Student Resources at 2007 Boston SER Conference

As a reminder to students attending the June 2007 Society for Epidemiologic Research (SER) conference in Boston, there are a wealth of resources and opportunities for students on the SER website: http://www.epiresearch.org/meeting/students.html

These include registrations for:

• Breakfast Round Table Session: Breakfast with the Experts
• Guided Poster Tours (with experts)

Seminars:

• Workshop on Developing an Epidemiologic Research Project
• The Role of the Epidemiologist in the Multidisciplinary Research Environment
• What Do Editors Look for in a Manuscript: A Chat with an AJE Editor
• SER-Student Caucus Business Meeting (SER-SC homepage: http://www.epiresearch.org/students/index.html)

--> SER conference registration can be found at: http://www.epiresearch.org/meeting/reginfo.html

Higher ‘femininity' in men and decreased risk of death from coronary heart disease

An interesting recent study published in IJE regarding degree of 'feminity' in men and risk of CHD mortality... however the methods are rather vague on the definitions of 'feminity' or the index components.

Decreased risk of death from coronary heart disease amongst men with higher ‘femininity’ scores: a general population cohort study
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/dym022v1

Comments on this study are welcome.

Should the NIH R01 Grant Application Be Shorter? Results of National Public Survey and NIH Peer Review Advisory Committee

At the recent NIH Peer Review Advisory Committee (PRAC) meeting, co-chairs of the NIH Grant Application Committee presented responses to the NIH’s Request for Information (RFI): Possible Page Limit Reduction For the Research Plan Section of the Research Project Grant (R01) Application submitted by over 5,000 applicants and reviewers.

Background:

• Applicants and reviewers often express that the R01 grant application focuses too much on detailing methods and not enough on scientific significance and impact
  
• NIH grant applications are very long and take a lot of time to write and to peer-review
  
• Insufficient numbers of quality reviewers willing to review grants
  

An preliminary analysis of responses indicate that the most supported shortening the grant application. Of the total responses submitted, committee members then analyzed 500 randomly selected responses in detail. Based on this input, the committee made the following recommendations:

• The research plan section of the application should be shortened—a majority favored 15 pages
  
• Instructions to applicants and reviewers should be modified to emphasize impact
  
• Sections of the application should be more closely aligned with the review criteria

Other selected findings: