Have I carefully reviewed the detailed SF424 instructions and scoring criteria? Have I studied the FOA to see if there are specific instructions and scoring criteria?
Did I study the FOA-specific instructions/scoring criteria?
Have I created an outline that includes all necessary sections, as appropriate for the project type? Have I made certain that I did not omit key sections?
Have I used all my available space to argue persuasively for my project?
Have I opted for visual breaks over white space to maximize space without sacrificing readability?
Have I formatted the outline to facilitate skimming?
Have I considered creatively using figures and tables (beyond for preliminary data) to maximize space, enhance skimming, and emphasize key points?
Have I considered if my formatting strategies are appropriate for a color-blind reviewer?
Have I avoided long sections of unformatted text?
Have I spent time researching the reviewers on my study section so that I deeply understand my audience? Have I discussed the panel with the PO?
Have I looked at the excellent resources and samples on the NIAID website?
Have I had an outside reader assess whether it makes sense to them?
Have I familiarized myself with the NIH definitions of a human subjects or clinical trial project, and do I understand which project type I am doing? Have I carefully considered whether it is an NIH-defined human subjects project, using NIH infographics and flow charts?
If I am doing a human subjects or clinical trial project, have I familiarized myself with the PHS HS & CT Info form, understood how/how much to fill out, and made sure that the detailed info resides in the form and not the Approach section?
How Can I Help?
Let’s have a conversation about how I can help your faculty improve their NIH grantsmanship skills.