The Department of Medicine has established an internal peer review program for faculty applying for NIH Career Development Awards (K Award). This program is intended to enhance competitiveness by providing applicants with a critical evaluation of their application in the early draft stage before there is any extensive writing of the application. This internal review should be completed at least 3-5 months prior to the funding agency deadline.
The guidelines detailed below are designed to help Department of Medicine investigators comply with the requirements prior to submitting a K award application to a funding agency.
Section 1. Pre-Submission Review
At your earliest convenience, but no later than 5 months prior to the agency deadline, contact the Research Office to request a Pre-Submission Review of your K Award proposal. Reviewers will be chosen from colleagues who have expertise in the area of the proposed research and will provide feedback to you at a meeting between the reviewers and investigator. This pre-submission review process is not judgmental; rather, it is designed exclusively for the purpose of providing constructive suggestions inorder to assist the investigator in submitting the best proposal possible. All deliberations will remain confidential.
The Pre-Submission Review will be scheduled by the Research Office and should takeapproximately one hour. The investigator is expected to present, in PowerPoint format, a brief presentation outlining the specific aims of the proposal. A written copy of theAbstract (1-page) and Specific Aims (2-pages) should be submitted to the Research Office at least 10 days prior to the meeting to give the reviewers adequate time to read the material.
Deadlines
To ensure that adequate time is available for this process, Pre-Submission Reviews should be held at least 3-5 months prior to the funding agency submission deadline. If the proposal is a revised version of a previously
unfunded application, the investigator should also provide a copy of: a) the reviewer critiques of that application, b) a copy of the previous proposal, and c) the investigator's response to the critique.
Section 2. Reader Review
The investigator may request a Reader Review prior to submission of the final proposalto the funding agency. A Reader Review is encouraged and will allow the investigatorto improve the manuscript by making sure the proposal is clear, accurate, and complete.
Readers will be selected from a pool of experienced, senior research faculty.
For further information, contact:
Charles Elson, III , M.D., Vice Chair for Research
4-6358 or coelson@uab.edu
John Volanakis, M.D., Office for Research, Research Advisor
4-5235 or volanaki@uab.edu
Susan Winn, Office for Research, Staff
4-5035 or swinn@uab.edu
