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") >====================================================================== > > >====================================================================== >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") ======================================================================
