Common NIH Proposal Errors Application is late. The receipt date policy, as well as the standard receipt dates for investigator-initiated applications, is found at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm (Note that standard receipt dates for investigator-initiated applications are “send by” dates, whereas dates for solicited applications are “arrive by” dates.) Submits a “revised” application when a new application is required. If the initial application was to an RFA or if you are changing the mechanism, a new application is required and must be submitted on the scheduled due date for new applications. http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-03-019.html Submits a “revised” application but fails to include the required “Introduction” at the beginning of the Research Plan. Submits a “new” application without sufficiently changing the aims and approaches from a prior application. http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-03-041.html Submits an application which is essentially the same as another pending application. Fails to list a Program Announcement in submitting an R03 or R21 application. Fails to follow page limitations, format (type size), or budgetary requirements. The PHS398 lists a standard for these; applications in response to Program Announcements (for example R21 or R03 applications) or Requests for Applications must also adhere to the instructions in the announcement. Fails to use a modular budget when one is required. http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-046.html Submits an application with a budget which equals or exceeds $500,000 in any year without approval from an Institute or Center. http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-004.html Checklist is incorrect Checks “NEW” when the application is really a “REVISION” or “COMPETING CONTINUATION” Lists the incorrect former grant or application number (or fails to list a former number) for a REVISION  or COMPETING CONTINUATION Most of these errors can turn out to be “show-stoppers,” i.e. if the problem is not resolved, the application may be returned to the applicant. The five review criteria for most grant applications are Significance, Approach, Innovation, Investigators and Environment. Problems with Significance: Neither significant nor exciting nor new research Lack of compelling rationale Incremental and low impact research Problems with Specific Aims: Too ambitious; too much work proposed Unfocused aims; unclear goals Limited aims and uncertain future directions Problems with Experimental Approach: Too much unnecessary experimental detail Not enough detail on approaches, especially untested ones Not enough preliminary data to establish feasibility Feasibility of each aim not shown Little or no expertise with approach Lack of appropriate controls Not directly testing hypothesis Correlative or descriptive data Experiments not directed towards mechanisms No discussion of potential pitfalls and alternative models or hypotheses No discussion of proper data analysis and interpretation of data Problems with Investigator: No demonstration of expertise or publications in approaches Low productivity; few recent papers No collaborators recruited or no letters from collaborators Problems with Environment: Little demonstration of institutional support Little or no start-up package or necessary space and equipment