w******e
发帖数: 953 | 1 Just wondering how the sections decide which proposals will be discussed and
scored!
1. Select proposals according to the average score calculated from scores
given by the three reviewers?
or
2. select proposals according to the weighed score calculated from scores
given by the three reviewers? For example: the scores from the #1 reviewer
have 50% weight, the scores from # 2 reviewer are counted by 30% and the
rest is 20%.
or
3. something else. | H****N
发帖数: 997 | 2 按三个reviewer的平均分排名，讨论前边的大约一半。不在前一半的也可能被讨论，比
如任何一个reviewer可以request某个proposal被讨论，我的经验是这种情况大多不会
有什么帮助。 | w******e
发帖数: 953 | 3 Thanks!
So in order to get into discussion, the average score from all three
reviewers has to be close to the payline score divided by 10? For example,
some institutes fund proposals with overall scores of 31 for R03 and R21. So
the proposals in discussion have to be less than 3.1, right?
【在 H****N 的大作中提到】
: 按三个reviewer的平均分排名，讨论前边的大约一半。不在前一半的也可能被讨论，比
: 如任何一个reviewer可以request某个proposal被讨论，我的经验是这种情况大多不会
: 有什么帮助。
| L****8
发帖数: 3938 | 4 熟人 关系
and
【在 w******e 的大作中提到】
: Just wondering how the sections decide which proposals will be discussed and
: scored!
: 1. Select proposals according to the average score calculated from scores
: given by the three reviewers?
: or
: 2. select proposals according to the weighed score calculated from scores
: given by the three reviewers? For example: the scores from the #1 reviewer
: have 50% weight, the scores from # 2 reviewer are counted by 30% and the
: rest is 20%.
: or
| H****N
发帖数: 997 | 5 There is still a long way to go from being discussed to being funded; only
10-20% of the submitted proposals are eventually funded, depending on the
institute, but about 50% are discussed. So usually the cutoff score for
discussion is way above the fundable scores.
So
【在 w******e 的大作中提到】
: Thanks!
: So in order to get into discussion, the average score from all three
: reviewers has to be close to the payline score divided by 10? For example,
: some institutes fund proposals with overall scores of 31 for R03 and R21. So
: the proposals in discussion have to be less than 3.1, right?
| f***k
发帖数: 143 | 6 I would say it is not like this.
My study section spreads the scores during the panel discussion. For example
, a proposal receives overall 3.7 after three reviewers' initial assessment
(3, 4, 4) and is being presented to the panel for discussion. After the
panel discussion, the proposal gets an overall impact score 45 (and probably
~35th percentile) because we try to decompress the scores.
So, long story short, I would say that grants receive initial overall scores
lower than 4 after three reviewers can likely be discussed. Initial overall
scores equal or lower than 3 have chance to be funded, if nothing gets ugly
during the panel discussion and if the payline is between 15-20 percentile.
So
【在 w******e 的大作中提到】
: Thanks!
: So in order to get into discussion, the average score from all three
: reviewers has to be close to the payline score divided by 10? For example,
: some institutes fund proposals with overall scores of 31 for R03 and R21. So
: the proposals in discussion have to be less than 3.1, right?
| r**e
发帖数: 143 | 7 讨论以后3个reviewer要重新给分数的，分数还是3、4、4的话那range就是3-4，45分就
是有不少人vote out of range，但通常情况是最后分数变了，比如3、5、5，那range
就变成了3-5。
example
assessment
probably
scores
overall
ugly
percentile.
【在 f***k 的大作中提到】
: I would say it is not like this.
: My study section spreads the scores during the panel discussion. For example
: , a proposal receives overall 3.7 after three reviewers' initial assessment
: (3, 4, 4) and is being presented to the panel for discussion. After the
: panel discussion, the proposal gets an overall impact score 45 (and probably
: ~35th percentile) because we try to decompress the scores.
: So, long story short, I would say that grants receive initial overall scores
: lower than 4 after three reviewers can likely be discussed. Initial overall
: scores equal or lower than 3 have chance to be funded, if nothing gets ugly
: during the panel discussion and if the payline is between 15-20 percentile.
| y********u
发帖数: 11 | 8 score是study section里分配到这个proposal的所有人的分数，取前50%去discuss, 后
50% not discuss，discuss的时候以三个人为主，所有人给分数，最终impact score是
所有人给的分数综合。所以关键就是三个人，一定至少要有个人挺你的proposal，而且
没人抵制你的proposal，挺你的reviewer带节奏，，，感觉好像狼人杀似的 | w******e
发帖数: 953 | 9 Got an average initial score of 2.93 for one R03 submitted in Feb. It was
not discussed. I also knew someone got an average initial score of 2.8 and
no discussion.
Is it more competitive for R03?
Should I try R21 instead after revising the proposal?
【在 y********u 的大作中提到】
: score是study section里分配到这个proposal的所有人的分数，取前50%去discuss, 后
: 50% not discuss，discuss的时候以三个人为主，所有人给分数，最终impact score是
: 所有人给的分数综合。所以关键就是三个人，一定至少要有个人挺你的proposal，而且
: 没人抵制你的proposal，挺你的reviewer带节奏，，，感觉好像狼人杀似的
| c**x
发帖数: 120 | 10 How do you know your initial score? Mostly likely in an illegal way?
【在 w******e 的大作中提到】
: Got an average initial score of 2.93 for one R03 submitted in Feb. It was
: not discussed. I also knew someone got an average initial score of 2.8 and
: no discussion.
: Is it more competitive for R03?
: Should I try R21 instead after revising the proposal?
| | | f***k
发帖数: 143 | 11 你这分数是你自己去average三个reviewers的initial scores, 对吧? 一般不会有长这
样的分数的, 也不能这样算的
一般来说, 会不会被discuss, 主要看的是significance 跟 approach,
innovation, investigator, enrivonment如果没有硬伤, 一般来说分数都不低, 但是
也都不足以影响"overall score"
也就是说, 如果你的significance 跟 approach 不够高, 就基本不会被discuss了
【在 w******e 的大作中提到】
: Got an average initial score of 2.93 for one R03 submitted in Feb. It was
: not discussed. I also knew someone got an average initial score of 2.8 and
: no discussion.
: Is it more competitive for R03?
: Should I try R21 instead after revising the proposal?
| w******e
发帖数: 953 | 12 So, the initial score is the largest average score among the itemized
scores of significance, approach, innovation, investigator, enrivonment
from all three reviewers?
Got 3,2,4 for Significance, 2,4,2 for investigator, 4,3, 1 for innovation, 5
,5,4 for approach, and 3,1,1 for environment.
In this case, the average score of approach killed the proposal for no
discussion, right?
Thanks!
【在 f***k 的大作中提到】
: 你这分数是你自己去average三个reviewers的initial scores, 对吧? 一般不会有长这
: 样的分数的, 也不能这样算的
: 一般来说, 会不会被discuss, 主要看的是significance 跟 approach,
: innovation, investigator, enrivonment如果没有硬伤, 一般来说分数都不低, 但是
: 也都不足以影响"overall score"
: 也就是说, 如果你的significance 跟 approach 不够高, 就基本不会被discuss了
| w******e
发帖数: 953 | 13 Had two discussed proposals. The overall impact score was the average score
which was the largest average score among significance, approach, innovation
, investigator, environment.
讨论以后3个reviewer要重新给分数的，分数还是3、4、4的话那range就是3-4，然后
【在 r**e 的大作中提到】
: 讨论以后3个reviewer要重新给分数的，分数还是3、4、4的话那range就是3-4，45分就
: 是有不少人vote out of range，但通常情况是最后分数变了，比如3、5、5，那range
: 就变成了3-5。
:
: example
: assessment
: probably
: scores
: overall
: ugly
| f***k
发帖数: 143 | 14 Each of the three assigned reviewers will give one "overall score" after
reviewing your grant, and this score has nothing to do with the scores he/
she gives in each category. Please don't average any itemized scores; it
doesn't mean anything. The overall score is the "overall" impression about
your grant
The average of the three "overall scores" from three reviewers then
determine whether the grant will be discussed. Using your example, I would
guess three reviewers' overall scores would be 4, 4, 5, which would give you
overall impact 4.3 and would put your grant to the ND pile. You will not
see this 4.3 in your summary statement because it is ND. Again, these
overall scores are the overall impression and are mainly driven by the
reviewers' feeling about your "Significance" "and Approach".
And yes, in your case, "Approach" is likely the main reason why your grant
was not discussed.
5
【在 w******e 的大作中提到】
: So, the initial score is the largest average score among the itemized
: scores of significance, approach, innovation, investigator, enrivonment
: from all three reviewers?
: Got 3,2,4 for Significance, 2,4,2 for investigator, 4,3, 1 for innovation, 5
: ,5,4 for approach, and 3,1,1 for environment.
: In this case, the average score of approach killed the proposal for no
: discussion, right?
: Thanks!
| w******e
发帖数: 953 | 15 Thanks for your input.
you
【在 f***k 的大作中提到】
: Each of the three assigned reviewers will give one "overall score" after
: reviewing your grant, and this score has nothing to do with the scores he/
: she gives in each category. Please don't average any itemized scores; it
: doesn't mean anything. The overall score is the "overall" impression about
: your grant
: The average of the three "overall scores" from three reviewers then
: determine whether the grant will be discussed. Using your example, I would
: guess three reviewers' overall scores would be 4, 4, 5, which would give you
: overall impact 4.3 and would put your grant to the ND pile. You will not
: see this 4.3 in your summary statement because it is ND. Again, these
| r**e
发帖数: 143 | 16 平均单项分没有任何意义，ND有各种问题，但在讨论的grant里面，Significance没啥
大问题的话，基本是Approach决定分数
score
innovation
【在 w******e 的大作中提到】
: Had two discussed proposals. The overall impact score was the average score
: which was the largest average score among significance, approach, innovation
: , investigator, environment.
:
: 讨论以后3个reviewer要重新给分数的，分数还是3、4、4的话那range就是3-4，然后
| n****y
发帖数: 968 | 17 看到人问，科普一下：
一般来说，三个人申你的东西，虽然每个人的角色不同，他们给的分的权重是一样的。
每个人给各项打个分，然后给你个总分。然后三个人的三个分数平均，这次交上来的一
堆申请者排名，前50%必定被讨论，后面50%的如果有的评审者执意认为你有价值，如果
时间允许，也会在某个犄角旮旯的时间被讨论，但是，可想而知，大多数会被原来的三
个评审者一顿批。
到了讨论会当天，对每个被讨论的项目，三个评审者给出分数，然后依次阐述，然后大
家讨论（其实很少有除了这三个人之外的人讨论，因为大家都忙于评审自己负责的项目
），所以争论大都出自这三个人，最后主席再次要求这三个人给出分数，也就是基于讨
论，他们要不要更改分数。这三个人的分数定下一个范围，比如2，5，7的范围就是2-7
，其他大约20个参会者都会在这个范围里给分（自己默默在自己的电脑上敲进去，并
save），很少有人会超出这个范围，如果超出必须给出理由。所以，这里的关键就是给
好分数的评审者能不能说起其他两人，让他们把分数改好，然后把分数范围缩小提高，
比如把2-7变成2-3之类的。最后大家的分数平均一下。
这里的问题就多了。我曾经就申过一个，明明拿到一次钱了，没做出啥，然后又申请。
我给了个低分，但其他二人给了个高分，并且在讨论时极力推荐，因为他们是领域里的
牛人，我当时一个小家伙，实在不好说不，于是提高了我的分数。我相信在座的人都看
出来其中的玄妙了。然后，你不能说这是黑暗，因为科研作为一个职业，很多人并不是
时时都有新东西，年年都有创新，然后grant断了一年都不行，实验室都得倒闭，人才
都得走，所以，很多时候申的是项目，看的是人，看这个人是不是一直扎根在这个领域
，积极的推动，不是在混吃等死。评审项目的人都是一个小领域的，大家大都希望自己
的小领域能够继续发展下去，当然，不排除一些脑缺的做技术的家伙总搞得你死我活的。
我说的仅仅针对R01和R21，一些P的项目评审的人好像是4个，而且不仅涉及project，
还会有administration core。
延伸说开去，拿grant其实不难，或者说拿个说得过去的分数不难。有的项目一看满眼
的typo，不要奇怪，很多医生研究者没多少时间搞这些，全凭最后的时间突击，结果自
然评审者一上来就没好印象，憋着劲找错。有的项目满眼的公式，推导，专业术语，你
装什么装啊，我好不容易把孩子哄睡了来看你的项目，把它搞的好懂一些嘛？！有的项
目列上很多个无关紧要的合作者，拜托，我看到的是能干事的人，不是你的系主任们。
再者，大多数的项目，你不需要完全地创新，一个3-5年的项目怎么可能那么厉害，但
是你得明确specific，要完成一个有希望的方向的哪些具体东西，切实可行。最后，第
一次没拿到，拜托仔细读一下评审意见，它们不是胡咧咧，该忍痛割爱就割，该耐着性
子采几个数据就采，接下来那张response 的一页纸要体现满满的诚意，然后奇迹就发
生了。。
and
【在 w******e 的大作中提到】
: Just wondering how the sections decide which proposals will be discussed and
: scored!
: 1. Select proposals according to the average score calculated from scores
: given by the three reviewers?
: or
: 2. select proposals according to the weighed score calculated from scores
: given by the three reviewers? For example: the scores from the #1 reviewer
: have 50% weight, the scores from # 2 reviewer are counted by 30% and the
: rest is 20%.
: or
| a******u
发帖数: 211 | 18 赞！多谢分享！
-7
【在 n****y 的大作中提到】
: 看到人问，科普一下：
: 一般来说，三个人申你的东西，虽然每个人的角色不同，他们给的分的权重是一样的。
: 每个人给各项打个分，然后给你个总分。然后三个人的三个分数平均，这次交上来的一
: 堆申请者排名，前50%必定被讨论，后面50%的如果有的评审者执意认为你有价值，如果
: 时间允许，也会在某个犄角旮旯的时间被讨论，但是，可想而知，大多数会被原来的三
: 个评审者一顿批。
: 到了讨论会当天，对每个被讨论的项目，三个评审者给出分数，然后依次阐述，然后大
: 家讨论（其实很少有除了这三个人之外的人讨论，因为大家都忙于评审自己负责的项目
: ），所以争论大都出自这三个人，最后主席再次要求这三个人给出分数，也就是基于讨
: 论，他们要不要更改分数。这三个人的分数定下一个范围，比如2，5，7的范围就是2-7
| w******e
发帖数: 953 | 19 Thanks a lot!
-7
【在 n****y 的大作中提到】
: 看到人问，科普一下：
: 一般来说，三个人申你的东西，虽然每个人的角色不同，他们给的分的权重是一样的。
: 每个人给各项打个分，然后给你个总分。然后三个人的三个分数平均，这次交上来的一
: 堆申请者排名，前50%必定被讨论，后面50%的如果有的评审者执意认为你有价值，如果
: 时间允许，也会在某个犄角旮旯的时间被讨论，但是，可想而知，大多数会被原来的三
: 个评审者一顿批。
: 到了讨论会当天，对每个被讨论的项目，三个评审者给出分数，然后依次阐述，然后大
: 家讨论（其实很少有除了这三个人之外的人讨论，因为大家都忙于评审自己负责的项目
: ），所以争论大都出自这三个人，最后主席再次要求这三个人给出分数，也就是基于讨
: 论，他们要不要更改分数。这三个人的分数定下一个范围，比如2，5，7的范围就是2-7
| l**********0
发帖数: 216 | 20 基本正确，一般低分影响很大。另外，大家注意把图做的大一些，清晰度高一些，图表
中的文字一定要能看清楚，审过很多申请，图像分辨率极低，又小，基本分辨不出，第
一印象就不好，没好心情给好分数。就像柱型图，柱子没必要那么长，能看清楚区别就
行，但图标文字要非常清楚。要学会做高清图表，很重要
-7
【在 n****y 的大作中提到】
: 看到人问，科普一下：
: 一般来说，三个人申你的东西，虽然每个人的角色不同，他们给的分的权重是一样的。
: 每个人给各项打个分，然后给你个总分。然后三个人的三个分数平均，这次交上来的一
: 堆申请者排名，前50%必定被讨论，后面50%的如果有的评审者执意认为你有价值，如果
: 时间允许，也会在某个犄角旮旯的时间被讨论，但是，可想而知，大多数会被原来的三
: 个评审者一顿批。
: 到了讨论会当天，对每个被讨论的项目，三个评审者给出分数，然后依次阐述，然后大
: 家讨论（其实很少有除了这三个人之外的人讨论，因为大家都忙于评审自己负责的项目
: ），所以争论大都出自这三个人，最后主席再次要求这三个人给出分数，也就是基于讨
: 论，他们要不要更改分数。这三个人的分数定下一个范围，比如2，5，7的范围就是2-7
| l**********0
发帖数: 216 | 21 另外，讨论还是很多的，经常有score out of range. 尤其是3个评审人说了一堆
weakness，又给了不错的分数，如果又人有异议，平时人又不能完美解释，score out
of range 就会很多 | l**********0
发帖数: 216 | 22 还有一个重要的，很多人忽略的是要经常更新自己的full publication list, 不更新
就会受人口实，让别人攻击你productivity 不够。有时也要提醒合作者更新。make
the reviewer easier, make yourself easier. |
|
