Three (Grant) Peeves in a Pod: Formatting
Cranky Reviewer
Ever since the holy trinity important things have come in threes—listen up. Every study section I have been in for years includes the complaint that certain grant authors: 1.) Cheat …
0
Comments
0
Likes
644
Views
Creed: Taking a Beating
Katherine Hartmann, MD, PhD
Getting out of the ring too early is the most common cause of death of scientific ideas. Fight on.
1
Comments
8
Likes
631
Views
Staying on My Good Side
Cranky Reviewer
Don’t be the person study section remembers for prior gaffes. Even if only some members are put off by a concern it can hurt your grant score.
1
Comments
0
Likes
627
Views
Undergrads in the Lab: An Interview with Paris Grey
Britteny Watson-Ivey
In this interview, Paris Grey, co-creator of Undergrad in the Lab, gives great insight regarding undergrads in research.
0
Comments
0
Likes
607
Views
Dr. Stephen Korn on NINDS Workforce Development
Fighty Squirrel, PhD, Awe.Some.
A storified version of Dr Stephen Korn's talk at Vanderbilt on Workforce Development. Excellent pointers on grantsmanship, new funding mechanisms for trainees and more!
0
Comments
0
Likes
595
Views
Popular Young Scientist’s Post on Failure to Get Funding Goes Viral
Fighty Squirrel, PhD, Awe.Some.
Brad Voytek should be the poster child for neuroscience. He’s smart, charismatic, does a ton of outreach, sports an impressive soul patch and works on difficult problems of how …
0
Comments
0
Likes
570
Views
How a Jail-house Letter and Goat Research Can Get Your Grant Funded
Eric Sentell, PhD
So-called “audience-based rhetoric” persuades much more effectively than just stating the reasons your grant is the best idea ever.
0
Comments
10
Likes
562
Views
Let’s Talk About Sex as a Biological Variable
Julie Bastarache, MD
SABV is easy thing to get right on your application and may uncover something unexpected in your research.
1
Comments
0
Likes
562
Views
Finally! Data on What Study Section Really Cares About
Fighty Squirrel, PhD, Awe.Some.
In 2009, NIH revamped their scoring system asking reviewers to provide numbers ranging from 1 (best) to 9 (worst) assessing applications Environment, Investigator, Innovation, Approach, and Significance. NIH has emphasized Innovation (insert jazz …
0
Comments
2
Likes
546
Views
Three (Grant) Peeves in a Pod: Check Yourself
Cranky Reviewer
Reviewers review. We will notice. These fresh mistakes straight from study section: 1.) Please agree with yourself. If the abstract says n = 110, the aims say 100, the statistical section says 110, and the …
0
Comments
0
Likes
527
Views