l****y
发帖数: 486 | 1 Reviewer comment 几周后会出。如果是new investigator，会提早些收到。第一次
unscore 的情况下 revise(A1) 并最后拿到的可能性不大，当然也有些成功的。这个
NIH是有过统计的，比如说第一轮在10-20 percentile 并没fund的情况下第二轮有80%
的拿到，而第一轮就unscore第二轮还拿到的几率是5%。当然这些数字是我编的，具体
你要去查。
你需要权衡的是：你是应该死马当活马医,送回去revise （坏处是 根据以前的统计，
成功几率低，但好处是，你好歹知道reviewer comment，所以很有针对性）还是把它作
为一个新的送另一个study section (现在这是可以的，好处是 可以再撞一次运气，但
坏处是没针对性，reviewers can come up with totally different critiques)
建议你拿到reviewer comment后，和一个有经验的教授谈谈。他们一般很有经验。 |
|
s*******u
发帖数: 172 | 2 the first try failed...do not know what to do..
really disappointed and frustrated..
several senior collaborators said the application was well written and
should have a good shot..but unscored...
think whether I should drop out of academia... |
|
x*b
发帖数: 253 | 3 In fact even an established guy has many unscored R01 applications.
Just modify your proposal and resubmit.
Finally you will get the money. |
|
v******d
发帖数: 1939 | 4 多从自身找原因，熟人再帮忙也不可能从unscored到fundable。 |
|
c**********g
发帖数: 251 | 5 Scientific Review Group review completed: Application unscored. Refer any
questions to Program Official.
--应该是结果不好
什么时候能拿到具体的review的意见？
还能有机会再投一轮吗？
谢谢！ |
|
jh
发帖数: 23 | 6 12/17 review的，刚去网上查了查status:
Scientific Review Group review completed: Application unscored. Refer any
questions to Program Official.
是不是太差了以至于分数都没给？ |
|
l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 7 Obama's Push to Expand Credit to "Credit Invisibles"
A recently released government study by the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau on "Credit Invisibles" has some interesting facts on people with and
without credit histories.
Approximately 188.6 million Americans have credit records at one of the
NCRAs that can be scored by the commercially-available model. This
represents over 80 percent of the adult population.
An additional 19.4 million Americans, representing 8.3 percent of the
ad... 阅读全帖 |
|
p***7
发帖数: 535 | 8 proc format;
value score 370 - 670 = '670-'
671 - 870 = '671+'
other = 'unscored'
;
proc freq data=score;
table score;
format score score.;
run;
in the output window the ‘unscored’ label appears without truncation.
Because when assigning a character label in a
dataset, the length of the first evaluation of the
label will be applied to all labels.
I don't understand it,what does the first evaluation mean here? for me
the length of '670-' is shorter than... 阅读全帖 |
|
p***7
发帖数: 535 | 9 No. If you use 'if then' you will get truncated 'unsco' for unscore.
But format will allow the full length 'unscore'.
I don't understand the reason. |
|
w********d
发帖数: 270 | 10 Actually, I submitted three RC1 proposals. The other two end up unscored. |
|
N*S
发帖数: 783 | 11 Even many rising stars failed their first attempt...
hold on and try again... |
|
f***o
发帖数: 2514 | 12 现在只能交两次了，再交一次还不行一般怎么办？换r21?
有时候碰到不懂的reviewer还是很痛苦。 |
|
|
x*b
发帖数: 253 | 14 I guess u can change half of the content?
I know someone changed the PI of the proposal and submitted it to a
different study section and received a good score.
R21 is not good for a new PI.
A new PI definitely should apply for R01 instead of R21. |
|
A******y
发帖数: 2041 | 15 Resubmit, if turned down again, then repackage for different section...R21
is not easy, if your R21 got funded, the same proposal "probably" will be
funded in a R01 section. So why bother with R21...just look at the pay-line
for R21 and R01. |
|
|
p*l
发帖数: 1359 | 17 如果是Triage了，score那栏会显示unscored。你这个Study section的分肯定还没有发
布，再等等吧。 |
|
p*l
发帖数: 1359 | 18 我的resubmission从unscored爬到了17分，绝地逢生也是有可能的。 |
|
w***0
发帖数: 85 | 19 看到Study Section很多熟人,太别是同胞, 就知道不一定会有用...反而会有偏差.
太熟,不敢帮...有时同行是冤家...Work hard for next time |
|
|
|
|
r*****y
发帖数: 507 | 23 Recently, my first NIH grant got priority score 10 and 1 percentile as well.
:) |
|
|
|
l***s
发帖数: 841 | 26 听说很多study section现在只讨论一小部分grants，大部分直接略过。是真的吗？以
前是一半一边。想请有经验的前辈来澄清一下。多谢了。 |
|
G*****h
发帖数: 320 | 27 看情况吧。收到的申请多的时候，讨论的比例估计会少些。以前一般会讨论一半以上，
现在一半或者一半以下。据说有些 study sections 有时候会到 3分子1样子。反正能
拿到钱的也就 10 分子1 上下，讨论多了也没有太大意思。SCR 这些年也在省经费，和
4-5年前相比，人数和天数都减少很多。
但 New investigators 的申请是都会讨论的，所以讨论的比例也和有多少 new
investigator 有关。 |
|
|
l********n
发帖数: 804 | 29 new investigator 多差都会讨论？
看情况吧。收到的申请多的时候，讨论的比例估计会少些。以前一般会讨论一半以上，
现在一半或者一半以下。据说有些 study sections 有时候会到 3分子1样子。反正能
拿到钱........ |
|
l***s
发帖数: 841 | 30 原来是这样。太谢谢了。去掉New investigators, 其他人的讨论比例会更低了。最近
我一个平均3.7分的grant，竟都没有讨论。上一个拿到的grant也不过就是30几分。这
世道越来越艰难了。 |
|
A******y
发帖数: 2041 | 31 New investigators will not be discussed if it is scored less than 30 to 50%
of other new investigators. NIs are different pool but not all will be
discussed. |
|
|
l***s
发帖数: 841 | 33 那NIs 一般占多少%？你知道的panel，其他非NI的grants有多少%讨论的？
% |
|
h*****w
发帖数: 8561 | 34 New investigators没有被讨论的多了去了啊 |
|
|
G*****h
发帖数: 320 | 36 是我记错了。我参加的那个study section 多年前 NI 的 R01 一般都讨论（那时评审
人和天数都多些）。现在也不是了，但比例稍微多点。
下面是我从 email 里面能找到的相对不久前的一次情况（记得收到的申请不是特多）
，供参考：
Applications 1-## New Investigators 60% discussed
Applications ##-## All other R01s 50% discussed
Applications ##-## R21s/R03s/R15s 50% discussed
不同的时候，不同的 study sections 会不同的。
% |
|
y******u
发帖数: 141 | 37 投的NIH STTR proposal review 结束了。这个更新是说proposal太差了，不评分，还
是说还没来的及打分哩? 感觉非常strong的proposal了呀。哪位老师给指点一下？谢谢
06/16/2014 Scientific Review Group review completed: Application unscored
. Refer any questions to Program Official.
-------------
明白了， 看来是挂了。 好奇这些reviewer都说了些什么，等等看吧。 真想骂人啊 |
|
|
y*******g
发帖数: 329 | 39 patpat, 同命运的人多的很的.
两个月后看了comments再改改吧。
unscored |
|
b*****d
发帖数: 61690 | 40 几周后.现在可以不停的投了.nih不再检查了. |
|
|
c**********g
发帖数: 251 | 42 非常感谢详细的回复
现在放开无限次重投了，这个成功率会不会有什么变化 |
|
l****y
发帖数: 486 | 43 现在更像摇 lottery了。当然，同一个号你不可能一直摇下来（尽管规则允许你同一个
号可以一直揺下去）因为field is moving forward quickly. 同样的东西过两年多数
就过时了。 |
|
|
|
h*****w
发帖数: 8561 | 46 一般第一次没分的PROPOSAL联系PO的话他不会建议重新投的,因为5%都多了,我老投的那
个PO和我说他们的记录是0.5%,有特例是PO特别喜欢你的PROPOSAL,但是REVIEWER不喜欢
,PO会重新找新的REVIEWER特别关照你 |
|
o********e
发帖数: 609 | 47 It depends on the summary statement. If it is an apparently fatal flaw but
you happen to have new data to convincingly fix it, then go for a
resubmission otherwise it is probably better to submit as new, particularly
if you can find a different study section to review it. |
|
l****y
发帖数: 486 | 48 这是对的。
更具体地说，如果reviewer 认为你的significance and/or innovation is very weak
, 一般不要再投回去了。相反，这时转投另一个 study section可能会柳暗花明又一村
，因为这两项是很主观的，不同的人差别太大了。
如果是approach 出问题，很多情况下是可以改进的（当然也要具体情况具体分析）。
如果觉得可以改进，应该尝试送回去。
particularly |
|
b*****d
发帖数: 61690 | 49 给你看个相似例子
https://writedit.wordpress.com/about/nih-paylines-resources/discussion-nih-
scorespaylinespolicypeer-review/
Emaderton3 said
July 13, 2015 @ 12:53 pm
I submitted a new R01 that was not discussed but got the automated JIT
request. I know that this JIT request does not mean anything, but I thought
the policy was to automatically have it in eRA Commons with priority scores
of 40 or better. (My reviewer criteria scores were mostly in the 2-4 range
except one 5 and one 6.)
Reply
w... 阅读全帖 |
|
l******e
发帖数: 12 | 50 Mine still says "Scientific Review Group review pending" |
|
