GrantRant VIII

January 19, 2013

Do not EVER spend so much time geeking away about the amazingly swell trees that you will be characterizing that you forget to convince the reviewer that the forest itself holds any interest. And I mean ANY interest…..Seriously dudes, I’m trying to help you out here but you are giving me absolutely nothing to work with. There is barely any point in me even reading your experimental manipulations….I can tell already there is no overall justification for doing them in the first place!

Advertisements

No Responses Yet to “GrantRant VIII”

  1. whimple Says:

    Sounds like an application that wound up in the wrong study section.

    Like

  2. drugmonkey Says:

    Not at all, not at all.

    Like

  3. DJMH Says:

    Wait, what? I thought you said that in a world of PLoS ONE, all science is intrinsically publishable and therefore worth doing.

    Or do you find that value judgments about how interesting some research is are actually important, after all?

    Like


  4. You are comparing apples and oranges, and djmh. Grant proposals need to be evaluated on interest because it’s a zero-sum game – if proposal a gets funded proposal b can’t be. This isn’t the case for manuscripts – publishing one doesn’t mean you can’t publish another just because it isn’t as interesting.

    Like

  5. DrugMonkey Says:

    1) I never said “all” DJMH
    2) JB has the (obvious) right of it in this case

    Like

  6. iGrrrl Says:

    Can I quote you on that?

    Like

  7. Pinko Punko Says:

    This type of applicant tends to say “well I only got a low score on Significance, so I don’t understand why it was triaged”

    Like

  8. DrugMonkey Says:

    On what?

    Like

  9. DJMH Says:

    Money is one limited resource. Time is another. I don’t sift through PONE every day because my time is more valuable to me than that. This is why I still appreciate the fact that J Neurosci (or whatever) filters papers sp I see what’s more interesting.

    Like

  10. DrugMonkey Says:

    Searching by TOC rather than keywords on pubMed as anything other than a tertiary strategy for “keeping up” verges on scientific incompetence.

    Like

  11. Joe Says:

    Recently read a proposal that was all about the trees. It didn’t help that it was margin to margin text with no white space. There didn’t seem to be anything wrong with the experiments, but the only reason I could see for doing them would be because someone else might figure out something useful to do with the information. Clearly, this guy’s not going to.

    Like

  12. DrugMonkey Says:

    What gets me is when they don’t even act like there could be a forest. Like all that one possibly needs for justification is the awesomeness with which they will characterize bark patterns on the upper 19% of limbs on White Pine.

    Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: