Predatory publishing is a threat to researchers publishing the results of their work and to the peer-reviewed medical literature itself.
I’ve blogged about the topic of predatory journals before, and not much
has changed. But as a grant writer/editor/applicant, the more you know
the better you can navigate the issue when presenting your biosketch
and selecting appropriate citations. At the end of July,
AMWA-EMWA-ISMPP* released a joint position statement on predatory
publishing and its “threat both to researchers publishing the results of
their work and to the peer-reviewed medical literature itself.” You can
read the full statement in Current Medical Research and Opinion here.
*AMWA – American Medical Writers Association
EMWA – European Medical Writers Association
ISMPP – International Society for Medical Publication Professionals
Today, we support your New Year’s resolution to buckle down on grant writing by offering you information about where to find sample applications and how to use them:
When training people to write grants, I use examples and am often asked by my clients for sample proposals. Obviously, my client proposals are confidential, so sharing them is absolutely out of the question. I don’t even talk about my projects with my family, I’m a vault. So the question still stands, where can you find good sample applications?
Some grant writing books have samples, but usually they are discrete sections of the application, and context can be lost. That doesn’t help the new grant writer get the sense of how the sections of the application all fit together. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) web site has a very well thought-out grant preparation section that you should definitely investigate, but it lacks samples as well. However, one of the NIH’s institutes, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has an application development section with sample applications and summary statements for R01, R03, R21, R21/R33, and F31 opportunities, and sample applications for the SBIR/STTR applications: R41, R42, R43, and R44.
These are samples of well-written applications, or, as NIAID puts it, “sound examples of good grantsmanship.” However, some of these sample applications were written in response to older opportunities, and so they may not reflect the current form sets or requirements. Their value, as the value of any sample of writing should be, is not in detailed “copying” of the approach, but in demonstrating how ideas are articulated in each section and how the sections hang together to form the complete application.
Where can using sample applications go wrong? Seeing these or any other writing examples as “templates” is a mistake. As the saying goes, you do you. Also, reading the sample applications without reading the sample summary statements leaves you with half the story. Take the time to read the feedback on the sample–it will give you great insight into what the reviewers like and dislike in applications.
Other Sample Materials
The page has other samples you will likely find useful, including a sample data sharing plan and sample model organism sharing plans. Links to the NIH’s biographical sketch samples will also be useful to most grant writers, if they haven’t found them already at the NIH site. I review NIH biosketch strategies in several places on this blog.
One Last Thought
Ask your mentor and members of your department who have had success in grant writing if they have any proposals you may review and use as a guide for your own proposals. Of course, keep in mind that under US law each proposal is automatically copyrighted and the academic rules regarding plagiarism apply (of course). And, while you are asking, it wouldn’t hurt to ask if those trusted colleagues would be willing to review your application and offer feedback. Your grant application should have ample internal review by multiple people in and outside of your discipline before submission. But that’s a topic for another blog entry.
You can update your NIH application post-submission. Read on to learn how (and for what circumstances).
A glacier cave located on the Perito Moreno Glacier in Argentina.(Photo credit: Martin St-Amant – Wikipedia – CC-BY-SA-3.0)
While the focus of my job is the time period before the application deadline, I do spend a considerable amount of time managing clients’ expectations and anxieties in that time between application submission and review. The timescale of grants can seem glacial to those who are new to the grant funding process, and so much can happen in the career of a researcher or to a research project between the time a grant application is submitted and the time it is reviewed. This applies equally to academic researchers and private sector researchers, because, although the SBIR/STTR timeline is shorter than the R01 timeline, for example, small businesses tend to have less of a financial cushion and a tighter timeline than academic research programs. When something good (promotion! publication!) or bad (loss of an animal colony due to natural disaster) happens, what can you do? Most people do presume that they can (and should!) contact the agency in the case of a natural disaster, but are at a loss over the ability to communicate less dramatic happenings, like publication. What many applicants don’t realize is that there is a mechanism by which they may update their applications post-submission. This is the topic of today’s blog, so take a deep cleansing breath, release that anxiety, and read on.
The NIH Application Guide has been updated again, this time to introduce two changes to submission guidelines (effective on and after 25 January 2017). The first (NOT-OD-16-129) further restricts what may be included in the application’s appendix, while the second (NOT-OD-16-130) simplifies and consolidates guidelines for post-submission materials. This post reviews the appendix guidelines. The new post-submission materials guidelines will be discussed in a later post. Continue reading “What the New NIH Guidelines for Appendices Means for You”
This is the last part in the series of posts explaining the new NIH biosketch format and elucidating some strategies writers may want to consider when developing this part of the application.
I think this will be my last post about the NIH biosketch form for a while. It’s dry stuff, even for the topic of grants. It’s hard to blog about grants, mostly because there is so much understandable anxiety out there around the topic of grants and research funding. In my in-person training sessions and consulting, I lighten the mood with a little dry humor, and usually all of the interaction in the sessions keeps the mood lighter, too. In my blog, however, I do keep the tone more serious overall, mostly because people can be really stressed about funding, and I want this space to be a resource they feel they can trust. That squeezes humor out the door a bit. Even so, dealing with the trauma investigators feel as a result of the new biosketch form has really bummed me out, so I really just need to finish up this series and move on. As usual, though, I welcome any questions folks may have! I don’t have all the answers, but I do have some strategies and some good questions to think about. Usually that’s what people need more than a stock answer, anyway. Continue reading “Strategies for the New NIH Biosketch Format (Part 4)”
You have the opportunity in the NIH biosketch to explain any gaps in your research productivity. Usually the question is, will saying I took time off for family obligations affect the perception of me? The answer is it shouldn’t, but it might. Here’s how you handle it.
You have the opportunity in the NIH biosketch to explain any gaps in your research productivity. Military service, family obligations, illness, and disability are the main reasons for gaps that quickly come to mind, but those are not the only reasons one may have for a gap. Explanation of any gap is not required, and many female researchers with whom I have discussed this topic have viscerally negative reactions to this part of the Personal Statement (PS) section of the biosketch. Usually the question is, will saying I took time off for family obligations affect the perception of me? The answer is it shouldn’t, but it might. Here’s how you handle it. Continue reading “How to Explain Gaps in Your NIH Biosketch”
With the advent of the Contribution to Science (C2S) section as the major part of the new NIH biosketch format, the strategy for writing the (PS) has become a bit more complicated.
Today I offer a review of the NIH biosketch Personal Statement (PS) and pertinent strategies for this section in the new format that goes into effect on 25 May 2015. The function of the PS in the new format is the same as before, to “briefly describe why you are well-suited [sic] for your role in the project described in this application,” but with the advent of the Contribution to Science (C2S) section as the major part of the new biosketch, the strategy for writing the PS has become a bit more complicated.
Strategic Grantsmanship 