n******8
发帖数: 558 | 1 My R21 wasn't discussed-:(. However I saw JIT in my ERA COMMONS account.
Weird. An error? What percentage is discussed now at a cancer study section?
Thanks! |
n******g
发帖数: 662 | 2 JIT indicates your proposal is not at the bottom. |
n******8
发帖数: 558 | 3 自己顶一下。 I meant Just In Time request. I looked up JIT policy. The
request was automatically sent to any proposal with an impact score <40. But
mine is undiscussed, so no impact score, I assume. Waiting for the summary. |
b*****d
发帖数: 61690 | 4 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
writedit said
July 13, 2015 @ 2:49 pm
The link is opened on eRA Commons for all applications, and I have heard
of others receiving automated JIT emails for >40/unscored applications, but
I cannot explain why (just remind them to ignore it).
But
summary.
【在 n******8 的大作中提到】
: 自己顶一下。 I meant Just In Time request. I looked up JIT policy. The
: request was automatically sent to any proposal with an impact score <40. But
: mine is undiscussed, so no impact score, I assume. Waiting for the summary.
|
n******8
发帖数: 558 | 5 brihand, many thanks! somewhat comforting. |
o*****e
发帖数: 311 | 6 it does not mean anything... move on. |
s******y
发帖数: 28562 | 7 除非是PO 找你要的，否则没有意义。
section?
【在 n******8 的大作中提到】
: My R21 wasn't discussed-:(. However I saw JIT in my ERA COMMONS account.
: Weird. An error? What percentage is discussed now at a cancer study section?
: Thanks!
|
n******8
发帖数: 558 | 8 Just received the critiques. Surprised how polar three reviewers can be. Do
agree with some of the critiques.
CRITIQUE 1:
Significance: 4 Investigator(s): 3 Innovation: 5 Approach: 6 Environment: 3
CRITIQUE 2:
Significance: 2 Investigator(s): 1 Innovation: 2 Approach: 2 Environment: 1
CRITIQUE 3:
Significance: 5 Investigator(s): 5 Innovation: 4 Approach: 7 Environment: 4
wish i could figure who #3 were and avoid him/her in the future. |
b*****d
发帖数: 61690 | 9 1. approach打得有些低.以前看过个blog说最后的那个分和approach的分关联相对最大.
https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2011/03/08/overall-impact-and-criterion-scores/
Do
3
1
4
【在 n******8 的大作中提到】
: Just received the critiques. Surprised how polar three reviewers can be. Do
: agree with some of the critiques.
: CRITIQUE 1:
: Significance: 4 Investigator(s): 3 Innovation: 5 Approach: 6 Environment: 3
: CRITIQUE 2:
: Significance: 2 Investigator(s): 1 Innovation: 2 Approach: 2 Environment: 1
: CRITIQUE 3:
: Significance: 5 Investigator(s): 5 Innovation: 4 Approach: 7 Environment: 4
: wish i could figure who #3 were and avoid him/her in the future.
|
