Communication Error Occurred.
To include a comma in your tag, surround the tag with double quotes. Please enable cookies in your browser to get the full Trove experience. Skip to content Skip to search. Harris, Philip R. Published Amherst, Mass. Language English.
Author Harris, Philip R. Philip Robert , Published Amherst, Mass. Physical Description viii, p. Subjects Personel management -- Problems, exercises, etc. Work environment -- Evaluation -- Problems, exercises, etc. Personnel management -- Problems, exercises, etc. Community Reviews. Showing Rating details. All Languages. More filters.
Sort order. Iranica added it Aug 13, There are no discussion topics on this book yet. About Philip Robert Harris. Philip Robert Harris. Books by Philip Robert Harris. Trivia About Twenty Reproducib No trivia or quizzes yet. Welcome back. NIH will not accept similar grant applications with essentially the same research focus from the same applicant organization. This includes derivative or multiple applications that propose to develop a single product, process, or service that, with non-substantive modifications, can be applied to a variety of purposes. The NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time.
This means that the NIH will not accept:. A Federal laboratory, as defined in 15 U. See your administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution. Conformance to the requirements in the Application Guide is required and strictly enforced.
- To View More....
- Assessing data availability and research reproducibility in hydrology and water resources.
- Epub Twenty Reproducible Assessment Instruments For The New Work Culture ;
- Whisky Words?
Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review. Limited items are allowed in the Appendix of other small business applications. See Part 1. Section III. Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates and time. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the due date to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission.
When a submission date falls on a weekend or Federal holiday , the application deadline is automatically extended to the next business day. Organizations must submit applications to Grants. Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons , NIH's electronic system for grants administration.
20 reproducible assessment instruments for the new work culture
NIH and Grants. Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the due date in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission. This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review. Paper applications will not be accepted. Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Eligibility Information contains information about registration. For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit Applying Electronically.
If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on-time, you must follow the Guidelines for Applicants Experiencing System Issues. See more tips for avoiding common errors. Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with application instructions by the Center for Scientific Review, NIH.
Applications that are incomplete or non-compliant will not be reviewed. Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in the policy. Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. As part of the NIH mission , all applications submitted to the NIH in support of biomedical and behavioral research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field s involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria as applicable for the project proposed. Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each.
An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact.
For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field. Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is there a strong scientific premise for the project? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
Does the proposed project have commercial potential to lead to a marketable product, process or service? If Early Stage Investigators or those in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field s? Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions?
Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed? Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project?ositough.henkel.buildingonline.com/talk-to-the-teacher-get-what-your-child.php
VTLS Chameleon iPortal Communication Error Occurred.
Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? For a Phase I application, are there clear, appropriate, measurable goals milestones that should be achieved prior to initiating Phase II?
Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects? Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangement?
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact score, but will not give separate scores for these items. For Phase II Applications, how well did the applicant demonstrate progress toward meeting the Phase I objectives, demonstrating feasibility, and providing a solid foundation for the proposed Phase II activity? Does the Phase I application specify clear, appropriate, measurable goals milestones that should be achieved prior to initiating Phase II?
For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1 risk to subjects, 2 adequacy of protection against risks, 3 potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4 importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5 data and safety monitoring for clinical trials. For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1 the justification for the exemption, 2 human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3 sources of materials.
For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Human Subjects. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Inclusion in Clinical Research. The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following criteria: 1 description of proposed procedures involving animals, including species, strains, ages, sex, and total number to be used; 2 justifications for the use of animals versus alternative models and for the appropriateness of the species proposed; 3 interventions to minimize discomfort, distress, pain and injury; and 4 justification for euthanasia method if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals.
- Strands of Sunlight.
- Optical Properties of Metals and Intermolecular Interactions / Opticheskie Svoistva Metallov / Mezhmolekulyarnoe Vzaimodeistvie / Оптические Свойства Металлов / Межмолекулярное Взаимодействие!
- Twenty Reproducible Assessment Instruments for the New Work Culture!
- Revolution in a Chinese Village: Ten Mile Inn: Volume 6 (International Library of Sociology)!
Reviewers will assess the use of chimpanzees as they would any other application proposing the use of vertebrate animals. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.
Find a copy in the library
For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project. For Revisions, the committee will consider the appropriateness of the proposed expansion of the scope of the project. If the Revision application relates to a specific line of investigation presented in the original application that was not recommended for approval by the committee, then the committee will consider whether the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group are adequate and whether substantial changes are clearly evident.