Institutional Mock Review of Grants (MoRe) Program

Approximately 17-18 weeks prior to the NIH standard due dates

Research Development posts a Call for Participants to Penn State InfoReady and broadly distributes the announcement to College of Medicine faculty members via email. PIs must declare their intent to participate in the MoRe Program by submitting the requested documents through the Penn State InfoReady site no later than the advertised deadline. Research Development treats all PI submissions as confidential and proprietary. Requested documents include:

• Current Biosketch – The biosketch must be prepared using the funding sponsor’s required format. The biosketch should also be tailored to the funding opportunity in question.
• Specific Aims Page
• Career Development Awards – PIs are highly encouraged to include a one-page summary of their training plan.
• Resubmission Applications – PIs working on a resubmission application will be expected to submit an Introduction (if required by the funding sponsor) along with the Specific Aims and Summary Statement from the initial submission.

Approximately 12-13 weeks prior to the NIH standard due dates

Ad Hoc Review Assignment – Research Development recruits knowledgeable and generous Penn State faculty to serve as primary, secondary, and tertiary reviewers for each proposal. Effort is made to include early career faculty in the review process as optional fourth reviewers.

Approximately 8-9 weeks prior to the NIH standard due dates

Virtual Review Session – The review session is administered by a session Chair and Scientific Review Officer (SRO). Each proposal is assigned to a 30-minute time slot. Participating PIs and reviewers are welcome to attend the full session proceedings but are only required to be present as their proposal is discussed. We encourage PIs to invite their mentors and/or key co-investigators to their review. All proceedings are treated as confidential.

Each PI’s allotted 30-minute time slot consists of the following components:

1. Primary Reviewer (5-min) – The content expert summarizes the general objectives and scientific premises of the study, highlights strengths and weaknesses and provides an impression of the overall impact. The reviewer is also encouraged to provide comments on the applicant’s biosketch and resubmission strategy (if applicable).
2. Secondary and Tertiary Reviewers (5-10 min) – Content and near-content experts share additional strengths and weaknesses.
3. Fourth Reviewers (2-3 min) – Early career reviewers provide additional comments and suggestions.
4. Discussion (10-min) – The floor is open for discussion to identify potential pitfalls in the research strategy, improve scientific inquiry and/or refine the specific aims and hypotheses. During this time, the PI can respond to any questions or ask questions of the reviewers.
5. Summary (2-3 min) – The Chair summarizes the discussion and recommendations.

PIs receive a recording of their segment along with any written reviews (if applicable) within 3 to 5 days of the review session.

At the discretion of the Principal Investigator (PI)

During the review session, the investigator may have been advised to revise or reconfigure their specific aims and/or study design based on concerns regarding scientific premise, logical design, low potential impact, interdependent aims, low feasibility, or over-ambitious goals. PIs can decide to continue or delay their submission. The MoRe Program is strictly advisory. The decision to submit or delay is solely that of the PI in consultation with mentors and/or collaborators. PIs who decide to continue with their submission are encouraged to reach out to MoRe reviewers and/or other panelists if they desire additional feedback as they develop their full proposal. When possible and as appropriate, subsequent revisions to the Specific Aims and/or additional components may be reviewed to improve the external grant submission.