Guidance for Summary Statement Preparation

A. Formatting

  • Clean up the formatting and remove extra blank spaces and sections with no comments (resubmission, renewal, warning codes, core criteria score table if applicable, additional comments to applicant, etc.).
  • Do not use Track Changes while formatting.
  • Formatting must be consistent throughout the document. See SRP’s Formatting Examples (to be provided).

B. Editing of reviewer critiques

  • Use Track Changes for all edits.(This does not include formatting. See above).
  • Do not delete or modify comments from reviewers without using Track Changes.
  • Use minimal, light copyediting:
  • Correct basic grammar (e.g., verb agreement), spelling, punctuation and capitalization. See the Gregg Manual or NIH Writing Basics for guidance.Make sure names mentioned by reviewers are spelled correctly (check against application).
  • Rewrite incoherent/unclear sentence fragments so they make sense and reflect what the reviewer intended.
  • Do not rewrite comments that are fragments into complete sentences if they are clear and understandable.
  • Do not turn questions posed by reviewers into statements.
  • Modify inflammatory or effusive language.For example, while leaving questions as written is acceptable, a long string questions in a row can appear offensive.
  • Qualify or modify absolute statements.For example, “No preliminary data are provided” becomes “Insufficient preliminary data are provided”.
  • Do not change the tense unless it is blatantly incorrect or obscures meaning.
  • Do not spell out abbreviations.
  • Do not italicize scientific or foreign terms(E. coli, in vivo, etc.).If reviewer includes italics, leave as is unless used incorrectly.
  • Do not “fix” split infinitives
  • Do not “fix” sentences ending in prepositions
  • Leave numbers/numerals as written (4 vs. four).
  • Write “No comments were provided” if the reviewer did not provide strengths or weakness. If the reviewer entered “None,” leave it as is.(SROs should repeatedly remind reviewers to include major and minor strengths and weaknesses that reflect their scores for all criteria.)Leave publication citations as provided by reviewer.

C. Resume and Summary of Discussion Section

  • Write the Resume and Summary of Discussion in the present tense.
  • Start with a positive tone.
  • In the first paragraphof the resume, include the application information: title, institution(s), PI(s), and the specific aims.
  • State the specific aims (or equivalents) concisely using the applicant’s words if possible.Shorten aims if they are written in an extensive manner.
  • Includethe number of projects, cores or components for multiproject applications.
  • In the secondparagraph, provide an overall summary of the reviewer discussion,includingthe major elements that influenced the score. Donot simply restate strengths and weaknesses found in the critiques, unless they were a focus of the panel discussion.Strengths and weaknessesfrom the discussion for each of the standard five criteria, RFA-specific criteria and MPI leadership plan should be included using concise statements.
  • As appropriate, use depersonalized terms that refer to the application, not the applicant (unless the comment is about the PI/key personnel with respect to the Investigator criterion).
  • The supplementary materials statement is no longer required.
  • The length of the resume should be commensurate with the score and/or complexity of the application. In general, one-half to three-quarters of a page may besufficient for a single project application, but particularly complex applications may require additional space. The same standards apply to eachsection of a multi-project application (e.g., overall, project, core or component).
  • Finish with an overall summary sentence at the end.

D. Special Issues

  • Move reviewer comments down into the Special Issues footer.
  • For Discussed applications, include ALL footer sections.
  • For Special Issues that impact the score, provide a boilerplate statement(see below) for Acceptable issues,and a concise explanatory statement if Unacceptable.
  • For Special Issues that donot the impact score, no explanation is needed for Acceptable,but provide a brief statement for Unacceptable special issues.
  • Write “N/A” if the special issue is Not Applicable.
  • For Not Discussed applications, the footer should include only the Human Subjects, Inclusions, and Vertebrate Animal sections. Comments from reviewers about other Special Issue topics should be kept in the footer section. Appropriate Headers should be added if necessary.
  • If possible, group projects under human subjects and vertebrate comments. For example:

VERTEBRATE ANIMALS (Resume): ACCEPTABLE (CODE 30)

Projects 1, 2: Not applicable.

Project 3: The protection of Vertebrate Animal welfare is adequately described.

Sample Boilerplate Statements- Special Issues

Human Subjects protection: ACCEPTABLE (CODE 30)

For clinical research: The protection of Human Subjects is adequately described.

INCLUSION OF WOMEN PLAN (Resume):ACCEPTABLE (CODE G1A)

The inclusion plan is appropriate for the scientific goals of the research.

INCLUSION OF MINORITIES PLAN (Resume): ACCEPTABLE (CODE M1A)

The inclusion plan is appropriate for the scientific goals of the research.

INCLUSION OF CHILDREN PLAN (Resume):ACCEPTABLE (CODE C1A)

The inclusion plan is appropriate for the scientific goals of the research.

VERTEBRATE ANIMALS (Resume): ACCEPTABLE (CODE 30)

The protection of Vertebrate Animal welfare is adequately described.

BIOHAZARD COMMENT: ACCEPTABLE

The plan to prevent risks during handling of biohazard materials or samples is adequate.

DATA SHARING PLANS: ACCEPTABLE

There is an adequate plan for data sharing outlined in the application.

MODEL ORGANISM SHARING PLANS: ACCEPTABLE

There is an adequate plan for sharing of model organismsthat may be generated in the project.

AUTHENTICATION OF KEY BIOLOGICAL AND/OR CHEMICAL RESOURCES: ACCEPTABLE

Adequate plans for authentication of key resources are outlined in the application.

OR:

AUTHENTICATION OF KEY BIOLOGICAL AND/OR CHEMICAL RESOURCES: UNACCEPTABLE: Applications submitted for due dates on or after January 25, 2016 are required to include a PDF attachment describing plans for authentication and/or validationof key biological and/or chemical resources that will be used inthe proposed research study (see NOT-OD-16-011). Reviewers consider information provided in this attachment as part of their evaluation of theapplication. This attachment could not be assessed because it is missing from your application.

NIAID/SRP Feb, 2017