CSR by the numbers: The Challengery

May 12 2009 Published by under Grant Review, NIH, NIH Budgets and Economics

From the May issue of the CSR Peer Review Notes.

Unprecedented numbers: Overall, CSR typically reviews 16,000 applications with the help of about 8,000 reviewers in each of the three main yearly review rounds. This round, CSR will rely on over 23,000 reviewers to assess about 36,000 applications.

Summary after the jump.

CSR received about 20,000 applications for new Challenge Grants, which will be funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This more than doubles the number of applications CSR typically reviews in a review round.

These are the numbers we're hearing bandied about but it is nice to get a semi-official confirmation.

NIH also has received about 1,600 applications for Competing Revisions for April deadlines.

These are the supplement applications, now termed competing revision.

7 responses so far

  • whimple says:

    The best part of this month's CSR Peer Review Notes is the free online version of "Rocket Boy".
    http://cms.csr.nih.gov/AboutCSR/CSRNIHHistory/NIHRocketBoys/RocketBoysBook.htm
    This story runs the gamut from thrillingly inspiring, to bitterly ironic.

  • Govt. Bureaucrat says:

    Second the Rocket Boys story!
    OMG! on the numbers.
    GB

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    Rocket Boy -- as if we didn't feel bad enough about the advancing age of first award for PI's! Damn white dude wouldn't have gotten anywhere with these 10% paylines!

  • These are the supplement applications, now termed competing revision.

    Just to be clear. These "competing revisions" are what used to be called "competitive supplements", are requests for funds to expand the "scope" of a grant from when it was awarded, and must be subject to peer review. There are also "administrative supplements", which are requests for funds to do things that are within the "scope" of a grant as originally awarded, but were not specifically proposed or budgeted in the original grant. Administrative supplements are reviewed by NIH institute program staff, rather than via study secetion peer review.

  • Luigi says:

    Didn't I give these numbers a couple weeks ago?
    http://scientopia.org/blogs/drugmonkey/2009/04/emslateem-on-biomedical-researchers-response-to-challenge-grants#comment-1603509
    It's amazing how often I'm right. Where do I get my information?

  • DrugMonkey says:

    You claimed 15,000 but in any case some people are interested in something a little more official than "some anonymous dude on the intertoobz claimed".

  • Luigi says:

    36,000-16,000 = 20,000. OK, so I was a little off. But as was pointed out a month ago when I first tooted that number, we hadn't even reached the submission deadline yet.
    I *DID* also mention the low numbers of supplements. This is the real money. Most institutes have $10M-20M alloted for these. Do the math. Many study sections have received only 2-3 applications total. Success rate on these is gonna be very high.
    Not unlike normal administrative supplements, by the way. The easiest way to get [more] NIH money is: 1) get an R01, 2) figure out an excuse for a supplement.
    But all that's water under the bridge. The next deadline this summer is KEY. If you have an application at all ready to go, go for it. Plan on taking a break from grant writing in 2011; you'll have better things to do.

Leave a Reply