To Do in 2025: Keep Your eRA Personal Profile Updated
The Personal Profile module in eRA Commons is where you — as a principal investigator, award recipient, trainee, reviewer or other Commons user — tell NIH and other awarding agencies about yourself. Awarding agencies need to know about you to grant awards, process those awards, and more. Here are a few reasons why it is extremely important to keep your Personal Profile updated.
Personal Profile is the central repository of information about all Commons registered users. It lets you own and maintain the accuracy for your own personal information. This profile information is integrated throughout eRA systems. It is used to determine reviewer conflicts, link publications, populate application data, track trainee effort, and ensure that Early Stage Investigator status is accurately calculated. In addition, you have the option to provide demographic information to help NIH better understand its research workforce. Read more about how to manage your Personal Profile.
Linking your ORCID iD (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) to your eRA Commons account enables automatic importation of publications into biosketches. You can use Personal Profile to connect your eRA Commons account to your ORCID iD (Open Researcher and Contributor ID), which is a unique 16-digit identifier that enables connections between researchers and their research and scholarship. A linked ORCID iD is required for all senior/ key personnel listed on an application for a due date on or after May 25, 2025. See the video titled Link Your ORCID iD to Your eRA Commons Account.
So, if you have not recently updated your Personal Profile, please do so soon. It will benefit both the awarding agency and you.
Read the full article and access related resources here.
Consider These Points When Collecting Letters of Support
When applying for NIH funding, don’t confuse a letter of support with a reference letter, as the two Types of Letters for Grant Applications fulfill distinct functions—a Letter of Support demonstrates commitment to participate in a project, whereas a Reference Letter verifies that a candidate is qualified for an opportunity. Below is NIH's advice on letters of support to ensure they help rather than harm your application during peer review.
Collect letters of support from your collaborators such as consortium or contracted individuals or organizations, or from key personnel, institutions, and other significant contributors. The letters’ text should demonstrate their commitment and summarize the agreements and requirements you have in place to support your proposed research project. Familiarize yourself with the recommendations given in the SF 424/PHS 398 instructions at Letters of Support. When you request a letter of support, consider providing your collaborator a summary of your agreement as a convenient starting point.
The letters of support should reflect the roles and commitment of collaborators on the project as well as the rate and price for contracted services, while also aligning with your application’s research strategy and budget. Additionally, they should clearly describe what type of support your collaborators will provide (e.g., reagents, animals, human samples, technology). Make sure to indicate whether the support is available to anyone on request or if your collaborator will provide it to you only. NIH staff consider the latter point as they determine who may review your application without conflict.
If access to NIH services or resources is necessary for your research, you can ask your program officer (PO) for a letter of support to include in your application. Keep in mind that ethics rules mandate that NIAID’s program officials cannot give any investigator an unfair advantage over another in the grant application process. NIAID provides the applicant with documentation to confirm that he or she will have access to the services or resources such as relevant samples, for instance, if selected for funding.
In multi-component applications, you may include letters of support in the overall component, other components, or both unless stated otherwise in the notice of funding opportunity (NOFO). You may also be instructed to begin the Letters of Support attachment with a table of letter authors, their institutions, and the type of each letter (e.g., institutional commitment).
Include the letters as described in the NOFO’s instructions, but don’t assume that even more letters would be better. Note that some NOFOs also limit the number of letters allowed. NIH strongly advises against collecting letters of support solely as endorsements of your reputation, expertise, or research plans. In some cases, applicants have sent over a thousand letters of support. Large numbers of letters pose a significant burden on peer reviewers as they try to determine which are truly relevant to the project. Unnecessary letters can also limit the pool of expert peer reviewers. Due to potential conflicts of interest, anyone who writes a letter may not review your application.
Lastly, if you intend to collaborate with an NIH intramural investigator, there is a defined process with many steps to follow, and you’ll need to set aside enough time in the application process. Learn more in the Intramural Scientist Collaboration on Extramural Funded Grants and Contracts SOP.
Done properly, relevant letters of support from your planned research collaborators will assure peer reviewers that your collaborations and institutional commitments are on the right track.
Reaffirming NIH's Commitment to Scientific Integrity
Last year, NIH put out a call for public comments on its Draft Scientific Integrity Policy and received responses with thoughtful comments from a variety of communities. They released the Final NIH Scientific Integrity Policy at the end of 2024.
The final policy incorporates and is responsive to the principles and directives of the Presidential Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking, Protecting the Integrity of Government Science, and A Framework for Federal Scientific Integrity Policy and Practice. The end goal of these efforts was to institutionalize a culture of scientific integrity across the federal government by requiring that agencies either develop or update their existing policies.
As you are most likely aware, NIH has for many years been a leader in promoting practices, policies, and procedures that help ensure the research it funds and conducts is done in accordance with the highest possible standards and has complementary efforts in place to protect the integrity of research processes from bias and interference. These efforts rely on transparent processes, diverse community engagement, management of real or apparent conflicts of interest, and robust and open dialogue.
However, NIH saw opportunities to strengthen their existing system. These areas are articulated in the final policy and include:
The above measures, in concert with NIH’s existing policies and procedures, will foster scientific integrity, by helping to ensure that research findings are objective, credible, and readily available to the public, and policies and programs are developed and implemented in a transparent, accountable, and evidence-based manner.
The Final NIH Scientific Integrity Policy went into effect on December 30, 2024. To ensure that NIH stays a leader in this space, they will reevaluate the policy one year after the effective date and then every two years after that.
Read the full article here.
Supplemental Guidance to the 2024 NIH Public Access Policy: Publication Costs
Purpose
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) reiterates that compliance with the Public Access Policy is free. However, NIH recognizes that some peer-reviewed publishing routes may result in publication costs, including, but not limited to, article processing charges (APCs). Publication costs are allowable when they comport with the existing NIH cost principles (Grants Policy Statement (GPS) 7.2 and GPS 7.9.1 (Publication and Printing Costs)). Cost principles clarify when costs should be allocated as direct versus indirect costs, and they clarify charges and fees that are allowable under the outlined conditions.
NOT-OD-25-048 clarifies publication costs that are not allowable based on existing cost principles. It also outlines Points to Consider for Authors and Institutions in Assessing Reasonable Costs. This Guidance is intended to help funded authors and institutions understand what costs are allowable and reasonable under the NIH Public Access Policy. The NIH GPS also permits allowable and reasonable costs to be used to make public other works resulting from NIH funding that are not subject to the NIH Public Access Policy. This Guidance includes a brief section describing these kinds of works. The factors for what make costs unallowable are broadly applicable, regardless of whether the publication or other work is subject to the NIH Public Access Policy.
Public Access Policy Requirements Related to Costs
All costs must comport with 2 CFR 200 subpart E or its successor regulation, as implemented in NIH GPS 7.2 and GPS 7.9. These principles also apply as analogous requirements in the terms of Other Transaction agreements. For applicable contracts, all publication costs must comport with 2 CFR 200 subpart E, or its successor regulation, and the terms and conditions of the contract.
The NIH Public Access Policy clarifies that reasonable costs that are allowable may be requested in the budget for the project as direct or indirect costs, as specified in the NIH GPS and as incorporated into the terms of Other Transaction agreements and applicable contracts. Importantly, the NIH Public Access Policy also states that submission of Author Accepted Manuscripts to PubMed Central remains free for authors. Journal or publisher fees that arise during the course of the publication process for the sole purpose of submitting the Author Accepted Manuscript to PubMed Central are not allowable costs. Compliance with the Policy does not require the payment of an open access fee to a journal.
Other Unallowable Costs
In addition to not allowing the payment of fees to submit Author Accepted Manuscripts to PubMed Central, examples of other unallowable costs are listed below in the context of the corresponding rules that can be found in the NIH GPS. This list may be updated as needed.
For more information, read the entire notice here.
NCURA Proposal Milestones Planning Chart
NCURA released this YouTube video describing a Proposal Milestones Planning Chart, which could be a great preliminary planning tool to help you prepare before beginning a grant proposal. Sponsored Programs (SP) prepares a similar document, which we call a Writing Outline, when you contact us to initiate the submission of a new proposal. We build in key dates for drafts, final documents, reviews, signatures, and more in a Writing Outline. Both of these tools are valuable for you as the project director/principal investigator and for SP to keep on track and keep note of all important submission elements.
Reminder: Use of Simplified Peer Review Framework and FORMS-I Now Required
As of January 25, 2025, applications submitted in response to most notices of funding opportunities (NOFOs) for research project grant mechanisms will be evaluated using the simplified peer review framework (SRF), described in an October blog post. It’s also important to ensure that you are using the FORMS-I package because applications using the wrong FORMS application package will be administratively withdrawn prior to peer review.
There is a wealth of resources available outlining the changes associated with SRF and the FORMS-I application package. For a one-stop website for applicants, you can bookmark Applicant Guidance for Simplifying the Review Framework for Most Research Project Grants, which outlines all of the changes and provides tips for submitting your next application.
While implementation of the SRF does not directly change the format of applications submitted to impacted NOFOs, it's a good idea to be aware of these changes in how reviewers will be instructed to assess and review applications, so your application can be focused and structured with this in mind.
For more information
How to Become a Grant Reviewer for the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
Are you an expert in certain subjects related to health care? If so, you may be able to help HRSA review grant applications.
What’s a grant application reviewer?
Professionals who use their health care knowledge and experience to evaluate grant applications. Their feedback is part of HRSA's process in deciding who receives grant awards.
What would you expect of grant reviewers?
How can I become a grant reviewer?
If you work or have experience in health care, register via the Reviewer Recruitment Module (RRM).
HRSA looks for people who are experts in these areas:
HRSA also wants reviewers who have:
How does someone with a disability apply or take part?
If you need a reasonable accommodation to apply to become a reviewer or to take part on a review panel, email the HRSA Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator or call 301-443-5636.
How do you choose reviewers?
HRSA considers your knowledge, education, and experience, and criteria in their Notices of Funding Opportunity (NOFOs).
Do you pay grant application reviewers?
HRSA compensates nonfederal reviewers.
Where can I learn more?
Watch HRSA's latest quarterly training webinar, Module 29 - Quarterly Reviewer Training.
How Does NIH Determine Early Stage Investigator Eligibility?
NIH defines an Early Stage Investigator (ESI) as a Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) who has completed their terminal research degree or end of post-graduate clinical training, whichever date is later, within the past 10 years and who has not previously competed successfully as PD/PI for a substantial NIH independent research award.
ESI eligibility is calculated in the eRA Commons system, using information provided by the investigator in their eRA Commons Personal Profile. Learn more about how eligibility is determined on the ESI status page.
When a Modular Budget is Right for You
When it comes to developing a budget request for your grant application, you may have two routes from which to choose: detailed or modular. Often the choice is made for you based on your application’s activity code, though in certain situations the specific budget you request will determine whether you will apply using a modular budget.
When Modular is a Must
You must use the PHS 398 Modular Budget Form in your application if all the following apply:
How do I access the modular budget form?
You can access the PHS 398 Modular Budget Form PDF as part of the SF 424 R&R application package. If you mistakenly use the R&R Budget Form—which is for applications requesting more than $250,000 in direct costs—you will need to correct the error before your application can pass electronic validations.
Will reviewers know how I plan to spend my budget?
The modular budget form includes prompts to attach a Personnel Justification, Consortium Justification, and Additional Narrative Justification, which in combination serve to justify your budget to peer reviewers. In these attachments, you’ll describe how you plan to spend the requested budget without being tasked to itemize costs in detail.
Take Note: A Word of Advice
Whether going the modular route or not (the majority of R01 budgets are now non-modular), make sure you request a budget that accurately reflects what your proposed project will truly cost. Reviewers will not respond well when faced with a budget that is clearly inflated or insufficient for the proposed work. Learn more about why it’s essential your budget is On the Mark.
Researchers new to NIH funding sometimes assume that the cut-off point for using the modular budget form, a budget request of $250,000 in annual direct costs, represents either the average R01 award or the budget amount most likely to satisfy peer reviewers. But it is neither of those things. Again, our advice is that you request a budget sufficient to make your proposed project successful; if that amount is at or less than $250,000 in annual direct costs, then you will use the modular budget form.
To find additional information on modular budgets, check the following resources.
NIAID
NIH
What Should a Researcher Know if Their Animal Study May Involve Another Institution?
The short answer: collaborations can offer significant benefits for scientific discovery. However, there are a number of components to be considered and documentation that may be required prior to establishing a collaboration when research involves animal activity. You should work closely with your institution’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) and grants administration to ensure that all requirements are met.
The NIH Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare recently refreshed and expanded a Frequently Asked Question centered around a recipient institution’s responsibilities when collaborating with another entity on animal research. The recipient must fulfill the animal welfare obligations of an award and include these obligations in agreements with collaborating institutions. The updated FAQ also clarifies responsibilities for IACUCs, necessary parts of a written agreement, and the purpose of Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs). Additional helpful resources are also provided.
Check Out RGSI's Online Portal
The Division of Research, Grants & Scholarly Innovations (RGSI) consists of an administrative core and 3 departments: Sponsored Programs (SP), Research Support (RS), and A.T. Still Research Institute (ATSRI). RGSI is dedicated to nurturing a strong and supportive environment for research and scholarly activity at ATSU.