Diana, Carey,

I agree with your approach! These “little things” matter. I’ve heard of applications being returned without review because they used “et al” in the references which was against the sponsor’s guidelines.

I seek corrections from the individual investigator first; often with a cc to their Departmental Research Administrator. If I receive no reply, I will make my own corrections with the concurrence of the PI. This includes separating the 10 publications in an NSF Biosketch into 5 most relevant and 5 other.

I don’t get much push back when it comes to this type of correction. We don’t have an institutional policy that would encourage or prevent me from providing this encouragement/support.

Best!

Diane

Diane M. Meyer

Pre-Award Services

Engineering Research Institute

College of Engineering

Iowa State University

411 Marston

Ames, IA 50011

Tel: 515-294-7369

Fax: 515-294-7617

From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org] On Behalf Of Vincelli, Diana
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 8:54 AM
To: xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org
Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] How to deal with minor NIH format deviations?

I think this IS a good topic. I always try to catch things like wrong format, hyperlinks, too many publications, etc., pointing to the guidelines/rules for back up.

Then I suggest that these programs are all SO competitive these days, that what may seem like a little thing, such as too many pubs, incorrect format, or typos, can give a reviewer an excuse to toss the proposal aside unreviewed/unfunded.

In our work, we have to be ‘detail specialists” !

BTW, what is a PMCID number?

Best,

Diana

Diana Thompson Vincelli
Director of Grant Support
Office of Foundation, Corporate & Government Relations (FCGR)
(mail) 28 Westhampton Way (location) 104 Puryear Hall
University of Richmond, VA 23173-0001
804.289.8005 fax 804.287.1433 mobile 804.426.6907

From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org] On Behalf Of Carey Nadeau
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 9:19 AM
To: xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org
Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] How to deal with minor NIH format deviations?

I love this topic; thank you for bringing it up. Often I feel like I AM being overly anal retentive!

Our office has no standard policy or style guide beyond what is suggested in the guidance.

I will send biosketches back to PIs asking them to update the number of publications to 15 if there is time. Of course, I always couch it in such a way so they can have the option to overrule me, such as, “NIH policy limits the number of publications to 15. We can certainly add a sentence on the publications header that says ‘15 of 1,983 total publications’ so reviewers can realize how prolific you are, but would you be able to whittle these down to 15 or could you tell me which to remove please?”

I always go through and be sure their PMCID numbers are updated so we can avoid any potential delays when awards are about to be made. I’m kind of militant about that one actually.

I have had PIs insert hyperlinks, then I tell them the guidance suggests not including hyperlinks, and then they tell me that’s how their buddy Dr. Joe Schmo does it at the U, and then I go into the policy and highlight the statement on my screen, and then they usually take it out.

Bottom line: it’s their proposal. We can guide and help them to make the best it can be (administratively), but I feel it’s up to them to decide whether they take our advice or not.

Can anyone weigh in on a reviewers’ perspective? Or NIH administrative perspective? How much do these “little things” matter when a grant is on the table and up for funding?

Thanks again, Caroline.

Carey Nadeau

612-873-5317

xxxxxx@mmrf.org

From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org] On Behalf Of Caroline Leopold
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:01 PM
To: xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org
Subject: [RESADM-L] How to deal with minor NIH format deviations?

In my role as contract grants specialist, I am frequently charged with attachments writing and editing. While I know certain rules in the NIH guide are critical (e.g., margins, no special characters in filenames, etc.), I am often faced with irregularities such as:

1) Biosketches that are 4 pages, but with many more than 15 publications

2) Reference lists that do not include all authors (using et al)

3) Hyperlinked text in research plans

Because I'm an independent contractor, I usually take guidance from the Sponsored Research Office on larger policy matters such as consortium budgets, but these "tiny" issues are bugging me. I am not sure where to draw the line from being professional to being anal retentive.

I ask my research administration colleagues about how you deal with such minor deviations. Does your office have a style guide, which you use as policy guidance in these matters. Do you correct these minor deviations in style yourselves or do you ask the PI to make the corrections?

This matter is important because I want to be more authoritative in talking with clients about the "little things" in their grant applications. And I'd like to learn to lighten up a bit as well.

Best Regards,

Caroline

Caroline Leopold, GPC

Leopold Grants Consulting

xxxxxx@leopoldgrants.com

Tel: 610.220.7863

www.leopoldwriting.com

====================================================================== 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.healthresearch.org (click on the "LISTSERV" link in the upper right corner)

A link directly to helpful tips: http://tinyurl.com/resadm-l-help ======================================================================