Wowing a Study Section

The article "How To Wow A Study Section: A Grantsmanship Lesson" by Karen Hopkin in the March 2 issue of The Scientist (12[5]:11) contains a lot of good advice about writing grant applications. However, it also has a few errors that might mislead researchers not familiar with the National Institutes of Health application and review process. Hopkin writes about the study section meeting: "the reviewer who gave your proposal the highest relative score presents your application." It is my underst

Liane Reif-lehrer
May 24, 1998
The article "How To Wow A Study Section: A Grantsmanship Lesson" by Karen Hopkin in the March 2 issue of The Scientist (12[5]:11) contains a lot of good advice about writing grant applications. However, it also has a few errors that might mislead researchers not familiar with the National Institutes of Health application and review process.

Hopkin writes about the study section meeting: "the reviewer who gave your proposal the highest relative score presents your application." It is my understanding that two or three primary reviewers each present their reports. Scores are assigned by secret ballot after the general discussion (but before the budget discussion).

Hopkin writes there are "usually three" primary reviewers. I am under the impression that there are most commonly two (although there may, on occasion, be a third) but there are now also one or two (and sometimes apparently more) "readers" who also comment on...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?