Past experience for myself has shown the comments/concepts below to be on the mark.  The main area of information res admin/osp are interested in are the "Administrative Comments" dealing with budget/time and effort and other administrative issues (rDNA, IRB, IACUC), including roles of consortia/consortiums.  By "requesting" a copy of that portion of the pink sheet, PIs are generally receptive to providing it, understanding that it facilitates our job responsibilities in reviewing and administering. A slight side benefit to that is in the commentary by the reviewers.  For example, "Effort of the PI can be reduced", "need for three Post-docs not supported", "administrative considerations should be bourne by the institution".   Just some thoughts.

jay throp. boston.

--- On Wed, 1/19/11, Wilkinson, Judith A <xxxxxx@IUPUI.EDU> wrote:

> From: Wilkinson, Judith A <xxxxxx@IUPUI.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Proposal Review Comments
> To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org
> Date: Wednesday, January 19, 2011, 9:26 AM
> I find the concept admirable, but the
> process misplaced.  I do not think research
> administrators have the broad expertise to evaluate the
> science or the science writing. Unless triage relates to
> proposal packaging or technical errors with processing, the
> review belongs in a different venue.
>
> Often times schools will have an internal pre- and post-
> submission peer review process. This may include peers as
> well as a designated science writer. This seems to be a more
> appropriate mechanism from an academic and political
> viewpoint.  However, that is my opinion and I could be
> wrong. 
>
> Jude Wilkinson, JD
> Office of Research
> Fiscal Officer & Industrial Liaison
> Indiana University
> School of Dentistry
> 415 Lansing Street
> Indianapolis, IN 46202-2876
> Ph:317.278.3290
> Fx:317.274.5425
> xxxxxx@iupui.edu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org]
> On Behalf Of Lawrence Waxler
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 8:25 AM
> To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org
> Subject: [RESADM-L] Proposal Review Comments
>
> We are planning on implementing a formal policy which will
> require PIs to share reviewer comments with us. This will
> help us guide those who are developing re-submissions and
> those who have received rejections and are uncertain what
> course to pursue. To date, we have only asked that these
> comments be shared with us on an informal/volunteer basis.
>
> So, do any of you have such a policy, and how successful
> and useful has it been.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Larry Waxler, Director
> Office of Sponsored Programs
> University of Southern Maine
> 15 Baxter Boulevard
> P.O. Box 9300
> Portland, ME  04104-9300
> Telephone: 207-780-4413
> Telefax: 207-780-4927
>
>
>
>
> ======================================================================
>  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")
======================================================================