Research and Funding
Inside NIA: A Blog for Researchers

How to avoid annoying your reviewers—tips from review, part 1

Dr. Ferrell, this is a helpful insight. Thank you.
What is your opinion about the reviewers who do a poor job of reviewing and/or not really qualified to review. If a reviewer is not working on a specific field (e.g. treatment of heart failure) how can he/she comment the novely and 'innovative-ness' of the proposed goals /deliverables of the application/
Of course we do our very best to find the most appropriate reviewers for each application. Given the review load and composition of a given review panel, the three assigned reviewers on an application may have expertise ranging from specific to more general, and the critiques will vary in specificity accordingly. We do ask all assigned reviewers to comment on each criterion based on their reading of the application and on discussion with the review panel (if the application is discussed).
Very insightful and helpful. Thank you!
One of my pet peeves as a reviewer, apart from truly substantive matters, is applications that underline what the writer wants to emphasize as important. I find the underlining to distract from the content, and ultimately to be distinctively less effective than clearly written prose without the underlining.
I'd like to see the distribution of undergraduate institution attended for investigators awarded and not awarded grants. Is that info available?
We just love the post and the audio verification. Anyways how many good applications do you think just get overlooked!