Sentences with phrase «score funding applications»

The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced last week it is investigating violations of confidentiality rules designed to protect the integrity of its peer reviews that score funding applications.

Not exact matches

The applications were scored on 12 benchmarks, the agency said, with funding awarded in the exact order of the applicant's total score.

Applications are scored by council members and the relevant bureaucrats, and the top projects are funded.

Your application is reviewed for scientific merit and scored by a study section at the Center for Scientific Review; it is then evaluated for funding by whatever institute is chosen to consider it.

But when Ginther's team included both scored and nonscored proposals, they found stark differences: While 29 % of applications from whites were funded, only 25 % of Asian applications were and only 16 % of those from black scientists (see table).

Among those that are scored, relative merit score, budgets and NIH institute priorities, which vary by year and by institute, determine which applications are funded.

An institute committee will make the ultimate funding decision, based on budgets, the scores your application got from the study - section reviewers, and the institute's scientific priorities.

If you put in an application and your peers gave you a high score for scientific merit, it was entitled to funding.

After your application has been reviewed and given a score, it is handed over to the program director from the institute interested in funding this round of applications.

Regardless of the impact / priority score, applications with unacceptable plans will not be funded until the applicant provides an acceptable, revised plan.

For each of these 2 categories, median priority scores were significantly less favorable and lower percentages of applications were funded than for nonclinical applications (P <.02).

This recommendation was rooted in an earlier observation by Williams et al, 19 based on both priority scores and funding rates, that clinical grant applications do not fare as well in the review process when evaluated by study sections reviewing relatively few clinical applications.

Considering all applications together, as well as each type of application, median priority scores were less favorable and the percentages of applications funded were lower for applications with human subject concerns than for those without concerns (Table 4).

In addition, when making funding decisions about grant applications, NIH institutes may not rely exclusively on priority scores.

Although applications with human subject concerns received poor priority scores, this did not account totally for the overall less favorable reviews and funding percentages of clinical applications.

However, median priority scores (254.0 vs 244.0) and funding rates (23.9 % vs 28.1 %) were less favorable (P <.001) for R01 applications for clinical research (n = 7227 applications) than for nonclinical research (n = 10 209).

In each of the 4 density groupings, median priority scores and funding rates were less favorable for clinical than for nonclinical applications (P <.05 for each).

During 2 funding cycles in 2002, applications involving human subjects tended to have less favorable median priority scores and less funding success than applications not involving human subjects.

Considering all applications together, median priority scores were more favorable for MD applicants (P <.001) and a higher percentage of MD applications was funded (P <.001) than for non-MD applications.

However, even among R01 applications with no human subject concerns, median priority scores were less favorable (P =.003) and a smaller percentage were funded (P <.001) than R01 applications not involving human subjects.

States that have secured Race to the Top funding have, as part of their application, agreed to tie a portion of their teacher evaluation process to test scores.

New York State first passed a law tying teacher evaluations to test scores in 2010, as part of its application for federal Race to the Top funds.

However, there were concerns about «tension» between formal application assessors, DfE regional offices and representatives from the Teaching Schools Council due to a lack of clarity about who had the «final word» on scoring an application for funding.

The application will ask about your available retirement funds, credit score and whether you're looking to start a new business or purchase an existing one.

At the time of this writing, preliminary applications submitted using a borrower profile with a credit score of 730 + for $ 25,000 in funding received quotes that started at 8.12 % (not including origination fee) with Avant and 26.19 % (including an origination fee of 6 %) with LendingPoint.

While the VA does not require a minimum credit score before you can recieve a VA home loan, private funder / investors will still require you to have an acceptable credit record before they approve your loan application.

Ø IMPORTANT NOTE: Review the Funded Internship Application Scoring Rubric (attached) for insight into what will be evaluated in your applicationApplication Scoring Rubric (attached) for insight into what will be evaluated in your applicationapplication materials.

Although the vast majority of lenders shy away from — or absolutely rule out — applications with FICO scores below 620 or 640, applicants with scores that are sometimes 100 points below are being approved and funded.