We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Author Kiewra has submitted many manuscripts, served on several editorial boards, and was a journal editor. He finds the review process flawed. Ask three academics to review a manuscript and expect an arms race of criticisms and recommendations. Also expect editors to behave like managers instead of scholars. Many line up reviewers, parrot their comments, and make no judgment of their own. Regardless, authors must know how to handle submissions that were rejected or given a second chance. If rejected, join the club. Top-tier journals reject about 90 percent of submissions, so don’t get discouraged. One productive scholar said, “You have to learn how to take criticism and rejection because we’re pretty critical of each other, and reviewers can sometimes be brutal.” Consider resubmitting your work elsewhere. Another scholar said, “You can always find a home for a paper in a second-tier journal.” Do a happy dance if you receive a revise and resubmit decision. The reviews provide a roadmap for acceptance. Follow that revision map. When you resubmit, include a response letter that specifies how and where you addressed each reviewer point. Also, accept the blame and be polite, respectful, thankful, and positive.
One of the most important and daunting roles of the early academic is the pursuit of NIH grant funding. Although NIH funding allows for great autonomy and comes with validation and prestige, the process can feel overwhelming even for the most seasoned investigators. Therefore, being armed with information is crucial. Aiming to provide a guide to NIH grants with the early stage investigator in mind, this chapter outlines many of the key issues you will tackle throughout the process. These include: a) Developing Your Idea; b) Finding the Right Mechanism for You and Your Idea; c) Preparing Your Application; d) Submission and Receipt of Your Application; e) The Review Process; and f) Post-Review Strategies. These issues are addressed in light of the recent changes in the NIH grant submission and review process to provide an objective source, complimented by our favorite tips for your consideration.
Along with the greater research enterprise, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) had to quickly adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic. IRBs had to review and oversee COVID-related research, while navigating strict public health measures and a workforce largely relegated to working from home. Our objectives were to measure adjustments to standard IRB review processes, IRB turnaround time and document and any novel ethical issues encountered.
Methods:
Structured data requests were sent to members of the Consortium to Advance Effective Research Ethics Oversight directing Human Research Protection Programs (HRPP).
Results:
Fourteen of the 32 HRPP director members responded to a questionnaire about their approach to review and oversight during COVID-19. Eleven of the 14 provided summary data on COVID-19-specific protocols and six of the 11 provided protocol-related documents for our review. All respondents adopted at least one additional COVID-19-specific step to their usual review process. The average turnaround time for convened and expedited IRB reviews was 15 calendar days. In our review of the documents from 194 COVID-19-specific protocols (n = 302 documents), we identified only a single review that raised ethical concerns unique to COVID-19.
Conclusions:
Our data provide a snapshot of how HRPPs approached the review of COVID-19-specific protocols at the start of the pandemic in the USA. While not generalizable to all HRPPs, these data indicate that HRPPs can adapt and respond quickly response to a pandemic and likely need little novel expertise in the review and oversight of COVID-19-specific protocols.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.