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