What we've been doing is printing the PureEdge file to pdf and then inserting the individual pdf sections in the resulting document. It takes about a half hour, if everything has already been formatted, as well as the full adobe program; but it gives the PI (and other internal reviewers) something to work with. We can do this AS LONG AS the PI submits the files in a timely manner. Another factor is that we seldom have more than five applications for any one date. On one of the last rounds, we wrestled with the correct biosketch (three times) and role for one investigator. Judith Lubina Manager, Bid & Proposal Public Health Institute 555 12th Street, 10th Floor Oakland, CA 94607-4046 direct tel: 510.285.5568 main tel: 510.285.5500 fax: 510.285.5501 xxxxxx@phi.org, www.phi.org -----Original Message----- From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On Behalf Of Bob Beattie Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 1:10 PM To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] NIH gets tough with corrections I suggest that Grants Office Staff -- SO's -- should, without question, reject applications at the request of the PI, up to the second day after the deadline (the two day correction window) to allow for the correction of whatever errors the PI finds -- typos, wrong files attached, including fixing warnings, and such, but not substantive changes (but difficult to stop). At the same time that the PI found these kinds of errors in an assembled application, the system generated errors should be found as well and could be fixed too. But if they are unnoticed or do not yet crop up, then there is another two day window after that resubmission gets reassembled. If we do not allow for the fixing of anything in that first two day window, extra clever PI's will just build in a Warning causing item and thus have the reason to check and re-do the file if necessary. Ostensibly to fix the Warning. As long as NIH is allowing two days to fix errors after the submission, and will even accept changes due to warnings, after the application is assembled, they cannot, in good conscience, prevent a PI from fixing typos or other non-substantive problems that shows up in the assembled document, being seen for the first time by the PI in final form. If NIH or Grants.gov cannot provide a way to view, prior to submission, the application as the reviewers will see it, then the PI must be allowed to fix such things. It would be much better if there were a pre-submission way to view the final application. I wonder why after two years no one has been able to create a program to do this. There are vendors who have S2S programs that find errors, but does any show a final application as it would be after assembly by NIH. Why cannot there be a "test server" to which an application can be sent to get a look at what the final assembly would do? Until then, we must allow PI's to fix the appearance of the application. Even after NIH becomes like other agencies and allows no post submission fatal error fixing, there must still be the two day viewing window, even one day, so PI's can see what the reviewers see and have at least one chance to make corrections of a non-substantive nature. Best yet, would be for all submissions to be not only on time, but with enough time prior to the deadline to allow the PI to view and fix the assembled file. Bob xxxxxx@umich.edu On Dec 5, 2007, at 3:17 PM, Foster, Kathleen C wrote: From reading the NIH Guide announcement, it seems to me that the only acceptable reason for submitting a changed/corrected application after the deadline is to correct an error/warning identified by the Commons validation process. We now have two business days to do this instead of five. The announcement states explicitly that: (1) All application corrections must be in response to a system- identified error/warning (application submissions with additional changes may be refused), and (2) If final submission is sent after the receipt date, a cover letter attachment must be included identifying the system-identified errors/warnings that have been corrected. My interpretation is that we could reject a successful submission and submit a changed/corrected application before the deadline to change something the PI didn't like about the application (although NIH does not encourage this); however, this option no longer exists post- deadline (if, in fact, the option officially existed at all before). The fact the application is visible in the Commons for two business days before it moves on to the Division of Receipt and Referral doesn't help you much once the deadline has passed. You could reject and resubmit to correct system-identified "warnings," but you aren't allowed to correct anything else, at that point. I understand the point that, perhaps, no one would notice if you made other changes; however, NIH has stated in writing that such applications could be refused. It seems very risky to me to tell PIs anything other than what NIH has stated. Perhaps my approach is overly conservative, though. Could someone from NIH clarify this point for the ListServ? Kathleen Foster Director, Research Systems and Funding Information Office of Sponsored Programs Boston University p: 617.353.4365 f: 617.353.6660 ======================================== ====================================================================== I nstructions 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") ======================================================================
