What are some application problems that are commonly revealed in the CBCRP peer review process?
A. For career development applications we see problems of: (i) too many aims,(ii) not enough mentor input to better organize the research plan,(iii) too many spelling errors and sloppy editing, (iv) insufficient career goals directed at breast cancer, and (v) a training plan not focused on breast cancer. The PI (student or postdoc applicant) must write the text for the abstracts, career plan, additional criteria, and research plan. The mentor should give guidance by prioritizing aims, matching the amount of work to the project duration, tailoring the project goals to the applicant’s skill level and training plan, correcting any defects in English usage, and designing a training plan (“Mentor Profile and Training Plan” form) focused on breast cancer. Remember that the “Career Plan” form is critical for both the scientific and programmatic reviews, so spend some time working on it! For IDEAs, the applications often are either too closely associated with past or present projects by the PI
A. For IDEAs, the applications often are either too closely associated with past or present projects by the PI or lack a central, testable hypothesis. Although we do not require applications to be “hypothesis-driven”, reviewers often use the “fishing expedition” term when describing data gathering or correlative project. Be specific on explaining why the research is innovative and identify the “high risk/high” reward elements. We ask our reviewers to look for “cut down” R-01s, and obvious cut-and-paste text obtained from prior applications. General advice: include a project summary or timeline at the end of the Research Plan, explain both the expected results and possible pitfalls in the research, and be sure all of the needed expertise for the project is accounted for in the biosketches of the Key Personnel, personnel descriptions in Budget Justification, background on the project, publications, or in letters from collaborators. Finally, we recommend identifying either the central hyp
Related Questions
- Donors already have indicators to assess the application of GHD, like the peer review process. Isn’t this enough?
- What are some pitfalls in application preparation that are commonly seen in the BCRP peer review process?
- What are some application problems that are commonly revealed in the CBCRP peer review process?
