Too Many Resubmissions Have Been Received

março 18, 2022 Postar um comentário

Frequently Asked Questions

Resubmissions of NIH Applications

Terminal Revised: March seven, 2022

A. Resubmission Policy Nuts

What is the electric current policy on resubmissions?

Only a single resubmission (A1) of an original application (A0) will exist accepted.

Following an unsuccessful resubmission (A1) awarding, applicants may submit the aforementioned idea as a new (A0) application for the next appropriate new awarding due appointment (see Non-OD-xviii-197 for exceptions).

Resubmissions (A1) must exist submitted inside 37 months of the new (A0) application (see NOT-OD-10-140 and NOT-OD-12-128).

For more details on the Resubmission Policy, visit the Resubmissions webpage and come across NOT-OD-xviii-197.
What types of grant programs does the resubmission policy apply to?

NIH'south resubmission policy applies to applications submitted to all grant and cooperative agreement funding opportunities that allow resubmissions, including all fellowship, grooming, and career development awards.
Are resubmissions of revisions allowed?

Generally. The funding opportunity annunciation volition point whether resubmissions of revisions are allowed.
Must I expect for my summary statement before submitting my idea again?

One time your application has been reviewed, y'all must wait for the summary statement to be issued earlier yous resubmit that application or submit any other application with substantial scientific overlap.
I just received my score and information technology is not very encouraging. The next submission appointment for the FOA is only a few days abroad; may I withdraw this application before the summary argument is released and submit another awarding correct abroad?

Even though yous can submit your piece of work again, NIH expects applicants to strengthen and improve their applications with each submission—using a combination of your ain inquiry progress, updates from the literature, and feedback provided in the summary statement.
May I submit a new application following an unsuccessful new application?

Yeah. The policy does not crave a resubmission (A1) before submission of a new (A0) application.
Is there a limit to the number of times an application may be submitted equally new?

No. The number of such cycles is not limited, but NIH encourages applicants to update their applications to reflect the status of the field over the acting period and to incorporate new preliminary data, literature citations, letters of reference, etc. every bit time passes.
Is there a limit to the number of times an application may be submitted as a renewal application?
If the award can be renewed, you may submit i renewal application followed by one resubmission of that renewal application to an appropriate funding opportunity announcement.
- If the renewal application is non funded, your options are to submit an A1 resubmission application or to submit a new type 1 application.
- If the resubmission application is not funded, your next option is to submit a new type 1 awarding. Run across NOT-OD-15-059 for data almost the content differences betwixt new, renewal, and resubmission applications.
What application due appointment should I use when submitting a "new" that NIH has reviewed previously?

All applications submitted every bit new must target due dates designated for new applications, regardless of whether the previous submission was a competing renewal, a resubmission, or a new application.
May I modify funding opportunity announcements betwixt submission of a new or renewal (A0) application and the corresponding resubmission (A1) awarding?
Generally, yes, but there are some specific limitations:
- Yous cannot submit the resubmission (A1) application to a funding opportunity announcement that does not accept resubmissions
- You cannot submit the resubmission (A1) application to an RFA if the new or renewal (A0) application was submitted to a PA, PAR, or PAS
- Y'all cannot submit the resubmission (A1) application to a PA, PAR, or PAS if the new or renewal (A0) awarding was submitted to a RFA
- You cannot submit a resubmission (A1) application to an RFA that only accepts resubmissions from specified funding opportunity announcements unless you used one of those specified FOAs to submit the new or renewal (A0) application
All requirements of the funding opportunity proclamation used for the resubmission (A1) awarding must be followed.
I originally applied to the Parent R01, which has since been expired. When I resubmit to the new Parent R01 – Clinical Trial Required, may I submit an A1 (resubmission) or must the awarding exist submitted as new (A0 application)?

An application submitted as new to one Programme Announcement (like the Parent R01) may be resubmitted as an A1 (resubmission) to whatsoever other Programme Proclamation, so long as that program proclamation accepts resubmissions and information technology is submitted within 37 months of the A0 (original, new) submission.

B. Understanding a New Application vs a Resubmission Application

What distinguishes a new awarding from a resubmission application?

A resubmission awarding must contain an Introduction, which addresses the comments from the previous review; a new application makes no reference to a previous submission.
Tin can I submit a resubmission application if the funding opportunity declaration says resubmissions are allowed, or can I submit a new application instead?

An A1 awarding is the but mode that you may specifically address the critiques of the previous review. A new application may not have an introduction responding to the previous critiques, and can only exist submitted after the summary statement is received, unless the funding opportunity announcement says otherwise. All applicants should submit applications that reflect the current status of the field, new preliminary data, or new plans in response to new findings or strategies.
Is there a benefit to submitting a resubmission rather than a new application?

A resubmission allows you to provide a one page introduction to tell reviewers directly how yous have addressed their critiques. Alternatively, the introduction allows y'all to explain why you did not address them.
My application was non discussed. Should I develop a new application or try to address the reviewers' comments in a Resubmission application?

This issue should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Read the summary statement advisedly and note weaknesses that you could address in a reasonable length of time. Hash out the critiques with your collaborators, colleagues, and/or senior researchers/mentors to get their suggestions. The PO also can discuss your options going forward. It is possible for an application that advisedly addresses the reviewers' comments to go from being "not-discussed" to receiving outstanding scores upon resubmission.
Am I allowed to submit the same application as a new and a resubmission application in the same Council round?

Generally, no. NIH will not allow duplicate or highly overlapping applications to be under review at the same time. This includes: 1) a new (A0) application that is submitted earlier issuance of the summary statement from the review of an overlapping new (A0) or resubmission (A1) application; and 2) a resubmission (A1) application that is submitted earlier issuance of the summary statement from the review of the previous new (A0) application. (NOT-OD-18-197)
My resubmission application was non funded. May I now submit it as a new application?

Yeah. Investigators should take into account the scores of the previous application, the reviewer comments, and any advice from NIH program staff when deciding whether to submit the application every bit new. Should y'all decide to submit the awarding as new, take advantage of the comments from reviewers to reshape your application, only think, you should non straight reference the previous review in the new awarding. If the previous application was a renewal resubmission, the new awarding should not include a Progress Study or a Progress Written report Publication List. (Notation special rules utilize for submitting after an unsuccessful Stage 2 SBIR/STTR awarding.) Work from the prior funding menstruum should be presented as preliminary data and/or rationale for the proposed research. Publications from the prior work may be cited in the reference listing, as applicable, and/or listed in the biosketches of the investigators.
My new application follows an unsuccessful application on the same topic and ideas. I know that I may not include an Introduction. May I include data elsewhere in the application to accost the previous review?

No. A new application must be prepared equally a new application. You may not include previous scores, comments of the previous reviewers, your responses to those comments, or identify marks in the text of the research strategy or whatsoever other section of the application to betoken changes from a previous submission. Remind collaborators providing letters of back up not to refer to previous submissions or reviews, and for applications requiring reference letters, remind your referees that these letters should not include any references to a previous awarding or review.
Will my new application be reviewed if information technology contains reference to a previous review upshot?

No. Your application volition exist withdrawn from the review process if yous include anywhere in the your application the kind of information that would be institute in a previous summary statement (score, critique criterion scores, reviewers comments), information that would be appropriate for an Introduction (response to the previous review and information near how the application was inverse), or marks in the text of the application to bear witness how it has changed since the last submission.
Since my new application is substantially a "resubmission" of an before application, may I submit information technology for the resubmission due date listed in the FOA?

No. If you submit your application every bit a new A0 application, it must be submitted for the new application due date, regardless of the past review history for this projection. If you submit the new application on the resubmission due date, information technology volition be withdrawn for being late.
My resubmission of a competing renewal awarding (Type ii A1) was not funded. May I submit a new renewal (Blazon 2 A0)?

No. Only a single resubmission of a competing new, revision, or renewal application (A0) volition be accepted. After a resubmission of a competing renewal (Type ii) awarding that is not funded, a subsequent new renewal (Blazon two A0) application may non be submitted. The next awarding submitted on this topic should be submitted as a new application (Type 1 A0) on an appropriate due engagement for new applications (see Not-OD-xviii-197 for exceptions).
Volition a Type 1 A0 application following an unfunded competing renewal application yet be considered a renewal awarding if I submit it as new?

No. Every bit a new Type 1, the application would be due on the new awarding due date, not the renewal application due date. The application must non incorporate a Progress Report, Progress Report Publication List or response to previous critiques in an Introduction or elsewhere in the application.
How can I present data to show progress in my work if I cannot include a Progress Report in my application?

You lot may present the data generated during your grant in the preliminary information section of your new application. You may include publications in your biosketch and cite them every bit support for your research plans.
I had an institutional training (or research education or career evolution) grant that was not renewed, and I at present want to submit a new application for a similar programme. How tin I describe the experience with the previous program and how it influenced the proposed program?

For an institutional preparation grant (T) or career development honor (K) application, y'all can use the Background section to describe a previous program and how it impacted the proposed plan. For a research educational activity (R25) grant application, experience with a previous program and its influence on the current application could be described in the Institutional Environs or Institutional Setting section. Notwithstanding, information regarding a previously funded plan must non be presented as a progress report or include elements of a progress report for the previous grant.
Volition my new A0 application be reviewed if it contains a Progress Report or Progress Report Publication List?

No. Those elements are not immune for a new application. New applications containing a Progress Study or Progress Report Publication List will be withdrawn before review.
After an unfunded renewal awarding, I am submitting a new awarding that is really a renewal of my project. May I submit it on the due date for renewal applications listed in the FOA?

No. It is a new application and it must be submitted on the due date for new applications listed in the FOA. If it is submitted on the due date for renewal applications, it volition exist withdrawn for beingness late.
If my resubmission (A1) has not yet been reviewed, may I withdraw this application and supervene upon it with another resubmission?

Yous may withdraw an A1 awarding before the date of review and submit another A1 for a afterwards, appropriate due date. Note that NIH will not accept a resubmission application that is submitted later than 37 months afterwards the due date of the initial (A0) awarding (see NOT-OD-x-140).
If my awarding has been reviewed, and the score released, may I submit an overlapping application, or withdraw the awarding and replace it with another i?

No. One time your application has been reviewed, y'all must wait for the summary statement to exist issued before submitting an application.
My investigator-initiated awarding was non funded. May I submit this awarding in response to an appropriate Request for Applications (RFA)?

Yes. In most cases a previously unfunded investigator-initiated application that is submitted in response to an RFA is to be prepared as a new awarding. See NOT-OD-09-100.
If an application submitted in response to an RFA is non successful, is it considered new if I submit to a different funding opportunity?

If the application is not successful through the RFA and is subsequently submitted to a different RFA or to a programme announcement (such as the standard "parent" announcement), then it is considered a new awarding. If your application was submitted previously to a PA and y'all desire to now submit it to an RFA, it is considered a new application. If you submit a new awarding to a PA and then submit to an RFA, you lot can later resubmit to the PA as an A1. For more information on submission following an RFA review, meet policy discover Not-OD-09-100.
Are all submissions to RFAs new applications?

For most RFAs that have a unmarried receipt appointment, all applications will be considered new. Some RFAs take multiple receipt dates and allow resubmission applications to the aforementioned RFA (designated with the grant number suffix "A1"). The text of each RFA should clearly state which types of applications are allowed (new, resubmission, renewal, revision). This can be a complicated upshot, and it is best to contact the program official listed in the RFA.
Can I submit the aforementioned application to two unlike FOAs simultaneously?

In most cases, two or more applications that accept scientific overlap in the experiments proposed are not allowed in peer review at the same fourth dimension, even if one is to an RFA and the other(s) to a PA/PAR/PAS. At that place are exceptions to this rule. NIH allows subprojects of Program Project Grant applications to be submitted as research applications (R01, R03, R15, R21, etc.) in the same cycle. In well-nigh cases, a 2nd application for the same project should non exist submitted until after the summary statement for the original submission has been released. See more information on overlapping applications.
Must I alter an application that was already reviewed in society to submit it as new?

Although NIH will not appraise the similarity of the science in the new (A0) application to any previous submission when accepting it for review, nosotros encourage investigators to have into account critiques from the previous review and advice from program staff. Call back, indistinguishable or highly overlapping applications are non allowed in review at the same time. Remember besides that the NIH volition not accept an A0 or A1 awarding if an appeal of initial peer review is awaiting on a substantially overlapping application.

Back to Height

C. Preparing Your Application

When should I resubmit?

You lot should consider the resubmission application when you can accost the weaknesses described in the summary statement. Oft, additional preliminary information are needed to address the criticisms. Therefore, you may need to skip a due date or two and program on including the results from additional experiments. Note that the standard due dates for resubmission applications are oft later than those for new applications. An awarding tin be resubmitted up to 37 months afterward the original application's due date; later on that, it must exist submitted as a new application and not refer to the previous review. However, as the fourth dimension increases between the original application and the resubmission, reviewers may expect more preliminary data, as evidence that the investigator is productive and committed to the project. Alternatively, you may discuss with your Program Officer the possibility of submitting a new application rather than a Resubmission application.
Practise I need to respond to all of the reviewers' comments, or can I disregard comments that seem to me to exist unjustified?

The introduction of your resubmission awarding should accost all of the weaknesses described in the summary statement. If you disagree with a reviewer'south statement, explain why, and provide additional data. Avoid responses that could be seen as argumentative. Ask a colleague to read the reviewers' critiques and your responses prior to resubmission, to confirm that you have addressed the critique in a style that is informative and non-confrontational.
If my awarding is not funded, may I use the same awarding form for the subsequent resubmission or new application?

Maybe. If yous are applying to a new funding opportunity announcement (FOA), you must utilise the class associated with that FOA. When submitting to the same FOA as the previous application, you must bank check the funding opportunity to make sure that no course updates accept happened since your previous submission. If a more recent form version is bachelor, you will need to transfer your information to that course. See Do I Accept The Right Electronic Forms For My Awarding?
How do I distinguish the application as being a new application or a resubmission awarding on the application form?

Box eight of the SF 424 (R&R) cover allows you to select the awarding blazon as either new or resubmission.
I am submitting a new awarding in the aforementioned topic area of science as my unfunded resubmission application. Should I address my changes or the fact that this is a new awarding in a embrace letter?

You should not refer to the previous submissions in the cover letter of the alphabet to the new application, as it will be given a new number and will not exist compared to the previous submissions when accepting it for review.
What is the page limit for the introduction to a Resubmission application and how do I indicate changes?

Generally, the introduction is limited to one page unless otherwise specified in the FOA or Table of Folio Limits. For example, an exception is made for R25, Ts, Ds and some K applications, to permit a 3 page introduction to the resubmission application.

Identifying individual changes in the text of the specific aims, research strategy and other application attachments is no longer required (Non-OD-15-030). Information technology is sufficient to outline the changes made to the Resubmission awarding in the Introduction zipper. The Introduction must include a summary of substantial additions, deletions, and changes to the application. It must as well include a response to weaknesses raised in the Summary Statement.
Can a Resubmission application have a different title than the original submission?

Yeah, your resubmission application can take a different title than your original application. Still, if there is a significant change in the content and scope of the proposed research, it may exist best to develop a new awarding. Consult with your programme official for further guidance.
Can an additional PD/PI be added or removed earlier submitting a resubmission application?

A PD/PI can be added to or removed from the resubmission awarding. It is best to explain these changes in the introduction of your awarding. A change of PD/PI besides needs to be noted via a checkbox in the application.
Do I need to change the title when I submit the application again as new?

Not unless you want to. Nosotros are updating the application guide to reverberate this policy modify.
How do I convey the changes I've fabricated in a resubmission application? (03/07/2022)

Respond as thoroughly as possible to all of the reviewers' comments in the "Introduction" attachment found on the PHS 398 Research Plan or equivalent course (i.e., PHS 398 Training Program Plan, PHS Fellowship Supplemental Class, or PHS 398 Career Evolution Award Supplemental Class).

The Introduction must include a summary of the substantial additions, deletions, and changes to the awarding, as well as, a response to the major weaknesses raised in the Summary Statement.

Practise not mark upwards changes within other application attachments (e.grand., do non highlight, color, bold or italicize changes in Research Strategy).

D. Fourth dimension Limits for Resubmission Applications

When can an awarding no longer exist resubmitted?

Resubmission applications may exist submitted for an appropriate due date upwards to 37 months after the awarding due appointment of the initial application. Any application on the same topic that yous submit more than than 37 months from the initial receipt appointment is considered a new application; it should not refer to the previous review(s) and must be submitted on the appropriate due date for new applications. (Run into related policy notice.)
What happens to the time limit for resubmission applications if I choose to submit every bit new instead of as a resubmission?

The 37 month time limit for resubmissions starts with each awarding that is submitted as new.
Why does the NIH set a time limit for resubmission applications?

Because of the pace of scientific discovery, NIH limits the timeframe in which applicants can respond directly to feedback from peer review.

Dorsum to Height

Eastward. Implications of Various Changes to Your Application

Can an additional PD/PI exist added or removed before submitting a Resubmission application?

A PD/PI tin can exist added to or removed from the resubmission application. It is best to explain these changes in the introduction of your application. A change of PD/PI as well needs to be noted via a checkbox in the application.
My R01 application was reviewed and was not funded. May I submit the application using a different activity lawmaking, for case, as an R21 (Exploratory/Developmental Research) grant?

Yes, simply you lot must expect until the summary statement for the previous submission is released and y'all need to wait carefully at the requirements of the new activity code. Specifics for this activity are available at: NIH Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant Award. Note that not all ICs participate in this activity. If the R01 application is inverse to focus on a subset of aims and submitted as an R21, those aims may non be included in a split up R01 submission. See Types of Grant Programs to learn virtually requirements for other action codes. For more than on the submission of applications with a changed activity lawmaking, visit Not-OD-09-100.
Only function of my awarding was funded: a) the scope of my work was reduced; and/or b) the length of time for my award was cut. May I submit a new grant application for the unfunded aims?

Perhaps. You lot tin submit a new application that incorporates the deleted aims if there has been a renegotiation of the telescopic (specific aims) of the inquiry grant application and y'all take documentation from the funding IC to back up the change. Consult the program director assigned to the awarding. This private is the plan contact shown in the upper left hand corner of your summary statement.

F. Review Issues

How are resubmission applications reviewed?

Reviewers are instructed to evaluate the resubmission application equally presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review grouping and changes made to the project. For resubmitted renewals, the commission will too consider the progress made in the last funding period.
May I asking that my Resubmission application be reviewed by a different study department or have primary assignment to a different NIH IC than my original application?

Resubmission applications commonly are assigned to the same study department and Institue/Center (IC) as the original application but yous can request a change using the Assignment Request Course with the resubmission application following the instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. It is a good idea to consult with your Program Officer (PO) and/or Scientific Review Officeholder (SRO) to hash out whether a change would be advisable.

The Partition of Receipt and Referral (DRR) at the Center for Scientific Review (CSR) is responsible for assigning applications to ICs and in some cases to Scientific Review Groups (SRGs). DRR ordinarily accommodates requests if appropriately justified and requested well before the review meeting date, merely reserves the right to make the last decision. ICs websites describe mission interest which tin can assistance applicants match topics of research to the appropriate funding component. The CSR website provides information regarding the focus of expertise of each of the CSR standing study sections.

You may direct referral questions to the CSR Referral Office (CSRDRR@mail.nih.gov or 301-435-0715).
What should I do if I do not hold with my review grouping assignment or IC consignment?

Contact the NIH scientific review officer assigned to your application to hash out the review assignment. While the SRO can look into the business and depict the panel'due south expertise, in CSR the Integrated Review Group Chief and in IC's the Review Branch Principal has the authorisation to brand assignment changes and should become involved when it is clear that a alter is desired past the bidder.

Contact the Partition of Receipt and Referral in the Center of Scientific Review to hash out the IC consignment (CSRDRR@mail.nih.gov or 301 435-0715).
Are reviewers allowed to consider previous submissions when reviewing applications submitted as new?

No. The scientific review officer volition remind reviewers that they must only consider the information included in the new application.
Can I resubmit or submit my awarding every bit new while my application is under appeal of the initial peer review?

No. The appeal must be resolved in club for you to submit that application again.

G. Guidance for Reviewers

I have discovered a reference to a previous review in an application. Based on the policy for new (Type 1) A0 submissions, what should I do?

Contact the SRO immediately. The application may demand to exist withdrawn from the review procedure.
In my critique of a Type 1 A0 application, may I refer to a previous critique or review of mine from a previous version of this awarding?

No. Each new (Blazon 1) A0 application must be considered as a new submission and reviewers must consider simply the information included in the current application regardless of whatever prior submissions.
In my critique of a Type one A0 awarding, may I brand whatever comments regarding a previous submission?

No. Regardless of the nature of the comments, negative or positive, no reference to a prior submission of a new (Type 1) A0 is permitted in the written critique or during word of the awarding. In addition, reviewers should non refer to previous reviews or discussions in their written critiques or during give-and-take at a review coming together.
May I reuse my critique from a previous review for a Type 1 A0 application?

No. This should not be done. Reviewers are instructed by the SRO to regard as confidential all review-related materials and to deeply dispose of all such materials in a timely mode post-obit the review meeting (published papers past the applicants are exempt). Storing prior critiques for potential future use is non advisable.
Although this is designated a new (Type 1) A0 application, I accept reviewed this same application before, and the applicant has fabricated few or no changes. Why should I spend writing a consummate new critique when most of the comments will be the same and I could simply slightly modify a previous critique?

This is considered a new awarding, and any potential changes made by the applicant may non be readily credible. You should care for the awarding as fairly as you would an application you lot accept never seen before and exist willing to consider the possibility that the applicant fabricated changes as southward/he saw fit. If there are similar strengths and weaknesses that touch on the overall impact score, it is advisable to recapitulate these points in the critique. Still, it is inappropriate for reviewers to "copy and paste" previous critiques, which in any issue you should no longer have bachelor.
In reviewing a Type one A0 awarding that I have seen earlier, may I requite a worse score than the awarding merits in lodge to discourage the applicant from submitting the same awarding once again?

No. The review of whatever new (Blazon 1) A0 application must exist carried out in an unbiasedmanner without regard to any prior submission(s) of the aforementioned or like application. The score should fairly reflect the merit of the application at the fourth dimension it is submitted; this score may be better or worse than a prior application—but scores should not be used to senda castigating message
May I advise Not Recommended for Further Consideration (NRFC) for an awarding that has been seen too many times?

No. An application should be reviewed and rated on its merits, irrespective of the number of submissions of the aforementioned or like application. NRFC is appropriate for applications that lack meaning and substantial merit or present serious ethical problems in the protection of human subjects from enquiry risks, use of vertebrate animals, biohazards and/or select agents. NRFC should not exist used punitively or to limited badgerer at seeing an application too many times. A proposal to NRFC requires a full discussion of the application past the review group, followed past a movement and a formal vote (with the number of members who vote for and against the motion—or abstain, recorded in the Summary Statement). Should reviewers wish to consider for NRFC an application that would otherwise fall in the ND range, the application must be "rescued" during the streamlining process and volition be after brought up for full word
At that place is an "Additional Comments to Applicant" section on the critique template. How tin can this be used to accost issues and concerns related to previous submissions of applications designated Blazon 1 A0?

The "Additional Comments to Applicant" box was developed for reviewers to provide additional data or advice to the applicant (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/guidelines_general/Additional_Comments.pdf). The box may be used to suggest the bidder against submitting an application once more unless there are significant changes in the application (you may specify where you think changes are well-nigh needed). Annotation, even so, that these comments are not bounden, do not represent a consensus of the review console and should not exist considered in scoring the application. For new (Blazon ane) A0 applications, the comments in this section, as with whatever part of your critique, must pertain to the current submission only and must not reference by submissions or reviews (if whatsoever).

Glossary:

A0: Beginning submission
A1: First resubmission
A2: 2nd resubmission (not permitted after January 25, 2010, equally described in NOT-OD-ten-080)
A3: Third resubmission (not permitted)

Become to Resubmission (Amended) Applications

hersheyalre1991.blogspot.com

Source: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/resubmission_q&a.htm