NIH Partners in Research Program

Frequently Asked Questions
Updated: December 4, 2007

General Questions Regarding the Application Process

• Do I need prior NIH funding to submit an application?
  • No, you do not; junior investigators are encouraged to apply.
• Why do I need to submit a letter of intent and how long should it be?
  • Letters of intent help the NIH staff estimate the needs of scientific review (e.g., workload, review expertise). In addition, sometimes letters of intent are used to gauge responsiveness to the RFA and, in some cases, a potential applicant can be informed, before writing an entire application, that the application may be deemed unresponsive.
  • Letters should be brief and there is no standard format. However, it is suggested that the letter be on the letterhead of the applicant organization. The letter should state that the institution intends to submit an application in response to RFA OD-07-001 and should include a descriptive title of proposed research; the name, address, and telephone number of the PI(s); the names of other key personnel; and a list of the participating institutions and/or organizations.
  • Note that applicants will not be judged, rewarded, or penalized regarding the content of their letters, they are intended to be informative to NIH staff for planning purposes only.
• Do you have any advice for using the electronic submission process?
  • Yes, get started early to ensure there will be enough time to deal with any last minute technical difficulties.
  • In addition, you may wish to view an NIH videocast or other training materials on electronic submission available at http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/training.htm.
• To whom are we submitting our applications, if not to an Institute?
  • This is a National Institutes of Health Public Trust Initiative program. NINR and NICHD are administering the application and review process for RFA OD-07-001 on behalf of all NIH Institutes and Centers.
• Whom should I contact regarding questions about research ideas, about the review, and about funding?
  • Click on the Contacts link for complete information.
  • Questions concerning scientific concepts should be directed to Dr. Alexis Bakos or Dr. Susan Streufert.
  • Questions about peer review should be directed to Dr. Robert Stretch.
  • Specific questions regarding funding issues should be directed to Mr. Bryan Clark or Mr. Brian Albertini.
  • Following review, your program officer will discuss funding with you; his/her name will be listed in the eRA Commons (https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/). Please note, however, that funding can never be guaranteed until a Notice of Award is issued.
• May I submit additional materials after the submission deadline?
  • We expect that the application will be complete when it is submitted. Late materials are typically not accepted.
• Are foreign applicants eligible to apply for these grants?
  • No, applications from foreign institutions are not eligible.
• If the applicant institution is based in the U.S. can they submit an application with a foreign partner under this RFA?
  • Applications will be disaggregated and separate awards issued; therefore, foreign partners are ineligible.
• Is this the only round of submissions for this announcement?
  • Currently, this is the only round of submissions for these set-aside funds. At this time, it is not known if this RFA will be reissued.
• How should I budget travel for the workshop?
  • The workshop will last approximately two days and will be held in the Bethesda MD area, so plan to arrive the day before and leave on the second day. Both partner PIs should attend and funds should be requested to cover travel and accommodations for both.
  • Because the R03 budget is small, it is suggested that you consider reasonable, economic arrangements.
• What academic credentials does the community partner PI need to be eligible?
  • No academic credentials are required.
• Because the budget is divided between the academic institution and the community partner, must there be an equal distribution of the direct costs?
  • No, it is up to the research partners to decide how the funds will be allocated.
• Can an Institutional Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) be linked with the Partners in Research (PIR) Program?
  • An application can capitalize on an existing collaboration between an academic scientist and a community representative in a CTSA, but the research questions posed for the PIR application must be new and different. In addition, awards issued for the PIR program cannot be linked to a CTSA.
• May an academic researcher have more than one community partner?
  • More than one community partner is allowed, but additional partners must also be actively involved in all aspects of the research project.
  • NIH will make two separate, linked awards (one academic, one community), even if several community partners are involved. Additional community partners should be included under subcontract/consortium arrangements.
• Must a community partner have 501(c)(3) status?
  • No, that is not a requirement of the RFA.
• In our application, do we need to include our partner as a subcontract and apply our F&A rate to the first $25,000 of the subcontract direct costs?
  • Because separate grants will be awarded, it is not necessary to include the partner institution as a subcontract in the original application.
  • The narrative accompanying the modular budget should include a description of the respective roles of the partners and their institutions on the proposed project. Prior to award, information will be requested “Just in Time” on the specific budget requirements of each of the partner institutions.
  • As appropriate, the narrative also must address the partner’s costs (including applicable F&A costs) rounded to the nearest $1,000. The narrative should list the partner organization, and the percent of effort of key personnel and their role on the project.

Questions Regarding the Scientific Content of the Application

• What is the role of the community partner in response to this RFA?
  • The community partner is a full and equal participant in the research process, starting with designing the research and preparing the application, and including all aspects of implementation of a funded project.
  • Both the academic and community partners will be PIs on individual grants for funded projects.
• What is the definition of a “community organization?”
  • For the purposes of this RFA, ‘community’ refers to populations that may be defined by geography, race, ethnicity, gender, illness or other health condition, or other interest or commonality.
  • A community organization is one that is, typically, not part of a research institution (e.g., university) but is based in the lay (non-science) community in terms of its membership and activities.
  • Community organizations may be groups that have a common interest or cause, such as schools, clubs, health or service agencies and organizations, health care or public health practitioners or providers, faith-based organizations, policy makers, or lay public groups with public health concerns.
• Can clinical practice based networks/providers such as outpatient oncology practices or community hospitals be considered a “community partner?”
  • Possibly. If a provider’s role is to serve as an intermediary or liaison with the actual lay community (in this case, patients with cancer), this partnership may not qualify.
  • We encourage you to contact Dr. Bakos or Dr. Streufert for specific guidance.
• Is there an expectation that, if funded, this research project will eventually lead to a larger or more extensive research project?
  • Yes, it is anticipated that the researchers will utilize the findings from this initiative as the pilot work for building a larger program of research.
• Can I evaluate an existing community program/activity using this RFA?
  • No, the thrust of this initiative is the development of new areas of research, not program evaluation.
• Would the development of a clinical intervention be responsive to this RFA?
  • Pilot or feasibility testing of an intervention would fall within the scope of this project. However, a clinical intervention in terms of, for example, testing a new procedure or therapy, per se, is not responsive. The intervention must be focused on the goals of the program, i.e., to improve public understanding of biomedical and behavioral science, develop strategies for promoting collaboration between scientists and the community to improve the health of the public, and to identify the conditions (e.g., settings and approaches) that will enhance the effectiveness of such activities.
• In addition to contacting Dr. Bakos or Dr. Streufert about RFA ideas, should I contact a project officer from the other Institutes who might be interested in supporting the application?
  • In addition to contacting Dr. Bakos or Dr. Streufert, it is perfectly appropriate to contact a project officer from another NIH Institute. Project officers from other institutes may have specific expertise in a scientific area relevant to your particular grant application. However, we do not recommend talking to another project officer as a substitute for discussing your application with Drs. Bakos or Streufert.
• Does there need to be a nursing component in my project?
  • Although the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) is assisting in the administration of this RFA as a representative of the NIH Public Trust Initiative, applications submitted need not have a nursing component.
• May this RFA be used to develop a workshop or provide a community program?
  • No, the purpose of this initiative is to support pilot or feasibility research studies. Therefore research questions/hypothesis must be posed.

Questions Regarding the Review Process

• How will the reviewers evaluate my application?
  • The reviewers will be guided by the review criteria specified in Section V., Application Review Information, in the RFA.
• Who will the reviewers be and will there be a child health emphasis?
  • The NIH scientific review process is an independent one. As such, the review is administered by NIH staff, but the reviewers themselves are not NIH staff.
  • The Scientific Review Officer (SRO), who is an NIH employee, will recruit a review committee of scientists specifically for the purpose of reviewing applications responding to OD-07-001. This is called a Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) and consists of independent reviewers with scientific expertise that is needed, given the content of the applications submitted in response to this RFA.
  • The review process will be managed by the Division of Scientific Review of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), but applications need not have a pediatric emphasis. This RFA is a Trans-NIH activity. The expertise of the review committee that is convened will be appropriate for the applications received.
• Will I know who reviewed my application?
  • The review panel roster will be posted and available to applicants in the eRA Commons and will appear on your Summary Statement. However, the names of the specific reviewers assigned to write critiques for specific applications remain confidential.
• It would be helpful to me to have additional feedback regarding my application after the review. May I contact the reviewers listed on the roster to talk with them about the review?
  • Absolutely not. This would seriously compromise the integrity of the review process. The Program Officer and/or the Scientific Review Administrator will be happy to assist you, depending on the nature of your question.
• How are applications scored?
  • After separate discussion of each application that is to be scored, all voting members of the review committee assign a score. These scores are then averaged to provide a single score. Thus, the committee as a whole is responsible for the final review recommendation and score for each application.
• What happens to my application after the scientific review?
  • After the scientific review, applications will be assigned to appropriate Institutes and Centers (ICs) based on their scientific content. Thus, each funded grant will have an appropriate home in a relevant IC.
  • The application, priority score, and the Summary Statement will be sent to the relevant program staff of the assigned IC for each application.
  • Because this is a Trans-NIH Initiative, an NIH-wide Project Team consisting of representatives from all involved NIH Institutes and Centers will meet to discuss the applications. This Team will come to a consensus regarding which applications it recommends for funding. This list of recommendations is known as a funding plan.
  • The funding plan will be reviewed by senior leadership of the NIH Public Trust initiative.
  • The National Advisory Council or Board of each involved IC will be responsible for the second level of review of applications assigned to that IC, concurring or not with recommendations of the initial scientific peer review. Council concurrence is required by law before an application can be funded.
  • Funding decisions are based on scientific merit, as reflected in the written critiques and the priority score assigned by the review committee, programmatic interests and needs, and availability of funds.
• What is the timing for review, priority score release, summary statement release, and funding decisions?
  • The review committee will meet in March/April of 2008. Once the review committee meeting date is established, it is posted on the eRA Commons.
  • Scores are typically released several days after the review.
  • Summary statements contain the reviewers’ critiques of the application and will be completed within approximately six weeks of the review.
  • The timing regarding tentative and final funding decisions varies among NIH Institutes and Centers; program staff should be contacted for questions about funding, after you have seen your Summary Statement.
  • ICs will begin making awards around July 1, 2008. However, this is the earliest possible date; many awards will be made after that date, but all will be made before September 30, 2008.
• When applying the review criteria to the proposed project (Significance, Approach, Innovation, Investigators, Environment), will reviewers focus on just the science relevant to the objectives of this RFA? Does the science related to the specific health topic we use (e.g., obesity) also have to be strong?
  • Reviewers will evaluate the strength of the science for both aspects of your project. For example, you propose an approach to testing a novel community intervention designed to increase awareness of the relevance of research findings regarding the health benefits of weight control to members of your community. The reviewers find this approach to be significant, innovative, well-designed, and likely to contribute to the goals of the Partners in Research Program. However, they feel that your application suggests that you are not familiar with the latest results in obesity research. As a result of the combined assessment, the reviewers are likely to reduce their enthusiasm for your application.

Questions Regarding Funding and Awards

• How will NIH make awards to both the Community Organization and the Research Organization if the application is submitted by one applicant originally?
  • After review and prior to funding, the NIH plans to disaggregate the application into two separate entities, which will allow each organization to receive a separate, but linked, award.
• How will NIH receive the required information to facilitate separate awards?
  • Through pre-award Just-in-Time requests, NIH staff will request in writing specific information required to perform this disaggregation. Examples may include: updated other support, a separate budget and budget justification from each Institution, etc.
• Because there will be two PIs from two different institutions/organizations, do both institutions get their full F & A (Facilities and Administrative) costs?
  • Yes, each institution is entitled to its negotiated indirect costs (F&A) unless they choose to waive that right. If an institution decides to waive that right, it must do so in writing, with appropriate institutional signatures.

 

RFA Home
Contact Information