kdevarakonda.bsky.social
Scientific writer/editor | Neuroscientist | 👩🏽🌾 🧶 🦅 | Work with me: www.kavyadevarakonda.com
101 posts
580 followers
834 following
Prolific Poster
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
I also noticed that a grant (written by a client residing in Australia) was set to a paper size that wasn't 8.5" x 11", so if you're using a non-U.S. software you might want to check that too!
comment in response to
post
And the funding announcement for diversity supplements now has been updated to expire today. Supplements are so important to the careers of junior scientists. This is crushing for post docs and early career faculty
grants.nih.gov/grants/guide...
comment in response to
post
Currently, only until Feb 1 per CNN www.cnn.com/2025/01/21/h... and science magazine www.science.org/content/arti...
comment in response to
post
🤞
comment in response to
post
This! That was such a devastating loss
comment in response to
post
I don't know, our third stringers beating the Giants and Cowboys was kind of fun!
comment in response to
post
The scores did show substantial variability.
In my experience, there are a few proposals per study section that really stand out but there is a large group where the merit is similar depending on one's taste and the notion that scores (including below/above paylines) are robust is nonsense.
2/n
comment in response to
post
Yes, I am sure it did.
Grant reviews and scores are quite stochastic, depending on who the primary reviewers are and other factors.
NIH has never intentionally double reviewed applications but there are quite a few examples where sets of applications were reviewed twice.
1/n
comment in response to
post
Ah, but splitting this project's aims into 4 makes each aim simpler rather than a Franken-Aim 1 that combines two different ideas
comment in response to
post
In theory! But that doesn't stop reviewers from having opinions, lol