Just a quick update for everyone from DC. I am here serving as a reviewer for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Institute (PCORI), and I wanted to reiterate the value of serving as a reviewer on a study section. Continue reading “The Reviewer Experience”
Category: Grant Strategy
Plagiarism in Grant Proposals
Last year, The Chronicle of Higher Education published an article titled “Plagiarism in Grant Proposals” by Karen M. Markin. The topic of plagiarism in grant proposals is something I discuss in my grant development seminars and workshops, and this article made the topic more tangible for many of the participants (although there is still always a lot of discussion and disbelief around the concept of self-plagiarism). If you haven’t read this article, and you are involved in grant development, I would highly recommend that you take some time to review the article and share it with your team. One very salient point made is that the PI will always be held responsible for content, and the line “my graduate student did it” is not a defense.
Often, however, seminar and workshop participants ask for an example, and recently a case of plagiarism in a grant proposal was addressed by the Office of Research Integrity. Continue reading “Plagiarism in Grant Proposals”
Choosing the Right Study Section
Many researchers are unaware that they can choose a study section for their investigator-initiated application in some instances. This is not an option for every agency and foundation, but it is for the NIH, for example. In fact, any researcher applying to the NIH who does not spend some quality time researching the study section listings and other abundant materials available to applicants at the Web site for the NIH’s Center for Scientific Review (CSR) is missing a strategic opportunity. Continue reading “Choosing the Right Study Section”