The role of the mentor is to work with the applicant to develop the application and to make necessary arrangements for conducting the proposed research work with the institution.
The mentor must provide supporting documentation (documents 1,2,3 below) required by the American Heart Association for the research application. The mentor also works with the applicant to address the peer review criteria for the clinical program.
Note: The applicant cannot submit his/her application without your documents; therefore, it is important that you meet the applicant's deadline.
Create your documents and send to the applicant electronically. The applicant will upload the documents to his/her application.
Create your documents following the format/type requirements below:
- Only Portable Document Format (pdf) files will be accepted.
- File must be single-spaced.
- No more than 15 characters per inch (cpi) or an average of no more than 15 cpi (cpi includes symbols, punctuation and spaces)
- No less than ¾" margins allowed
- Sixty lines per page are the maximum allowed (The average number of lines per page using the font and point size below will be 50-55 lines.)
- Arial font style, 12 point font size for Windows users; helvetica font style, 12 point font size for Macintosh users
The following three documents are required as separate files. Please pay attention to page limits. A document that exceeds the page limit will be rejected by the electronic application system.
Create a document using the following heading: RESEARCH PROGRAM INFORMATION (no page limit). Include track record of high quality clinical or translational investigation.
Address the following:
- Describe the general research program of your laboratory or establishment, and research in progress. Describe the relationship of the applicant's proposed project to your ongoing research.
- If appropriate, describe any plans to develop the applicant's research capabilities, including related training or course work required for specific technical skills or methods.
- Clarify the role that the applicant played in the development of the research proposal.
- Provide your assessment of the applicant.
Create a document using the following heading: HISTORY OF TRAINING OTHERS AND/OR SPECIAL EXPERTISE/ENVIRONMENT (no page limit).
Address the following:
- If appropriate, describe your history of training others; summarize your experience with trainees and various training programs (giving numbers trained and sources of support if from funding agencies, etc.).
- If your institution or lab brings special expertise, populations, multiple sites, methodologies, tools, etc., to the project, please describe this. Also indicate names, degrees and titles of other individuals who will be involved with training or interacting with the applicant.
Mentor's Biographical Sketch/Bibliography (five-page limit)
Note: You may use a current NIH biographical sketch if you have one available. If you do not have an NIH biographical sketch, create a document following the format illustrated below.
Create a five-column table: Begin with entry into college and include postdoctoral training. Enter as many rows as needed.
|Institution & Location||Dates Attended||Degree (if applicable)||Conferred (mm/yy)||Field of Study|
In this same document, add a section titled 1) Positions 2) Publications 3) Research Support. Include the following information:
- Positions/Employment, Memberships and Honors - List in chronological order previous positions, concluding with your present position. Include start/end dates, position title, name of organization and department. Also list other experience and professional memberships, and academic/professional honors received. If necessary, senior applicants may list previous employment for the past 15 years and should be very selective regarding memberships/honors.
- Peer-Reviewed Publications - List in chronological order, selected peer-reviewed publications. Do not include publications submitted or in preparation.
- Research Support - List elected ongoing or completed (during the last three years) research projects. Give project number, agency, title of project, and dates of award. Then briefly indicate the overall goals of the project and your role (e.g., PI, co-investigator, consultant) in the research project. Do not list award amount or percent effort in projects.
To judge the merit of the application, reviewers will comment on the following criteria. Please be sure that you and your mentor or co-investigator fully address these in your proposal:
- Investigator: Is the investigator appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator and other researchers? Do the investigative team and mentor bring complementary and integrated expertise to the project? Will this grant support the investigator's further development into an independent investigator?
- Environment: Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed studies benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, or subject populations, or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is the strength and nature of the mentoring relationship appropriate? Is there evidence of institutional support?
- Significance: Does this study address an important problem broadly related to cardiovascular disease or stroke? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge or clinical practice be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts, methods and technologies that drive this field?
- Approach: Are the conceptual framework, design, methods and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, well reasoned and feasible (as determined by preliminary data) and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics? Does the investigator have access to an appropriate population group for the study? Does the investigator address issues of statistical power when appropriate? If the proposal is for a pilot study is there a rationale for development of more definitive studies?
- Innovation: Is the project original and innovative? For example: Does the project challenge existing paradigms and address an innovative hypothesis or critical barrier to progress in the field? Does the project develop or employ novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, tools or technologies for this area?