Who has the responsibility for verifying and ensuring “other
support disclosures” in applications to the sponsor is accurate? If you answered-the institution applying for
and receiving the funds, you are correct.
“Other support” is not to be confused with the “research
support” section within the bio-sketch. Refer
to this link https://grants.nih.gov/grants/forms/othersupport.htm
for guidance as to what info the PI is required to provide in an Other Support
as well as samples. Administrators should
work in tandem with the PI to ensure all of the active and pending funding sources
are accurately referenced as Sponsors use the “Other Support” to make sure
there is no budgetary, scientific or commitment overlap. Note there can be serious ramifications for
inaccurately reporting other support information, especially when the sponsor
is federal, since it involves the use of U.S. taxpayer funds. The severity and length of time for noncompliance
determines the type of sanctions received, such as termination of the award. The link for the NIH Extramural Nexus has
been included for further reading on the subject (https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2019/07/11/clarifying-long-standing-nih-policies-on-disclosing-other-support/)
usage of the mathematical inequality symbols; <, >, ≥, ≤ , within NIH
application text fields.
- In early 2015 NIH released a notice informing the grant seeking community of the support for the full Unicode Character Set, in the free-text form fields. http://unicode.org/charts/
According to the above notice and guidelines the mathematical inequality symbols are included within the acceptable/supported Unicode Character Set. However, it has come to our attention that usage of these particular symbols may delay if not prevent the successful submission of an NIH application. While the use of these symbols will not result in error notices within the University’s Cayuse system, the problem is encountered when the application is routed from Grants.gov to eRA Commons.
when entering text where these symbols may be used it is suggested that their
meaning be written in longhand, i.e.
< ( Less than), ≤ (Less than or equal to), etc.
As of last Thursday, No Cost Extensions requiring a prior approval and requests to change a PD/PI are available to your GCO through the Prior Approval section in eRA Commons. The electronic option through eRACommons is just that: optional. You and your GCO can still make your requests the old-fashioned way if computers make you nervous (heck, even NIH says you should contact your awarding institute/center [IC] to determine the best method for making these requests). How simple is this? Once you sign in, here’s what you see:
And takes you here:
Not sure if you are eligible for a no cost extension (NCE) through prior approval? Do a quick double-check:
- You ARE eligible for a NCE through Prior Approval:
- When an NCE under expanded authority has already been used and the grant is within 90 days of the project end date.
- When the grantee is not under expanded authority and the grant is within 90 days of the project end date.
- When the project end date has expired and has not been closed or has not entered unilateral closeout, whichever comes first.
- You are NOT eligible for a NCE through Prior Approval:
- When an NCE under expanded authority has never been requested and the grant is within 90 days of the project end date. In this case, the NCE will be processed normally through the Extension link in Status.
- When the grant is closed.
- When the grant is a fellowship grant.
- What information will you need to provide to your GCO?
- The NCE request form includes:
- Request Detail – Here you will be asked such things as the number of months you wish to extend the project end date; the amount of unobligated money still available, etc.
- Three PDF upload fields: Progress Report, Budget Document, Justification Document
RAS is here to help with interpretation if you have any questions!
Start your year off right: make sure you’re getting credit for all of your funding! As new internal funding data is being pulled, it is becoming clear that there are a lot of people that appear with less support than they should for one key reason: they are using the “Co-PI” designation on NIH applications.
Here’s a gentle reminder: the “Co-PI” designation is not recognized by NIH. When applying for NIH funding, don’t select it if you are using the SF424 (also: why are you still using the SF424?) and don’t type it in if you are using ASSIST. That designation appears for other agencies that DO use Co-PIs; NIH is not the only agency that uses the SF424 and so the SF424 is inclusive of other labels. For a little more information on how this affects internal candidacy tracks and overall university rankings, check out our previous post, “When Good Labels Go Bad.”
Instead, when applying for NIH funding, use the “PD/PI” designation for BOTH if you and another PI are both considered to be PD/PI (or if there are more than two of you, even). If someone is not sharing principal or directorial duties with you, that person should be designated as “Co-Investigator.” If you’re still not sure what your label should be, drop us a note and we’ll help you figure it out! Don’t short yourself (or your department) on support; you work hard and deserve your due credit!