The NIH R01 grant is one of the most prestigious and competitive grants offered by the NIH, providing funding for research projects that have the potential to make significant contributions to the field of biomedical and behavioral research. However when a preliminary submission is not funded, the question often arises regarding resubmitting (A1) vs. repackaging the grant as new (A0).
Resubmission of a grant application is a common strategy employed by researchers to improve their chances of securing funding. When an initial application is not successful, researchers have the opportunity to revise and resubmit their proposal, taking into account the feedback and critiques provided by the reviewers. This process allows researchers to address any weaknesses or concerns raised by the reviewers and strengthen their application.
One of the factors for deciding is the success rate for resubmissions. The success rate of A1s can vary depending on various factors, including the quality of the initial application, the revisions made in response to reviewer feedback, and the overall competitiveness of the funding cycle. Generally, resubmissions have a higher chance of success compared to initial submissions, as they have the advantage of addressing the concerns and criticisms raised by the reviewers in the previous round.
According to data from the NIH, the success rates for resubmissions of R01 grants have shown some variability over the years. In recent years, the success rates have ranged from around 20% to 30% which can be significantly higher than the A0 success rate (~11%), however, it’s important to note that these rates can vary depending on the specific I/C and the funding cycle.
To increase the chances of success in resubmission, it is crucial to carefully analyze the reviewer comments from the previous submission and address each concern in a comprehensive and convincing manner. This may involve revising the research plan, providing additional data or analyses, and strengthening the overall scientific rationale and significance of the proposed research.
One important aspect to consider is the timing of the resubmission. It is generally recommended to resubmit within the next available submission cycle to minimize the time gap between the initial and revised application. This allows the reviewers to have the initial application fresh in their minds and facilitates a more direct comparison between the two versions.
Another key factor in resubmission success is the ability to effectively communicate the significance and impact of the proposed research. It may be clear from the scores and reviewer comments that the PI did not sufficiently convey the importance/impact/etc. of the project. An A1 provides an opportunity to rectify this.
The reviewers need to be convinced that the research is not only scientifically rigorous but also has the potential to make a significant contribution to the field. This can be achieved by clearly articulating the research objectives, explaining the potential implications and applications of the findings, and highlighting any unique or innovative aspects of the proposed work.
In addition to addressing the reviewers’ comments, it is also important to take advantage of any new developments or achievements that have occurred since the initial submission to bolster the above argument in response to critiques. This could include new data, publications, collaborations, or other relevant accomplishments that further strengthen the proposal and demonstrate the researcher’s
productivity and potential for success.
Also essential is seeking guidance from the PO, who as a silent attendee at the peer-review meeting, can provide valuable insights and advice on how to improve the resubmission. These program officers can help identify potential weaknesses in the application and suggest strategies for addressing them effectively. While POs may shy away from directly saying to submit it as a new grant, their level (or lack thereof) of enthusiasm for one’s chances following responses to reviewers’ critiques can be telling.
Additionally, collaborating with experienced researchers or mentors who have successfully obtained NIH funding can be beneficial. They can provide guidance and support throughout the resubmission process, offering valuable insights and perspectives.
It is worth noting that resubmission does not guarantee funding success. The revised application will still undergo a rigorous review process, and the final decision will depend on various factors, including the quality of the revised proposal, the competitiveness of the applicant pool, and the availability of funds.
So while the success rates for NIH R01 resubmissions can vary, careful analysis of reviewer comments,
addressing concerns comprehensively, seeking guidance from program officers, and collaborating with experienced researchers can significantly increase the chances of funding success. It is important to approach the resubmission process with a strategic mindset and a commitment to improving the application based on the feedback received.
