Thread by @jenniejlin

I recently had the privilege of attending @nih_nhlbi’s #KtoR01 workshop for K grant awardees. It was fantastic, and in the spirit of democratizing science, I am sharing tidbits I learned about how to get that #ESI R01 funded. #AcademicTwitter (1/31)

Input from other workshop attendees and R01-funded investigators is most welcome … please comment away! This is meant to be helpful for all early-career folks (not just K awardees) thinking of applying for R01 funding in the future. #KtoR01 (2/31)

First, what is #ESI status, and why does it matter?

🔆 ESI = Early Stage Investigator
🔆 Usually within 10 yrs of terminal degree or end of ACGME training
(read more here: grants.nih.gov/policy/early-i…)

ESI status gives bonus points towards reaching the payline. #KtoR01 (3/31)

New investigators are those beyond the ESI window but without ever having successfully competed for R01 funding. #KtoR01 (4/31)

#ESI status can be extended for having young children during ESI time (one year per child), additional clinical training, and other hardships.

ESI status ends when you get your R01, even if you have time leftover before hitting the 10-year mark. #KtoR01 (5/31)

Make sure you have your #ESI status correct in eRA Commons when you submit your R01 application. This can’t be retroactively changed after your application is uploaded into the system.

I’m good until 2024. #getthatmoneyhoney #KtoR01 (6/31)

You want to get your app to the right study section. Every @NIH representative at the #KtoR01 workshop recommended using the RePORTER Matchmaker tool to figure out who your institute / program officer (PO) and review panel likely will be.
projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter_match… (7/31)

POs note that people don’t spend time on the abstract portion, which can send your app to a different institute or study section if important keywords are not included. The Matchmaker tool can give you an idea of where your abstract will get your proposal sent. #KtoR01 (8/31)

Make friends with your PO; know who your scientific review officer (SRO) will be. Before submission, you can contact both. After submission/before review, only speak with the SRO. After review, you can contact your PO with questions about your summary statement. #KtoR01 (9/31)

One PO: “Do NOT send us half-baked aims. Send us your polished aims that have been vetted by your peers, mentors, and collaborators. We can provide better feedback when we have the most information about what you’re trying to propose.” #KtoR01 (10/31)

Review criteria are outlined here: grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/p…

#KtoR01 (11/31)

Highlights from #KtoR01 workshop on review criteria:
#ESIs need strong collaborators
Innovation moves the field forward
Rigor of prior research is important; is there a trajectory for your proposal?
Rigor of approach: Analyses unbiased and robust with proper validation? (12/31)

Based on a recent #AcademicTwitter poll I put out for R01 reviewers , all elements seem important for an R01, but I had overestimated the importance of innovation. People commented over-ambition was a pitfall for many #ESI applications.

https://twitter.com/jenniejlin/status/1149304378958012418

#KtoR01 (13/31)

Perhaps fittingly, I had thought lack of innovation would kill an R01 application, and that is likely the rationale to lead to an over-ambitious #ESI proposal … #KtoR01 (14/31)

You will get dinged if you don’t demonstrate proper human subjects or vertebrate animal protection. Don’t blow off these sections. Reviewers won’t grade on budget, but at council review low % FTE is a red flag. #KtoR01 (15/31)

To learn more about how R01 proposals are reviewed, become an early career reviewer.

Apply here (must be faculty, not post-doc): public.csr.nih.gov/ForReviewers/B…

#KtoR01 (16/31)

So what are some tips for writing a successful R01 proposal?

First, we can get so bogged down in scientific detail that we cram as much as possible into 12 pages without making sure our proposal is actually enjoyable to read. #KtoR01 (17/31)

Make sure your grant is actually enjoyable to read. You don’t want your reviewers to be bored or angry while reading your grant. You want them to look like A, not B. #KtoR01 (18/31)

Everyone who has written some sort of grant before knows that the aims page is the most important page of the grant.

‼️AIMS PAGE IS IMPORTANT‼️

It’s the first impression you give, and you want reviewers to want to read more (i.e., the appraoch). #KtoR01 (19/31)

Words to use in your aims:

✅ Define
✅ Quantify
✅ Prove
✅ Disprove
✅ Determine
✅ Increase or decrease (not alter or change)

These words are action-oriented and imply you’re going to do something in your studies.

#KtoR01 (20/31)

Words NOT to use in your aims:

❌ Evaluate
❌ Study
❌ Compare
❌ Describe
❌ Look at
❌ Check
❌ Estimate

These words tend to imply the action of study is over and you’re doing something afterwards.

#KtoR01 (21/31)

Next, you want your approach (which drives the score) to be:
Feasible in your hands
Detailed enough that reviewers know you know what you’re doing
Not too detailed to bore
Addressing important pitfalls
Visually pleasing enough with schematic diagrams

#KtoR01 (22/31)

Mistakes people make in approach (for basic and POR):
Not demonstrating adequate power
Not describing quantification + interpretation
Not including age and sex as biological variables
Not choosing correct statistical tests
Not correcting for multiple comparisons
#KtoR01 (23/31)

Weaknesses seen in unfunded R01 proposals:
Inter-dependent aims where one relies on results of another (kiss of death)
Overambitious scope
Poorly justified research question / approach
Expertise of PI not demonstrated
Poorly written prose + sloppy layout
#KtoR01 (24/31)

Should you include a timeline figure in R01 grants?

Yes, if you are performing patient-oriented studies requiring recruitment.
Yes, if you are #ESI but can ditch it after your first successful application.

#KtoR01 (25/31)

Who should review your proposal prior to submission?

People outside your field (people most familiar with your work will likely have conflicts, so reviewers might be outside your immediate area)
Can even pay consultants for pre submission review

#KtoR01 (26/31)

How do we find time to write a successful R01 proposal?

⏲️ Plan in advance, ideally 6 months prior, with 6-weeks of dedicated writing time leading up to deadline.
🙅‍♀️Have a mentor who advises on whether you should say no to tasks asked of you

#KtoR01 (27/31)

Triaged with harsh reviews?

Accept that your central idea may not be good. Don’t take it personally.
Read more: superficial understanding can be a pitfall.
Build a research program with more than one theme so you can easily pivot to an already developed project.
#KtoR01 (28/31)

But I sent aims to people who liked my aims page, and my grant got killed?

You need people to review your ALL science sections, not just the aims page. People often fall down on how they lay out the approach.

#KtoR01 (29/31)

“I’m a physician-scientist (PS) with more clinical time than advertised. How will I ever successfully compete for funding?” In response to declining PS workforce, @NIH_NHLBI came up with this R01 mechanism for #ESI PS only. #KtoR01 (30/31)
grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/r…

A common recurring theme throughout the #KtoR01 workshop was perseverance - it’s easy to get discouraged, but you don’t get the grants you don’t write!

Good luck to everyone out there! (fin)