Announcer: From the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, this is "All About Grants."
David Kosub: Hello, and welcome to another virtual edition of NIH's "All About Grants" podcast. I'm your host, David Kosub, with the NIH's Office of Extramural Research. And today we're going to be talking all about the timelines associated with preparing your application. And I'm glad to say that we have two of my OER colleagues with us from the Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration, we have Avery Tucker, she's with the Division of Grants Policy, and we also have Kasima Garst, she's with the Systems Policy Branch. And I welcome you both to the show.
Avery Tucker: Thanks, David.
David Kosub: Sure. So let's just jump right in. Can you tell us about the funding cycle in general?
Avery Tucker: Sure, yeah, I can take that to go ahead and start. So just for reference, we do have some pretty good information on our grants process on the grants.nih.gov website. But just to take it a step back at a high level, you're going to want to allow about six to eight weeks before submission to prepare your application for grant funding. Then once your application is prepared, it's then submitted, and it goes to something called Receipt and referral." So we'll receive the application and refer it about one month after submission, and then the peer review process will begin between two and eight months after submission. So NIH has a two-stage peer review. After first receipt and referral, and then the actual rigorous second stage review carried out by a non-federal scientist panel, and then an advisory council or board. And then once all of that happens, we begin the pre-award and award process itself, which happens about seven to ten months after submission.
David Kosub: Well, let's unpackage a lot of what you just talked about there. So that FOA just came out, I saw it, I'm excited about it. I want to apply. How should I be thinking about that, right, when I see that FOA out there?
Avery Tucker: Great question. So the funding opportunity announcements that NIH post have a lot of information in them. You're going to want to take a look at some of the key elements in the FOA, such as the key dates for submission, all eligibility information; we have organizational eligibility as well as individual eligibility. You're going to want to take a look at the award information, such as the number of support years in the project period, as well as any budget caps that might be in place. We want to look at all of the required application instructions, as well as any review criteria. And I think, Kasima, you want to add anything else about what is important to look at in the FOA?
Kasima Garst: Great. So as Avery mentioned, there are lots of information within the entire FOA itself, and it's really critical that we also take a look at sections like the related notices in Part 1, where you're going to see those critical guide notices related to key policy changes, or changes to the FOA itself, such as when a new participating IC may sign on to that FOA after the initial publication. And you'll also see really those within Section 4, Required Application Instructions. So not only are you referring to the Application Guide itself, but you're also going to be referring to those funding opportunity announcements, specific application instructions within Section 4. So those are just some examples of the information that you'll see all the way throughout.
David Kosub: And I should tell our listeners, sometimes we juggle with different names for the same thing; FOA, F-O-A -- Funding Opportunity Announcement -- all the same thing. So I guess continuing on with this, many folks know we have R01s, we have R21s, we have T Grants, we have F Grants -- you name it. Are they all on the same timeline?
Avery Tucker: Sure, great question. So no, actually. We do, like I mentioned in the first question, we have a really handy chart at grants.nih.gov, that goes over the standard due dates for different activity codes. We generally review in three different cycles; one generally at the beginning of the year, one mid-year, and one towards the end of the fiscal year. And all of these dates we mentioned in Part 1, Overview of the Funding Opportunity Announcement itself. Just some additional things to keep in mind; these dates can be different for AIDS and non-AIDS submissions, so depending on whether your application is related to AIDS, it may have a different review and award cycle. I also just want to mention that key dates and application types are important to pay attention to, because there are different dates for different types of applications, such as renewals and resubmissions and revisions. These dates may be different than if you are submitting a new application for the first time. I also wanted to mention there are some applications that are on an expedited basis, such as if the award is for an emergency or a disaster, and that will all be mentioned within the funding opportunity itself. Once again, should be pretty easy to find in the Key Dates section. And if you have an application that is late, and we do have a standard late application policy that you can find information on the website as well about.
David Kosub: Definitely a lot of dates to keep in mind, so check it out. Make sure you read those parts of the Funding Opportunity Announcement. Make sure you're following it. Kind of jumping back to one of the things at the beginning, you mentioned peer review, our peer review process -- after someone has gone through all the application process and submitted it, what's the timeline or the process like for that, the timeline for the peer review process?
Avery Tucker: Right, so just to restate, the peer review process begins usually between two and eight months after the application is submitted, depending on the submission date. So our NIH peer review is a two-stage process. The first is carried out by a Scientific Review Group, or an SRG, and these are folks that are primarily non-federal scientists who have expertise in relevant scientific disciplines in current research areas. And then the second level of review that we have is performed by the Institute or Centers of National Advisory Council, or board. So these two reviews -- the first happens usually about two months after submission, and then the second council review is later on in the process.
David Kosub: Is there anything else going on behind the scenes when my application is submitted?
Kasima Garst: Absolutely. Jumping in here, the first thing that's happening is, you're trying to submit that application as it's undergoing system validations. Now it's undergoing first validations related to grants.gov, since that is the actual submission portal through which all the applications are routed to NIH. So they're going to be validating things that are more of that fed-wide level or the form level, such as whether or not the submitter has the appropriate authorized organizational representative role to actually submit that application on behalf of an applicant organization. Whether that funding opportunity is actually active, as well as the application package is open and active for use. Then the application's going to go through eRA system validations, here at NIH. So these are going to be those agency system validations that are going to be really specific to the needs of NIH. So, for example, we validate for things like the valid eRA Commons credentials, or Commons ID for the PD/PI, as well as biosketches being attached to the application for senior key personnel, and then also other specific agency required attachments are provided. Things that may not be enforced at a fed-wide level, but they're specific for NIH. After that, there is going to be a -- and you pass all of the errors, submit that error-free application through to NIH, the application enters a two-day viewing window. This is an opportunity for the applicant to get a final look at that assembled application before it automatically moves forward for further processing. During this time period, signing officials for the organization can reject the application during this window. And as long as you are submitting before the due date, you can submit a change corrected application during that time. This two-day viewing window is particularly critical. We have certainly seen cases in the past where we've received cranberry margarita recipes, as well as children's homework, so we certainly advise that you make sure that application looks as you expected, because that is what reviewers are going to see as part of their review of your application. And then after it's moved on for further processing, it's then going to enter a phase where agency staff are actually going to review that application. So they're going to check to make sure that it's on time. They're going to make sure that you're not overstuffing, and that you've provided all of the required application materials. And receipt and referral officers are also then going to process and assign to the correct study section and institute and center at NIH.
David Kosub: Hopefully you kept that cranberry margarita recipe, because I could use one, after hearing all these timelines! So the application was submitted, it went through peer review. It got through all those validations that Kasima just went through. Is there anything related to timelines that we should be thinking about such as Just In Time, or administrative reviews for applications that have made it almost to the funding point?
Avery Tucker: Right, yeah, so for those who may not be familiar, NIH uses what's called "Just In Time" procedures for certain programs and awards that allow for folks to submit information for review when the application is considered for funding, after it's been submitted and reviewed. So the standard elements of Just In Time, or JIT, our Other Support submission, certification of IRB or Institutional Review Board approval for when you're using human subjects on the award, similar certification for IACUC approval when you're using live vertebra animals, and stuff like evidence of compliance with education and protection of human research participants requirements. So all that information is requested from the applicants at the time post-council, and while the IC that has been assigned as performing its administrative review. Kasima, could you talk a little bit about how folks are contacted?
Kasima Garst: Absolutely. So applicants have the opportunity to submit JIT through the eRA Commons. There's a link that will be available within the Status section of the eRA Commons module, and an automatic email is sent to applicants with impact scores of 30 or less. This is a pretty broad range of applicants that will receive this automatic notification, and that link becoming available, not all of which will be selected for funding. So while applicants have the technical ability to submit the JIT materials as soon as that link becomes available, applicants may want to wait until they are contacted by NIH staff to actually submit those materials, in case there's maybe any other additional items that they want to provide.
Avery Tucker: Right, so if I could just add as well, we're talking about timelines here on application submission. There really isn't a formal timeline for a Just In Time review; it really does depend on the complexity of the information that's submitted. For example, if there needs to be supplemental information submitted on Other Support, or if your institution does not yet have IRB or IACUC approval that's needed, the IC is really going to need to negotiate and take its time in making sure that all that information is accurate and received before the work on the actual award can begin, and the notice of award is issued.
David Kosub: So that was a lot of information for these timelines that we need to be thinking about. Can you all provide common delays or pitfalls that you've seen that people have gone through that you want to potentially have people avoid, or be aware of?
Kasima Garst: Yeah, so I think some of the biggest pitfalls that applicants may run into are really not reading that Funding Opportunity Announcement in detail, not understanding the grant's policy statement and related notices that are included in that Funding Opportunity Announcement, and following all of the application instructions. So really, it's understanding the details, the requirements, the instructions, the limits, right -- all that information that is contained within the Funding Opportunity Announcement, our Grants Policy Statement and the Application Guide. And of course, not starting early enough. We really have always encouraged applications to ensure that they start the process early, especially if they are new to applying to NIH, because there are institutional and individual level registrations that are required, for example, on grants.gov, eRA Commons, etcetera. So they really need to do that as early as possible, right, and particularly for those systems that are outside of NIH, like SAM.gov and grants.gov. So we like to say that early is measured on a calendar and not a clock, so it's really important that you start the process as early as possible, and really just to make sure that you have enough time as an applicant to get in a complete and good application to give you the best advantage as part of the review and award consideration process.
David Kosub: Thank you for that, Kasima. Before we close, I would like to give the guests an opportunity to say any final thoughts. Is there anything that either of you all would like to share with our audience about the timelines for preparing an application that we haven't hit on before, or to reiterate another point you've made earlier?
Avery Tucker: Sure. So Kasima just said it, but I'd like to reiterate it again -- start reading and applying early, and become very familiar with the Funding Opportunity Announcement itself. I can't tell you how many times we get an email at 6:00 p.m. the night before an application is due that there's some type of error that the applicant can't figure out, and we have to scramble to try and get that resolved before an application itself is due. So really, if I could leave you with one thing, it would be apply early, start the application process early and really become familiar with the actual text and requirements within the FOA itself.
Kasima Garst: And I'll also add, too -- familiarize yourself with the agency contacts within Section 7 of the Funding Opportunity Announcement. That's where you'll find that critical contact information, particularly service desk support, program and grants management points of contact for the awarding IC. And it's really going to be critical, especially if you are experiencing application submissions issues to reach out to the eRA service desk to document the challenges that you're facing, and that good-faith effort to get those technical issues resolved. More information on that can be found on our OER webpage. Lots of great resources, trainings and previous recordings of webinars and trainings that we offered for applicants, as well as the eRA webpage as well, for information about application submission.
David Kosub: You can add this podcast to all of that list as well. Thank you very much, Avery and Kasima, for this opportunity to hear more about what we should be thinking about as we're preparing our application as it relates to the timelines. And I'll reiterate what Kasima said as well -- go check out our website, on the OER, Office of Extramural Research website. There's a lot of information there. This has been David Kosub with NIH's All About Grants. Thank you.