OK Review Successes and Testimonials

Key O-K Review Successes

Testimonials

Learn how the O-K Review process has helped investigators improve their grant applications.

Laramie Smith, PhD | Assistant Professor

1 R01 MH123282 01A1 | "NEXUS: A novel social network approach to intersectional stigma"

"The K to R transition is quite honestly an increasing statistical improbability when pay lines are set at 9%, and you have a finite number of opportunities to submit a competitive R in the latter years of your K award. You need to take advantage of every opportunity you have to refine your research plan and enhance your grantsmanship precision. The OK Review does just that by providing access to seasoned NIH reviewers invested in your success. OK Reviewers help you to identify potential weaknesses in time for you to address them and have the strongest shot at making it into the top 10 percentile to be considered for funding as an ESI. 

I purposefully requested reviewers that I knew would tear my months of hard work to shreds so that I could build back better. Having that request honored was worth it, with my R01 submission scoring in the 2nd percentile. Beyond the technical support, my reviewers also provided excellent mentorship and social support following the review to navigate this challenging process, reminding me I need to hold tight to my bulldogged persistence if I want to win at these odds. The only drawback to getting my 1st R01 is that I transitioned out of my ESI status and OK Review eligibility. I'm thrilled to be launching the next chapter in my career with SD CFAR!"

Sara Gianella Weibel, MD | Assistant Professor of Medicine

1R21AI134295-01 | "Effect of Sex Hormones on HIV Persistence"

"It is becoming increasingly hard for junior investigators to receive any NIH fundings to support their independent research. This is even harder for international researchers (like me), since we don’t qualify for most career developmental grants. After uncountable failures, I submitted my R21 to the OK study section for review. The reviewers raised concerns that it was too ambitious and suggested to split the project in two separate applications.

I followed their suggestion and both R21s were funded at the first submission with excellent scores. I think the input from the OK study section has been crucial for my success. I would definitively recommend to all junior researcher to take advantage of this amazing opportunity. As an OK reviewer myself, I also encourage all CFAR investigators to serve as reviewers since it really makes a difference."

.

Jerel Adam Fields, MD | Postdoctoral Scholar

"Mitochondrial biogenesis dysfunction in the CNS of HIV-infected individuals on antiretroviral therapy"

"The OK-Review process was instrumental in the crafting my K01 application. I struggled for 2+ years to write a fundable K-application and establish a clear pathway to independence as a principal investigator. After multiple attempts of getting scored just outside the funding range, twice the reviewers of the OK-Review committee helped me get my score cut in half. The OK-Review team provided the sort of constructive and unbiased criticism that is needed to get through the NIH review process.

On the other hand, reviewing applications through the OK-Review process has also served as a valuable tool for my development as a scientist. I strongly suggest that trainees take advantage of this tremendous resource for career development."