The BIOE proposal and fellowship library provides recent competitive proposal and fellowship applications submitted to federal and non-federal sources. These examples are valuable resources to assist faculty and trainees in preparing their own submissions. The library is hosted on BIOE's secure Box site for trainees and Google Drive for faculty and is updated at the beginning of each calendar year. Authorized trainees can login here to access the trainee library. All BIOE faculty automatically have access to the departmental Google drive. The BIOE updates the access list each semester.
BIOE provides funds for professional editors and graphic designers to support manuscripts and proposals. For more information contact Bill Churma (churma@umd.edu).
Pilot grants provide support to grow the research of BIOE faculty members. Preference is given to applicants with limited external funding and applicants who recently submitted an external proposal that was competitively-scored but unfunded. For more information contact Bill Churma (churma@umd.edu).
The peer review program provides a structured system for feedback on external grant proposals. Each year, a request for proposal reviewers will be sent to BIOE faculty to solicit volunteers to serve for a one-year term. Faculty interested in having a proposal peer-reviewed through this program must e-mail the following information to bioe-proposal-prog@umd.edu at least two weeks before the ORA proposal submission deadline:
- Proposal title and link to RFA/program
- Copy of proposal or proposal section (e.g., Specific Aims page) to be reviewed
- ORA proposal submission deadline.
Within 48 hours of submission, the proposal will be assigned to a volunteer BIOE reviewer. Within one week of assignment, the reviewer will e-mail the proposal feedback directly to the proposal author, copying (CC) bioe-proposal-prog@umd.edu. Faculty requesting peer review must commit to submitting the proposal, and completing a survey on the review program.
Volunteer reviewers who complete at least four proposal reviews during the one-year term will be eligible for an incentive on a case-by-case basis determined by the Chair of the department. In the future, an analogous program may be made available to trainees for review of fellowship/transition proposals.
BIOE has retained two experienced grant consultants who previously served as NIH Program Directors in the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB). Faculty interested in working with the consultants should contact Bill Churman (churma@umd.edu) in the BIOE Administrative Office. Two ways to initiate interactions are:
- Critique of a specific aims page: E-mail the draft aims page and the related FOA # to one of the consultants. The contacted consultant will respond with written comments and follow-up with a phone call.
- Development of proposal idea/research alignment: E-mail one of the consultants a few bullets outlining the approach for one or several projects, and identify the intended FOA(s) or program(s) and NIH Institute(s). The consultant(s) will help identify the most viable submission and some potential organizational strategy for the suite of ideas. Further follow-up could be the development of a specific aims page(s) as above.
After either interaction mode (or other styles), the consultants are also available to read the resulting full proposal and provide written critiques or suggestions. They are additionally available to review summary statements and discuss resubmission strategies.
Proposal Writing in Real-time will be held several times each year. These workshops are conducted 4-6 weeks prior to major, broad-interest external grant and fellowship deadlines, including: NIH R01s, NSF CAREER Awards, and NIH F31/32 Fellowships. In each case, BIOE faculty or trainees will receive an e-mail notice announcing the proposal type that a specific workshop will focus on, along with instructions for registration.
One week prior to the workshop, each registered participant will submit a draft of their grant/fellowship (a specific section or full proposals, depending on the workshop). Likewise, they will receive draft(s) of the same type from another workshop participant. By the day and time of the workshop, each participant will review the proposal(s) assigned to them, keeping in mind the specific review criteria of the program and proposal type.
During the workshop, participants will discuss feedback on their proposal, and on proposals they reviewed. This peer review will include discussion of reviews carried out prior to the workshop, and additional reviews carried out during the workshop (e.g., of specific aims pages). Time for brainstorming and writing will also be included in the workshop.
Additionally, past recipients of the target grant/fellowship will be in attendance to provide advice, brainstorming, and review of key proposal sections. Workshops on “Long term proposal planning” and for Trainees will also be offered as the program moves forward. Two different sample itineraries are provided below, but specific schedules and times will be adjusted depending on the workshop focus and number of participants. Two to three workshops are planned for Year 1.
Paired Discussion Proposal Review
During the paired review sessions below, faculty who read each other’s specific aims pages or full proposal will take turns discussing their feedback for each other.
9:00—9:30 a.m. |
Overview of proposal opportunity and tips by past recipients |
9:30—9:50 a.m. |
Specific Aims Review, Pair #1 |
9:50—10:10 a.m. |
Specific Aims Review, Pair #2 |
10:10—10:50 a.m. |
Full Proposal Review, Pair #3 |
10:50—11:30 a.m. |
Brainstorming and writing |
11:30 a.m.—12:15 p.m. |
Panel discussion by past recipients: Successful and unsuccessful strategies, review of example summary statements |
12:15—1:00 p.m. |
Lunch and further group discussion |
Round Table Proposal Review / Mock Review Panel
For this format, everyone will read the specific aims pages from all other participants in advance of the workshop. Each person will additionally be assigned to read one full proposal from another participant. During the round table discussion, each participant’s proposal will be collectively discussed for ~20 minutes by all members of the group. During this discussion, the person whose proposal is being discussed will turn his/her back to the group, remain silent, and take notes, while the others objectively discuss the proposal, based on their reading of specific aims of full proposal. The person who read the entire proposal may provide additional context/insight/feedback throughout the discussion of that proposal. During the last five minutes of each proposal’s discussion, the person who wrote it will turn around and be able to ask questions, gain additional feedback, and/or address some of the points raised.
9:00—9:30 a.m. |
Overview of proposal opportunity and tips by past recipients |
9:30 a.m.—12:00 p.m. |
Round table discussion of proposals, ~20 minutes each (short break in the middle) |
12:00—12:45 p.m. |
Lunch and further group discussion |
12:45—1:30 p.m. |
Brainstorming and writing |
1:30—2:30 p.m. |
Panel discussion by past recipients: Successful and not successful strategies, review of example summary statements |
BIOE faculty meet in small groups on a weekly basis to review grant proposal drafts in a collegial and supportive setting. Feedback is provided in real-time within each group of up to 5 people. Each meeting lasts for one hour per week. For more information, please contact Professor Catherine K. Kuo (ckk@umd.edu).
The goal of the BIOE Writing Club is to foster a friendly and constructive environment to receive detailed feedback on drafts of science writing, including fellowship proposals, research papers, and abstracts. This club is oriented around PhD students and post-docs, and encourages participation regardless of English proficiency. The Writing Club is operated under the guidance of a BIOE faculty member, currently Dr. Katharina Maisel. Additional details are below:
When & Where: Meet every other week in a conference room in AJC hall for ~1.5 hours.
Format: 1-2 people bring a piece of writing they are currently working on (paper/grant/conference/etc.). We will take ~30-45 minutes per person to read and provide feedback on clarity, paragraph structure, rationale, etc. A volunteer scribe will simultaneously edit so you can focus on listening to feedback. The ultimate goal is to give feedback on writing clarity, so there is no need to be an expert in the field—often non-experts in our field are reading our work and they need to understand our writing.
Who: This club is geared toward PhD/masters/post-docs.
Why: Clear and effective written communication is essential to nearly all careers in science. Unfortunately, others often perceive your writing differently than you intend. Our goal for this Writing Club is to enable all members to think critically about their own writing and develop new strategies for clear, effective communication. We offer fruit/cookies/coffee/etc.
How long: We ask for a 1-2 semester commitment.