Colin is absolutely right...including that it is not easy putting such a
process in place, either because of willingness of colleagues to review or
willingness of the PI to finish over a month before a deadline.

But let's be clear.  Not only is it impossible for a research admin office
to do a full scientific review of a scientific research grant, it is
probably impossible for the faculty at one university to do full
scientific reviews for proposals at that institution.  True review
requires true experts.  Sure, smart senior people in the same general
field (e.g. cell biology) who have study section experience can help a
LOT.  And people with study design expertise can solve many of the
problems that junior clinical and population-based researchers have in
early proposals.  But unless you have a cluster of people working on the
same thing (e.g. angiogenesis; epigenetics; transcription), preferably in
the same or similar model, who are willing to be organized to conduct
pre-submission reviews, you are not going to even approximate what
applicants will get from agency peer reviewers in the full contact,
regular season, game day setting.

Obviously, this favors the large research centers, or smaller institutions
that have made the strategic commitment to create clusters.  But even they
must make the process work.

CH

> Hello,
> This is my first contribution to the list and I hope it provides some
useful
> information. I have always tried to put in place an internal review process
> for the "Case for Support", to encourage the highest quality of research
activity and fit with University, faculty and departmental strategies.
The internal
> review takes place prior to formal authorisation and submission to an
external organisation. The form of the review will necessarily vary, by
subject area but is conducted by academic colleagues and not by the
research
> support staff. It's not easy putting this process in place but there are
benefits (see below) which you can use as your argument for establishing
it.The review should take place as early as possible, no one wants to
re-write a proposal at the last minute.
>
>
>    - Improves chances of a proposal being funded
>    - Improves visibility of an individual’s research amongst their
colleagues
>    - Encourages collaboration, through improved knowledge of the
activity
>    - Supports the development of skills in writing proposals
>    - Reinforces the collegiate nature of the University
>    - Ensures only high quality material is submitted in the University’s
name
>    - Ensures fit with the Academic / Research Strategy of the University
>
>
> Just take this opportunity to say hello to all my colleagues in the SRAI
who
> I have not been in touch with for a while.
>
> BR, Colin
>
>
> On 2 June 2010 15:57, Barbara Richard
> <xxxxxx@harvardpilgrim.org>wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> We are having a debate about whether OSP should have the full
>> responsibility for reviewing the
>> technical/science narrative.  Would love to hear what other folks do
and
>> the timeline that you
>> require.
>> Thanks, Charlotte
>> Charlotte A. Johnson
>> Associate Director
>> Office of Sponsored Programs
>> Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
>> 133 Brookline Ave., 5th Floor
>> Boston, MA 02215
>> Telephone:  617/509-9929
>> Fax:  617/509-9859
>> www.harvardpilgrim.org/providers (research and teaching)
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ The
information contained in this email message and any attachments may be
>> privileged and/or confidential.  It is for intended addressee(s) only.  If
>> you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
review,
>> disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this
>> communication is
>> strictly prohibited.  If you received this email in error, please
notify
>> the
>> sender by reply and delete the message without saving, copying or
disclosing
>> it.  Thank you.
>> ======================================================================
>>  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")
>> ======================================================================
>
>
>
> --
> Colin Cooper
> Research Facilitator
> Alexander Jones Building
> Room 115
> Liverpool Hope University
> Liverpool L16 9JD
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 151 291 3745
>
>
> ======================================================================
>  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")
======================================================================