Any one else getting the sense that grant reviewers are reading less and less of what you write? Just got two summary statements listing a bunch of problems as not addressed when they had whole subsections devoted
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
More like success rates are going to be impacted and yes probably the ability of reviewers to fulfil their duties to the best of their abilities. I can only imagine what utter chaos is engulfing all NIH grant-related processes right now. If there was ever a time to stand up for science, this is it.
My takeaway is that I write my grants knowing the attention span of a good-faith but overworked reviewer is very small. It doesn’t help to say “I addressed that” when it was in the middle of a dense section on detail. The truly important pieces need to be amply flagged and strategically repeated.
For example "they didn't describe plans to benchmark" when aim 1.x and 2.x are labeled "benchmarking" followed by a long paragraph of benchmarking plans
Fair. I said “good faith” reviewer. Not sure what to do about careless reviewers. I know it would be demeaning to good faith reviewers if you write as if the reader is a careless reviewer.
Another lesson I learned is: spend more time explaining and motivating. Cut content if necessary.
It's a fair point. I think partially you are saying that the outcome of review is ultimately determined by the writer and I agree with that. The way our communication is interpreted is the meaning, regardless of our intended meaning
This is the kind of thing which needs to be addressed systematically. What are our reasonable expectations of grant reviewers? Have they complied with those expectations? If not, what recourse do we have and how should we seek accountability from them?
Thank you. Accountability would require a change in rules. As far as I can tell if you complain and prove they didn't read it, it just gets reviewed again. No benefit to the writer, and no consequence to the reader
At least you get your grant reviewed more fairly than before but, yes, it's on your shoulders to do the work to achieve that. And that's not fair at all. I'm sorry you've had this experience. This is a case where public peer review would deter such poor conduct. Anonymity is a shield to hide behind.
Comments
Another lesson I learned is: spend more time explaining and motivating. Cut content if necessary.