OMB No. 0925-0534 Exp: 08/2007
Survey of Peer Reviewers Logo


Evaluation of the Modular Grant Application Process


Survey of Peer Reviewers

Sponsored by:

National Institutes of Health

Office of Extramural Research


Introduction

This survey of peer reviewers is part of a larger study evaluating the modular grant application process. The purpose of the evaluation is to gather information about your opinions and experiences with the modular grant application process. Results will be used to help improve communication and training about the process as well as improve various aspects of it. This study is funded by the National Institutes of Health, Office of Extramural Research. You have been selected to participate in this important study. Your feedback is critical. Even if you have limited experience reviewing modular grant applications, your opinions are still very important to us.

The survey should take about 20 minutes to complete. When responding to this survey, please keep the following definition in mind.

Modular grants: The modular grants program began in 1999. It is for grants of $250,000 or less in direct costs per year. Direct costs are requested in modules of $25,000 and applicants are not required to include detailed budgets in their applications.

There are no right or wrong answers, so you should respond by giving the answer that best describes your own situation. While we would like you to answer all the questions in this questionnaire, you may skip any questions that you do not wish to answer. Even if you feel you must skip a question, your answers to other questions will still be important to us.

Your participation is entirely voluntary, and if you choose to complete the survey, all of your responses will remain completely confidential and will not be linked to your name. All study results will be aggregated and will not be used to rate or report on NIH Institutes, Centers, or Study Sections.

Thank you very much for your participation.

A. ABOUT YOU


This section asks for information about you and your involvment in the modular grant application process.

A1.   Since 1999, have you reviewed a modular grant application?

Yes - Approximately what percentage of the grant applications that you have reviewed since 1999 have been modular?  %
No
 
A2.   How many peer review panels (study section) meetings have you ever attended? (Please include those attended as an ad hoc reviewer.)

 
A3.   Please indicate the years of both your first and most recent review experience, even if you did not act as a peer reviewer during some of the intervening years. (Please include any ad hoc reviewing experience.)

to

[Example: 1989 to 2003]
 
A4.   Have you ever been a principal investigator on a grant (regardless of the funding agency)?

Yes
No
 
A5.   Have you ever submitted a modular grant application to NIH?

Yes - Have you ever been awarded a modular grant?
 
Yes
No
No
 
A6.   Have you ever submitted a nonmodular grant application to NIH?

Yes - Have you ever been awarded a nonmodular grant?
 
Yes
No
No
 
A7.   Which NIH Survey Section/Review Committee have you most recently reviewed for? Do not include Study Sections or Review Committees for which you served only as an ad hoc reviewer.

 
A8.   What University/Research Center are you affiliated with?

 
A9.   What is your job title (e.g., assistant/associate/full professor; department chairman, research associate)?


B. KNOWLEDGE AND ASSESSMENT OF THE MODULAR GRANT APPLICATION PROCESS


NIH is concerned that some aspects of the modular grant application process may present difficulties for you and other peer reviewers. Therefore, we would like you to identify the modular grant elements that you think need clarification. Below is a list of actual key features of the modular grant application process. Please check one box for each line that indicates how well you understand these features.
B1.   Features of the modular grant application process

This feature is clear to me This feature is not clear to me I have never heard about this feature
a.   There is no routine escalation for future years
b.   One or more additional modules may be requested during a particular year to cover an unusual cost fluctuation (such as a piece of equipment)
c.   Additional narrative budget justification is needed for any variation in the number of modules requested
d.   A separate form labeled "Other Support" does not appear in the modular grant application
e.   Narrative budget justification is needed only for personnel and consortium/contractual arrangements
f.   Individual salary information is not required for personnel
g.   Total consortium/contractual costs need to be estimated for each year, rounded to the nearest $1,000
h.   The total cost of the consortium/contractual arrangement is included in the requested modular direct cost total
i.   Indirect costs are not calculated on equipment
j.   Biographical sketches need to be prepared for all key personnel
k.   Biographical sketches should include the goals of current or recently completed research projects (federal and non-federal support
l.   Modular grant awards are eligible for administrative supplements (i.e., noncompeting supplemental funding)
m.   All forms for modular grant applications are available on the NIH website
n.   Some form pages are different for a modular grant application than for a nonmodular grant application
 
B2.   Features of the peer review process

This feature is clear to me This feature is not clear to me I have never heard about this feature
a.   Peer reviewers can recommend that modules be cut from a proposed research budget
b.   Peer reviewers should not recommend specific percentages be cut from a proposed research budget
c.   If peer reviewers want to recommend changes (e.g., in staffing, percent effort, specific aims, etc.) but a cost reduction in modules can�t be determined, then peer reviewer recommendations should be described in the budget section of the review without assigning an amount
 
B3.   Before taking this survey, had you ever heard of the following goals of the modular grant application process?

Yes No
a.   Reduce administrative burden for peer reviewers
b.   Focus the efforts of peer reviewers on the scientific content of the grant application
c.   Reinforce the grant-in-aid philosophy (i.e., the government's assisting in carrying out the research endeavor) as opposed to the contract mentality (i.e., buying research dollar-for-dollar)
d.   Accommodate principal investigators' need for flexibility
 
B4.   In your opinion, to what extent has the modular grant application process achieved the following goals:

Not
at all
To some extent To a large extent Don't know/Can't rate
a.   Reduce administrative burden for peer reviewers
b.   Focus the efforts of peer reviewers on the scientific content of the grant application
c.   Reinforce the grant-in-aid philosophy (i.e., the government's assisting in carrying out the research endeavor) as opposed to the contract mentality (i.e., buying research dollar-for-dollar)
d.   Accommodate principal investigators' need for flexibility
 
B5.   Do you think there are other reasons for the implementation of the modular grant application process?

Yes - Please specify 
No
 
B6.   Have you ever received information on the review of modular grant applications?

Yes
No
 
B7.   How satisfied were you with the information you received about the review of modular grant applications?

Very satisfied
Satisfield
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied

C. YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE MODULAR GRANT APPLICATION PROCESS

This section asks you about your experience with the modular grant application process. Please check the box that indicates how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.


Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't know/Not applicable
C1.   The modular grants application process has impeded my ability to learn about how much different elements of a research project cost
C2.   The lack of a detailed budget helps me focus on the scientific content of the applications
C3.   The modular grant application process has negatively affected the working relationship between me and the scientific review administrator of my study section
C4.   As a direct result of the modular grant application process, discussions about the budget in my study section are much more limited
C5.   I can assess the scientific merit of a modular grant application without a detailed budget
C6.   I can assess the scientific merit of a modular grant application without "Other Support" pages
C7.   It is not necessary for an application to have already received IRB and/or IACUC approvals for me to make a good assessment of the scientific content
C8.   I am not comfortable recommending budget cuts without being able to view a detailed budget
 
C9.   As a direct result of the modular grant application process, my study section meeting has...

Increased significantly
Increased slightly
Remained the same
Decreased slightly
Decreased significantly
 
C10.   As a direct result of the modular grant application process, my responsibilities as a peer reviewer have...

Increased significantly
Increased slightly
Remained the same
Decreased slightly
Decreased significantly
 

Next we would like you to think about how much time you spend reviewing a grant application before attending study section meetings.
 
C11.   Please think about the average amount of time you spend reviewing one grant application before attending study section meetings. Compared to a nonmodular grant application, reviewing a modular grant application takes me...

Much more time
Somewhat more time
About the same amount of time
Somewhat less time
Much less time
 

Now we would like you to think about how much study section meeting time is spent discussing an applicant�s budget.
 
C12.   Please use the two spaces below to indicate, on average, how much study section meeting time was devoted to discussing an applicant�s proposed budget before and after the implementation of the modular grant application process. If you are not sure, please provide your best estimate.

Study Section Meeting Time Devoted to Discussing An Applicant�s Proposed Budget:

Before Modular GrantsAfter Modular Grants
 Minutes  Minutes
 

D. YOUR OPINION ABOUT THE MODULAR GRANT APPLICATION PROCESS

This section asks your opinions about the modular grant application process. Please check the box that indicates how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.



Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't know/Not applicable
D1.   Reviewers generally know how much a proposed research project that they review should cost
D2.   Since the modular grant applications only list total costs, new reviewers should receive training on how to determine whether or not proposed costs are reasonable
D3.   In many of the modular grant applications the overall costs appear to be inflated
D4.   The more budget justification PIs provide, the more reviewers understand their proposed research, and in turn, the higher the score they receive
D5.   Making recommendations to cut a module is a waste of time because the PI will ultimately be awarded the amount originally requested
D6.   The peer reviewers don�t need to see a detailed budget to understand the proposed research project in a modular grant application
D7.   Listing dollar value totals for major categories (personnel, travel, etc.) would be a good compromise between a detailed budget and a modular budget
 

We are interested in your perceptions about the modular grant application process. For the question below, please check one box for each line that comes closest to what you think.
D8.   As a direct result of the modular grant application process, my perception is that:

Increased Stayed
the
same
Decreased
a.   The average amount of funding requested has
b.   The average size of award (dollar amount) has

E. YOUR SATISFACTION WITH THE MODULAR GRANT APPLICATION PROCESS


Finally, we would like to know your general thoughts about and satisfaction with the modular grant application process. Please be as detailed as you like in your responses to the open-ended questions. Again, we appreciate your feedback very much.

 
E1.   Overall, how satisfied are you with the modular grant application process?

Very satisfied
Satisfield
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
 
E2.   Would you prefer the modular grant limit be higher than $250,000?

Yes - Why?
No - Why not?
Not sure/don't know
 
E3.   What aspects of the modular grant application process do you like?

 
E4.   What aspects of the modular grant application process do you dislike?