 |
|
Scope and Priorities |
 |
Purpose
The National Library of Medicine (NLM) awards small grants, for up to three years, to provide short-term assistance for the preparation of book-length manuscripts about information of value to U.S. health professionals
Research Objectives
Grants are awarded for major critical reviews, historical studies, and current developments in informatics, technology, librarianship, and secondary reference materials in the biomedical field. Publication in media other than traditional hardcopy (e.g., electronic, film, etc.) are encouraged, as are new and innovative ways of organizing and presenting information. Publication grants do not support journals or other serials and are not suitable for operation of established databases. Work judged to have significant commercial viability will not be supported by these grants.
Types of projects supported include:
- Analytic and comprehensive critical reviews which identify the present status of research and practice in various health fields, advances which have been made, problems requiring examination, and emerging trends for future development. Emphasis is placed on projects that will contribute to the improvement of health care delivery.
- Scholarly works in the history of medicine and the life sciences, the history of the development of medical research and health services, and historical studies on the interrelationship of medicine and society.
- Publications about health sciences informatics, health sciences librarianship, biomedical communications, and health information science.
- Selected secondary literature tools in the health sciences, such as biomedical guides, atlases, handbooks, abstracts, dictionaries, indices, catalogs, directories, manuals, and other reference sources.
- English-language translations of important current, foreign biomedical monographs, and foreign-language classics in the history of medicine.
Support for the editing and preparation for publication of scientifically significant and important symposia or conferences related to U.S. priority health care needs.
The Publication Grant Program does not support textbooks, the production of curriculum materials, the initial reporting of original biomedical scientific research findings, dissertations, clinical coding system development, proceedings of annual meetings, projects highly likely to have substantial commercial sales ("best-seller" type publications ), or projects of local interest only. The program does not provide support for the free distribution of publications resulting from grants. Awards are subject to the Department of Health and Human Services policies and regulations for research grants, including those regarding grant-related income and grant-related publications, as set forth in the DHHS PHS Grants Policy Statement (OASH) 94-50,000, April 1, 1994, and its revisions. The policy statement is available at institutional sponsored programs offices or from NLM staff.
|
|
|
Eligibility |
|
Eligible Institutions
Grants may be made to public or private, non-profit institutions on behalf of a Principal Investigator
Individuals Eligible to Become Principal Investigators
Grants may also be made to unaffiliated individuals. Non-U.S. citizens may apply for these grants, however, priority is given to U.S. citizens. Funds are used to support salaries, consultant fees, equipment and supplies, travel, and other justified costs. |
|
|
Mechanism |
|
The publication grant uses the NIH G13 award mechanism. As an applicant, you will be solely responsible for planning, directing and executing the proposed project. Applicants may request up to $50,000 direct annual costs and a maximum duration of three years of support. Indirect costs are provided in accordance with negotiated or standard Federal rates for unaffiliated investigators. The average grant award is for one or two years, and publication is usually through an academic press, professional scientific society website, etc.
Publication Grant applications use the traditional, standard budget format rather than the new modular budget format. |
|
|
Review Criteria |
|
The goals of NIH-supported research are to advance our understanding of biological systems, improve the control of disease, and enhance health. In the written comments, reviewers will be asked to discuss the following aspects of your application in order to judge the likelihood that the proposed research will have a substantial impact on the pursuit of these goals:
- Significance
- Approach
- Innovation
- Investigator
- Environment
The scientific review group will address and consider each of these criteria in assigning your application's overall score, weighting them as appropriate for each application. Your application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact and thus deserve a high priority score. For example, you may propose to carry out important work that by its nature is not innovative but is essential to move a field forward.
(1) Significance: Does your study address an important problem? If the aims of your application are achieved, how do they advance scientific knowledge? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts or methods that drive this field?
(2) Approach: Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Do you acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?
(3) Innovation: Does your project employ novel concepts, approaches or methods? Are the aims original and innovative? Does your project challenge existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or technologies?
(4) Investigator: Are you appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to your experience level as the principal investigator and to that of other researchers (if any)?
(5) Environment: Does the scientific environment in which your work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed experiments take advantage of unique features of the scientific environment or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support?
ADDITIONAL REVIEW CRITERIA
In addition to the above criteria, your application will also be reviewed with respect to the following:
Protections: The adequacy of the proposed protection for humans, animals, or the environment, to the extent they may be adversely affected by the project proposed in the application.
Inclusion: The adequacy of plans to include subjects from both genders, all racial and ethnic groups (and subgroups), and children as appropriate for the scientific goals of the research. Plans for the recruitment and retention of subjects will also be evaluated.
Data Sharing: The adequacy of the proposed plan to share data.
Budget: The reasonableness of the proposed budget and the requested period of support in relation to the proposed research.
OTHER REVIEW CRITERIA
Critical review elements for publication grants include the following:
- Is there persuasive evidence of the importance, need, and usefulness of the proposed publication? Are there similar works? How does this publication relate to them?
- Is the intended audience appropriate for the proposed publication? Will the proposed publication make a significant contribution to this audience?
- Are the required scientific or technical expertise and information resources needed for the publication delineated and available? Are letters of agreement by co-developers, translators, consultants provided?
- Are the methodology, work plan, and associated costs, reasonable and achievable?
- Is the medium selected appropriate for the objectives of the publication, including accessibility and currency?
- Is previous writing or development of the proposed publication of sufficiently high quality?
- Given its purposes and audience, will the proposed publication be organized appropriately (linear, user-determined, branched, etc.)?
- If maintenance of the published work beyond the grant period is required, as would be needed for a website, what provisions have been made to ensure its maintenance and currency? Is documentation (agreements, memoranda of understanding, etc.) of such arrangements adequate?
- Is the privacy policy (and other "code of conduct" elements, if necessary) to be followed and posted on the website clear and adequate?
The following review elements are considered important, but not critical:
- Is there evidence that the proposed work would be considered for publication by a university press, professional society, or other publisher such as an Internet WWW host or server provider, media distribution system?
- Are there letters of support from relevant sources such as target audience members, peers, or notable experts?
NLM recommends that all hardcopy sponsored by this program be published on acid-free permanent paper as set forth by the American National Standards Institute - Permanence of Paper for Publications and Documents in Libraries and Archives (ANSI/NISO Z39.48- 1992).
|
|
|
Application Deadlines |
|
NLM accepts applications for publication grants on the standard NIH deadlines: February 1, June 1, and October 1, as listed at application receipt, review, and award cycles . The full review process, from receipt of an application to the final award decision, can take 9-12 months |
|
|
Application & Process |
|
Applicants must use grant application form PHS 398 (05/01) . Take care to obtain all the parts of the PHS 398 form. Applicants who use the 'fillable' PDF form can print, but not save, their completed proposals. Those who wish to save a copy should download the RTF version of the forms and open them with a preferred word processing program.
Sending an Application to the NIH: Submit a signed, typewritten original of the application, including the checklist, and five signed photocopies in one package to:
Center for Scientific Review
National Institutes of Health
6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1040, MSC 7710
Bethesda, MD 20892-7710
Bethesda, MD 20817 (for express/courier service)
See also the special instructions for completing NLM Publication Grant applications. |
|
|
Review Considerations |
|
Upon receipt, applications will be reviewed for completeness by the NIH Center for Scientific Review, and for responsiveness by NLM. Improperly formatted or incomplete applications will be returned to the applicant without further consideration. The Center for Scientific Review will not accept any application that is essentially the same as one already submitted. This does not preclude the submission of substantial revisions of applications already reviewed, but such applications must include an introduction addressing the previous critique. Panels of expert consultants review accepted applications for scientific and technical merit according to the critical review elements and make recommendations to the NLM Board of Regents . The Board provides a secondary review for program goals and policy considerations. The Director of NLM makes the final awarding decisions. Total review process takes approximately nine months, and applications recommended for support compete for available grant funds. |
|
|
Contact Information |
|
We encourage your inquiries concerning this program and welcome the opportunity answer questions from potential applicants.
Potential applicants are encouraged to discuss potential projects early with Program staff. Direct questions about scientific/research issues to:
Valerie Florance, PhD
Extramural Programs
National Library of Medicine
Rockledge 1, Suite 301
6705 Rockledge Drive MSC 7968
Bethesda, MD 20892
Telephone: (301) 594-4882
FAX: (301) 402-2952
Email: floranv@mail.nih.gov |
|
