ATTACHMENT a.2: Paper survey for editorial board reviewers
OMB# 0925-XXXX EXP. DATE: XX/XX/XXXX
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: NIH, Project Clearance Branch, 6705 Rockledge Drive, MSC 7974, Bethesda, MD 20892-7974, ATTN: PRA (0925-0476). Do not return the completed form to this address.
How well did the orientation materials for editorial board reviewers prepare you to review the applications?
How was the quality of the first stage reviews? How helpful were the reviews in assisting you to score the applications?
What materials in the application did you use and how often did you use them to help you assess the qualifications and potential of the investigators, institutional support, and the project?
Comment on the effectiveness of the subsections of the Research Strategy and whether they were helpful to your evaluation of the applicant.
What comments do you have in regards to the number of assigned applications to score?
What comments do you have in regards to the time commitment required to score the applications (e.g., read application and first stage review, assess, score, etc.)?
What comments do you have about the format of the interview – 5 minutes for investigators to give a succinct summary, 15 minutes for board to have questions and answers with investigators, and 10 minutes for board members to have a discussion?
Please comment on how successful the first stage review and editorial board review process has been in identifying strong investigators for the EIA program.
How could NIH improve the EIA first stage and editorial board review process?
What review criteria do you consider to be most important for the EIA program, and why?
How could NIH improve the EIA program?
| File Type | application/msword |
| Author | Stephen Joel Wallace |
| Last Modified By | Perryman |
| File Modified | 2012-09-10 |
| File Created | 2012-09-10 |