[Christopher Geissler]

HHF uses Metro Presort and we’re very pleased with them. They are located in Portland, Oregon, but we have no issue working with them as a NYC-based but remote organization.

Our contact there is Michael Mendez at [email protected]. We’d obviously appreciate you letting him know you heard about them from us if you decide to give them a try.

Best,
Christopher

 

[Christopher Geissler]

Hi Laura,

At Hearing Health Foundation, researchers on the board of directors:

• may not apply for grants
• may not be a member of our funded research consortium
• may not be listed as co-investigators on grants

But:

• they may vote on the slate of proposed grants at the board research committee and full board meetings in which those votes take place (votes at these levels are by slate of proposed awards by program, not by individual proposal)

We do allow board researchers to serve on the reviewer committee (only very occasionally) and on one of our grant program’s governing bodies (slightly more common, but still the minority) and they must adhere to all the normal rules regarding conflict of interest, including not serving as primary/secondary reviewer on applications with which they have a COI, recusing oneself from discussing those applications at the committee meetings, and not scoring proposals with which they have a COI.

Best,
Christopher

 

[Christopher Geissler]

We have seen a similar trend at Hearing Health Foundation. Last year applications jumped just about 50% overall, with an increase of nearly 60% in applications for our grant opportunity restricted to early stage investigators. So not quite as much of an increase as CRI, but enough to put strain on our usual review process and procedures. We have revamped how we do things in response to the increase. 

[Christopher Geissler]

Hi Laura,

In the interest of providing a data point (though not a useful answer to your inquiry), Hearing Health Foundation does not screen for plagiarism. We are currently finalizing an AI policy and I imagine statements about plagiarism will be incorporated into that, including a statement that is signed by both the applicant PI and institutional signing officer during application submission.

Best,Christopher

[Christopher Geissler]

Hi Kristen,

HHF limits indirect costs to 10% in our open application program and 5% in our consortium program (where most PIs have funding relationships with HHF stretching back over a decade). We are not currently planning on adjusting the rates or reclassifying what counts as which. It’s something that is on our radar, and we’ll be watching what happens at the federal level, what feedback we get from universities, and what other funders are doing.

Best wishes,

Chris

Christopher Geissler, Ph.D. 

Director of Program & Research Support 

Hearing Health Foundation

PO Box 1397, New York, NY 10018

212.257.6145 |  Website | Social Media

[Christopher Geissler]

Hi Kavita,

To add more data to your pool: HHF determines the number of awards each year based on available funding (related to the organizational budget, but also restricted funded HHF has received). Reviewers are not told how many awards will be funded. (Later stages of review by our scientific council and board are conducted with knowledge of the number of awards available). We have a ceiling going in to the process, but we could end up awarding fewer grants than was planned, in the case that we do not receive meritorious proposals for a specific award type for which there is restricted funding.

While there’s no written rule, it’s been fairly consistent in the past few years that only proposals scoring above 3.0 on the NIH scale make the shortlist for the second round of peer review.

Best,

Christopher

[Author]

Posts