Björn BrembsWow, the one critical review (the other was over the top enthusiastic) of our latest grant proposal beats everything I have seen in 25 years of grant writing:
1. Already the summary of our proposal is not even close
2. Proposes experiments that are already in the grant
3. Criticizes experiments we don't propose
4. States that we lack expertise (which we have) for the experiments we did not propose
5. Knows the results of our research even before the experiments are funded
Mike Taylor 🦕@brembs I assume there is a channel to push back?
Yes, I can explain why this was a bad reviewer and in this case it is so obvious that they will not use them again. Then it get's re-reviewed (again, 6 months as the first round) and if then both reivewers are equally supportive as the other one now, the exact same grant can get funded 12 months after first application.
@brembs Ugh. It's rather shocking that the delay here is a full six months.
In general it's not a bad turnaround time, but in such a crystal clear case it seems like 5 Minutes should do the trick 😆
@brembs Exactly. I wonder if you can get onto a fast track?
I'll certainly try, but have little hope it'll work.