Thread by @rkuruvi1

I am glad that @CSRpeerreview is taking steps to revamp the fellowship review process. I am a frequent reviewer of F applications and have served as a mentor to several trainees with F31/F32 grants. Here are some of my specific concerns with the current process; 🧵

https://twitter.com/peiferlabunc/status/1481020760659398658

1. Grades are not relevant to the evaluation of research and training potential and should not be part of the application or the review process. Trainees are often highly demoralized by Reviewer comments about poor grades.

2. I have also witnessed Reviewers commenting negatively on a gap in training. This is also not relevant. Some students have had to take an academic break because of medical or financial reasons. They should not have to justify why they had to take a break in their education.

3. Some of the best mentors are junior faculty. They should not be “punished” for being too junior to mentor trainees. They should not have to go and search for more established mentors who are often not as invested in training the applicant as the primary faculty sponsor.

4. Jr faculty, and faculty who are women or from under-represented groups are often criticized for not having enough “experience" in an area (despite publications proving the contrary).

For example, as a neurobiologist who started studying islet biology, my trainees' grants are often critiqued because I'm considered to not have enough experience in the islet field. This, despite having published 4 papers as last and corresponding author, and having NIH funding

5. Sponsor funding should be de-linked from trainee fellowship evaluations. Talented and creative trainees should not be “punished” for having the misfortune to be in a lab where the sponsor may have a temporary gap in funding.

6. For F31 fellowships, applicants in their early years in a program should not be critiqued for not having publications. Most students take time to publish and in yrs1-3, are learning the experimental and communication skills necessary to work toward a publication

Time to pubs are field-specific. Focusing on having pub under your belt as a 2nd-3rd yr student work against students who did not have access to research opportunities in R1 universities as under-grads