Re: NIH gets tough with corrections Bloomberg, Robert 05 Dec 2007 15:19 EST

Ya know, I think I'm going to switch careers.  To something simpler.  Like rocket science or brain surgery.

-----Original Message-----
From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org]On Behalf
Of Charlie Hathaway
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 3:14 PM
To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org
Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] NIH gets tough with corrections

I love agreements.  But if there are zero errors or warnings, and the
PI realizes there are some little mistakes and wants to correct them,
then I am going to be asked to reject for a specific reason (i.e.
error)...which better darn well match the reason (i.e. IDENTIFIED
error) given in the PI's required cover letter.

guess I'm not Spartacus...

CH

At 02:57 PM 12/5/2007, you wrote:
>Charlie,
>
>I think we agree--the second two day period is to correct errors in
>the finally assembled document that were generated generated by the
>system.  Like graphics.
>
>And, if at the same time the PI discovers errors, like typos, and
>fixes them, who will know.  Not the reviewers, who haven't seen it
>yet.  Not the computer, who couldn't care less about typos.
>
>Bob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org]On Behalf
>Of Charlie Hathaway
>Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:49 PM
>To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org
>Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] NIH gets tough with corrections
>
>
>Bob-
>
>I like very much your arguments and "should be allowed"s...
>
>BUT...if the new announcement says: "All application corrections must
>be in response to a system-identified
>error/warning (application submissions with additional changes may be
>refused)."
>
>then our only recourse is a unified and steadfast "I am
>Spartacus...and I will fix what I damn well feel like fixing!"
>
>[I quote in part from a PI who I can hear saying this on Feb 6th.]
>
>Charlie
>
>
>
>At 02:16 PM 12/5/2007, you wrote:
> >Are there not three types of corrections and time given for each,
> >after the deadline?
> >
> >First, there is the 2 day "error correction window."  This requires
> >that the application be originally submitted by the NIH 5pm
> >deadline.  These are NIH errors that must be fixed before the
> >application can be assembled. Too many pages, problem with IRB info,
> >etc.   These errors can then be corrected, the application marked
> >"corrected" in box 1, something put in box 4, a cover letter
> >explaining the reason for lateness attached, and whole thing
> >resubmitted.  These errors I call "NIH detected errors."
> >
> >The second type of error that can be corrected in the "error
> >correction window" is the PI detected error. Again submitted on time.
> >Are these any less important than the ones found by NIH?  I am
> >suggesting that the typos and bad attachments that Charlie mentions
> >can be dealt with in this "error correction window" time, just as the
> >NIH detected errors are.  The process is a little different.  An SO
> >must reject the application in the Commons, but then the process is
> >the same as I note above. It is much easier to see these errors after
> >the whole application is assembled.  If this cannot be done prior to
> >submission, then the checking is done afterward.  Perhaps people have
> >not thought of these types of corrections in the same context as the
> >NIH detected errors, but they seem the same to me.  These are errors
> >in the application due to mistakes made by the PI and research/admin
> >team.  Sheri Cummins says fixing warnings fits into this category too.
> >
> >Note as Sherie Donahue writes, this can be a gamble as NIH may not
> >accept a rejected application, but I would argue that this type of
> >correction is no different from allowing the PI to correct the NIH
> >error.  Within two days, there should be no limit to accepting a late
> >application that has an original valid date stamp.  We would hope
> >that the PI and supporting staff will get the thing right in the
> >first place.  Moreover, we do not want people building in NIH errors
> >to just get two extra days to work on the text.  I do not believe,
> >however, that there is any way to detect changes in attachments or
> >budgets when a corrected application is resubmitted.
> >
> >The third type of error correction is the system generated error that
> >is found after the application is assembled.  This is much like the
> >second type of error, in that the application needs to be rejected
> >and the problem fixed.  The difference is that this error occurs
> >after the application is submitted and is thus a "system generated
> >error."  Tables are up side down, or pages are out of order.  The
> >grants office have a dilemma with this situation.  Prior to a
> >deadline, do they allow an application to be rejected for any
> >reason?  I suspect so.  Reject and resubmit, no cover letter needed.
> >After a deadline, can an application be rejected for any reason and
> >resubmitted or does the Grants Office staff need to see the actual
> >system error, and in this case acting on behalf of the sponsor make a
> >decision as to whether it should be rejected.  I suggest that any
> >application can be rejected during the "two day correction window"
> >for any reason, but after that, then there must be strict
> >interpretation of the "system generated error" situation.
> >
> >So, in summary, if NIH allows two days to fix errors they find, then
> >the PIs should be allowed the same time to fix any errors they find.
> >After that two day correction window period, then the stricter
> >"system generated error" rules apply.  In all the cases a cover
> >letter is needed for submissions after the deadline.
> >
> >What happens if an application has errors when it is submitted at the
> >end of the two day window?  Is there another 2 days added on?  I
> >would like NIH to state that there is then no additional 2 day
> >window, except for extraordinary problems that the help desk cannot
> >solve. Still 2 more days to check on system generated problems.
> >After 4 days, at the most, close up shop for that deadline.  Or get
> >ready for those PI's who have some sort of extension. Perhaps soon,
> >the "error correction window" will be eliminated, and only the
> >"system generated error" corrections will be allowed.
> >
> >Bob
> >xxxxxx@umich.edu
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On Dec 5, 2007, at 1:11 PM, Charlie Hathaway wrote:
> >
> >>Hypothetically - Does this mean if I submit a grant at 4:59 p.m. on
> >>deadline day (and it clears grants.gov edits so I have the grants
> >>ID #)
> >>but then errors out when it gets to NIH that I have two days to
> >>resubmit
> >>it?  And THEN two days to view it (and resubmit it again if necessary)
> >>to correct other "fatal" errors?
> >
> >Yes.  But "fatal" errors must be caused by NIH...not typos that you
> >made.
> >
> >And cover letters, now required with reference to specific errors/
> >warnings, and I presume specific reference to the "NIH system error",
> >are required for ANY submission after the deadline.
> >
> >My original question was whether corrections to fix typos, and
> >assorted other "mistakes" are permitted BEFORE the deadline.
> >Everyone seems to be thinking that this is OK...but the announcement
> >seems to contradict that.  I am thinking that NIH does not want to
> >say that 100 submissions to correct anything is ok because they don't
> >want Commons used in that way.  I just want to know if someone will
> >get dinged for it.
> >
> >CH
> >

======================================================================
 Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
 subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
 via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================