Since the two day window is the first time the PI will see the final application as the NIH reviewers will see it, I thought it was an opportunity to correct problems caused by NIH reformatting, paginating, putting in headers, etc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org]On Behalf
Of Charlie Hathaway
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 12:47 PM
To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org
Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] NIH gets tough with corrections

Yes...but we were never supposed to use the PDF on Commons as a
proofreading tool.  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)."

And the recent email from Sheri Cummins said:

"the reduced "error correction window" gets the applications to
Receipt and Referral three days earlier and it is likely that fewer
applicants will be taking advantage of the "error correction window"
by using it to make changes not directly associated with errors or
warnings. We've heard from the community that this continues to be a
problem, so reducing the window should help everyone enforce the rules."

CH

At 12:21 PM 12/5/2007, you wrote:
>Don't we have the two day period after error corrections are done to
>view the package and make and format/typo/graphics changes?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org]On Behalf
>Of Charlie Hathaway
>Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 12:00 PM
>To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org
>Subject: [RESADM-L] NIH gets tough with corrections
>
>
>NIH now says we only have a 2 day post deadline correction window and
>all corrections must be in response to errors/warnings.  The latter
>idea is, as far as I know, appearing in an actual NIH Guide notice
>for the first time.  This suggests that there may be some
>enforcement.  So...what do you say to the PI who discovers that his
>error free/ warning free application sitting on Commons has an ugly
>misspelling in the title or abstract?  Or attached the wrong references!!??
>
>Question: Is there any difference between what constitutes an
>acceptable "correction" BEFORE the deadline vs AFTER the deadline?
>
>The spirit behind NOT-OD-08-018 seems to be the desire to speed up
>the process of getting proposals to review.  Thus, perhaps the real
>focus here is on shenanigans during the post-deadline
>period.  Certainly, the requirement to actually identify your errors
>and warnings being corrected only applies to cover letters in
>applications submitted after the deadline.
>
>Charlie
>
>
>======================================================================
>  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")
>======================================================================
>
>
>======================================================================
>  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")
>======================================================================

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

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