What Next: When You are not Funded on the First Round - 2023

Nov 6, 20230 likes11 views

CTSI R Workshop: What Next: When You are not Funded on the First Round. Scott G. Filler, MD Professor of Medicine at Lundquist Institute/Harbor-UCLA and UCLA Leader, CTSI Pilot Translational and Clinical Studies Program Co-Leader, CTSI KL2 Institutional Development Core

The Grief Cycle
Do NOT write
rebuttal letter
Write rebuttal
letter

The Process
• Contact program officer
o Telephone better than email
o Do not shoot the messenger
• Read summary statement closely
o Especially the Resume and Summary of Discussion
• Look for common themes

Common Fixable Problems
• Poor writing
• Insufficient information, experimental details, or
preliminary data
• Weak premise/significance
• Approach not shown to be feasible, but applicant can
demonstrate feasibility
• Insufficient discussion of potential problems and
alternatives approaches

Not Fixable or More Difficult
Problems
• Philosophical issues (reviewers believe work is not
significant)
• Hypothesis not sound or not supported by data
presented
• Work has already been done
• Proposed methods not suitable for testing the
hypothesis
• Investigator or environment poorly suited for the
proposed work

The Rebuttal Section
• Length: 1 page
• Briefly summarize major criticisms
• Frame criticisms in a positive light
The reviewers felt that we were unqualified to do the proposed work.
vs.
The reviewers felt that additional expertise in statistical analysis would strengthen
the project.

The Rebuttal Section
• Some of the same reviewers will likely read the revised
version
• Reviewers will comment on responsiveness to previous
critiques
• Make suggested changes, if reasonable
• If suggested change is unreasonable, respectfully state why

The Rebuttal Section
• Be polite!
“The reviewer is just plain wrong.”
“We respectfully disagree.”
• Remember the viewpoint of the reviewer
Grant not funded
Grant may be
funded

The Rebuttal Section
• Keep tone positive
• Try to convey commitment and excitement
oAdditional data
oNew publications
• Have someone else read it

Final Thoughts
• Make sure it is the best possible
o Maximize prelim data/publications
o Have others read it
• Only one resubmission allowed of current grant
• After 2nd rejection, can resubmit grant as a new
proposal (no rebuttal section)
• Consider submitting one Aim as an R21

This document provides guidance on writing a rebuttal letter for a grant proposal that was not initially funded. It recommends contacting the program officer by phone to discuss reviewer feedback. Key points to address in the rebuttal letter are common fixable problems identified in the reviews such as poor writing or insufficient experimental details. Unfixable issues to acknowledge respectfully include philosophical disagreements. The rebuttal should be one page, summarize major criticisms positively, and explain how suggested changes will be addressed or why an unreasonable change cannot be made. The tone should remain polite and convey commitment to strengthening the proposal.

"The Rebuttal Letter" by Scott Filler, PhDUCLA CTSI

��

Filler how to write a rebuttalUCLA CTSI

��

- The document provides guidance on writing an effective rebuttal letter in response to criticisms of a grant application. - It outlines common fixable problems reviewers may identify like poor writing or insufficient data/details, and less fixable issues like philosophical disagreements. - The rebuttal section should be one page, summarize criticisms positively, address concerns respectfully with changes or explanations, and maintain a polite, positive tone to convince reviewers the grant merits funding.

"How Write the "Specific Aims" and "The Rebuttal Letter" by Scott Filler, PhDUCLA CTSI

��

Why my paper got rejectedNithin Kalorth, PhD

��

PUBLISHING AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH IN SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNALS:WRITI...IFPRI-PIM

��

The Peer Review ProcessMike Crabb

��

The document outlines the academic peer review process. It involves submitting a paper to a conference, which is then assigned to an area chair and sent to reviewers. The reviewers create scores and feedback, which are used by the area chair to write a summary and determine if the paper is accepted or rejected. The process relies on expert reviewers to evaluate the validity and significance of contributions. The document also provides guidance on conducting a detailed peer review, including performing multiple reads of the paper, checking for flaws, structuring a review report, and focusing on strengths as well as areas for improvement.

Writing a research proposal: Key chapters ExplanationMohammad Ibrahim

��

How to Write a effective proposalMuhammad Saud PhD

��

This document provides guidance on writing an effective research proposal. It discusses including an executive summary, clear hypotheses and specific aims, background information, preliminary studies, a detailed research plan, anticipated outcomes and milestones, and references in APA format. The proposal should have a clear writing style to effectively communicate the project plan and convince reviewers of its importance and feasibility. Sufficient time should be allotted to organize the information and polish the final document before submission.

Klaus-MSKCC-Feb-8-2010.pptJamesBon18

��

This document provides guidance on identifying strengths and weaknesses in research proposals. It discusses how strengths are qualities that catch a reviewer's positive attention, while weaknesses are qualities that catch negative attention. A good proposal clearly presents a good idea, methods, evaluation plans, and dissemination strategies, while a competitive one is responsive to funding guidelines. The document reviews common NIH review criteria and stresses writing clearly, concisely, and with attention to organizational structure and emphasis of key points to help reviewers evaluate the proposal effectively.

Thesis evaluation criteriaMohamed Amin Embi

��

This document outlines evaluation criteria for thesis examinations. It discusses what examiners look for in four main areas: the literature review, methodology, presentation of results, and discussion/conclusions. Examiners want the thesis to demonstrate a thorough review of relevant literature, an appropriate methodology, clear presentation of results that answer the research questions, and a discussion that links the results to the literature. The document also provides tips for thesis defenses, including preparing presentation slides and handling questions from examiners. Possible examination verdicts include passing with no corrections, passing with minor or major revisions, resubmission, or failure.

Report writing Svetlana Belic Malinic

��

This document provides a summary of a training presentation on report writing skills. The presentation covers identifying what constitutes good writing, understanding the writing process, defining one's strengths and weaknesses, and improving writing skills. It discusses the importance of writing, types of communication, and differences between speech and writing. The presentation also addresses determining audience, format, content, structure, grammar and punctuation. It outlines the writing process of pre-writing, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing. Finally, it offers tips for improving writing such as using plain English, avoiding overwriting, and following the "7Cs" of good writing.

Nzcom writing for the journal.pptx with soundNZCollegeofMidwives

��

This document provides tips for writing an article for publication in the NZCOM Journal. It discusses identifying an interesting topic and perspective to write about. Authors should consider co-authoring with someone experienced like a supervisor. The writing process involves drafting, getting feedback, and revising. Key sections of an article are outlined such as the introduction, methods, findings and discussion. Formatting guidelines and the editorial review process are also summarized to help authors successfully publish their work.

QuestionnaireDr.D.Kavitha Prabakar

��

This document discusses techniques for designing and validating questionnaires. It covers factors that affect questionnaires, types of questions, guidelines for preparation, administration methods, validity, reliability, and translation methods. Specifically, it discusses open-ended versus closed-form questions, test-retest and split-half methods for assessing reliability, and a multi-stage translation process involving translation, review, adjudication, and pretesting.

How to get publishedWim2305

��

Journal selection and fast track publicationMuhammad Imran

��

The document provides guidance on selecting journals, writing manuscripts, and the publication process. It discusses key sections of a research paper like the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. It also covers writing cover letters, responding to reviewer feedback, common mistakes to avoid, and publishing ethics. The overall document aims to help researchers effectively communicate their work through the peer-reviewed journal publication process.

Journal selection and fast track publicationMuhammad Imran

��

Journal selection and fast track publicationMuhammad Imran

��

Literature gap identification gvk sharma-1Pooja Tripathi

��

This document outlines the process of identifying research gaps through literature review. It discusses the characteristics of an effective researcher and provides a 4-stage approach to reading research papers to understand the key details and evaluate claims. The sources of research gaps are described, such as future work sections, systematic reviews, and trend papers. Methods to identify gaps include comparing approaches, identifying simplifications, and presenting seminars. Practical aids that help identify gaps include note-taking, writing survey papers, and getting feedback from others.

Nicola Yeates - Publishing in journals (Social Sciences)OUmethods

��

Publishing your thesis work in academic journals is important for advancing knowledge in your field, building your credibility, and aiding career development. The document provides guidance on developing a publishing strategy, targeting appropriate journals, dealing with rejection and revision, and tips for revising your work based on reviewer feedback to improve your chances of getting published. The overall message is that publishing is a process that gets easier with experience, and not to get discouraged by initial rejections.

The art and craft of writing successful proposalsAmjad Idries

��

The document provides guidance on writing successful grant proposals. It discusses important elements like clearly outlining the proposal idea, needs statement, objectives, budget, and following guidelines. Key recommendations include starting with a good idea aligned with funder priorities, improving packaging through logical organization and clear writing, and obtaining feedback from others. Common mistakes involve poorly addressing reviewer criteria, inconsistent sections, and weak justification. The document emphasizes conveying a proposal's significance and developing specific, measurable goals to convince reviewers of its merits.

QuestionnaireDr.D.Kavitha Prabakar

��

This document summarizes techniques for designing and validating questionnaires, including translation methods. It discusses factors that affect questionnaires, types of questions, guidelines for preparation, administration methods, ensuring validity and reliability. Key aspects covered include open and closed question formats, characteristics of good questionnaires, question construction and sequencing, and test-retest and split-half methods for establishing reliability. It also outlines the multi-stage translation process used for non-English questionnaires.

How to Write a Computer Vison Paper pythonssusereb68f1

��

Surviving Your Viva or Dissertation DefenseDoctoralNet Limited

��

This document provides guidance for post-graduate students preparing to defend their thesis or final project. It discusses variations in the defense process between countries and institutions. It also addresses how defenses are evaluated, the range of questions students may face, and tips for ensuring success. Key points include outlining standards for outstanding, acceptable, and unacceptable work. It emphasizes the importance of internal consistency and addressing examiners' questions specifically for one's own university and research.

Writing Qualitative Research Reports PowerPointCharita Alston

��

This document provides guidance on writing qualitative research papers. It discusses that qualitative research is not complete until the report is written, with the researcher analyzing data through reflective steps of writing. The report increases understanding of social phenomena through quotes as evidence for themes. Special challenges include fewer competent referees and journals accepting qualitative papers, which tend to be longer. Sections include introduction, literature review, methods on data collection and analysis, findings using text rather than tables, discussion of limitations and implications, and conclusions. The methods section details the study context and participants, and analytic plan. The results prioritize the story to tell through representative quotations. The discussion links findings to previous research and next steps.

Reviewing a journal article - Professor Jenny RowleyPostgraduate Arts & Humanities Centre (PAHC), Manchester Metropolitan University

��

This document provides guidance for research students on peer reviewing for academic journals. It discusses the purpose and process of peer review, how to prepare for and conduct reviews, and key aspects to consider when writing a review. The peer review process involves submitting articles to journals to be evaluated by independent experts. Reviewers provide feedback to authors to improve their work and inform the editor's publication decision. The document reviews what peer review entails, its benefits for students, factors to consider before accepting a review invitation, typical review stages and formats, elements to address in a review, and how to evaluate example reviews. The overall aim is to encourage and support students' involvement in peer reviewing.

Publish or perish? Don't perish!CGIAR

��

This presentation was given by Ann Tickamyer and Carolyn Sachs (Pennsylvania State University), as part of the Annual Gender Capacity Development Workshop hosted by the CGIAR Collaborative Platform for Gender Research. The event took place on 27-28 September 2018 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, hosted by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and co-organized with KIT Royal Tropical Institute. See more info at: http://gender.cgiar.org/gender_events/annual-conference-2018/

Considerations in Applying for a K99 Award: the NIH "Pathway to Independence"...UCLA CTSI

��

Writing the NIH K Award: Research Plan - May 2024UCLA CTSI

��

More Related Content

Similar to What Next: When You are not Funded on the First Round - 2023 (20)

Writing a research proposal: Key chapters ExplanationMohammad Ibrahim

��

How to Write a effective proposalMuhammad Saud PhD

��

Klaus-MSKCC-Feb-8-2010.pptJamesBon18

��

Thesis evaluation criteriaMohamed Amin Embi

��

Report writing Svetlana Belic Malinic

��

Nzcom writing for the journal.pptx with soundNZCollegeofMidwives

��

QuestionnaireDr.D.Kavitha Prabakar

��

How to get publishedWim2305

��

Journal selection and fast track publicationMuhammad Imran

��

Journal selection and fast track publicationMuhammad Imran

��

Journal selection and fast track publicationMuhammad Imran

��

Literature gap identification gvk sharma-1Pooja Tripathi

��

Nicola Yeates - Publishing in journals (Social Sciences)OUmethods

��

The art and craft of writing successful proposalsAmjad Idries

��

QuestionnaireDr.D.Kavitha Prabakar

��

How to Write a Computer Vison Paper pythonssusereb68f1

��

Surviving Your Viva or Dissertation DefenseDoctoralNet Limited

��

Writing Qualitative Research Reports PowerPointCharita Alston

��

Reviewing a journal article - Professor Jenny RowleyPostgraduate Arts & Humanities Centre (PAHC), Manchester Metropolitan University

��

Publish or perish? Don't perish!CGIAR

��

Writing a research proposal: Key chapters ExplanationMohammad Ibrahim

��

How to Write a effective proposalMuhammad Saud PhD

��

Klaus-MSKCC-Feb-8-2010.pptJamesBon18

��

Thesis evaluation criteriaMohamed Amin Embi

��

Report writing Svetlana Belic Malinic

��

Nzcom writing for the journal.pptx with soundNZCollegeofMidwives

��

QuestionnaireDr.D.Kavitha Prabakar

��

How to get publishedWim2305

��

Journal selection and fast track publicationMuhammad Imran

��

Journal selection and fast track publicationMuhammad Imran

��

Journal selection and fast track publicationMuhammad Imran

��

Literature gap identification gvk sharma-1Pooja Tripathi

��

Nicola Yeates - Publishing in journals (Social Sciences)OUmethods

��

The art and craft of writing successful proposalsAmjad Idries

��

QuestionnaireDr.D.Kavitha Prabakar

��

How to Write a Computer Vison Paper pythonssusereb68f1

��

Surviving Your Viva or Dissertation DefenseDoctoralNet Limited

��

Writing Qualitative Research Reports PowerPointCharita Alston

��

Reviewing a journal article - Professor Jenny RowleyPostgraduate Arts & Humanities Centre (PAHC), Manchester Metropolitan University

��

Publish or perish? Don't perish!CGIAR

��

More from UCLA CTSI (20)

Considerations in Applying for a K99 Award: the NIH "Pathway to Independence"...UCLA CTSI

��

Writing the NIH K Award: Research Plan - May 2024UCLA CTSI

��

Navigating the NIH K Award Process: Choosing Your Mentorship TeamUCLA CTSI

��

K Awards – Common Pitfalls and UCLA CTSI KL2 ResourcesUCLA CTSI

��

How to Write the “Specific Aims” Section - 2023UCLA CTSI

��

How to Structure the “Approach” Section (Basic Science)UCLA CTSI

��

How to Craft the "Significance” & "Innovation" [Filler] - 2023UCLA CTSI

��

How to Craft the "Significance” & "Innovation" - 2023UCLA CTSI

��

This document provides guidance on key sections of an NIH R01 grant application, including Significance, Innovation, and review criteria. It discusses that Significance refers to how the project will advance scientific knowledge or improve clinical practice if successful, not just the importance of the disease topic. Reviewers evaluate the rigor of prior research supporting the project and the applicant's plans to address weaknesses. Innovation can involve novel concepts, approaches, technologies, or new applications of existing methods. The simplified NIH review framework focuses on whether the proposed research should be conducted based on Significance and Approach.

A Tactical Approach to Writing Your Grant Application (HSR) - 2023UCLA CTSI

��

A Tactical Approach to Writing Your Grant Application - 2023UCLA CTSI

��

How to Write the “Specific Aims” Section of a Grant Application (Basic Scienc...UCLA CTSI

��

How to Anticipate and Plan for an R Grant Application - 2023UCLA CTSI

��

NIH Loan Repayment Program (LRP) Info Session - 9/26/23UCLA CTSI

��

The UCLA CTSI and DGSOM Office of Physician Scientist Career Development held this webinar to provide information on the NIH Loan Repayment Program (LRP). This funding is designed to recruit and retain highly qualified health professionals into biomedical or biobehavioral research careers. The LRPs counteract financial pressure by repaying up to $50,000 annually of a researcher's qualified educational debt in return for a commitment to engage in NIH mission-relevant research.

Writing the NIH K Award – Research PlanUCLA CTSI

��

Considerations in Applying for a K99 Award: the NIH "Pathway to Independence"...UCLA CTSI

��

Navigating the NIH K Award Process and Choosing Your Mentorship Team (2023)UCLA CTSI

��

K Awards – Common Pitfalls and UCLA CTSI KL2 Resources (2023)UCLA CTSI

��

Writing the NIH K Award – Candidate Information and Career Development Plan, ...UCLA CTSI

��

How to Anticipate and Plan for an R Grant Application. (2022)UCLA CTSI

��

Carol Mangione provides strategies for early career researchers to successfully transition from a K award to an R01 grant. She emphasizes building relationships at NIH, identifying the best fitting funding opportunities, and making the most of preliminary K award research. Researchers should publish findings, present at conferences, and collaborate with senior scientists. When preparing an R01 application, researchers should clearly outline the proposed project based on significant preliminary findings and check that the research aims have not already been funded.

A Tactical Approach to Writing Your Grant Application. (Moin, 2022)UCLA CTSI

��

Considerations in Applying for a K99 Award: the NIH "Pathway to Independence"...UCLA CTSI

��

Writing the NIH K Award: Research Plan - May 2024UCLA CTSI

��

Navigating the NIH K Award Process: Choosing Your Mentorship TeamUCLA CTSI

��

K Awards – Common Pitfalls and UCLA CTSI KL2 ResourcesUCLA CTSI

��

How to Write the “Specific Aims” Section - 2023UCLA CTSI

��

How to Structure the “Approach” Section (Basic Science)UCLA CTSI

��

How to Craft the "Significance” & "Innovation" [Filler] - 2023UCLA CTSI

��

How to Craft the "Significance” & "Innovation" - 2023UCLA CTSI

��

A Tactical Approach to Writing Your Grant Application (HSR) - 2023UCLA CTSI

��

A Tactical Approach to Writing Your Grant Application - 2023UCLA CTSI

��

How to Write the “Specific Aims” Section of a Grant Application (Basic Scienc...UCLA CTSI

��

How to Anticipate and Plan for an R Grant Application - 2023UCLA CTSI

��

NIH Loan Repayment Program (LRP) Info Session - 9/26/23UCLA CTSI

��

Writing the NIH K Award – Research PlanUCLA CTSI

��

Considerations in Applying for a K99 Award: the NIH "Pathway to Independence"...UCLA CTSI

��

Navigating the NIH K Award Process and Choosing Your Mentorship Team (2023)UCLA CTSI

��

K Awards – Common Pitfalls and UCLA CTSI KL2 Resources (2023)UCLA CTSI

��

Writing the NIH K Award – Candidate Information and Career Development Plan, ...UCLA CTSI

��

How to Anticipate and Plan for an R Grant Application. (2022)UCLA CTSI

��

A Tactical Approach to Writing Your Grant Application. (Moin, 2022)UCLA CTSI

��

Recently uploaded (20)

APM People Interest Network Conference - Tim Lyons - The neurological levels ...Association for Project Management

��

APM People Interest Network Conference 2025 -Autonomy, Teams and Tension: Projects under stress -Tim Lyons -The neurological levels of team-working: Harmony and tensions With a background in projects spanning more than 40 years, Tim Lyons specialised in the delivery of large, complex, multi-disciplinary programmes for clients including Crossrail, Network Rail, ExxonMobil, Siemens and in patent development. His first career was in broadcasting, where he designed and built commercial radio station studios in Manchester, Cardiff and Bristol, also working as a presenter and programme producer. Tim now writes and presents extensively on matters relating to the human and neurological aspects of projects, including communication, ethics and coaching. He holds a Master’s degree in NLP, is an NLP Master Practitioner and International Coach. He is the Deputy Lead for APM’s People Interest Network. Session | The Neurological Levels of Team-working: Harmony and Tensions Understanding how teams really work at conscious and unconscious levels is critical to a harmonious workplace. This session uncovers what those levels are, how to use them to detect and avoid tensions and how to smooth the management of change by checking you have considered all of them.

Blind spots in AI and Formulation Science, IFPAC 2025.pdfAjaz Hussain

��

The intersection of AI and pharmaceutical formulation science highlights significant blind spots—systemic gaps in pharmaceutical development, regulatory oversight, quality assurance, and the ethical use of AI—that could jeopardize patient safety and undermine public trust. To move forward effectively, we must address these normalized blind spots, which may arise from outdated assumptions, errors, gaps in previous knowledge, and biases in language or regulatory inertia. This is essential to ensure that AI and formulation science are developed as tools for patient-centered and ethical healthcare.

English 4 Quarter 4 Week 4 Classroom ObsNerissaMendez1

��

Storytelling instructions...............Alexander Benito

��

cervical spine mobilization manual therapy .pdfSamarHosni3

��

Database population in Odoo 18 - Odoo slidesCeline George

��

The Constitution, Government and Law making bodies .saanidhyapatel09

��

Year 10 The Senior Phase Session 3 Term 1.pptxmansk2

��

TPR Data strategy 2025 (1).pdf Data strategyHenry Tapper

��

Essentials of a Good PMO, presented by Aalok SonawalaAssociation for Project Management

��

APM event hosted by the South Wales and West of England Network (SWWE Network) Speaker: Aalok Sonawala The SWWE Regional Network were very pleased to welcome Aalok Sonawala, Head of PMO, National Programmes, Rider Levett Bucknall on 26 February, to BAWA for our first face to face event of 2025. Aalok is a member of APM’s Thames Valley Regional Network and also speaks to members of APM’s PMO Interest Network, which aims to facilitate collaboration and learning, offer unbiased advice and guidance. Tonight, Aalok planned to discuss the importance of a PMO within project-based organisations, the different types of PMO and their key elements, PMO governance and centres of excellence. PMO’s within an organisation can be centralised, hub and spoke with a central PMO with satellite PMOs globally, or embedded within projects. The appropriate structure will be determined by the specific business needs of the organisation. The PMO sits above PM delivery and the supply chain delivery teams. For further information about the event please click here.

Mate, a short story by Kate Grenvile.pptxLiny Jenifer

��

Information Technology for class X CBSE skill SubjectVEENAKSHI PATHAK

��

Research & Research Methods: Basic Concepts and Types.pptxDr. Sarita Anand

��

EDL 290F Week 3 - Mountaintop Views (2025).pdfLiz Walsh-Trevino

��

TRANSFER OF PATIENTS IN HOSPITAL SETTING.pptxPoojaSen20

��

How to attach file using upload button Odoo 18Celine George

��

Kaun TALHA quiz Prelims - El Dorado 2025Conquiztadors- the Quiz Society of Sri Venkateswara College

��

Principle and Practices of Animal Breeding || Boby BasnetBoby Basnet

��

Adventure Activities Final By H R Gohil SirGUJARATCOMMERCECOLLE

��

CRITICAL THINKING AND NURSING JUDGEMENT.pptxPoojaSen20

��

APM People Interest Network Conference - Tim Lyons - The neurological levels ...Association for Project Management

��

Blind spots in AI and Formulation Science, IFPAC 2025.pdfAjaz Hussain

��

English 4 Quarter 4 Week 4 Classroom ObsNerissaMendez1

��

Storytelling instructions...............Alexander Benito

��

cervical spine mobilization manual therapy .pdfSamarHosni3

��

Database population in Odoo 18 - Odoo slidesCeline George

��

The Constitution, Government and Law making bodies .saanidhyapatel09

��

Year 10 The Senior Phase Session 3 Term 1.pptxmansk2

��

TPR Data strategy 2025 (1).pdf Data strategyHenry Tapper

��

Essentials of a Good PMO, presented by Aalok SonawalaAssociation for Project Management

��

Mate, a short story by Kate Grenvile.pptxLiny Jenifer

��

Information Technology for class X CBSE skill SubjectVEENAKSHI PATHAK

��

Research & Research Methods: Basic Concepts and Types.pptxDr. Sarita Anand

��

EDL 290F Week 3 - Mountaintop Views (2025).pdfLiz Walsh-Trevino

��

TRANSFER OF PATIENTS IN HOSPITAL SETTING.pptxPoojaSen20

��

How to attach file using upload button Odoo 18Celine George

��

Kaun TALHA quiz Prelims - El Dorado 2025Conquiztadors- the Quiz Society of Sri Venkateswara College

��

Principle and Practices of Animal Breeding || Boby BasnetBoby Basnet

��

Adventure Activities Final By H R Gohil SirGUJARATCOMMERCECOLLE

��

CRITICAL THINKING AND NURSING JUDGEMENT.pptxPoojaSen20

��

What Next: When You are not Funded on the First Round - 2023

1. The Rebuttal Letter

2. The Grief Cycle Do NOT write rebuttal letter Write rebuttal letter

3. The Process • Contact program officer o Telephone better than email o Do not shoot the messenger • Read summary statement closely o Especially the Resume and Summary of Discussion • Look for common themes

4. Common Fixable Problems • Poor writing • Insufficient information, experimental details, or preliminary data • Weak premise/significance • Approach not shown to be feasible, but applicant can demonstrate feasibility • Insufficient discussion of potential problems and alternatives approaches

5. Not Fixable or More Difficult Problems • Philosophical issues (reviewers believe work is not significant) • Hypothesis not sound or not supported by data presented • Work has already been done • Proposed methods not suitable for testing the hypothesis • Investigator or environment poorly suited for the proposed work

6. The Rebuttal Section • Length: 1 page • Briefly summarize major criticisms • Frame criticisms in a positive light The reviewers felt that we were unqualified to do the proposed work. vs. The reviewers felt that additional expertise in statistical analysis would strengthen the project.

7. The Rebuttal Section • Some of the same reviewers will likely read the revised version • Reviewers will comment on responsiveness to previous critiques • Make suggested changes, if reasonable • If suggested change is unreasonable, respectfully state why

8. The Rebuttal Section • Be polite! “The reviewer is just plain wrong.” “We respectfully disagree.” • Remember the viewpoint of the reviewer Grant not funded Grant may be funded

9. The Rebuttal Section • Keep tone positive • Try to convey commitment and excitement oAdditional data oNew publications • Have someone else read it

10. Final Thoughts • Make sure it is the best possible o Maximize prelim data/publications o Have others read it • Only one resubmission allowed of current grant • After 2nd rejection, can resubmit grant as a new proposal (no rebuttal section) • Consider submitting one Aim as an R21

�ݺ�ߣ

What Next: When You are not Funded on the First Round - 2023

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to What Next: When You are not Funded on the First Round - 2023 (20)

More from UCLA CTSI (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

What Next: When You are not Funded on the First Round - 2023