Skip to Main Content

Previous Tips

2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020

[December 6, 2012] My NIH application received a good score, but its funding is uncertain; what are the resubmission options? Investigators are advised to discuss summary statement issues and resubmission options with their Program Official. Possible options to consider include: if your application scores above the payline and its problems are fixable, then you can start revising right away; if substantial changes are required for the revised proposal, then it may be submitted as a new application (refer to NIH guidelines on Evaluation of Unallowable Resubmission and Overlapping Applications); and if the unsuccessful application was submitted to a Request For Application, it may be revised and submitted as ‘new’ to a different Funding Opportunity Announcement. More>>[Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 12/6/2012]

[November 8, 2012] Can videos be included in NIH grant applications? Effective January 25, 2013, the NIH will accept videos as post-submission application materials.  Video content is limited to devices and experimental data with a temporal element. Examples of acceptable and unacceptable video content, format, size and other requirements  are provided in the NIH Guide Notice (NOT-OD-12-141). A cover letter reporting the intent to provide a video must accompany the application, or the video will not be accepted. After review assignment (check eRA Commons account), the applicant will contact the Scientific Review Officer (SRO) managing the review to determine the video submission procedure. The video(s) must be received by the SRO no less than one month (30 calendar days) prior to the peer review meeting date. More>> [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 11/8/2012]

[October 25, 2012] What is required for a resubmission application? Resubmissions, like first-time submissions, are required to be accurate and current, and to fully meet sponsors' and institutional requirements.  As with brand new applications, materials prepared for resubmission must be up-to-date before a resubmission application may be reviewed and approved by the institution (details on SR-PD Application Review page). This includes the following updated materials: research plan, references, CVs/biosketches, budget and budget justification, description of resources and facilities, letters of support, new sponsors’ prior approvals if applicable, a new institutional Routing Form, compliance verification, and more. Before moving forward with a resubmission, applicants are strongly encouraged to contact  program staff for their advice. More on NIH resubmission and on NSF resubmission processes and requirements. [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 10/25/2012]

[October 25, 2012] I have received prior approval from the NIH to submit a grant application requesting >$500,000/year in direct costs but my application was not funded. Do I need to request permission again for the resubmission? Yes.  An applicant planning to submit a grant application (new, resubmission, revision, or supplement) with $500,000/year or more in direct costs must contact program staff in writing at least 6 weeks before the submission deadline. The PI must include a cover letter with the application, identifying the Program Official contacted and the Institute or Center that has agreed to accept assignment of the application. NIH policy requires that any competing application (new, continuation, revised, or supplement) requesting > $500,000 direct costs in any year must be accepted by an Institute or Center prior to assignment for review. NIH strongly encourages applicants to contact program staff even earlier if PIs intend to request a budget significantly greater than $500,000/year in direct costs. More>> [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 10/25/2012]

[October 11, 2012] May an NIH Single-PD/PI application be resubmitted as a Multi-PD/PI application? Yes, if there are no significant differences in content and scope. A Multi-PI Leadership Plan is required stating who the Contact PD/PI will be. This PD/PI change should also be described in the Introduction section of the amended application.  A change of PD/PI must also be indicated in the Checklist form of the application.  More>> [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 10/11/2012]

[October 11, 2012] Is it possible to reduce the number of PD/PIs for an NIH resubmission that was originally submitted as a Multi-PD/PI application? Yes. If peer reviewers identify major deficiencies in the original submission (A0), there is a possibility that they may recommend deletion of one or more specific aims, which may effectively eliminate a PD/PI’s effort in the resubmission (A1). This is an example of when a peer review committee may recommend removal of a PD/PI. More>> [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 10/11/2012]

[September 27, 2012] When should the NIH Program Official (PO) be contacted? The PO is usually the primary contact for scientific matters during the time period in which the Principal Investigator (PI) plans, develops and submits their funding application. The relevant PO to contact can be identified by checking the Institute/Center website or under the Contacts section of a Funding Opportunity Announcement. Prior to submission, PIs are encouraged to contact a PO to discuss potential projects.  Following the peer review and after the summary statement is  provided, the assigned Program Official will be the initial point of contact throughout the grant. In the event that an application is not funded and the PI intends to resubmit, POs would work with applicants, providing scientific advice and guidance. PIs are encouraged to maintain contact and discuss with their POs programmatic concerns and challenges throughout the application/award.  More>>  [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 09/27/2012]

[September 27, 2012] When would the NIH Grants Management Specialist (GMS) be contacted? Communication with NIH GMSs and other administrative staff is normally maintained by institutional sponsored research officials.  The NIH GMS responsibilities include, but are not limited to, evaluating applications for administrative content and compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and guidelines; negotiating grants; and providing consultation and assistance to applicants and grantees (including interpretation of grants administration policies and provisions and administering and closing out grants). More>> [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 09/27/2012]

[September 13, 2012] How should I proceed if the sponsor applies a substantial budget cut (e.g. 'substantial' NIH cut would be 25% or more) to my award (competing/non-competing)? If a substantial budget cut is applied to your award, you are advised to immediately determine whether the reduced budget would be sufficient to accomplish the original scope of your research project. If not, and a scope reduction is needed, you would need to discuss this with your sponsor’s Program Official (PO) as soon as possible. If a scope reduction is agreed upon with the PO and the aims to be eliminated are identified, the Principal Investigator (PI)  can proceed, and submit a revised scope via SR-PD, following sponsor’s requirements.
For NIH awards, PIs are urged to prepare and submit a revised abstract to reflect the reduced scope. The PI would work with their SR-PD GMS and their NIH PO to have the revised abstract replaced in all NIH records, including the RePORTER (details in NOT-OD-09-088). Eliminated aims may be submitted in a new application. More>> [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 09/13/2012]

[August 30, 2012] Is Research Support information in an NIH biosketch the same as the Other Support in an NIH/Just-In-Time (JIT) submission? No, information required in the Research Support section of the NIH biosketch is distinctly different from the Other Support information required in an NIH JIT submission; and each is used at different phases of the application cycle for different purposes.

At the submission phase, the Research Support in the biosketch of each of the key personnel on your grant application, details scientific accomplishments. The reviewers of your application use this section to assess the qualifications of each Senior/Key Personnel and Other Significant Contributors and of the project team to carry out the proposed research.  More in Instructions for Preparing an Application (Section 4.6).

At the JIT phase, the Other Support for each Senior/Key Personnel is required post-review for all applications scored 40 or better. More in NOT-OD-12-101. The details NIH requests at this stage include all active and pending research support with the associated annual direct costs and effort commitments.  This section is used to verify that your proposed new project does not overlap with other work that is already funded, and that effort commitments are compliant. More>>   [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 08/30/2012]

[August 16, 2012] What should a Rockefeller University (RU) investigator submit for SR-PD review if she/he is going to be a subgrant applicant on an application going out from another institution (RU is subgrantee)?
If an RU investigator is collaborating on an application being submitted by another institution, then RU will act as the subgrantee to that institution (i.e. the prime).  In this case, submit the following materials to SR-PD:
Completed Routing Form with original, electronic or scanned signatures from the PI and Head of Laboratory (HOL).
A link to any special program announcements as needed.
If NIH is the sponsor, submit a PHS 398 Face Page (Form Page 1) (See PHS 398 Instructions).
For other sponsors, anEndorsement to Enter into a Consortium Form which provides RU's and PI's information.  This form serves as an institutional approval of the subgrant including the budgeted amounts for direct and indirect costs and all the latest compliance assurances.  It needs to be signed by our PI before signature of RU Institutional Official is obtained.
A letter stating her/his willingness to collaborate on the proposed project.
A brief (up to one page) Statement of Work (SOW) describing the proposed research to be performed at RU.
A detailed budget for Year 1 (Form Page 4) and a budget page for all years (Form Page 5) of the requested project period; See PHS 398 Instructions (paper submissions) or SF424 Application Guide (e-Submissions).
A budget justification of all items (as per the sponsor's guidelines).
If NIH, a PHS 398 Checklist Page with the latest DHHS agreement date, compliance assurances and F&A calculations for each budget year.
Latest compliance information for human and animal subjects and/or lab safety as needed.
Biosketches for all key personnel and other significant contributors on your subproject (See PHS 398 Instructions).
A description of the resources available to support your subproject (lab, CBC, resource centers).
Any other documentation as requested by the prime institution and the sponsor.
More>>   [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 08/16/2012]

[August 16, 2012] What should a subgrantee applicant submit to the Rockefeller University (RU) if she/he is going to be an applicant on an application going out from the University (RU is Prime)?
If an investigator from another institution is collaborating on your application, then that institution, as the subgrantee to RU, needs to submit the following materials to SR-PD:
If NIH is the sponsor, submit a PHS 398 Face Page (Form Page 1) with her/his Institutional Official’s original signature (See PHS 398 Instructions).
For other sponsors, the subgrantee's Endorsement to Enter into a Consortium Form (or other aptly named document from that institution may be used for this purpose) that provides the subgrantee institution's and PI's information.  It needs to include the budget totals with the indirect costs and rate as allowed by the sponsor and a statement of compliance with all assurances.  It must be signed by the Institutional Official for that institution.
A letter stating her/his willingness to collaborate on the proposed project.
A brief (up to one page) Statement of Work (SOW) describing the collaborator’s proposed research to be performed elsewhere.
A detailed budget for Year 1 (Form Page 4) and a budget page for all years (Form Page 5) of the requested project period; See PHS 398 Instructions  (paper submissions) or SF424 Application Guide  (e-Submissions).
A budget justification of all items (as per the sponsor's guidelines).
A PHS 398 Checklist Page with her/his institution's latest rate agreement information, compliance assurances and F&A calculations for each budget year.
Latest compliance information for human and animal subjects and/or lab safety as needed.
Biosketches for all key personnel and other significant contributors on the collaborator’s subproject (See PHS 398 Instructions).
A description of the research resources available to the collaborator at her/his home institution.
Any other documentation as requested by RU and the sponsor.
More>>   [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 08/16/2012]

[August 2, 2012] What is the new NIH eRA tool LikeThis?
The LikeThis search tool enables investigators to find funded NIH projects in their research areas, and the study section that reviewed them. The tool may be accessed through an investigator’s eRA Commons account. For example, when you enter selected scientific text or abstracts in LikeThis, the tool will generate a list of related NIH awards along with the study section that reviewed each. The information entered in LikeThis is confidential, and only you can see it. More>>  [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 08/02/2012]

[August 2, 2012] When and how should investigators acknowledge sponsored research support/resources?
Any deliverables - publications, posters, abstracts, presentations, press releases, reports, other public communications - that have benefited directly or indirectly, fully or partially, from sponsored research funding support/resources (through salary, equipment, supplies, travel, etc.) should acknowledge the sources of support in compliance with sponsors’ requirements. In all instances, if more than one source supported the described work, all sources should be specified. Note that NIH requires the use of an identical statement across all funding mechanisms. See NIH and other acknowledgement templates in our Acknowledgment of Support boilerplate. Furthermore, many sponsors, such as the NIH, require institutions to include details on the grant/award that supported the project in all their press releases. [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 08/02/2012]

[July 19, 2012] What are data access requests?
Data access requests are non-monetary requests for research data stored in government or other sponsors’ databases. Such databases archive and distribute the results of studies in a centralized manner. Examples include the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) and the Wellcome Trust Case Controlled Consortium (WTCCC). Due to the need for oversight and investigator accountability for sensitive data sets involving personal health information, access to some data may be controlled. Users seeking access to controlled data must submit a data access request. If approved, applicants are granted access to the dataset for use in their study for a specified period of time. [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 07/19/2012]

[July 19, 2012] Are access requests/agreements to controlled data subject to compliance requirements? Yes, data access requests/agreements must comply with the associated institutional and sponsor’s terms and conditions, similar to regular monetary awards.  More>> [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 07/19/2012]

[July 19, 2012] What is the institutional procedure to process and support data access requests? SR-PD processes and administers the institutional review and approval of data access requests/agreements in the same manner as regular monetary grant applications/awards. Data access requests may be submitted to various sponsors who offer broad data resources and services. More>>  [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 07/19/2012]

[July 5, 2012] What is the new Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR)? The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has mandated that federal agencies implement a consistent, federal-wide research performance progress report (RPPR) for reporting on federally-funded  projects.  In order to reduce the burden on awardees – investigators and institutions - this  essentially new standardized reporting tool will replace the various agency-based reporting formats currently in use. In addition to the standard reporting cores, individual sponsors may still request agency- or program-specific reporting components to address unique  programmatic requirements. NIH anticipates allowing all grantees the option to use the RPPR for all SNAP and Fellowship progress reports in the Fall 2012, and mandating the use of the RPPR in early 2013.  NSF’s implementation target date is early 2013. [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 07/05/2012]

[July 5, 2012] How will grantees access the RPPR? Grantees will complete their RPPR electronically. Each federal sponsor will provide a link to the RPPR tool through the specific award/PI online account with them. More>>  [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 07/05/2012]

[June 21, 2012] May a Principal Investigator (PI) submit a technical report without providing a Routing Form? A sponsored funding application/technical report can be submitted only after a Routing Form is completed and signed by the Principal Investigators (PI), by his/her HOL, and, when needed, by University senior officials. The Routing Form facilitates compliance with federal, state, sponsor, and university policies. [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 6/21/2012]

[June 21, 2012] Does our Routing Form allow for use of electronic/digital signatures? The pdf version of the Routing Form allows for electronic/digital signatures for the Principal Investigator and the Head of Lab.  The Word version does not.  Both Routing Form versions are available on our site. [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 6/21/2012]

[June 21, 2012] When there is more than one RU Principal Investigator (PI) involved in a Multiple-PI  application/report, should each RU PI provide his/her own Routing Form? Yes.  Multiple-PI projects with multiple RU Principal Investigators (PIs) require a Routing Form from each RU PI on the project.  The Routing Form assists and protects investigators and their institution by enabling the systematic, streamlined and cross-departmental oversight of compliance areas such as human and animal subjects work, laboratory safety, Significant Financial Interests (SFI), and others as needed. Used to document mandatory assurances for all proposals and other activities involving sponsored support, the Routing Form also serves as a checklist of regulatory requirements for investigators and for institutional reviewers. [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 6/21/2012]
[June 7, 2012] Can I change the title of my resubmission or renewal application to NIH? Yes. A resubmission or renewal application normally has the same title as the previous application or grant. But, if the specific aims of the project have significantly evolved over time, choose a new title that accurately reflects the resubmission or renewal project. Be sure to note the title change in your cover letter. More>> [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 6/7/2012]

[June 7, 2012] Does my NIH grant renewal have to be reviewed by the same study section as the original proposal? No. A different study section can be requested in your cover letter if it is relevant to the science. However, there is no guarantee that the application will be assigned to the new review panel. More>>  [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 6/7/2012]

[May 24, 2012] Are book chapters or dissertations subject to the NIH Public Access Policy? No. The policy applies to accepted peer-reviewed manuscripts authored by the Principal Investigator and/or arose from their NIH funds (within the time frame defined by the policy). More>> [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 5/24/2012]

[May 24, 2012] Are Principal Investigators responsible for ensuring all papers that arise from their NIH-funded project are in compliance with the NIH Public Access Policy, even if the PI is not an author on the paper? Yes.  Principal Investigators (PIs) and their Institutions are responsible for ensuring all terms and conditions of awards are met. This includes the submission of final peer-reviewed manuscripts that arise directly from their awards, even if the PI is not an author or co-author of the paper.  More>> [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 5/24/2012]

[May 10, 2012] When should I utilize the Just in Time (JIT) link in the eRA Commons?
The NIH recently adjusted the eRA Commons so that the link becomes active for every application within 24 hours of release of your impact score. If your application received a score of 40 or less, you will receive an email from the Commons two weeks after release of the impact score, requesting that you submit your JIT information. You should not submit your JIT information unless specifically asked to do so through such a request. More>> [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 5/10/2012]

[May 10, 2012] What do the various characters in my NIH application/award number represent? The application identification number refers to (example from the NIAID Glossary):
Application type – Activity code – Institute – Serial no. – Suffix Year – Amendment – Supplement
1– R01 – AI – 83723 –  01 – A1 – S1
The first number indicates the type of application (e.g. “New” = Type 1; “Renewal” = Type 2;  “Non-competing continuation” = Type 5). The following three-characters indicate the activity code (i.e. funding mechanism). The NIH Institute or Center to which an application/award is assigned is represented by a two-letter organization code. Next is the unique serial number assigned by the Center for Scientific Review (CSR), which is retained by the application/award throughout its lifetime. The two-digit suffix year that follows indicates the budget period of the award.  The last two fields – Amendment and Supplement - indicate a supplement (S1), resubmission (A1), or a fellowship's institutional allowance, and are used if applicable. [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 5/10/2012]

[April 26, 2012] Should Other Support information submitted to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) include direct or indirect costs? NIH guidelines instruct investigators to provide for each grant entry in the Other Support section, the annual direct costs of the current budget period. This applies to all grants, including grants under a no-cost extension, in the following manner: the annual direct costs reported should be the annual direct costs awarded for the original 12 months of an extended final budget period.  When a grant being reported in Other Support is under a no-cost extension, SR-PD recommends to indicate its status.  Be reminded that all award terms and conditions remain in effect during a no-cost extension budget period. More >>  [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 4/26/2012]

[April 26, 2012] Should Other Support information submitted to the National Science Foundation (NSF) include direct or indirect costs? NSF guidelines instruct investigators to provide for each grant entry in the Other Support section the total costs (direct and indirect costs) for the entire (all years) award period. This applies to all grants, including those under a no-cost extension. Namely, the total costs for the entire award/project period is to be reported. When a grant being reported in Other Support is under a no-cost extension, SR-PD recommends to indicate its status.  Be reminded that all award terms and conditions remain in effect during a no-cost extension budget period. More on NSF No-Cost extensions and Award Conditions. [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 4/26/2012]

[April 12, 2012] What is Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)? Responsible conduct of research is defined by NIH and others as the practice of scientific investigation with integrity (NOT-OD-10-019). RCR involves the awareness and application of established professional norms and ethical principles in the performance of all activities related to scientific research. More>> [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 4/12/2012; previously sent 9/30/10]

[April 12, 2012] Who is required to take Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training on campus? The current institutional requirement is that all pre- and post-doctoral appointees on NIH funded NRSA programs must attend a Responsible Conduct of Research Course in the first year of their appointment (Tri-Institutional RCR Course). In addition, all first year Graduate Fellows and third year Biomedical Fellows must attend, so that they are trained in ethical considerations from the outset of their graduate education. The Dean's Office oversees the RCR training requirement on campus. More>>

The NSF requires institutions to verify that undergraduate students, graduate students, and post-doctoral researchers supported by NSF to conduct research have received training in the responsible and ethical conduct of research (RCR). More>> [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 4/12/2012; previously sent 9/30/10]

[April 12, 2012] What is the expected scope of the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training plan in your NIH application? Review the program guidelines and if required, your RCR training plan should describe how the instructional components outlined by the NIH Policy are incorporated: format, subject matter, faculty participation, duration, and frequency.  A Responsible Conduct of Research Boilerplate is available to use as a starting point for your application.  See NIH NOT-OD-10-019 for full details on the NIH’s RCR requirement. [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 4/12/2012; previously sent 9/30/10]

[March 29, 2012] What are NIH policies on submission of applications with a changed activity code? Resubmitting unfunded Requests for Application (RFA) proposals and applications with a changed grant activity code is allowed, and should comply with NOT-OD-03-019. In addition, applications must be modified appropriately to fit the application requirements of the new Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) or activity code. More>> [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 3/29/2012]

[March 15, 2012] How do I mark changes in a resubmission to NIH? Substantial scientific changes should be marked by bracketing, indenting, or italicizing or changing the font (to one of the other acceptable fonts). Please do not underline or shade the changes. If the changes are so extensive that essentially all of the text would be marked, explain this in the introduction and don’t mark the changes. More>> [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 3/15/2012]

[March 1, 2012] What information would be useful to include in cover letters for NIH applications? It would be useful to include the RFA/PA information, a request for a specific study section or Institute/Center (IC), a description of suitable expertise required to adequately review the application, and/or name of the Program Official who encouraged you to submit and/or approved a request of $500,000/year or more in direct costs. Depending on your application and specific concerns, other details may be included, such as potential peer reviewers who might have a conflict of interest with your proposed research. Cover letters are not shared with peer reviewers and only NIH referral and review staff see them. More details at Center for Scientific Review.  [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 3/1/2012]

[March 1, 2012] My R01 application has dual assignments to two NIH Institutes and is within the payline of the secondary but not the primary institute. What should I do? We advise that as soon as the information is available, to contact the program officer at the secondary institute for guidance on next steps. SR-PD can help you in this process. More>>  [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 3/1/2012]

[February 16, 2012] Does NIH allow a change on active awards from a multiple-PD/PI model to a single-PD/PI model, or from a single-PD/PI model to a multiple-PD/PI model? Yes, however a single PD/PI award may only convert to a multiple-PD/PI award if the Funding Opportunity Announcement explicitly allowed multiple-PD/PIs to be proposed at the time of the competing application. Requests for post-award changes from a multiple-PI model to a single-PI model or vice versa must be accompanied by a compelling scientific justification and other supplemental details. A request for an NIH approval of such a change must be submitted via SR-PD.

A New Investigator who is added as a PD/PI on a substantial NIH independent research award after initial peer review will NOT lose their New Investigator status.  If a New Investigator is added prior to initial peer review and an award is issued the individual will lose their New Investigator status. More >>   [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 2/16/2012]

[February 1, 2012] Can proposals requesting support for the same research project be considered by multiple sponsors concurrently? Such pre-award overlap is allowed by some sponsors.  However, in all instances only one award may be accepted.  Examples include: NIH and NYSTEM or NIH, NYSTEM, and Simons Foundation.

Note that some sponsors do NOT allow concurrent submissions of the same projects, e.g. submissions involving more than one Public Health Service (PHS) component (including NIH) are barred, and submissions to NSF's Biological Sciences Directorate cannot be identical to proposals to other federal agencies for simultaneous review.  If you are considering concurrent submission of the same research project to multiple sponsors, it is advisable to contact your GMS to verify as early as possible that the target sponsors allow this. [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 2/2/2012]

[January 19, 2012] What are potential risks unique to late electronic submissions (e-submissions)? Increased backlog of ‘last minute’ e-submissions on the due date can lead to longer processing time at and the sponsor, and leave the applicant little or no room to address transmission errors or other corrections. E-applications that are not received successfully can lead to delays in the review of an application to the next cycle, and to months of delayed funding. NIH’s late policy will not allow for consideration of e-applications that arrive late due to technical errors. More>> [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 1/19/2012] 

[January 19, 2012] How do I complete the budget for my grant application? SR-PD provides a budget worksheet tool to help develop funding requests. The worksheet can be used to calculate the entire budget for a project period up to 5 years. Rates such as fringe benefits, F&A, and annual increases for cost of living (as allowed by the institution and sponsor), are embedded in the tool and are current. Users enter their estimated financial needs for the first year (initial funding period) on the worksheet, including costs for University Resource Centers, and the budget tool automatically calculates future year costs. The budgetary information can then be easily transferred to the sponsor’s budget forms.  For additional guidance, contact your GMS. [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 1/19/2012]

Tips from Other Departments
[February 16, 2012] Finance:  Can I pay graduate students using my sponsored research grants? RU's graduate students' salaries/stipends may not be requested on research grants submitted from and awarded to RU investigators. For questions contact Finance or the Dean's office; for questions about grants submissions contact your GMS.  [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 2/16/2012]

[February 1, 2012] Research Support: Should I include cost estimates for anticipated use of the RU Resource Center products or services in my budget request?  Yes. Including the estimated costs for use of University Resource Center products and/or services not only ensures that you indicate the need for these funds but also helps the University better support your research by defraying allowable costs if an award is made and identifying future demands on specific Resource Centers. Information about Resource Center user fees is available on each Center's website.  For assistance in estimating the costs associated with Resource Center support for your specific proposed research, contact the Resource Center Director.  Indicate the proposed use in your budget justification if a detailed budget is required.  Always reference the proposed use of any Resource Center on the associated Routing Form (bottom of section 2). [Faculty, Postdocs and Resadmin 2/2/2012]

We value your comments and rely on your feedback to improve our services.