Funding institution vetting

Thomas F. Hilton; Carl G. Leukefeld

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-01301-1_7

Funding institution vetting

Thomas F. Hilton
, Carl G. Leukefeld

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter › peer-review

Abstract

In this chapter we address vetting, one of the more mysterious aspects of grantsmanship. This phase in the application process is where you can gain or lose a competitive edge as well as salvage project arms reviewers might have recommended to be cut. It also discusses pre-award changes that might increase the odds for a favorable funding decision. We discuss progress and final reports with an eye to keeping funded for the life of your grant as project funds are sometimes cut or cancelled. We conclude with ideas for building on your last grant when applying for the next one.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	SpringerBriefs in Public Health
Pages	91-99
Number of pages	9
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01301-1_7
State	Published - 2019

Publication series

Name	SpringerBriefs in Public Health
Volume	0
ISSN (Print)	2192-3698
ISSN (Electronic)	2192-3701

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019.

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

Award Notice
Branch Chief
Division Director
Final Report
Funding Plan
Grants Management Officer
Institute/Center Director
National Advisory Council
PO
Pre-Award Negotiation
Renewal Application

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Health Policy
Health Informatics
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Access to Document

10.1007/978-3-030-01301-1_7

Cite this

@inbook{d03e897695784aa396c0815dfc237ed8,

title = "Funding institution vetting",

abstract = "In this chapter we address vetting, one of the more mysterious aspects of grantsmanship. This phase in the application process is where you can gain or lose a competitive edge as well as salvage project arms reviewers might have recommended to be cut. It also discusses pre-award changes that might increase the odds for a favorable funding decision. We discuss progress and final reports with an eye to keeping funded for the life of your grant as project funds are sometimes cut or cancelled. We conclude with ideas for building on your last grant when applying for the next one.",

keywords = "Award Notice, Branch Chief, Division Director, Final Report, Funding Plan, Grants Management Officer, Institute/Center Director, National Advisory Council, PO, Pre-Award Negotiation, Renewal Application",

author = "Hilton, \{Thomas F.\} and Leukefeld, \{Carl G.\}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019.",

year = "2019",

doi = "10.1007/978-3-030-01301-1\_7",

language = "English",

series = "SpringerBriefs in Public Health",

pages = "91--99",

booktitle = "SpringerBriefs in Public Health",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Funding institution vetting

AU - Hilton, Thomas F.

AU - Leukefeld, Carl G.

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019.

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - In this chapter we address vetting, one of the more mysterious aspects of grantsmanship. This phase in the application process is where you can gain or lose a competitive edge as well as salvage project arms reviewers might have recommended to be cut. It also discusses pre-award changes that might increase the odds for a favorable funding decision. We discuss progress and final reports with an eye to keeping funded for the life of your grant as project funds are sometimes cut or cancelled. We conclude with ideas for building on your last grant when applying for the next one.

AB - In this chapter we address vetting, one of the more mysterious aspects of grantsmanship. This phase in the application process is where you can gain or lose a competitive edge as well as salvage project arms reviewers might have recommended to be cut. It also discusses pre-award changes that might increase the odds for a favorable funding decision. We discuss progress and final reports with an eye to keeping funded for the life of your grant as project funds are sometimes cut or cancelled. We conclude with ideas for building on your last grant when applying for the next one.

KW - Award Notice

KW - Branch Chief

KW - Division Director

KW - Final Report

KW - Funding Plan

KW - Grants Management Officer

KW - Institute/Center Director

KW - National Advisory Council

KW - PO

KW - Pre-Award Negotiation

KW - Renewal Application

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85056167686

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85056167686#tab=citedBy

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-030-01301-1_7

DO - 10.1007/978-3-030-01301-1_7

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:85056167686

T3 - SpringerBriefs in Public Health

SP - 91

EP - 99

BT - SpringerBriefs in Public Health

ER -

Funding institution vetting

Abstract

Publication series

Bibliographical note

UN SDGs

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this