Internet Update

September 2004

Writing a Grant Application with the Reviewer in Mind

For most NIH grant applications, more than one study section is capable and appropriate to provide scientific review. Referral guidelines are used to match applications with study sections, but other considerations (such as balancing workloads and conflict of interest) also come into play. NIH's Center for Scientific Review encourages investigators to suggest one or more study sections to review their applications.

Lillian M. Pubols, Ph.D.

"If possible, you should do this," says Lillian M. Pubols, Ph.D., a former NIH scientific review administrator (SRA) who now provides grants consulting to investigators at Wright State and other universities.

"Referral officers must make assignments over a broad range of study sections and may not have as much detailed knowledge as you do of the expertise in a given study section," she explains. "You can examine the rosters of various study sections to see which one would be the best match for your application. The match should be made on the basis of the overall expertise of the study section, rather than on the expertise of one or two of its members, since a particular member may not be present at the study section meeting when your application is reviewed.

"Likewise, pitching your application to appeal to the biases of one or two individuals is risky," Dr. Pubols says. "They may not attend the meeting and/or they may not be assigned to review the application."

Dr. Pubols will share her NIH insights and expertise at the 2004 Central Research Forum on Tuesday, October 19, in the WSU Student Union. The title of her keynote presentation is "Grantsmanship 101: Writing a Grant Application with the Reviewer in Mind"

Dr. Pubols received a Ph.D. degree in physiological psychology from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. She held faculty positions at Penn State University, the Medical College of Pennsylvania, and Oregon Health and Science University. In 1980-1 she was a Fogarty Senior International Fellow at the University of Edinburgh. She was a senior scientist at the Robert S. Dow Neurological Sciences Institute in Portland, Oregon from 1982 to 1993. During that time she served as a member of the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Institute of Dental Research, and as a member of the NIH Neurological Sciences 2 study section. In 1993 she joined the National Institutes of Health as a scientific review administrator (SRA) and served as chief of the Scientific Review Branch of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke from 1996-2002.

A typical CSR study section reviews about 75 grant applications per round, according to Dr. Pubols. The SRA examines these applications to determine the subject matter and methodological expertise required to review them and identifies any areas not covered by the study section's standing membership. The SRA then searches various databases to find appropriate reviewers to fill these gaps. If a reviewer is only needed for one or two reviews that individual may participate by speakerphone or provide a mail review.

"The ideal reviewer is one having the appropriate expertise, a high level of credibility with the scientific community and with the study section, a fair and unbiased approach, no conflict of interest, and the ability to commit the necessary time," Dr. Pubols says. SRAs must also consider the geographic, ethnic and gender diversity of the study section.
"There is competition among SRAs for the best reviewers and putting together an excellent study section roster is not easy," she adds.

Reviewer assignments are made on the basis of reviewer expertise with respect to the application's subject matter. Typically, three reviewers are assigned to each application: a primary reviewer, a secondary reviewer, and a discussant. However, there may be more than three reviewers if the SRA believes that additional expertise is needed.

"To some extent deciding what an application is all about and who should review it is the SRA's judgment call," Dr. Pubols says. "If you are concerned that the SRA may not fully appreciate what kind of expertise is needed to review your application, or may not have enough relevant expertise on the study section, it would be appropriate to call or write the SRA to explain what you think is needed. You might name a few individuals who exemplify what you are talking about, without asking that they necessarily review the application.

"Requesting specifically that certain people review your application is risky, since some SRAs will avoid such named people, rather than seeking them out," she continues. "Find out how receptive the SRA is before submitting a list of names. If you do propose a list of potential reviewers you should make sure that they are highly respected, funded investigators with no conflict of interest in reviewing the application."

Can you ask that someone not be a reviewer of your application?

"I would say that you should have a very strong reason for doing this, not just a hunch that someone will be unfavorable," Dr. Pubols advises. "The most readily accepted reason for excluding a reviewer is conflict of interest. This does not mean someone whom you perceive to be a competitor because he or she works in the same field, but someone who has a tangible interest in the outcome of the review or someone who has shown overt and public bias against the ideas in the application."

According to Dr. Pubols, most conflicts due to a tangible interest in the outcome of a review bias the reviewer in favor of the application (e.g., a reviewer who would be paid as a consultant if the grant is funded). However, some conflicts might bias a reviewer against the application (e.g., the reviewer works for a company that is trying to develop a competing product to one under development at the applicant's institution).

"If there is someone you don't want to review your application on the roster of a study section where your application might be assigned, I recommend that you request in your cover letter that the application be assigned to a different study section. This is better than letting the application go to the original study section and then trying to get that individual declared in conflict," Dr. Pubols says.

"The latter situation makes SRAs unhappy, since the SRA may not have another member with the appropriate expertise and may have to go out and find a temporary member to fill in. This temporary member may be no better from your point of view than the member who was excluded."

NIH Center for Scientific Review | CSR Study Section Rosters

School of Medicine | Research Affairs | Contact Us | Contents