IGM internal peer review DRAFT document

[Dan Arking]

Hi Folks,

Hope everyone is enjoying their summer, but it is already time to start thinking about grants.

As many of you know, we will be required by the Dean to have an internal peer review process in place in the near future.  I am attaching a draft document that the IGM Research Committee has put together for your comments.  Along with your general thoughts, there are a specific list of questions at the end that we would like feedback on.

Also, if you are willing to serve as a reviewer, please let Haig know, so he can start to assemble a list of volunteers,

Cheers,

Dan

--

Dan E. Arking, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
733 N. Broadway
Miller Research Building, Room 447
Baltimore, MD 21205
(410) 502-4867 Office
(410) 614-8600 FAX
ark...@jhmi.edu

[Hal Dietz]

Hi Dan,

I think that this all looks reasonable. I do not think that this should be mandatory - folks are masters of their own destiny - but rather highly encouraged. I do not like the "feel" of being paid to do this. I think that a professional editing service is a great idea as none of us have the time to manipulate grammar and usage. I am happy to participate, as time permits.

Best,

Hal

<IGM_internal_grant_review.DRAFT.docx>

[Roger Reeves]

Hi Dan,
     Thanks for your work on this. I think this looks good, though I agree with Hal that it should be encouraged and not required, and that getting paid for reviews of colleagues' work doesn't feel right. If the grant gets shot down, would we have to give the money back? Maybe with a penalty if it's triaged? Perhaps that money could go into a pool for ... something. I also think that 3 weeks is much too short to make any substantive suggestions and I'm not sure how much value there is in limiting this to editorial/organizational comments.
     I have been encouraging people at all levels to use an editing service. In fact, a number of my European colleagues and several American ones are using a service run by a former post-doc of mine for manuscripts and have begun having her work on grants, as well. The high percentage repeat business and referrals suggests that they're happy with the results. (http://www.fresheyesediting.com/)
     Can you give us an idea of the magnitude of effort that we're talking about here? How many grants were submitted by IGM faculty last year? Would you expect this number to go up or down with the addition of this process? Does this include fellowship/ predoctoral applications as well? How about private Foundations?

Thanks
Roger

--

Roger H. Reeves, Ph.D.

Professor

Johns Hopkins Univ. Schl. of Medicine

Department of Physiology and

McKusick-Nathans Institute for Genetic Medicine

Biophysics 201

725 North Wolfe Street

Baltimore, MD 21025

TEL (410) 955-6621

FAX (443) 287-0508

rre...@jhmi.edu

http://inertia.bs.jhmi.edu/

[Dan Arking]

Hi Roger,

Thanks for the comments.  In answer to your questions:

1) I don't know how many grants were submitted - perhaps Dave knows off hand.  If not, I can check with the grants folks.

2) I would expect the number to decrease, since hopefully this process will increase the chance of success (and require fewer resubmissions).

3) For now, we were envisioning this being for NIH grants, but if successful and desired, could expand to include other grant types.

Cheers,

Dan

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Roger Reeves <rre...@jhmi.edu> wrote:

Hi Dan,
     Thanks for your work on this. I think this looks good, though I agree with Hal that it should be encouraged and not required, and that getting paid for reviews of colleagues' work doesn't feel right. If the grant gets shot down, would we have to give the money back? Maybe with a penalty if it's triaged? Perhaps that money could go into a pool for ... something. I also think that 3 weeks is much too short to make any substantive suggestions and I'm not sure how much value there is in limiting this to editorial/organizational comments.
     I have been encouraging people at all levels to use an editing service. In fact, a number of my European colleagues and several American ones are using a service run by a former post-doc of mine for manuscripts and have begun having her work on grants, as well. The high percentage repeat business and referrals suggests that they're happy with the results. (http://www.fresheyesediting.com/)
     Can you give us an idea of the magnitude of effort that we're talking about here? How many grants were submitted by IGM faculty last year? Would you expect this number to go up or down with the addition of this process? Does this include fellowship/ predoctoral applications as well? How about private Foundations?

Thanks
Roger

    

On 8/5/2014 12:14 PM, Dan Arking wrote:

--

Roger H. Reeves, Ph.D.

Professor

Johns Hopkins Univ. Schl. of Medicine

Department of Physiology and

McKusick-Nathans Institute for Genetic Medicine

Biophysics 201

725 North Wolfe Street

Baltimore, MD 21025

TEL (410) 955-6621

FAX (443) 287-0508

rre...@jhmi.edu

http://inertia.bs.jhmi.edu/

[Andy McCallion]

Dan,

This is a great job, Dan. However wish to echo the issues/challenges raised by Hal and Roger

Best

Andy

Andrew S. McCallion Ph.D.

ASHG 2014 Program Chair

Associate Professor
McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

BRB Room 407
733 N. Broadway
Baltimore, MD, 21205-1832
USA

Tel: (410)-955-7948 (Office)
Tel:  (410)-502-7533 (Lab)
Fax:  (410)-502-5677

https://igm.jhmi.edu/mccallion
Disclaimer:

The materials in this e-mail are private and may contain Protected Health Information. Please note that e-mail is not necessarily confidential or secure. Your use of e-mail constitutes your acknowledgment of these confidentiality and security limitations. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender via telephone or return e-mail.

[Ada Hamosh]

Hi Dan,

Great job.  I too echo Hal and Roger’s comments.  You can’t pay for this and if you did and the reviewer did a good job, it would cost more.  I think that an editorial service is a great idea.  I also think that 3 weeks in advance for a formal review is not enough time, unless the grant is looking very good.  If it needs a total overhaul of science and/or English, then more time is needed to make it worthwhile… Happy to help as time permits, a longer lead time means that time will be more likely to permit…

Thanks,

Ada

Ada Hamosh, MD, MPH
Dr. Frank V. Sutland Professor
McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine (IGM)
Clinical Director, IGM
Scientific Director, OMIM
Johns Hopkins University
Blalock 1007
600 N. Wolfe St
Baltimore, MD 21287-4922
Phone:  410-614-3313
Fax: 410-614-9246
aha...@jhmi.edu

Assistant:  Heather Dozier
phone:  410-955-6641
e-mail:  hdoz...@jhmi.edu

[Garry Cutting]

Dan

Well done

My thoughts concur with prior responses

Questions:

1)      Should review of specific aims be required for junior faculty?
I agree with highly recommended rather than required.

2)      Are time-lines reasonable?  Might need more time between specific aims and full proposal submission (right now grantee would only have 3 weeks to flesh out the grant).
More time would be needed if specific aims were substantially altered

3)      Do we want to try and get volunteers for more in-depth editing if needed?  Or alternatively, be able to recommend the grant go to an editorial service (perhaps paid by IGM)?
Editorial service seems more efficient and more likely to occur than faculty assistance with editing

On 8/5/2014 12:14 PM, Dan Arking wrote:

[DIMITRI Avramopoulos]

My previous email to google groups bounced so here it is again

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Dan,

Thanks for working on this.

I agree with the other's comments.

Regarding the 7-week specific aims / 3-week full proposal  submission I think that, since there is strong encouragement to submit earlier we can explain the caveats and leave it up to the submitter to decide. 

I have mixed feelings about making the specific aims submission required. While I think it is somewhat in contrast with fostering independence, we should assure that not submitting is a well informed and thought through decision of the PI. The importance and benefits of the review process should be repeatedly discussed in lunches and faculty meetings.

Is there any input from the PI regarding people most appropriate to review the application? Should we consider that?​

 

Dimitri

---

From: igm-f...@googlegroups.com <igm-f...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Garry Cutting <gcut...@jhmi.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2014 6:01 PM
To: Dan Arking
Cc: igm-f...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: IGM internal peer review DRAFT document

 

[Andy McCallion]

Dan - to follow up on the concerns raised regarding reimbursement for review - what if you propose to avoid direct payment to the individual but rather have a pro-rated incentive credit deposited in the reviewer's gift/discretionary account at the end of the fiscal year - funded from general funds?  That way the reviewer's lab can benefit and we reduce/remove the concerns over honoraria.

Thoughts… ?

Andy

<IGM_internal_grant_review.DRAFT.docx>

Andrew S. McCallion Ph.D.

ASHG 2014 Program Chair

Associate Professor
McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

BRB Room 407
733 N. Broadway
Baltimore, MD, 21205-1832
USA

Tel: (410)-955-7948 (Office)
Tel:  (410)-502-7533 (Lab)
Fax:  (410)-502-5677

[Dan Arking]

Excellent suggestion.  I would be in favor of that.

Dan

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Andy McCallion <an...@jhmi.edu> wrote:

Dan - to follow up on the concerns raised regarding reimbursement for review - what if you propose to avoid direct payment to the individual but rather have a pro-rated incentive credit deposited in the reviewer's gift/discretionary account at the end of the fiscal year - funded from general funds?  That way the reviewer's lab can benefit and we reduce/remove the concerns over honoraria.

Thoughts… ?

Andy

On Aug 5, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Dan Arking <ark...@jhmi.edu> wrote:

<IGM_internal_grant_review.DRAFT.docx>

Andrew S. McCallion Ph.D.

ASHG 2014 Program Chair

Associate Professor
McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

BRB Room 407
733 N. Broadway
Baltimore, MD, 21205-1832
USA

Tel: (410)-955-7948 (Office)
Tel:  (410)-502-7533 (Lab)
Fax:  (410)-502-5677

https://igm.jhmi.edu/mccallion

Disclaimer:

The materials in this e-mail are private and may contain Protected Health Information. Please note that e-mail is not necessarily confidential or secure. Your use of e-mail constitutes your acknowledgment of these confidentiality and security limitations. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender via telephone or return e-mail.