Program Promotion
For potential applicants, we begin with various methods of publicity that may include:
- Posting of program descriptions on our Web site
- E-mail to medical schools and universities
- Exchange e-mails with societies/organizations
- Handouts and exhibits at our annual Scientific Sessions and various other conferences
- GrantsNet database at www.grantsnet.com
- Notices in association and professional journals
- Promotions by affiliates and by word of mouth
Application Submission
The method for applying is via Grants@Heart, our new Web-based electronic system for applicants, peer reviewers and awardees. The system can be accessed 24/7 via the Internet using Internet Explorer or Safari browsers. This secure site will require a username and password.
Interested researchers should first review the program descriptions for eligibility requirements. The first step in filling out the application is to pass an eligibility quiz.
To be considered, a research project must be structured according to the scientific method. This implies that the researcher has formed an hypothesis and developed methods to test the hypothesis. It further implies that the researcher will acquire evidence to support or reject the hypothesis and publish the results.
Application Review and Meeting
Peer review committee members perform their tasks using the electronic system, Grants@Heart.
When an application is submitted to the American Heart Association, it is assigned to a peer review committee based on the applicants' science classification choice and the chairperson confirmation that it is appropriate to its science. Two scientists from the peer review committee provide an independent, in-depth review. A third reviewer is also assigned as a reader of the proposal, to assist with differences of opinions and to balance out the discussion. These scientists are assigned a particular application based upon their knowledge of the science and methods contained in the application. Each scientist from a peer review committee is assigned a limited number of applications to review in detail. All peer review committee members can access all applications in their committee, if not in conflict, and may review on their own initiative applications not specifically assigned to them. To prepare for the meeting, assigned reviewers give a preliminary score on applications.
The peer review committee meets face to face or virtual and each expert presents an analysis of the applications he or she has reviewed. The committee discusses the scientific merit of each proposal and then each committee member privately assigns a score from 1.0 to 5.0 to each. A score of 1.0 is best. After the application is scored, the individual merit scores are averaged to get an overall value. Then all proposals from a particular peer review committee are ranked in order of merit.
Committee members who have a conflict of interest, such as those who have a professional or personal relationship with the applicant, are excused from the room when the discussion takes place. They cannot view the application and therefore cannot give it a score. Often, more than one peer review committee must be organized due to the volume of applications, the scientific diversity of the applications or conflicts of interest. Sometimes, applications are "brokered" to another review committee because of science content or conflict of interest issues.
How Funding Decisions Are Made
After applications are peer reviewed, the rank order lists from scientifically specialized review committees are merged. This allows applications to a particular funding component and program to be considered as a group by the national or affiliate research committee. Each application is ranked among the total pool of applications to that funding component or program. The national or affiliate research committee then makes funding recommendations based on the ranks in the total pool of applicants.
Applications are funded according to their rank order to ensure that the most promising and meritorious are funded.
Award activation and management
Association awards are administered through the institution (typically a university or medical school) where the awardee works. The institution is responsible for seeing that the research is properly conducted. Awardees must submit annual progress and expenditure reports for review by the sponsoring association research committee.
During the period for which the award is funded, the investigator conducts research according to the plan outlined in the research application. The researcher usually publishes articles in scientific journals or makes presentations at scientific meetings describing the results of his or her research.
Applicants receiving awards are notified by e-mail and the process of award activation begins. This includes an agreement with the American Heart Association that they will complete the proposed research. This is the legal contract between the association and the institution receiving association funds on behalf of a principal investigator.
Awardees who receive funding for the same project from another source (such as the National Institutes of Health) must choose between that award and the American Heart Association award. All award recommendations of the research committees are subject to approval by the appropriate affiliate or national board of directors.
The American Heart Association staff and research committee volunteers monitor the progress of the awards, which may last one to five years, depending on the program. This includes responding to requests for changes to the project, including re-budgeting and changes of project personnel. Each year the principal investigator submits a report of scientific progress, which is reviewed by the appropriate research committee. The institution’s fiscal officer also submits an expenditures report documenting how the association’s funding was spent. This report is audited by AHA staff.
At the end of the award, principal investigators are asked to complete a survey documenting their career progress and productivity during the the American Heart Association award. Measures include promotion, additional funding obtained and publications produced.
