Training Modules to Enhance Data Reproducibility (R25)
Clearinghouse for Training Modules to Enhance Data Reproducibility
These Frequently Asked Questions have been formulated to assist potential applicants in understanding the intent and requirements of RFA-GM-18-002, Training Modules to Enhance Data Reproducibility (R25). Additional FAQs may be added as staff receive and respond to additional questions.
A. The intent of this R25 program is to use educational activities as an intervention to increase the likelihood that researchers derive the same, unbiased results when experiments are repeated. This funding opportunity will support creative educational activities focused on developing the skills of trainees and researchers at any level with respect to conducting reproducible research.
A. The NIH R25 award is a mechanism to support education projects (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/ac_search_results.htm?text_curr=r25&Search.x=-626&Search.y=-465&Search_Type=Activity).
A. Within a 2-year timeframe, these R25 awards are expected to produce, pilot and disseminate one or more exportable training modules designed to enhance data reproducibility targeted to trainees and researchers at any level. It is expected that the proposed training modules will be made available to the scientific community at no cost and a link posted on the NIGMS Clearinghouse Web site.
A. Modules are relatively short units of training of sufficient depth and coverage to empower the trainee with the knowledge and skills to assure high-quality research.
A. The RFA calls for short modules that can be completed in a day or less. This training is meant to augment and enhance the usual laboratory training that investigators receive, not replace it. Ideally, the training should be offered in a format that makes it possible to review relevant topics immediately prior to conducting experiments.
A. Exportable means shareable, readily accessible and open online educational resources.
A. The training modules should be accessible online at no charge.
A. Applicants may request up to $250,000 in direct costs to cover the entire period of the award. Award periods of up to three years may be requested.
A. The additional period of support might allow for further evaluation, updates and maintenance for the training module.
A. No. Travel costs for this meeting must be included in the budget requested in the application.
A. The combined commitments of the participating NIH funding components allow for up to 11 awards. However, the actual number of awards supported will depend on the availability of funds and a sufficient pool of highly meritorious applications.
A. Generally, the training modules will be about eliminating or minimizing sources of error and bias in laboratory experimentation. These topics will most likely fall into the following areas:
A. No. Applications can propose developing one or more modules, but are not required to cover all target areas.
A. As always, merit as determined by peer review will be the primary determinant for funding. Research practices that have the widest applicability may receive more consideration for funding, but in selecting awardees a significant consideration will be the diversity of the areas of training and expansion of the areas covered in response to the previous FOA.
A. These R25 educational resources are meant to be widely available to various audiences. Workshops would not meet the goals of the program, though they might be an element in developing a training module.
A. If the Webinars or series of Webinars were readily accessible, they would meet the technical requirement of the product. However, to be competitive they would need to be engaging and likely interactive.
A. Instructor-led training would be limited in audience reach and timeliness and thus do not meet the goals of this RFA. Instructor-led discussion may be used in the development of the modules or to augment the modules as part of a training program.
A. Yes, especially if they address the specific interests of one of the NIH funding components or the training is generalizable to a wider audience; however, meritorious proposals of a more general nature might be favored for funding. It is advisable to check with the program contact for the most relevant funding component early in the process of developing your proposal to discuss the relevance of such an application.
A. NIH is planning to host the modules when they are first ready to be utilized, including being 508 compliant. Grantees wishing to maintain, update and host their own modules are free to do so as long as they remain readily accessible to the research training community and NIH can link directly to them from its Web site. NIH will provide continued access to the modules when grantees do not wish to or are unable to host them beyond the period of support.
A. Possibly, if used to probe the variables in experimental design and analysis for several real life biomedical examples.
A. Such a module would be responsive if focused on how the use of electronic notebooks and lab databases improve data reproducibility in a generic sense. Modules on lab notebooks and databases should focus on appropriate record keeping and how electronic record keeping enhances that. It is inappropriate for NIH to endorse a particular vendor's product and such a module would also have limited accessibility. Modules endorsing a particular vendor's product would not be responsive. However, a module would be responsive if the software for implementing such notebooks and databases is freely available.
A. Not as such. Data reproducibility could be a unit within training on the responsible conduct of research. For example, a module focused on ethical issues related to accurate reporting of experimental conditions and resulting data would be responsive if coupled with training on accurate reporting.
A. A module that focused on what needs to be in a manuscript to ensure that the work can be reproduced by others would be appropriate.
A. Focused modules that deal with common problems in widely used experimental methods would be appropriate.
A. A module that considered data reproducibility issues for several common procedures involving a particular widely used research organism or system would be responsive.
A. No, these awards are to support education/training, not research or tool development.
A. Workshops held as part of developing a module and with the purpose of defining standards or best practices in the area of the training module are allowable.
A. It is appropriate if they are training for research careers or have just begun a research career. Issues of reproducibility should be relevant to clinical practitioners but it is not a focus of this RFA.
This page last reviewed on
2/7/2018 4:57 PM
Connect With Us: