some percentage of a prior FY budget level. It doesn’t need to be FY25 (eg, the first FY10 CR was based on FY08), it doesn’t need to be 100% of FY25. Given that FY25 was based on FY24, though, I assume Congress will stick with the traditional approach of continuing the prior year budget levels; the House set the ceiling of the FY26 appropriation for Labor, HHS, & Education at $184.5B, which is ~99% of the FY25 level (eg, FY26 CR could have a ~1-2% reduction from FY25 levels). The CR(s) will result in conservative paylines, but once ICs understand where Congress stands on the administration’s requested restructuring and 40% cuts, they will be able to better gauge how much funding they might have available for competing awards (ie, will everyone need to be at the 4th percentile with NCI or back at more reasonable levels). With GOP majorities in both houses of Congress, we should/could have a final federal budget by the end of the year, but hard to predict, of course.
MouseResearch said
https://www.cancer.gov/grants-training/grants-funding/funding-strategy/current-funding-policy
NCI for the rest of FY25, intend to reach 4% for established R01.
writedit said
And NI. Unfortunately, the hasty retreat of the House meant the Appropriation Committee did not take up the Labor, HHS, & Education appropriation bill as scheduled today (& last Monday), leaving ICs with no insight as to how Congress will handle all the administration’s requested changes and cuts. I suspect NCI was holding off but had no choice once the Appropriations Committee meeting on HHS was postponed until September. They can’t risk future obligations that could put their cancer centers and clinical trials at risk.
JPL said
If worse comes to worse, and ICs drop their pay lines to 4-5%, at what point does it become an inefficient use of time for members of review panels who dedicate substantial unpaid time to evaluating grants that are highly unlikely to be funded, diverting them from their own research and clinical responsibilities? That is a lot of time for reviewers to spend on a vast majority of applications that will never see the light of day. I can’t help but wonder whether a different review model is needed if pay lines consistently remain in the single digits for long. Increasingly, the system is arguably operating at a level where the investment in reviewing the entire pool of applications yields disproportionately small returns in terms of actual grants awarded, suggesting a need for systemic adjustments to optimize reviewer time and resources.
Vic said
Am I understanding this correctly? So, since the FY26 budget is uncertain, NCI posted a payline of 4% for FY25, which takes into account: 1) that they have to issue RF1 type awards, and 2) they may have very limited funds to support year 2 of the remaining (normal 5-year) awards next year?
In this case, assuming that the FY26 budget remains uncertain till September 30th, there is no way for NCI to improve that payline for FY25? Because even if the appropriations committee meets in September, there will likely be a CR, so NIH cannot really take that as a final budget for FY26.
Doesn’t that unfairly penalize FY25 final paylines, just because FY26 budget is uncertain?
Suppose the FY26 budget passes sometime in December with minimal cuts, there would still be no way for NIH to go back and fix the 4% for FY25 applications, as they cannot do so after the September 30 deadline to spend the funds?
SaG said
NCI decreased their 2025 payline not because of an uncertain 2026 budget but because NIH is being forced to spend 50% of their competing budget (dollars available after June 1) on multi year funding of new awards. So, instead of incrementally funding (1 year of money) 4 R01s they have to fund 1 R01 for all 4 years in year 1. Which means there are fewer payline grants they can award (~35% fewer) and thus the payline drops. That is a huge unplanned change to the budget late in the fiscal year. Next year NIH also needs to spend 50% of competing dollars on multi year awards. Even with a flat budget that will hit the payline hard. in 2027 they have to fund 100% of competing grants multiyear funded. SInce most R01s are funded for 5 years paylines wont get better until around 2030 as competing awards recycle. If budgets are cut we could have years with no new awards. Only enough money for competing awards. Going to be a rough few years…..I don’t think the community appreciates how difficult implementing multi year funding will be even with a flat budget. Imagine your bank telling you you have to pay the next 5 years of mortgage payments this year then nothing for the next 4 years. And btw, your salary might be cut too.
MaxxY said
Thanks for this insight. Is the multi-year funding being implemented NIH-wide or just within NCI?
SaG said
NIH-Wide. Might be HHS wide. Not sure about the later
writedit said
NIH-wide. If you look at the FY26 budget requests from each IC, they state: “The FY 2026 request will continue the FY 2025 NIH policy of allocating half of the budget for competing RPGs for awards that fully fund their outyear commitments as part of the initial grant awards“. I can find no such FY25 policy anywhere on the NIH website (or any ICs), the Federal Register, or the FY25 budget bill.
So far in FY25, it looks like NCI has funded the outyears for 17 of 28 new R03 awards, 31 of 309 new R21 awards, and 0 of 359 R01 awards (80% of which have first-year budgets >$500K) – and no RF1 awards (only NINDS & NIA using this activity code). They started the 2-year awards back in the spring – not sure why they were not more aggressive earlier in the FY to avoid the catastrophic 4th percentile for Cycle 3 (and the remaining Cycle 2) applications. Ditto for other ICs. I had expected more ICs to make multiyear awards just to spend their appropriation by Sept 30th (or now, maybe, by August 15th, if Vought issues a pocket rescission of the unspent NIH budget), given the delays in award approvals by HHS/DOGE.
I assume Congress could intervene in terms of appropriation language and legislative mandate to maintain single- vs multi-year funding, as I hope they will do with indirect costs (ie, not accept administration request to move this power to the executive branch or the cut all the way to 15% of direct costs). No idea if this (legislative mandate to maintain single-year vs multiyear funding) is even on the table, but I hope NIH lobbyists are pushing for this change.
As SaG notes, even a flat budget in FY26 is not going to allow ICs to reach back to pick up FY25 applications if they still need to issue half their RPG awards with multiyear funding. These applications will still be eligible for awards (until they are administratively withdrawn), if the policy changes, and ICs have a little more breathing room, but no one should hold their breath for this to happen.
Vic said
What a ridiculous policy this is for being implemented with no foresight or planning. Transitioning to multi-year awards might make sense with a budget surplus for the first 2-3 years, even then it would be tough, not to mention senseless. But doing so amid such budget uncertainty is just lame and pathetic. Any idea why or who is implementing this lame policy without understanding the implications? My lab will definitely be closing in the next year or so, even after getting a very promising score for FY26 round 1.
SaG said
OMB. Not sure they care about implications.
Vic said
It is not like this will end up saving even $0.01 or $0.0001 of the federal budget, but research will suffer. And at a time when we should be expanding, not shrinking. No logic at all.
R01applicant said
So if FY25 applications can still be possibly picked up for funding in FY26, will the FY26 applications also need to compete with the pool of as-yet unfunded FY25 round 2 and 3 applications? As in, when the FY26 budget is approved, and if there is room to fund more single-year applications, will the remaining FY25 applications between 4-10% be given precedence over FY26 applications throughout next year?
SaG said
I have no clue. But I would guess that there will not be a preference. It just pushes the problem forward.
Running out of time said
I have a MIRA pending admin review. Is the HHS/DOGE review the main barrier to advancing to award prepared or NOA? Are there other barriers? I’m worried about Aug 15…
writedit said
@R01applicant, I think the future of award decisions will look like RFAs, where the score and review notes could be helpful for final close decisions, but awards will be made based on the science of highest priority given the limited number of awards to be made. If there are high-priority FY25 applications that are not approved before a likely pocket rescission, those will probably be considered in FY26 (but not the whole pile from FY25 cycles 1 & 2).
@Running out of time, I feel your concern. HHS/DOGE approval is the main delay in the award process. Assuming your science would not raise any eyebrows in any of your Congressional delegation offices, there shouldn’t be any other barriers.
R01Applicant said
Thank you Writedit. This is a bit confusing to me, if paylines dropped to 4% this year due to probable pocket rescission and other factors, but go up slightly in FY26, doesn’t this penalize an average application just because it fell in FY25?
I am not so familiar with the process, but is it correct that applications for one FY are generally not considered in the next FY?
writedit said
Generally, applications are rarely considered beyond the FY in which they are submitted, but that is because to date, the ability of the NIH to spend it’s full FY appropriation has never been blocked by HHS or other executive branch agencies. If an IC really wanted to fund an FY25 application based on its scientific priority to that IC’s mission but were not allowed to make the award in time, they will make it in FY26. This situation has never occurred before, nor has the apparent – but unstated (beyond the FY26 budget justification document written by the current administration!) – “policy” of funding at least 50% of RPGs as multiyear awards. There essentially is no “policy” – just a sentence in a document submitted to Congress for consideration that implies a “policy” was launched in FY25 when, in fact, it has never been formally written down and disseminated.
If the FY26 budget is only slightly less than FY25 (and FY24), that helps absorb the pain of the abrupt change in award processing (from single-year to multi-year funding) but will still crater paylines since ICs must first meet prior year obligations and then see how much they have left to issue as very large multiyear awards. If the NIH budget truly is cut by 40% as requested by the administration (or by any other amount), the number of competing awards (new/competing renewal) will crash even further. The record low paylines (if there are any formal paylines) will continue for ~4 years, until most RPGs are issued in lump sums, and each subsequent FY only needs to cover obligated amounts for training, career development, programs, centers, etc. (traditionally a relatively low percentage of the appropriation), with the rest all for competing RPG awards.
R01Applicant said
Does the appropriations committee have any say in this while deliberating the FY26 budget (if they even know about this “policy” at all)? Can they recommend changing this “requirement” for the FY26 budget? This looks like such an unintelligent policy to roll out for no reason – no one is saving even a cent of money.
If NIH wants to reduce reputation bias, this is the worst thing to do. Anyone who sits on a review panel can see that 1-3% nearly never goes to early or even mid-career folks – and that has of course nothing to do with quality of the science.
Scientist007 said
Seems like a hard time to be an early career investigator.
writedit said
@Scientist007 – absolutely, especially postdocs looking for faculty positions.
@R01Applicant – Congress could write into the appropriations bill a requirement to eliminate or lengthen the transition to MYF (ie, <<50% of RPGs) and ask the NIH for the basis of the FY25 "policy" toward recommending a less aggressive approach (or dropping altogether). The Senate Appropriations Committee takes up the Labor, HHS, & Education Bill this Thursday morning, so while they won't exclusively focus on HHS or the NIH, it's worth those with Senators on this committee contacting them about this so-called "policy" as well as other ongoing issues with the NIH (eg, delayed awards, F&A rate, delayed approval & removal of IC Advisory Council members, etc.)
BasicScience said
I have a question regarding the newly announced priority for human-based (non-animal) research. Does this apply to all R01 grants? My work primarily uses invertebrate models to address basic biological questions. Does this mean I will not have a chance of obtaining an R01 if I do not use human-based models? Or, is this priority limited to specific RFAs? I intend to apply under the general Parent R01 (Clinical Trials Not Allowed). Thank you!
writedit said
You should be fine. The NIH will not develop new NOFOs based solely on animal research, but all other NOFOs that allow animal research (eg, they are not designated “Clinical trial required”) will accept applications proposing using animal models. You will need to be clear in the Research Strategy why your models are required and cannot be replaced by an alternative approach not involving animals. There was some clarifying guidance in the NIH Extramural Nexus last week: https://grants.nih.gov/news-events/nih-extramural-nexus-news/2025/07/how-does-the-nih-initiative-to-prioritize-human-based-research-affect-research-proposing-the-use-of-laboratory-animals
Scientist321 said
This policy (multi-year R01 funding) is really not making any sense-it is never happened in NIH. Why are they penalizing the investigators (based on the proposed budget), who are in the range on 4-9%ile? There is possibility that FY2026 budget wouldn’t be less than in FY2025. It is unfair for those investigators, whose grants are under the pay line. Why would they change the pay line multiple times- first-9%ile, then 7%ile , and now 4%ile. We would appreciate your reply on this matter. Who would talk in the favor of poor investigators.
writedit said
This is an OMB, not an NIH initiative. Please note that above I would ask anyone with Senators on the Appropriations Committee to reach out before their hearing on Thursday morning to emphasize how bad this “policy” is for biomedical research across the US.
More information on the impact of this so-called policy (not documented or published anywhere than the FY26 Congressional Justification documents): https://donmoynihan.substack.com/p/alert-the-trump-administration-is
and https://scienceandfreedomalliance.substack.com/p/a-quiet-policy-shift-that-could-devastate
Anonymous said
I have an FIC R01 (FY25) that was scored at the 12th percentile. It has been adjusted for compliance with new federal policies, but it is still in pending Council status, not moving to pending since the system is overloaded. Considering we’re down to the last couple months in the fiscal year, is it possible it could be awarded?
writedit said
FIC has issued only 11 new (Type 1) awards of any activity code in FY25 and no R01s (only 4 noncompeting R01 renewals out of the 196 awards made thus far in FY25 – mostly Type 5 noncompeting and some Type 2 competing renewals). None of the awards to date look to be MYF.
It is certainly possible to still receive an award, but since it would likely need to be a multi-year funding award, it might depend on whether FIC wants to avoid funding any more RPGs (due to the “policy” requiring 50% of RPG awards to be MYF) so they can issue more non-RPG award types.
More importantly, the next FIC Council meeting is Sept 5, so if your application should have been considered at the April 30th meeting, there could be something else going on with your application. Your PO won’t be able to provide insight on funding, but if your application should have been considered in April, then you might want to ask why it wasn’t (and whether you should apply again). The NIH left some applications Pending scientific review (that will never be reviewed by an SRG), so possibly some are stuck in Council review pending purgatory as well.
August 15th will be the next milestone date, since Vought plans to use pocket rescission (ie, take back any IC appropriation $$ they haven’t committed by Aug 15, so no awards thereafter).
Valentino said
Dear Writedit, when you say ‘no awards thereafter’ do you mean no new competing awards thereafter? What about noncompeting awards after August 15 that are due before the end of the FY? Thank you.
Anonymous said
Very helpful, as always. Our application was reviewed in the April Council meeting, so we’ve cleared that step. Spoke to the GMS and PO in the process of adjusting away from sub-awards to foreign collaborators, but to your point, they cannot say much. We haven’t been told to resubmit. However, seems like we should mentally prepare for it not to be funded…
writedit said
@Anonymous – if your status is still Council review pending, then I am not sure how an award can move forward (eg, does Council need to review and approve the adjusted subawards?).
@Valentino – a pocket rescission that included the unspent NIH appropriation (& all IC appropriations) for extramural research would freeze those funds for 45 days – ie, until the end of the FY – so they could not be spent on anything, including Type 5 awards (NIH awards would simply stop). Congress could vote to reject the administration’s request to take back these funds (into the Treasury), but it seems to be unclear as to whether OMB would be required to release them immediately – or wait the allowed 45 days before releasing them (more likely outcome), at which point FY25 will be over.
Although the positive news is that GOP Senators are pushing back on the administration’s suggestion they will use the pocket rescission, I am not sure they have any leverage (or backbone) to prevent it.
Anonymous said
Moved to “pending” today!!
writedit said
Woohoo! Fingers crossed that pending quickly transitions to award prepared … and issued.
Waiting but lost said
I’m in the same situation—what could be the possible scenarios if the status remains “Pending Council Review,” even though the grant was already reviewed in April? Is there a risk that FIC might drop the proposal and it ends up falling through the cracks?
writedit said
As I mentioned to Anonymous above, it could be that another Council review is required, since the April meeting was before the May 1 change to foreign subaward policy. In addition, there is the issue of the MYF “policy” that would only affect RPG awards (ie, R01s), and Council might need to weigh in on whether to make any RPG awards, given the requirement that half be fully funded up front (which would rapidly deplete FIC’s minuscule appropriation). I really can’t say for sure, but your PO will likely not be able to offer any help or insight on your funding situation. If your science is competitive and compelling to FIC, and they are still around in FY26, they could consider an award next year, but any decisions would be focus on their priorities vs application scores.
K99hopeful said
Dear Writedit,
How are K99/R00 awards affected by the new “policy” of multi year funding? My application is cycle 3 (submitted October 24, May 2025 study section, June 2025 council meeting), with an impact score of 23 (NEI). My PO has so far advised me to wait tight, but there has been no change in the application status since the council meeting.
Assuming no NOA by the end of FY25 (I dont know if there is enough time?) do I still have chance to be funded in FY26?
Thank you
R01applicant said
Hi Writedit: I have an R01 which just changed the status to “Pending” in my eRA, but I haven’t received an official JIT request from GMS. Should I reach out to the GMS and PO to check what I need to submit for JIT or just wait for the email? Given that there is only 2 months left in FY25, I hope to submit JIT as soon as possible. however, without a specific guidance from GMS, we are not sure what to submit, except the other support documents. In our proposal the animal work is proposed to be done in the subawardee site, so I guess we also need a guidance from OLAW if we need an interinstitutional assurance agreement with the subawardee institute. Thanks in advance for any suggestions!
writedit said
I would recommend submitting the JIT that you can submit now (your GMS will contact you if they need additional information) and immediately seek guidance for the animal work (ie, contact OLAW). The NIH might be able to issue part of the award, with the rest pending the vertebrate animal certifications-approvals. If they can only issue MYF awards to applications with all approvals in place, though, your R01 could be at risk of being skipped, since they will not have time to wait for your documentation. ICs are working as hard as they can to push $$ out the door as fast as they can before Aug 15 (& then Sept 30, if no pocket rescission).
Status change said
Dear Writedit,
My R01 application received a fundable score at NIDDK last year based on FY24 payline (FY25 payline has not yet been released). JIT was requested and submitted (twice). The application status stayed “Pending Administrative Review” for several months. Recently, I noticed that the status has changed back to “Council Review Completed.” Does this suggest that my application is no longer being considered for funding, possibly due to an updated (though not officially released) payline or other policy changes? Would it be appropriate to contact the PO to clarify the current status? Thank you for in advance for your suggestions
writedit said
There will likely be no paylines for a while (even NCI pointed out they didn’t have a formal payline but suggested the likely cut-off would be at the 4th percentile). I assume all ICs are revisiting their remaining pending RPG applications to create a new paylist that incorporates half of them as MYF awards. Your application may or may not still be under consideration, but it might not become actively pending again until NIDDK figures out its new paylist and begins processing competing awards again (they are plenty busy trying to get all the delayed and timely Type 5 awards out before Aug 15). Your PO isn’t in that loop and wouldn’t know the exact status or timing, but what you could ask now is whether you should be getting a resubmission ready for Oct/Nov.
uncertain said
There are only about 2 weeks left until August 15, and I am really panicking. I have a grant that scored at 3% (FY25, cycle 3) and it has been pending admin review for the past 3 months. Given the strong score, I did not resubmit. My lab depends on this funding for survival. What if it’s still not issued by August 15? I have been told that it is at the stage of approval beyond NIH (has been for a while). If there is pocket rescission, does that mean that it won’t be funded? Do you think NIH will go back and fund it in FY26?
establishedPI said
Is this somewhat positive news?
https://www.science.org/content/article/boost-nih-budget-senate-panel-rejects-trump-s-plan-slash-agencySpecifically:
The bill also blocks another recent NIH move that had drawn concern: a policy begun this year to fund all years of a grant with a single upfront sum. The “multiyear funding” approach has already resulted in a sharp drop in NIH’s institutes’ “paylines”—effectively the percentage of grants of peer–review–approved grants it can fund—and spurred fears that over time it would force many labs to close.
shape9526 said
My understanding is that this could be good news for the FY26, if it eventually passes. But for FY25, it won’t change anything, as the budget and policies for this cycle are already in place. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
writedit said
The appropriations are in place, but the requirement for MYF of 50% of RPGs is not an NIH “policy” – it comes from OMB, which controls the payment of grant awards. Congress or the courts could weigh in, but with so little time left in the FY, I suspect any actions would be too late and thus moot, since the $$ goes back to Treasury Sept 30th. Not sure if this is possible (and probably not probable), but Congress would need a special FY26 supplemental appropriation bill to make up for these unspent FY25 funds that were sent back. Because ICs are so far behind issuing awards, including noncompeting awards, the MYF may be the best option to get their appropriation spent down by Sept 30 – or even more so by August 15. I would hope, then,, that they would consider some unpaid exceptional FY25 Cycle 3 applications for FY26 Cycle 1 awards.
Scientist321 said
Thanks so much for reply above. The question is that all MYF is started because the proposed cut in the FY2026. But now this wouldn’t be the case most likely as appropriation is in line, then why would they penalize the investigators in the range of 5-7 percentiles. This would be unfair to them. Senators specifically said that they are blocking MYF proposed recently. In my opinion, all these needs to be fixed, otherwise the hard work of our senators and advocates would be ruined. We are hopeful only that matters. We would welcome your encouraging reply.
writedit said
I assume NIH leadership could stop implementing this OMB request and point to the fact that the NIH does not have such a “policy” in FY25 (not stipulated in the FY24 budget bill or the reconciliation bill) and to the Senate Labor, HHS, & Education Appropriations Bill, but I do not expect them to (and maybe OMB would ignore them if they did). If GOP Senators send a letter to NIH and OMB leadership expressing their displeasure with this aggressive pursuit of MYF awards for RPG applications, it might result in the “policy” being pulled back. Anyone represented by GOP Senators, especially those on the Appropriations Committee, and especially everyone who just lost or will lose an award due to this policy (ie, your 10th percentile application is no longer Pending), can certainly be asking them to do so. I would hope that those who formally lobbied to get the MYF policy out of the FY26 appropriation already covered the need for relief in FY25 as well.
Scientist321 said
They must be having the JITs and all other information for the grants in the range of 1-7 or 8%ile, as these grants went to the June council (showed pending until MYF introduced). So it would be easy for them to get these out before August 15th rather then following unconventional MYF.
writedit said
Preparing the NOAs in time is not a problem – getting the NOAs approved (never an issue in the past) is another matter.
Scientist543 said
How do fellowships (specifically the F30 and F31) currently stand for FY26 in light of the congress keeping the budget relatively steady and the foward-funding mechanism still being in place? Applied to NIA (non-ARDR) and got a score of 19. I was told by the PO was to sit tight until October council happens in mid-September, although I forgot to explicitly ask whether to prepare for a resubmission or not – is it worth reaching back out to clarify?
writedit said
First – congrats on the excellent score! The forward-funding “policy” (there is no policy) only applies to RPGs (research project grants – R01, R21, R03, etc.). Fellowships are not affected – including by the reduction in $$ available for other research awards. Training and SBIR/STTR receive a set percentage of the appropriation that is set aside, so those funds should be stable. If your PO said to sit tight, they were communicating that you do not need to prepare a resubmission. They will get back in touch if something radical happens at Council that suggests they should give you other advice.
Any award timing will be in flux until we see whether the Senate and House can agree on a Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Bill by September 30 … not impossible but not likely. Based on your PO’s communication, you will probably get a JIT request soon after the Council meeting, but keep watching the news on this appropriations bill to get an inkling as to when NIA might have some insight into FY26 awards. The appropriations bills must be be reconciled and pass both chambers of Congress before being sent to the President for signature. Alternatively, all the appropriations bills could be dumped into a single budget bill as usual based on the continuing resolution that will likely start FY26.
In the meantime, you can focus on your degree program(s) and research project rather than a revised application.
ESI said
Hi all… I am in a little bit of a predicament…
I submitted my first R01 at the NHLBI and got scored at 11th percentile (not counting the 10 pt bump for ESIs). With the 2025 payline being at 12 percentile for established investigators, I was hoping that I may be okay. I talked to my PO (via email), who unfortunately was not enthusiastic at all and advised me to resubmit with the following language: “My advice is to prepare a resubmission. We don’t know what the budgetary situation for FY26 will be. Having a resubmission + independent applications covers all bases.” Although a bit disheartening, it makes the logical sense. However, this was before the latest bill draft from the appropriations committee.
To add (if relevant) – my proposal topic is extremely relevant to the NHLBI’s focus areas. It includes both human and mouse studies. I would really like to focus on getting a few manuscripts out instead of revising a grant that had minimal weaknesses (the main was about not having enough functional preliminary data, which of course is addressable).
I am planning to reach out to the PO to discuss the summary statement and get specific inputs on how to improve this grant and maybe ask verbally over the phone about what his thoughts really are on this.
Does anyone have any advise or thoughts on how this may play out? Or how to navigate this to advocate for my application?
writedit said
I am not sure what you mean in your first sentence. Was your score in the 11th percentile or the 21st percentile? Are you ESI whose very “first R01” was at the 11th (or 21st?) percentile? Or are you an established PI with an A0 application (“first R01”) at the 11th percentile? Either way, but especially in the latter situation (established PI), your PO’s advice is solid.
The Senate Appropriations Committee does not a bill make. I expect the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Bill to make it through the Senate, but the House Appropriations Committee version will remain unknown until September, and then the Senate and House bills will need to be reconciled – including any disagreements on Education or other budget components (including NIH – eg, F&A cost rate). We will probably have a CR to start the year, but that will be less than FY25, which won’t be enough to keep the established PI R01 payline at the 12th percentile, at least for the interim. Plus, NHLBI will almost certainly have a pile of FY25 applications that it wanted to fund (exceptional score & relevance) but could not due to administration shenanigans and delays, and these will eat into the FY26 appropriation.
You can certainly focus on your manuscripts instead and submit the A1 next March if needed, assuming you can afford the delayed funding decision/award (but remember: a March 2026 application would be for FY27, so a significant delay in funding/awards). If the changes are straightforward, though, it shouldn’t take too long to revise for a November submission, especially if September does not go swimmingly for the Labor, HHS, & Education Appropriations Bill (ie, work on your manuscripts for the next 6-8 weeks).
ESI said
I’m the OP (ESI).
Sorry for the confusing wordings. I am an ESI and my A0 (very first R01) was scored at 11th percentile. Either way, thank you for your clarification. I think I will sit tight till the end of September and start working on revisions in Oct for an A1 submission in Nov 25. I agree about March resubmission taking much longer in addition to who knows what will get thrown to us with the FY27 budgets. This way, I have a higher likelihood of having a manuscript under review/in revision or at least on biorxiv by the time I submit my A1.
Thank you.
Get Outlook for Androidhttps://aka.ms/AAb9ysg
writedit said
Good plan – and an 11th percentile as ESI will hopefully continue to be in the zone of consideration (about right even if established PI payline essentially drops to 5th percentile). Fingers crossed that Congress agrees on the higher appropriation and elimination of both the multi-year funding requirement and the extra layer of political appointee review.
sharkdeepff75ea1fc4 said
Does anyone receive an email from NIH with the title of the email “Response to summary statement requested for R01#”? If what is the meanings? by the way this is not JIT email.
Thanks
writedit said
I assume this is from your PO, in which case they are asking you to write a short rebuttal to the concerns raised in the Summary of Discussion paragraph of your summary statement. The PO uses this information to advocate for specific applications (hence the need for brevity – lots of applications will be under consideration for the IC paylist). If the email did not include any guidance, usually they do not want more than 1-3 pages, depending on the number and types of concerns raised.
sharkdeepff75ea1fc4 said
No, the email wasn’t from the PO. It was from Scientific Program Specialist.
writedit said
Same group – same advice as above.
mecassa said
Do we have a sense of whether the new EO kills the chances of grants that are pending administrative review for FY25 funding? My GMS contacted me a few days ago saying they are processing my grant for “funding consideration”. My R15 grant went to council back in Sept 2024, and has been pending administrative review for quite a while.
Any thoughts? Is the new EO designed to impound the remaining FY25 funds?
writedit said
It’s a positive sign that your PO contacted you, at least, and fingers crossed that your R15 NOA finally comes through in the next week. HHS/DOGE has been reviewing applications slated for awards to approve NOAs (or not) for several months – ditto for NOFOs (hence the lack of new opportunities). The EO documents what OMB is already doing and wants the authority to do. I had assumed the administration would replace all the IC directors to get control over the award process, but this is even more efficient (& covers all federal agencies), assuming Congress and the courts do not intervene (the timing during August recess reduces Congressional push back). All the steps required in the EO will achieve OMB’s goal of reducing the number of awards by running out the clock, as they have already done throughout FY25, forcing the return to Treasury of billions of unspent dollars and tearing down the scientific research enterprise across the US.
I strongly encourage anyone submitting applications to write a jargon-free, accessible Project Narrative focused on short/long-term benefits to Americans that is capable of being understood by anyone at any education level and background and include a similar plain English summary sentence/paragraph on overall impact concluding the Specific Aims page. I would also suggest that you read your title out loud and imagine it being read at a Congressional hearing.
mecassa said
thanks for the input writedit.
I’m holding hoping my little R15 gets funded before the FY25 clock runs out.
mecassa said
Just an update: I got my R15 NOA today! My lab will remain in business for another few years 🙂
writedit said
Woohoo! Congratulations and best wishes for success with your research!
SFGiants67 said
Hi All,
Does anyone understand how NOT-OD-25-142 that was released yesterday affects investigators who had to request prior approval for a NCE? My NCE request (project period ended June 30th) had to be submitted via the prior approval policy (wrote a long progress report and explained in detail what we would use the carryforward funds for). The NCE extension in Commons at that time was disabled. But NOT-OD-25-142 states the following: “Requests that were previously submitted via the prior approval module will not be reviewed, and recipients will need to initiate the first no cost extension within the Status module by using the Extension action”. The problem is that the NCE button for my grant is not available now because the project period has ended (June 30th). It seems problematic if prior approval requests (which were required when my project ended) will not be reviewed and there is no NCE button available because the project period has ended. Does anyone have thoughts or suggestions?
texashans1 said
Just asked a similar question. I did not see your post. Hope your NCE button will be enabled soon.
GrantGuy said
I recommend that you contact your PO and GMS for advice on how to proceed. I have a colleague in the same situation.
I myself have a grant where I submitted the full prior approval NCE request, but the end date has not arrived; I can confirm that in this situation, the NCE button is back and that it works.
texashans1 said
NIH re-enabled no cost extension (NCE) functionality within eRA Commons. And previous NCE request submitted via the prior approval module will not be reviewed. Not sure what’s the motivation of the short-time disabling. Any thoughts? Does it mean the first NCE will be automatically approved now?
GrantGuy said
Yes, exactly that (unless they change it again, which is entirely possible). The motivation for the short-term disabling is so DOGE could review grants to ensure they ‘fit within the administration’s priorities’. I suspect that either: (1) it ended up being too much work; or (2) the new XO made it moot. So they changed it back. It’s a welcome change for sure.
texashans1 said
Thank you. Hope the congress and courts will push back, and the worst is over. The congress appropriation committees seem much friendlier to science and research.
SFGiants67 said
Thank you very much for the insight on the NCE. Everybody on this forum is always so helpful. We did email the GMS today and it still seems confusing to me. The response was that the IC would still review the prior approval request for the NCE since the ability for us (the institution) to initiate the first NCE has expired. GMS also said that no timeline for our request is known at this point, and it will only be done after other FY25 funding actions are finished. So, we are a bit confused and frustrated. That seems counter to what the NOT states (i.e., prior approval requests will not be reviewed). It also seems unfair that folks with say Aug 31 grant expirations can simply initiate as usual for an automatic NCE whereas folks caught up in the prior approval policy are going to have to sweat this out. Why not just approve all the prior approval requests or re-enable the NCE functionality for grantees that did not have that option during the “prior approval policy period”?
writedit said
I understand the frustration if you need access to the funds sooner, but the reason your NCE can wait is that ICs only have until September 30 (and probably Aug 15, pending pocket rescission – unless the EO eliminates the need for one) to issue a staggering backlog of noncompeting and competing awards. They can issue your NCE at any time and will need to wait until after Sept 30 to take it up. As to your other questions, none of this was done by career NIH staff – they can only react to and implement what OMB and NIH leadership dictate (so no ability to wave those latter magic wands you suggest). They are as frustrated as you, especially with so much to do in so little time with so few staff.
Scientist321 said
Forward funding would still be valid after EO? Please explain, if percentile would still exist or some other criteria will be followed at NCI/NIH.
SaG said
Unless Congress blocks it then forward funding will remain. Percentiles will exist but paylines will be gone. POs will have to justify funding every grant based partly on Institute priorities and the priorities in the EO. E.g., IDCs, geographic distribution, the number of grants the PI has etc…
writedit said
If enacted, the EO will set a variety of metrics beyond the peer review outcome to select Council-approved applications for awards, as described by SaG. The EO was issued during the August break, so we will see if Congress acts to block some or all of the administration’s executive activities in this order (for FY26 anyway). Not sure, but maybe the abolition of the Chevron doctrine would provide legal grounds to prevent implementation of an additional layer of review not stipulated by PHS Act 42 or other public law enacted since then.
In the meantime, given the HHS/DOGE/OMB review, I would advise everyone to write very plain English summaries of the ultimate benefit/impact of your research on the lives of taxpaying Americans in your Project Narrative field (ie, don’t cut & paste an incomprehensible sentence or two from the scientific narrative).
butterymagazine9259727ad5 said
Thank you very much for maintaining this discussion thread! It’s one of the most helpful resources I’ve found online for understanding NIH funding mechanisms.
I just received the score for my K99 application to NINDS (submitted Feb 2025, scored July 2025, with advisory council scheduled for Sep 2025). I received an impact score of 20 with no percentile provided as expected. I’m having difficulty finding information online about the funding likelihood for a score like mine. I understand that predictions for FY26 are challenging, but I was wondering if you have any insights to offer, e.g. historical data on funding rates for similar scores. Thank you!!
SaG said
See this page. https://www.ninds.nih.gov/funding/determining-your-funding-likelihood/ninds-paylines
butterymagazine9259727ad5 said
Thank you! I guess this is precisely where my confusion lies. The website says “most applications funded (80%)” for a score <30. But how does that work exactly? I assume they go from the highest to lowest scores and fund them until running out of money? Or there are other considerations when making their decisions?
Also is this <30 score for high likelihood of funding normal for the NINDS, or is this a conservative estimation based on the funding landscape now?
Sag said
Not necessarily. Score is a factor but NINDs has other priorities too. So, it is up to the PO’s discretion. They might skip a 25 to fund a 35 because of the area of science or if they felt the review wasnt fair. The era of strict payline funding is fading away fast.
writedit said
I agree with everything SaG said about programmatic discretion in making awards. I will add that a 20 should be a solid score at NINDS, assuming Congress agrees on the higher FY26 appropriation for NIH n’at.
butterymagazine9259727ad5 said
Thank you very much, writedit and Sag! This is very helpful!
R01_Applicant_NIA said
Hi all,
I applied for an NIA ESI R01 last year and received a score that appears to be beyond the payline. My Program Officer advised me to revise and resubmit after discussion. However, after the council meeting in May, my status changed today to “Pending administrative review. Refer any questions to Program Official or Grants Management Specialist.” I have not yet received a JIT request, and I am currently waiting for my PO’s response. Do you think this might be a positive sign?
Thanks!
writedit said
If your status changed back in May and has stayed the same since then (with no update from your PO or GMS), it could be that someone did or checked something on your application and didn’t update the status afterward (ie, back to Council review completed). If the status change is recent, though, they could be trying to push the application through. ICs are trying to get as much money out the door as possible as quickly as possible. If you have not submitted JIT, I would suggest you do so, and they will contact you if they need any additional or updated information. If the status change was in error, no harm done uploading the JIT. Better to make program’s life as easy as possible right now, since they don’t have much time.
R01_Applicant_NIA said said
Thank you Writedit! The status change was recent. I will prepare and submit JIT in case.
PDR said
Thank you so much for maintaining this discussion thread! I applied for an RFA-specific ESI R01 this February and received a reasonable impact score. Since the council meeting date is quite close to the study section meeting date, and I wasn’t sure how competitive my score would be for this RFA, I reached out to my PO right after the score was released to ask about funding potential and whether I should be preparing a resubmission. My PO advised me to sit tight until Council, noting that there’s a lot of uncertainty at NIH right now, but didn’t directly address the resubmission question.
About 10 days after the impact score, my summary statement was released. I didn’t expect it to be available so early, and I’m wondering whether I should contact my PO again to discuss it. I wasn’t sure if my PO could already see the statement when I first reached out (since that was right after the score was released), and I also don’t want to reach out too frequently if they already have access to it.
Thanks!
writedit said
Your PO does not have access to your summary statement until you do, once the SRO posts it to your eRA Commons account. Your PO has a lot going on so probably isn’t checking your status as often as you are. You could draft a short rebuttal (a page or so – no more than 3) to the concerns cited in the Summary of Discussion paragraph and send this to the PO, asking again about next steps and whether to submit in October as a new A0 to the appropriate parent or other program announcement.
SaG said
Given the changes NIH is undergoing I think no PO can give you an answer about the likelihood of funding (even a 1%). You should base your decision on resubmitting on your own personal circumstances. For instance, can you wait 1-2 rounds to see if this app is funded? Generating data to support the app in the meantime. Can you submit a different app to the Parent R01 while you wait? If time is precious then start writing your resubmission now. Don’t wait for a PO’s advice.
PDR said
Thank you for both. Will try to reach out to PO and prepare for resubmission in any way.
R01applicant said
Hi,
There are several discussions here that suggest submitting JIT before GMS officially requests it. What are the JIT documents do you suggest preparing? I can think about Other Supports, IACUC certificate, and F&A agreement, but other documents such as a detailed R&R budget and indirect cost breakdowns will need GMS’ guidance. It seems to me that GMS will still wait to process the proposal and request more materials even a JIT is submitted in advance. Additionally, some institutes won’t submit JIT without official request. Do I need to email GMS to check the status? Thanks!
writedit said
My suggestion to submit JIT for any competitive application only refers to applications that could be funded in the final weeks of FY25 (or any FY). You are correct that the GMS will ask for updated or modified materials, such as budgetary, if needed, but with staffing and time so limited, anything that can be there ready for processing should be welcomed – again, at this particular time of the FY. There is no need to flood ICs with materials for FY26 awards, especially given the chaos and uncertainty about the award-making process and the FY26 appropriation. If the applicant’s institution will not submit the materials in absence of a direct request, that’s fine – but an applicant should have everything ready to submit the same day or the next day. At crunch time, an application can be skipped if the applicant is not ready with the documentation.
writedit said
Speaking of JIT, FASEB will be holding its biweekly Advocacy Town Hall at noon Eastern Time today (repeats at the same time every first and third Tuesday of the month). You can register once and attend whenever you are able. These sessions provide excellent updates on what is happening with major federal science funders and how the scientific community can be heard by Congress and the public. Registration link available here:
https://www.faseb.org/meetings-and-events/events/advocacy-town-halls
The FASEB website has excellent advocacy guidance and tools, and you can subscribe to their weekly Washington Update newsletter.
sharkdeepff75ea1fc4 said
Hi. Why the PO always asks to address summary statement critiques before Advisory council despite the the application has outstanding score/percentile.
writedit said
Internal meetings to discuss the paylist occur before or after Council, and POs want to have any information they might need about applications they are recommending for awards in case leadership has questions. This might now also include questions from political appointees reviewing applications in line for an award. Better to have the material on hand in case it is needed. Also, percentiles and scores have never been the sole deciding factor in award decisions, and this is increasingly true with the chaotic changes in policy. With all these changes, budget uncertainties (including withholding of funds by OMB), and increased political appointee involvement, paylines could disappear since ICs will no longer be able to suggest any likelihood of award at a given score-percentile level.
Valentino said
Dear writedit, I have an existing grant which was awarded as an RF1 (first 3 years of funding at once) in 2022. I submitted the RF1 to R01 transition package back in May (the RF1 to R01 transition package is required to transition my RF1 to an R01 for the 4th year of funding). I tried emailing the PO and the GMS to ask about the status of my RF1 to R01 transition and 4th year of funding but have not heard back from either in the last week. With the fiscal year coming to a close and my RF1 to R01 transition still ‘pending’ in era commons, I’m getting a bit worried. Do you have any suggestions for people I should contact? Thank you.
writedit said
If you only asked last week (ie, not last May or during the summer), they might need a little more time since they are all so swamped and stressed; also, they won’t know the status or timing if your materials are being held up in the HHS/DOGE review line. In that case, I would suggest you just sit tight – they’ve done what they can and probably have no update to share. However, if you have tried checking in throughout the summer with no response, you could reach out to the director or deputy director of extramural research (or similar sounding division) at your IC … but again, the fact that your status is Pending means someone is working on it (ie, the need to transition your award has not slipped through the cracks unnoticed), and the situation could be out of their hands while they wait for review and approval outside the IC.
Valentino said
Thank you for your response! You are so kind to always respond to our questions and share your vast knowledge with us.
Scientist321 said
Dear writedit,
Now the bill is passed from the house. What would be your advise for the PIs who are waiting for their RPG awards due to change in the policy due to the fear of the FY2026 bill? Thanks in advance.
writedit said
The LHHS subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee marked up the bill last night. The House bill for Labor, HHS, and Education goes to the full Appropriations Committee next week, and then eventually to the House for a vote. The Senate bill still needs a full vote as well, and then the 2 bills will be reconciled … or, more likely, folded into a larger omnibus budget bill following a continuing resolution (with or without a government shutdown). The House bill does not include everything in the Senate bill, such as continuation of the current F&A costs rate or elimination of forward-funding policies, so there are differences that would need to be addressed. However, the appropriation levels in both bills essentially keep the NIH budget flat vs a 40+% cut, so the funding should be there when the dust settles.
I am not sure what your question is. Any applications that normally would have been paid in FY25 (eg, 5th percentile application at NCI) can be considered but are not guaranteed to have priority over FY26 applications. Depending on what happens with the forward-funding and F&A cost rate policies, paylines will be more normal (but not where they were prior to FY25), but the higher level NIH & HHS reviews re: government priorities will still throw in a wild card. A very competitive application could be skipped due to a factor out of the PI’s control.
Of course, you cannot win the lottery if you don’t enter, so I wouldn’t advise anyone to sit out applying due to all the uncertainty unless they can put their time more productively into publishing their findings and pursuing non-federal funding sources.
R01applicant said
Hi, does anyone still have a “pending administrative review” for cycle III proposal? My R01 is still “pending” but with only 3 weeks left I am anxious to know if the award is still possible within FY25 or it will be considered for FY26. Contacted GMS last week but unfortunately no update. Just wonder if anyone else is in the same situation or has any suggestions. Thanks.
Scientist007 said
I’m in the same boat for my R03. Personalized JIT submitted 2 weeks ago and the status is still at “Pending admin review”. Emailed GMS but no response. Hopeful but anxious.
R01applicant said
We submitted our first JIT (requested by GMS) a month ago but no update so far. Hopefully they will expedite the process in the next 3 weeks.
writedit said
You can receive an FY25 NoA up through September 30th. All grants management folks are working flat out to catch up on the backlog of awards and beat the FY end. Contacting them will go unanswered unless they need something from you to process an award, so don’t take the lack of response as bad news. They just don’t have the time (same is true at the end of every FY – but especially this short-staffed chaotic year).
R01applicant said
What will happen If GMS doesn’t have enough time to prepare a NoA before 9/30? Will it continue in October or the status change back to “Council review completed”? Thanks!
writedit said
Most likely, because even if the IC still wants to fund the application, it will have to wait until after the CR is set. October is spent closing out the FY25 books, too, so no award processing for much of the month (again, with staff shortages). Then the IC needs to decide how to handle applications that could not be funded in time in FY25 – weighing them against new applications in FY26 and which best address IC priorities. The new extra layer of political review adds another wild card unrelated to the scientific merit of the application.
cowboyimpossibly9683c8229f said
Dear Writedit: Can I submit an NIH MIRA and an NSF standard proposal (with 70% overlap) in the same cycle? Just want to have double insurance. Thanks!
writedit said
I apologize – I thought I answered this last week (distracted by grant application due this week). You can submit both applications, but you will need to refer to the NIH application in your NSF application Current and Pending (Other) Support. You will only notify the NIH about the NSF application if required for JIT. If both have the potential for funding, I assume whichever agency takes up the award first will issue the award, and the other application will be withdrawn since the peer review process at both agencies would have been based on the complete application and project described. If you apply to a federal agency and a foundation or society, sometimes/often the foundation/society sponsor is willing to cover whatever the federal agency does not (vs withdrawing application completely), but I do not believe federal agencies have that flexibility. You could ask your NSF program director, though, since you might want to give them a heads-up about the NIH application in any case (they will see as soon as you submit). As a reminder, you could not submit two overlapping applications within the PHS (e.g., NIH and AHRQ).
The one exception is the NSF Biological Directorate, which prohibits simultaneous applications to other agencies – unless you are an Early Stage (NIH)/Beginning Investigator (NSF). If your MIRA is an ESI MIRA and would go to the NSF Biological Directorate (vs Engineering etc.), you will need to be sure to check the Beginning Investigator box on the NSF application (you would want to do this no matter where it goes, of course). Again, I would recommend you talk with your NSF program director, especially if at the Biological Directorate, in advance so they know of your plans.
cowboyimpossibly9683c8229f said
Thanks for your reply! The problem is I am not sure which agency would issue award first. The plan is to submit NIH ESI MIRA in October 3rd. And then submit NSF proposal (engineering directorate) in late October. One thing worries me is if both are fundable and the NSF award comes before MIRA award, the money from NSF is much less. In that case, I would loss money from MIRA. Any thought on this?
writedit said
Insurance isn’t free! In normal times, NSF would definitely fund first. These are not normal times, so it is difficult to say – including whether you would be safe if your MIRA got a competitive score, as those decisions are based on more than impact score in normal times and now have added political oversight on funding decisions (even if the scientific merit is high). If you submit both simultaneously, you would need to accept the possibility that the NSF could be funded before the outcome of a well-scoring MIRA application is known (likely not clear until summer 2026). Alternatively, you could wait and submit to NSF next year, possibly a stronger application based on insight gained from the MIRA review.
AHRQ said
Anyone know whether AHRQ is still funding new projects? Are they still funding R36? Thank you
writedit said
All AHRQ awards have been on hold (I just checked and see some recent though very late Type 5 awards). Their entire staff has been fired, and the House appropriations bill does not include them as an independent agency, although the Senate version does. I would suggest you contact the program officer in the area to which you would like to apply for guidance on when you might be able to submit your application and where else you could consider in place of AHRQ. Perhaps PCORI or an NIH IC, depending on your focus, though PCORI would not fund a predoc/dissertation-type award, and most NIH ICs fund F30/F31 awards rather than R36 (I see R36 awards from NIA, NIDA, & NIMH plus a couple OD awards).
butterymagazine9259727ad5 said
Dear Writedit,
I have a follow-up question regarding my K99 application. My advisory council was scheduled for September 3rd, and according to the NINDS website it has already been held. However, after almost a month the status on eRA Commons still shows “Pending Council Review,” and I have not received any update.
I was planning to reach out to my PO, but with the current government shutdown I am unsure whether I would receive a response. Is it normal for the status to remain unchanged for this long after the council meeting? And would it make sense for me to contact my PO now, or should I wait until after the shutdown is resolved? Thank you very much in advance!
writedit said
I don’t see an agenda item for reviewing grant applications at the September 3-4 meeting, just closed discussion of the Board of Scientific Counselors report, but I see only one day of sessions listed – and it could be they adjourned early and skipped the second day. The minutes will give a better indication of what the meeting covered, but those aren’t available yet and won’t be until after the government shutdown ends … as is also true for your PO (prohibited from working until government resumes operations). Your status will not be updated, as appropriate, until after the shutdown. If you have any doubts about your score and did not receive guidance from your PO (before the shutdown – after you received your summary statement) about whether to resubmit, then you probably want to work on one. You can still submit applications and should according to NIH deadlines, though they will not be administratively reviewed and processed until after government operations resume.
You can see the full NIH Notice on how the shutdown affects NIH operations here: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-26-004.html
butterymagazine9259727ad5 said
Thanks so much Writedit! I’ll sit tight and wait for things to clear up.
DrD said
Hi Writedit,
I am resubmitting my K99 application to NEI. My PO said that now all reviews are conducted at CSR but did not say whether it is a special emphasis panel or a standing study section. Should I just request NEI then and not specify study sections? Do people know how K99s are reviewed nowadays?
Thanks!
writedit said
Your application will be reviewed by a CSR SEP instead of an NEI SEP. If they did not move to CSR when the IC panels were eliminated, the NEI SRO for the career development panel will (or has already) provided their CSR counterpart with the dossiers of qualified scientists who have reviewed applications submitted to NEI. If a non-NEI SRO manages the meeting, they will be a qualified SRO but probably won’t be personally familiar with the reviewers or familiar with NEI priorities (or recent review history). I would recommend that you complete areas of scientific expertise needed to review your application section on the PHS Assignment Request Form (you can list up to 5 areas of expertise needed) … and also request NEI as the IC, just to be safe (unless NEI-specific NOFO).
nkru2025 said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you for this valuable resource! I’ve had several R15 grants from the NCI and my current one is set to end on November 30. I submitted a 6 month no-cost extension request on October 20. Because of the shutdown, it has not been reviewed. Is there any way to predict what will happen? Should I assume my grant will end November 30 (and try to spend it down)? Or wait and take my chances?
writedit said
Sorry for the delay in responding, but you should be fine. Although it would have been safer to put the notification in as soon as the 90-day period started (ie, before Sept 30), this is like submitting an R15 application on the October 25 deadline (accepted as on-time submission based on time stamp even though not processed until much later). Whenever the government resumes operations, GMOs will find a whole pile of NCE and other requests waiting for them. Since this is your first NCE, all you need to do is notify the GMO of your intent to extend the grant period (without additional funds), which you have done. If the federal government remains offline past November 30, your access to funds might be on hold, but you won’t lose them.
nkru2025 said
Thank you I was hoping you would say that!
xinluolab said
Dear writedit: I just heard that this round only 1/3 of applications had been discussed in each study section, instead of the usual 50%. Is that true?
noisilydefendor338f81ffe9 said
Unfortunately, I think a smaller triaged group of applications is necessary in a 4%ile (NCI) world.
writedit said
True – and if you look at my response below to ESI, you will see that I do not anticipate ICs to post paylines (at least not anytime soon) given the use of multiyear funding and political appointees in making award decisions. Nothing from NIAID yet, for example, which is unusual – but not in these circumstances. Until NIH staff better understand how the administration will impact award decisions, it is difficult for them to suggest they will (or can) make awards to all applications within a certain score or percentile range. If the final appropriation bill addresses all this, ICs may have a bit more certainty in offering guidance on what they can fund.
ESI said
Hi Writedit,
I am an ESI and my very first R01 for which I have an ESI status was reviewed at the NHLBI in June with 11th percentile score; the council meeting was supposed to be on Oct 29, 2025. It is not rescheduled on 12/10. I am planning to reach out to the PO, who had in July advised me to resubmit despite the 11th percentile score because of the uncertainty in funding.
My question is do we have an idea of the NIH/NHLBI funding levels are during this stopgap measure? Is it still at the CR levels from 2024? If so, does the advisory council honor the previous year’s payline?
Thank you
writedit said
The good news is that both the House and Senate appropriated typical NIH funding levels for FY26, and hopefully they will be able to work out differences in their versions of the Labor HHS Ed appropriation bill to pass it before the current CR ends in January. The Senate bill is friendlier in terms of funding, policies, and agencies (House leaves out AHRQ, for example).
However, a normal appropriation level will not translate into normal award processes or any type of payline, especially if the multiyear award “policy” is continued. In addition, political oversight of award decisions will take many non-scientific factors into consideration, such as institution, location (state), PI funding levels, focus of research, etc. I do not expect ICs to publish paylines that suggest high likelihood of funding at certain impact score/percentile levels, since many higher scoring applications could be tapped by appointees (and lower-scoring applications skipped). Your PO does not know what will happen with the FY26 appropriation bills (and policies related to F&A costs, multiyear funding) or how decisions might be affected when political appointees get involved.
Kevin NCI R01 said
Hello, after goverment reopen, has anyone from the FY2026 Cycle 1 received any updates, such as a JIT request or a status change from “Council review completed” to a new status? The council review completed on September, 2025. Thanks.
writedit said
You probably won’t hear much until the HHS appropriation is in place, either through the passage of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriation Bill (has passed House & Senate but needs to be reconciled) or a minibus (vs omnibus) budget bill has passed – hopefully before the CR ends in January. As of today, there is one noncompeting renewal award (NIDCR F31) in RePORTER for FY26, so ICs will be focused on getting noncompeting awards out while waiting for more insight on their FY26 appropriation and the role of political appointees (ICs need to justify each award with reasons beyond impact score-scientific merit) before starting to process applications for possible Cycle 1 new and renewal awards.
Senatebill said
I heard that senate bill includes blocking the pay-upfront policy. If appropriation bill passes, do you think pay-upfront policy stops and payline may go up a little bit?
writedit said
Yes – here is the language: “Sec. 239. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to increase the proportion of multi-year grants awarded by the National Institutes of Health in fiscal year 2026 that are fully funded in the first year of the award, relative to the comparable proportion in fiscal year 2024, unless the National Institutes of Health awards at least the same number of total grants in fiscal year 2026 as in fiscal year 2024.”
There will still be no payline, but if the Senate version prevails, there should be more awards, though ICs might use some of this breathing room to pick up additional FY25 applications.
ESI r01a1 said
ESI here. I submitted an R01-a1 to NIA that scored well under the payline in FY2025. My PO told me it would be considered for two more cycles, but with all the turmoil, I considered it a lost cause and did an A0 resubmission. I just got a request for a revised data management plan for the A1. Is it reasonable to expect funding? My A0 wont be reviewed until january, with the reschedule.
writedit said
ICs probably want to have any applications they would like to consider for funding ready to go when the appropriations or other budget bill is passed. See my note above that if the Senate version blocking use of multiyear funding is adopted, ICs will have $$ to make more awards in FY26 than they could in FY25 (also due to the many long pauses in award making and need to spend their appropriations by Sept 30) and could use some of this slack to pick up FY25 applications, such as yours. A positive development but by no means a guarantee, so you will want to leave your new A0 application in place for January review. You probably won’t know for sure until then or later, and it can be withdrawn if your A1 receives an award.
LacquerHead said
Hi, I submitted an A0 K01 app to NIDDK last Feb and received a score (ZRG1 F12B-G) of 34 in late July, with mostly positive comments and no major issues. Given the borderline score and easily addressable comments, I put in a resubmission a few weeks ago – no ID number posted yet, Im guessing due to shutdown. I was wondering, with ICs potentially picking up some extra FY25 applications (not sure about NIDDK) if my borderline score stood any chance? Advisory council met Sept 17th and current status remains Council review completed. Also wondering how long you think Feb/March study sections might be delayed due to shutdown. Thanks!
writedit said
Your A1 is unlikely to receive an award, and you wouldn’t know until either the HHS Appropriations Bill is passed or a mini budget omnibus bill passes (January 2026 at the earliest). The Cycle 3 study sections (Feb-April) won’t be affected unless there is another government shutdown in January or possibly thereafter, if another CR postpones both the budget and potential shutdown.
R01PI said
Dear Writedit,
The NIH announced to Implement a Unified NIH Funding Strategy to Guide Consistent and Clearer Award Decisions, effective January 2026 Council round. My question is, whether the applications reviewed in the Oct 2025 Council meetings will be subjected to this funding strategy for funding decisions, as the awards selected from these applications will be funded via the FY2026 budget?
— Thank you!
writedit said
Although the unified funding strategy officially applies to the Jan 2026 Council round, it will essentially be used for Cycle 1 applications as well – mainly because there is no appropriation and no clarity on some policies that affect award decisions (eg, multiyear funding, F&A costs). Appointee oversight of award decisions has already included geography and prior funding, though it’s not clear how many times this has affected peer review-driven award decisions. I don’t think the impact of non-impact score factors will get much more transparent next year, though ICs are being asked to give award recommendation rationale that goes beyond impact score, and maybe these extra notes will be used to document consideration of all listed framework criteria in making NIH awards. But back to your original question – Cycle 1 award decisions won’t be made until either the Labor-HHS-Ed appropriation passes (if so, hopefully the Senate version prevails with its higher NIH appropriation, maintenance of AHRQ, Congressional control of F&A rates, & elimination of multiyear funding mandate) or the CR is continued to the end of the FY again (FY24/25 funding levels with usual F&A rates but also continued use of multiyear awards).
R01Applicant said
Dear Writedit,
We put in an R01 resubmission for the recent November 5th deadline. The original A0 application was submitted under the parent R01 NOFO, but we submitted the A1 under a NOSI, as recommended by the PO after the first review.
However, I see now that NIH issued a notice on November 20, stating that the NOSI was expired effective immediately, and no further applications will be accepted under the NOSI. We are very worried if this will affect the review of the resubmission, since the notice states this is effective immediately. But since the application is already submitted, we cannot change the NOFO number. Can you please advise what would happens in this scenario? We are worried about losing a funding cycle.
writedit said
No need to worry! Your application will be reviewed normally and will not be affected by the elimination of NOSIs (replaced by Highlighted Topics, https://grants.nih.gov/funding/find-a-fit-for-your-research/highlighted-topics). Citing that an application was in response to an IC-issued NOSI was used by ICs in making award decisions, not as part of peer review, in that an IC could give special consideration to a NOSI-responsive application if they needed to decide among several applications at ~the same impact score/percentile or if the NOSI application was being considered for select pay (above payline). If the NOSI topic is reflected in a current Highlighted Topic, your IC might still give your application extra consideration. If not, you will not be dinged for it. Reviewers and IC staff all know how abrupt the policy change was.
R01Applicant said
Thank you, that is helpful to know. As always, thank you for maintaining this resource and answering all our questions!
waiting for R01 said
Dear Writedit,
Any insights into when Council 1 grants might be funded? My colleague submitted an R01 for the Feb2025 deadline, scored 3% at study section, submitted JIT, but no updates for weeks. Does that mean that grants that normally would have gotten funded by Dec are now waiting on council 1 meetings that were delayed from the govt shutdown? If so, do you have any ideas about when funding might actually arrive? Their lab is on the brink of shutdown without this grant.
writedit said
Even in a “normal” year, even anticipated Cycle 1 awards are often delayed during a continuing resolution due to the lack of certainty on the final appropriation, though this varies by IC. During this administration, POs have no idea what may be approved for funding due to the additional considerations beyond impact score (eg, geography, age/funding levels, research focus, etc.). During this particular CR, ICs also do not know which set of policies might apply for FY26 (eg, multiyear funding, F&A rates). A second government shutdown is always on the table, too. I would not expect Cycle 1 competing awards to move forward until either the Labor-HHS-Ed appropriation bill passes both houses of Congress and is signed into law (hopefully the Senate version) or the CR (ie, FY24 budget levels & policies) is extended through September 30, 2026 … though ICs might start tapping their highest priority applications for internal review and award processing so they aren’t overwhelmed later in the FY again.
In the meantime, your colleague could ask their institution about bridge funding to keep the lights on, especially if they have grad students in the lab.
waiting for R01 said
Ok, I understand. Thank you for your insights on this.
R01 ask said
Is the JIT requested by PO or the PI just submitted by themselves?
waiting for R01 said
The PI submitted JIT on their own back in November. PO has been non-responsive during and after the shutdown.
writedit said
That’s what I would have thought, since the PO would not want to give any suggestion of funding likelihood by requesting JIT. POs used to want to get a head start on processing applications with high likelihood of funding (based on score/percentile in relation to published or internal payline). Now, they have no idea if a 3% application will receive an award.
Scion said
my ND application received a “competitive” designation. What is a real probability that an application like this can have route for funding?
writedit said
An application that is not discussed cannot, as far as I know, be considered for funding, no matter how interested the PO might be. If you are sure the designation is “competitive” (vs “competing”, as in a Type 1 competing vs Type 5 noncompeting award), then I am stumped and need a few more clues as to where/in what context you saw this designation. No matter what, though, with an ND application, you should be working on a resubmission.
Scion said
Here is the recent guidance:
Applications voted by the committee to be in the middle third will be designated as “competitive but not discussed” and applications in the lowest third will be designated as “not competitive and not discussed”. Applications in the middle third will be considered for funding, along with the discussed applications.
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-26-012.html
writedit said
Doh! I was very happy when that guidance was issued, too – I just haven’t seen it on a summary statement yet. Your application still has no possibility of funding. The point of the “competitive” vs “noncompetitive” designation is to give PIs guidance on whether to resubmit or start working on a different application altogether (and not resubmit). Your reviewers are encouraging you to address their concerns and try again, but you have no chance of this application receiving an award.
Scion said
Thank you for your reply. Always very helpful.
R01-Curious said
Just to add if it helps anyone: Recently received the same designation and the summary statement had a note at the end. COMPETITIVE ND APPLICATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: While this application was not discussed at the meeting, it was designated by the committee as competitive and will be considered for funding, along with the discussed applications (NOT-OD-26-012). But the first page also contains the usual language: “Because applications deemed by the SRG to have the highest scientific merit generally are considered for funding first, it is highly unlikely that an application with an ND recommendation will be funded.” Highly doubt they’ll be able to consider these.
writedit said
Thanks, R01-Curious! I think it will be very difficult for a PO to argue for funding an ND application since IC leadership has no idea if group discussion would have heightened the weaknesses or the strengths and obviously has no sense of panel consensus or score-driving factors to weigh. However, I could see this designation and policy language giving wiggle room to, for example, a PO who feels a Type 2 application would have reached discussion under normal review circumstances (50% triage) and deserves consideration for renewal. In addition, ICs are now required to give rationale beyond scientific merit review outcome for award decisions, which could also come into play for ND applications in the 30-50% range (ie, the same tiny fraction of select pay awards as are typically issued based on rationale other than review outcome).
Roson said
So, it may or may not happen for some applications, which are of high priority for IC. I guess we need to wait and see…
Hoping for funding said
Dear Writedit,
I have a cycle 1 grant that scored at the 17% at NINDS. At the time, the PO indicated the funding was unlikely and no JIT was requested. However, I noticed that the application is still listed as “pending council review”. Given that funding decisions are no longer solely based on percentile, would it be appropriate to contact the PO again to inquire about the likelihood of funding? The council meeting date is listed as Sept 2025, but I am not sure whether the meeting has taken place (since the status remains pending). Thanks for your advice!
writedit said
The application should have been considered at the Council meeting on September 3 (which did occur), so I am not sure why it is still pending. Even with the shutdown, staffing shortages, and firing of the NINDS Director, the status should have been updated by now. Your PO would have no additional insight, and they are almost certainly correct about the low likelihood of funding at the 17th percentile (maybe a slight chance if ESI), so I don’t think there is any reason to contact them. If you didn’t submit in October or November, don’t wait for an update before submitting in Feb or March. The current CR ends at the end of January, so the NIH does not know its appropriation or governing policies (eg, whether multiyear funding required, F&A cost rate, etc.), which means ICs will probably delay competing awards until they know what to expect.
Of 57 FY26 competing awards, 34 are from NIA, 5 from NINDS, 14 from the VA, 2 from NIDCD, and 1 each from NIDCR and CDC. Some of the NIA R21s and the 1 NIDCD R21 are funded for both years, but most other awards look like single year awards (including a huge NIA P01 renewal).
a733302000 said
Dear Writedit,
Thank you very much for your continued help and support. I am writing with a question about study section assignment.
I believed my application was best suited for the VDT study section. Accordingly, I completed the PHS Assignment Request Form and provided a rationale for VDT. However, the application was ultimately assigned to LII. Could you please advise on possible reasons this might occur?
In addition, I submitted the application in early October, and the study section meeting is scheduled for March. At this point, would it still be appropriate or feasible to email the LII SRO and CSR DRR to explain why I believe reassignment to VDT would be more suitable?
Thank you again for your guidance.
writedit said
The SRG assignment could have been made due to an imbalance in the number of applications received (or reviewers available), a shift in scientific focus for VDT, or other rationale internal to CSR. Last October, you should have contacted the 2 Review Branch chiefs involved — RCCS for LII and IIDB for VDT — with your explanation and request to move from LII to VDT (for future reference, Review Branch chiefs are your point of contact for SRG change requests). At this point, however, your application has been assigned for review, so it is too late to request a change.
Another point to remember for future reference is that you want to ask about SRG assignments as soon as you know that your application is not in the study section you requested (assuming locus of review is not dictated by the NOFO). Even waiting a few weeks can be problematic, since the SRO for your preferred study section will have already mapped out review assignments, so yours could go to reviewers with less expertise in your area (because they have the lightest review load for that panel at that point). Finally, if you do contact Review Branch chief(s) to request a change in SRG assignment that does not result in your desired outcome, politely accept their final word without argument, thanking them for their consideration.
NCI R01 said
Dear Writedit,
Do you know the current status of the NCI? Have they started processing the new R01 awards from the last September council cycle? If not, when do you expect they will start processing them? Is it normal that there has been no JIT request yet, even with a great score? Thank you.
writedit said
NCI has only issued Type 5 awards so far in FY26. No new or competing renewal awards. They are probably waiting for clarity on their appropriation and funding policies, which won’t come until the House and Senate take up the minibus bill with the HHS appropriation language (also guidance on F&A cost rates, multiyear funding, etc.). This year, there will be no paylines, so scores have little meaning, especially with additional award considerations beyond scientific merit and score. A JIT request will only be sent when a PO is relatively confident about an award – which has a pretty high bar right now.
NeedAnotherR01 said
Hi, writedit, thanks as always for your insight and this invaluable blog. I was just wondering what you meant about: “This year, there will be no paylines, so scores have little meaning, especially with additional award considerations beyond scientific merit and score.” Is this just referring to the state so far, given we are under CR and no HHS FY26 budget? Or is this a policy that no ICs will have paylines at all this year? If the latter, could you direct us to more info on this policy change?
writedit said
Paylines are not a policy at the NIH, and most ICs have never published any. It would not be responsible for those ICs that previously published paylines to do so now because they cannot estimate the number of awards they can make in FY26 (no appropriation guidance, not clear if multiyear funding will be required – see insightful SG comments below) or the percentile cutoff for this funding threshold. While these factors will be cleared up by the eventual appropriation language, appointees inside or outside the NIH can still decide that a competitively scored and highly meritorious application (in terms of the science) will not be funded (e.g., applications that do not effectuate administration priorities). That said, scientific merit as reflected by the score/percentile will still play the largest role in guiding IC decisions on their paylists (before any appointees weigh in). My comment above is that no PI (or PO) will know if their score/percentile is good enough for an award (ie, 5th percentile has no meaning in terms of award likelihood).
SG said
i doubt NCI will do anything about new awards until Feb/March the best. CR/no CR? Budget/no budget? Most importantly F/A (likely old ones, not 15%) and multi-year funding. If no multi-year funding, paylines will be higher and does not make sense to start issue multi-year awards now….because if you issue these now, you have to start with 1-2% and give multi-year to them? but if multi-year is not required and awards are already issued prior to this- then it will siphon money from other awards in FY26…. my prediction is the earliest to hear will be March…
TeamScience said
WritEdit, thank you for all you do. It is extraordinary that POs and GMS are still making the magic happen. I have a grant that went from pending to award prepared to pending to award prepared to council review completed in 2025. In 2026, the status flipped to pending. I want to be optimistic, but I don’t know if my heart can handle more disappointment after hope. Questions: Is it safe to assume the IC would like to issue the NOA, or can this change to pending mean something else? Will a new NOA need to be prepared, since we’re in a new fiscal year? Since the award was prepared, is there any chance the NOA could be issued prior to the end of the month, considering the chance of a shutdown?