Hopefully readers of this blog know by now how crucial understanding your audience is in writing an effective and competitive proposal. Sitting on a study section can give new researchers the opportunity to better understand the review process and gain insight into how to effectively present their thoughts and ideas to study sections. Additionally, the process helps new researchers expand their professional networks and gain crucial professional critique-writing skills. But, just as with grants and data, it can be a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario. Just as you need data to get a grant, but you need a grant to get the data, how can you get the requisite experience of sitting on a study panel when you don’t have the experience of grant/research success? Continue reading “Early Career Researchers Can (and Should) Participate in NIH Reviews–Here’s How”
Month: June 2014
A Quick First Step to Knowing Your Funding Source
So often new grant writers can be a bit overwhelmed by the multiplicity of funding sources, and they may initially find it hard to differentiate between them based solely on their mission statements. Don’t waste your most valuable resource (your time!) in developing a proposal if you are not certain of your project’s fit with the funding source. An easy way to get an idea of what kind of projects/research a source funds is to review information about the projects and research the agency or foundation has funded previously. Two great examples of funding sources that provide ample information are the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a federal agency, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), an independent research institute.
Continue reading “A Quick First Step to Knowing Your Funding Source”
Four NIH Mentorship Resources New Researchers Need to Consider
“To hell with circumstances; I create opportunities.”
-Bruce Lee
Much has been made of the impact of declining funding on early-career researchers, as demonstrated in Daniels and Rothman’s recent Wall Street Journal article, How to Reverse the Graying of Scientific Research, and the letters received in response to the piece. As I mentioned in last week’s posts, In Case You Missed It: NIH Amends Resubmission Policy and Changes to Biographical Sketches for All Federal Agencies’ Funding Applications, there are some interesting recent changes in the research funding arena that can benefit the strategic early-career researcher.
Continue reading “Four NIH Mentorship Resources New Researchers Need to Consider”
Strategic Thinking and Scholarly Publishing, Part IV (Final)
Last week I began posting a four-part series by guest author, John Byram (@jwbyram). I am currently reading (and enjoying) Richard Rumelt’s Good Strategy/Bad Strategy, and so I thought I would share John’s thoughts on how Rumelt’s ten common strategic “blunders” can be applied to scholarly publishing. John is the Director of the University of New Mexico Press and has worked in publishing for over 25 years, so his insights draw on deep expertise and lengthy experience in the field.
John’s originally posted this piece on the Society for Scholarly Publishing Professionals Group on LinkedIn, a closed group. John has graciously given permission for me to share his piece in this open forum. Today is Part IV (the final entry) of the series. Continue reading “Strategic Thinking and Scholarly Publishing, Part IV (Final)”
Strategic Thinking and Scholarly Publishing, Part III
This week I have been posting four-part series by guest author, John Byram (@jwbyram). I am currently reading (and enjoying) Richard Rumelt’s Good Strategy/Bad Strategy, and so I thought I would share John’s thoughts on how Rumelt’s ten common strategic “blunders” can be applied to scholarly publishing. John is the Director of the University of New Mexico Press and has worked in publishing for over 25 years, so his insights draw on deep expertise and lengthy experience in the field.
John’s originally posted this piece on the Society for Scholarly Publishing Professionals Group on LinkedIn, a closed group. John has graciously given permission for me to share his piece in this open forum. Today is Part III of the series, and the final section, Part IV, will be published Monday. I hope you enjoy this series as much as I do. Continue reading “Strategic Thinking and Scholarly Publishing, Part III”
Strategic Thinking and Scholarly Publishing, Part II
As I mentioned yesterday, I am currently reading (and enjoying) Richard Rumelt’s Good Strategy/Bad Strategy, and so I thought I would share John Byram’s (@jwbyram) thoughts on how Rumelt’s ten common strategic “blunders” can be applied to scholarly publishing. John is the Director of the University of New Mexico Press and has worked in publishing for over 25 years, so his insights draw on deep expertise and lengthy experience in the field.
Today we have Part II of the four-part series John originally posted on the Society for Scholarly Publishing Professionals Group on LinkedIn, a closed group. John has graciously given permission for me to share his piece in this open forum, and I will publish it here in its original four-part format. I hope you enjoy this series as much as I do. Continue reading “Strategic Thinking and Scholarly Publishing, Part II”
Strategic Thinking and Scholarly Publishing
I am currently reading (and enjoying) Richard Rumelt’s Good Strategy/Bad Strategy, and so I thought I would share John Byram’s (@jwbyram) thoughts on how Rumelt’s ten common strategic “blunders” can be applied to scholarly publishing. John is the Director of the University of New Mexico Press and has worked in publishing for over 25 years, so his insights draw on deep expertise and lengthy experience in the field.
This is a four-part series John originally posted on the Society for Scholarly Publishing Professionals Group on LinkedIn, a closed group. John has graciously given permission for me to share his piece in this open forum, and I will publish it here in its original four-part format. I hope you enjoy this series as much as I do.
Continue reading “Strategic Thinking and Scholarly Publishing”
How to Develop a Logic Model
In academic medicine, many programs are supported through extramural funding. Applications for this funding often require a logic model, the development of which is usually learned by new grant writing team members on-the-fly. Building a logic model is not hard, and it is an iterative process. The logic model provides a dynamic framework during the planning, implementation, and evaluation of programs. This makes it sound like one of those things people give the label “no right or wrong way of doing it.” On the contrary, while there are different ways of building a model, a “right” and good logic model is part of a competitive, strategic proposal. Continue reading “How to Develop a Logic Model”
Strategic Grantsmanship 