NIH released a notice, NOT-OD-17-042, that is of interest to our research community.The notice "serves to consolidate NIH policy on continuous submission that was provided in earlier Notices. The policy has not changed."
Do you remember walking into the person’s office down the hall from you when you needed to ask a question, instead of “popping” them an email, instant message, or text? There’s no disputing that the digital age definitely has its advantages – making information sharing faster, cheaper, and more convenient, and allowing us to communicate locally and abroad in seconds. But in this fast paced world of instant communication – the internet, email, and all of our social media choices – sometimes we forget how valuable face-to-face interactions can be.
If you have ever tried to add a person to your research team or project in GMAS only to find they are not listed, the reason could be how they were set up in the Identity Management System (IDM/MIDAS). The IDM system is used by HR to assign HUIDs and manage Harvard’s personnel identity data, such as job information and status, as well as start and end dates for positions.
It can take up to three days for GMAS to receive new appointment records (a new person or a new position), however sometimes we find that even after 3 days we still do not see the person listed
“My first submission got an overall impact score of 30. Is that good enough? What’s the likelihood I’ll eventually get this funded?”, or, “My first submission was not even discussed. Now what? Does anyone with an undiscussed grant bother to resubmit? And what’s the likelihood I’ll eventually get this funded?”
In a past blog we provided some general advice and data to help you consider these types of questions, and obviously the answers depend on specifics — but even so