Charlie, I can shed some light on part of your question.  I've read proposals for Dept of Education for many years.  They used to bring us to Washington for a week, do a little training, then send us off in teams of three.  The team met once per day to discuss the day's proposals and compare score.  Those discussions were lively and informative, and they always brought us into compliance with one of the department's rules: a team's scores cannot have a variance of more than 10 total points.  Usually, in fact, the variances between readers' scores was less than 2. 

Since they've gone electronic, first with ed.gov, now with grants.gov, we stay home.  There's a powerpoint training sometimes--no more or less effective than the face-to-face training we used to get except we can't easily ask questions--and we still read in teams of three, with a daily conference call to discuss the proposals and finalize scores.  We download the proposals from a website and either review them on screen or print them, our choice.  We enter our scores on a website before we have our daily conversations. 

Your supposition is correct--the conference call conversations are not nearly as lively and interesting as when we met face-to-face.  Further, the variance between scores is much greater, since their is little peer pressure to conform to the norm.  On several occasions, we've been unable to get the variance below 10, meaning we had to write extra explanations.  Does that mean the reading is less reliable than under the old system?  I don't think so, but I don't know how one would measure reliability without doing some sort of controlled experiment.  But it's not nearly as satisfying, or even interesting. 

There are pluses and minuses to the new system.  We don't have to spend a week away from home and office; but we don't get to go to Washington, either.  And, since we're in our offices, our other responsibilities continue, so it's sometimes more difficult to carve out the time required to read the proposals.  I always print them out myself, as a certified geezer I don't care to read a lot of text on screen. Others may read them onscreen, don't know. 

Overall, I think the process probably works as well, though somewhat differently.  Good proposals score high, poor proposals score low.  And the department saves significant amounts of money that they can redirect into grants, a good thing. 

Does the new process change the way one should write a proposal?  Yes, in at least one way.  Under ed.gov, the on-screen reader would only see one section of the proposal at once, so they're even less inclined to page to another section for clarification of a point.  So I make sure that each section contains all the information the reader needs to give me the maximum score, and that the information appears where the reader expects it--that is, when s/he reaches that part of the scoresheet.  Actually, I've always preached and followed that principle, but now it's even more important than it used to be with paper proposals.

Regards, Bill
Bill Campbell
Director, Grants & Research
University of Wisconsin-River Falls
410 S. 3rd St.
River Falls, WI 54022
715/425-3195
FAX 715/425-0649


Charlie Hathaway wrote: 
We recently presented some of the basic facts about Grants.gov and eRA to some senior faculty members.  There was one (2 part) question that, despite or because of its simplicity, had me stumped: What will reviewers see when they review the grants?

The answer involves both our confidence in the faithful reproduction of what was sent AND how most reviewers will view the proposal.  IF the average busy reviewer with 10-15 grants is not going to use his/her own paper to print out every page, and will review grants from a screen, how is the psychology of grantsmanship affected?   

A related question concerns the evolution to electronic meetings of review groups.  Having just this morning sat thru the annual mock study section review of proposals for the grantwriting workshop in our clinical research M.S. program, I cannot imagine the freedom and fluidity of the give and take I observed occurring in a virtual setting.  How might this influence the way a grant applicant prepares an application?

Charlie



At 11:27 AM 12/15/2005, you wrote:
 
Angela,
Everybody in the proposal process has to download the PureEdge Viewer software to their computer.
Otherwise the PI will not be able to complete the application, and you will not be able to review it.

You will need to be registered with Grants.gov in order to submit the proposal. The PI does not do so.

Once the PI is finished with the proposal preparation...the file is emailed to you or your office if there
is a general office email. Other universities have it set up that the file is uploaded to a website where
OSPs download for review...it's a matter of what works best for you.

We've done several submissions so if you have any more questions about procedures, feel free to
contact me. Just know that after 3p on submission day, the system can slow way down and has
even crashed on occasion. It is imperative that you get as much time as you can to review and
submit prior to the deadline -- and I know how tough that can be to obtain from a PI. But we've
had some success in explaining that their work may not be submitted if they wait to the last minute
due to the system as it is now set up and a 'technical glitch'.

Good luck and let me know if you have any other questions.
Terri

Terri M. Hall
Associate Director of Pre-Award
Office of Research * University of Notre Dame
511 Main Building * Notre Dame, Indiana 46556
Phn: (574) 631-7378  Fax: (574) 631-6630
http://www.nd.edu/~research/
~ an FDP institution ~




----- Original Message ----- From: "Angela Steltzer" <xxxxxx@EMORYHEALTHCARE.ORG>


======================================================================
 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")
======================================================================