May 1998
Volume 62 |
Number 5
|
| |
FAER REPORT
|
| Understanding
the FAER Grant Review Process |
The Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research (FAER) office
receives grant application submissions twice a year, July 31 and
November 30 (unless these dates fall on a weekend, then the due
date is the following Monday). Starter Grant proposals are due
at the end of July and the New Investigator Award proposals are
due at the end of November. Proposals for Anesthesiology Research
Fellowships and the Education Research Grants may be submitted
at either deadline. Application materials can be obtained from
the FAER office: (507) 266-6866.
Starter Grant, New Investigator Award and Fellowship proposals
are reviewed by the ASA Committee on Research, and the Education
Research Grants are reviewed by the FAER Education Study Section.
Both committees function as rigorous, independent study sections.
Application guidelines and the review process closely follow the
National Institutes of Health format. The review committees require
strict adherence to the guidelines to ensure fairness to all applicants
as well as to teach applicants the disciplined and meticulous
process of obtaining competitive funding. No variances will be
tolerated; if the application guidelines specify using a 12-pitch
font and double-spacing, any applications varying from that format
will be returned by the FAER office for revision and not be sent
to the review committee.
Grant proposals passing the technical formalities are
sent to the committee chair who assigns the reviewers to evaluate
them. The decision is based on specific expertise and interest
and avoids conflicts of interest. Every grant proposal is then
reviewed by at least two committee members (primary and secondary
reviewers) who determine the scientific and innovative merit,
compliance with ethical guidelines and overall quality of the
application. Each reviewer assigns a score from 1.0 (most favorable)
to 5.0 (least favorable) to the proposal he/she reviewed.
At the research committee meeting, both the primary and
secondary reviewers present the application. Each reviewer discusses
the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal, and an amended score
is assigned. The discussion of each proposal lasts about 20 minutes.
The committee compiles a rank order of the applications and recommends
which are to be funded. This list and recommendations are submitted
to the FAER Board of Directors, which then determines the number
of applications that can be funded considering the amount of funds
available. The top-scoring applications are funded unless more
than one application from the same institution is among the top
scores. The Foundation restricts the number of awards in a specific
category to one per institution per year, so in this case, the
application with the higher score would be funded while the second
one would be denied.
All applicants receive detailed critiques relating to
both the science and presentation of their proposal. This feedback
is intended to help the applicant strengthen the proposal and
should be taken seriously. The reviewers' comments address topics
from misspellings and grammatical errors to the need to remain
realistic, clear, understandable and organized, to specific scientific
technical questions, concerns and suggestions. The comments and
effort of the reviewers demonstrate their commitment to and investment
in developing future scientists.
For tips on successful grant-writing, please see "How
to Wow a Study Section: A Grantsmanship Lesson" by Karen Hopkin,
published March 2, 1998, in The Scientist. Reviewers from
several study sections discuss what they consider important in
grant applications. The article lists three sets of "A-B-Cs (and
D's)" of grant-writing which include:
- Ask a successfully funded researcher to critique your proposal
before submission.
- Be hypothesis driven, not technique driven.
- Clearly state what impact the work will have in the field.
- Don't be too ambitious; focus on three to five specific aims.
return to top
Home >Newsletters
>May 1998Home >Test |