| Below is a list of Frequently Asked Questions about the Grant Application Process.
Q: What is the review process for the submitted applications?
A: Following receipt of the applications, the SEC Chair assigns all applications to the reviewers, based on the reviewers expertise and interest. All applications are reviewed based on specific criteria:
Each application is scored by the reviewers, and the scores are tabulated by the SEC Chair. Along with numerical scores, reviewers also provide to the SEC Chair written comments about the applications, based on the review criteria. These comments are then circulated to all of the members of the Scientific Evaluation Committee for further evaluation and discussion, if necessary.
Following this first round of reviews and scoring, the committee members select those applications that attain the greatest priority for funding based on the review criteria. Each of these applications is then assigned to committee members with particular expertise in the application's topic for a secondary review. The second round of reviews, commentary and scoring takes place at the full committee meeting during the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Anesthesiologists. The finalist applications are presented to the entire committee, when the applications are scored and ranked. The top-ranking applications are then selected for funding, and are announced to the public at the APSF's Board of Directors Meeting on the Saturday of the ASA Annual Meeting. The reviewers comments are made available to the applicants who request them.
___________________________________________________
Q: Many organizations look for the PI to commit a certain amount of time to a project (usually 20% effort or greater). Recognizing that different research projects will require substantially different time commitments, is there a "ballpark figure" that the review committee expects to see?
A: The amount of time devoted to different projects is variable, but in most instances, 10-30% effort (research time) is appropriate.
___________________________________________________
Q: Is salary support for the principal investigator permitted in the budget?
A: The revised guidelines do allow salary support (see NIH guidelines for salary lines at the US Department of Health and Human Services website): http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/salcap_summary.htm
___________________________________________________
Q: I did not see anywhere in the grant application guidelines where it states what APSF will require from grant recipients in terms of progress/final reports and/or financial reports. Are you able to tell me what an awardee will be required to provide to the APSF in terms of those items?
A: The APSF Guidelines page refers to the "Acceptance of Conditions of Grant" form. In this form, specific requirements are listed, including the following statements:
-
"I will acknowledge the award of this APSF grant in any publication presenting work that results from this grant support.
-
I agree to submit a written progress report six months after the starting date of this project; this report will include major changes in the research plan, if any, and a summary of data collected to date.
-
I further agree to submit to APSF a written final report within two months after the end of the grant period."
___________________________________________________
Q: I am looking for the Acceptance of Conditions of the Grant Form so I can sign it and upload it to the site but have not been able to find it. The search turns up information about the form but not the actual form. Can you help?
A: The Guidelines page has a link to the "Acceptance of Conditions" form. If you click on the link, it will take you to the form that can be printed, signed and returned (uploaded along with your application) as an Adobe .pdf file.
___________________________________________________
Q: I am applying for an APSF grant and would like to send you a DVD as part of the application. Since the actual presentation cannot be uploaded because of its large size, I request your permission to send you the presentation as a DVD. Is this OK?
A: It is perfectly OK to send the Chair of the Scientific Evaluation Committee the DVD or any other material that is too large to be uploaded to the website; the Chair will then upload the DVD contents to a secure site, so that all members of the Evaluation Committee can access it for review without having to have the original DVD.
___________________________________________________
Q: Is the application limited to 10 pages, or just the research plan?
A: The instructions found on the website under "Guidelines" state under "Application Format": "III. Research Plan (limited to 10 pages, typed, double-spaced, excluding references; appendices are discouraged)." The 10-page limit refers to the Research Plan section only.
____________________________________________________
Q: Since our submitted application involves humans, do we need to submit our institutional approval to APSF before the October 1 deadline even without knowing if we are receiving an award? If so, to whom/where do we send the approval?
A: It has always been the policy of APSF to ensure that all proposals undergo evaluation by the local Investigational Review Board (IRB) before being considered for funding. This institutional review assures members of the APSF Scientific Evaluation Committee that the patients' safety was considered and assured. A statement that the proposal was reviewed (and that it is, at a minimum, in the approval process by the institutional IRB), must be received by the APSF prior to the October 1 deadline. No award will be made to any application that does not have the institutional IRB approval.
The IRB approval letter should be uploaded to the website (where the original application was submitted) as an Adobe PDF file.
____________________________________________________
Q: We are anticipating that the investigator will need to request a no-cost extension from APSF. What documentation is required? Is there a deadline for making the request? Is an institutional signature required?
A: The applicant will need to submit a written request for a no-cost extension. While there are no specific deadlines for requesting these extensions, the request should be submitted prior to the originally-scheduled study end. No institutional signatures are required, but a copy of the APSF approval extension, if granted, should be forwarded to the applicant's sponsoring institution. Please address the request letter to the Chair of the Scientific Evaluation Committee, and include the following information and supporting documentation:
-
description of any deviations from the original protocol to date, and if any future deviations are anticipated;
-
an explanation of the reasons for the extension request;
-
a description of the actions that the investigator plans to implement in order to avoid future barriers to project completion.
____________________________________________________
Q: I have a funded study, and I have some questions about the possible need to re-budget the funds:
-
What is the guideline/procedure for requesting permission to re-budget funds?
-
What dollar amount or percentage of total budget would require APSF approval?
-
To whom should the request be directed?
A: The procedure for requesting permission to re-budget funds is the same as the procedure for requesting a no-cost extension (see above). Please address all requests for re-budgeting in writing to the Chair of the Scientific Evaluation Committee. There is no absolute dollar amount, but if the re-budgeting request involves more than 25% of the total award, the proposal must be reviewed and approved by the Scientific Evaluation Committee.
____________________________________________________
If you have additional questions that are not answered above, please contact:
Sorin J. Brull, MD
Chairman, APSF Scientific Evaluation Committee
Professor of Anesthesiology
Mayo Clinic College of Medicine
Department of Anesthesiology
4500 San Pablo Road
Jacksonville, FL 32224
Email: Brull@APSF.org |
