@m_simonephd is submitting a K soon, and I offered to share some of the feedback I got from reviews for my K99 submission. Since some of this might apply to other K mechanisms (and other people!), I thought I'd tweet broadly:
1. Recommendation letters: It is critically important that these letters talk about not just you but also your primary mentors. Even if letter writers don't know your mentor(s) they should express confidence in their skills, mentorship, etc.
2. Letters from mentors: These letters need to look like your mentors sat down together and discussed you and your training plan. They should be coordinated, should mention each other, and really make it seem like you have a cohesive, involved, invested team of mentors.
3. Independence: This may be more important for K99s than other K mechanisms - but you need to demonstrate independence from your mentors. You should have first-authored papers - and one of my reviewers thought I should have senior-authored papers(!).
The level of independence needed may vary by institute, study section, and reviewer. Mine seemed to expect a very high level of independence already. I have a colleague who has worked with/under her K99 primary mentor as a PhD student, as a postdoc, and now as a K99 recipient.
Whereas my reviewers thought that my postdoc mentor should no longer at least be a primary mentor on my K99. This was surprising to us.
4. Path to independence: You need to create a detailed plan for how you will become independent from your mentors - and that plan should also be laid out in your primary mentor's letter.
5. Roles of mentors: Make sure it is very clear why each person is on your team (incl those in non-mentor roles - like an advisory committee) and that there is little to no overlap in their expertise. Make sure each person is built into your training plan.
Make sure also that your primary mentor clearly is doing the bulk of your mentorship. For example, they should be meeting with you more frequently than secondary mentors and should oversee your ethics training.
6. Training plan: Make sure that your training plan clearly adds up to the % time of your grant. You may not have a reviewer who adds up your time (I did!!!) - but you should make sure that what you are proposing for your activities under the grant do not exceed your time.
7. Future plans: Make sure you have very clear/detailed future plans. I had many K and K99 examples, and I think my plans were no more or less vague than others', but reviewers felt they weren't detailed enough. Make sure they are clear next steps from your grant.
Relatedly, you will need to apply for an R01 during the last 3 or so years of your grant. Make sure your plan is such that you will have pilot data of some kind for the R01 application - and ideally a pub or 2 (or 5) from the K.
8. Logical career path: I got praised for having a K99 plan that was a clear next step from my F32. This is really important. The adage goes that you need to make sure they see this is the best study for the issue and that you are the best person to carry out the study.
For K's, add onto that that this is the best next step in your career and training to get you to where you say you are going.
9. Outside mentors: For those of us in small fields, it may be challenging to find mentors who are at our same universities. If this is the case, make it very clear why you need to work with them and exactly how you will communicate/work.
If they are in your city or at your uni, talk abt how you can physically spend time w them/their team. Really think about what that would look like (spend a day/week there? If so, where would you be located? What resources would you have? Add that to your facilities statement).
10. Training plan: make sure the activities you propose befit your level. I proposed to attend a T32 training meeting and that was criticized bc I wouldn't be a postdoc with K. I still think it would be helpful-so a better case needs to be made (and maybe details as an appendix).
11. Independence redux: Reviewers seemed concerned that most of my pubs were with my primary K mentor/postdoc mentor. If you are thinking about a K, start thinking about independent collaborations and papers. We had been assured that I didn't need to already be independent...
but you never know how reviewers will respond. This again is challenging in a small field, esp if you are working with one of very few senior NIH-funded experts in your area.
Reviewers also felt like I should have more first-authored pubs. So, as you are prepping for a K application, think about how many you have (esp in relation to your overall pubs-shoud be about half) and whether you need more?
But again, this differs based on institute, study section, reviewer AND whether you are clinical or not. I know someone who got a perfect score on her K with only 2 pubs, only one of which was data-based. I had >20 when I applied.
12. R00: Although instructions for K99 applications say the R00 phase does not need to be detailed in your app, my reviewers felt there wasn't enough detail. Some of this may be bc K99 apps are rare, and reviewers may not really know much about the mechanism or how to judge it.
13. Need for training. Make it very very very clear why you need more training. There is such a fine line between talking about how great you are and how you deserve the investment -- but also about how you have holes in your training/skills that need to be filled.
14. Inclusion of women: Whatever your sample, make sure reviewers understand it is the best one to test your hypotheses and that you have clearly been thoughtful about who you are including -- and who you are excluding.
15. Inclusion of children (and across the lifespan): At the time I applied, the whole "across the lifespan" thing was new and there was no guidance. I had a main heading in that section that literally said: Inclusion of children (and across the lifespan).
This is bc the section was (according to instructions) just supposed to be called inclusion of children. I thought it was confusing then to talk abt lifespan. So I added it to the title. I then had two subheaded sections: children & older adults. This was very well received.
I am happy to share sections of the K. Just let me know if anything would be helpful. Remember that it may well be funded on the first try, but more than likely it will need an R&R. If you expect this is what will happen, it won't be such a blow.
If you are thinking of applying, build the R&R into your timeline. Best guess is 1.5 years from when you submit till it is actually funded. If you have a 2 year postdoc, this is super duper challenging unless you are ready to write your K in your first semester.
I forgot one: mentoring. K's other than the K99 want a section on your own mentoring. This is not a requirement of the K99 - however, you should include it. This makes me think it might be worthwhile to look at unique requirements for the K01 (or other K) and include those.
Esp since reviewers will be far less familiar with a K99 and may look for things they are used to seeing in other Ks.
Just remembered another tip: Make sure to cite yourself! Cite yourself in the aims (even better if you use cites like APA style where reviewers can see the names) - make sure reviewers know your work is the basis for this.
As an aside, if you can - use a citation style like APA style for the aims page so that reviewers who just have your aims page know who you are citing.
In your candidate statement, cite every one one of your pubs and any presentations that haven't been published yet that look of value for your candidacy.
