{"id":1958,"date":"2020-06-12T14:00:09","date_gmt":"2020-06-12T21:00:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mathewkiangcom.local\/?p=1958"},"modified":"2022-01-01T22:32:43","modified_gmt":"2022-01-02T06:32:43","slug":"applying-for-a-k99","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mathewkiangcom.local\/2020\/06\/12\/applying-for-a-k99\/","title":{"rendered":"Things to consider before applying for a K99\/R00"},"content":{"rendered":"I<\/span>t officially looks like I’ll be awarded a K99\/R00 (!!). The application process was a long<\/a>, overwhelming<\/a> slog \u2014 only possible with the generous support of mentors, colleagues, friends, and strangers.<\/p>\n

Here, I will try to pay it forward by sharing some thoughts and advice. There are plenty of good<\/a> blog<\/a> posts<\/a> about<\/a> applying<\/a> for K99’s<\/a>, so I’ll try to avoid repeating those. Instead, I’m going to focus on things I didn’t know before and\/or didn’t read elsewhere. It will be based on (1) insight from others who applied, (2) advice from mentors of successfully funded applicants, and (3) my interpretation from reading about 20 K-award summary statements and applications (both funded and unfunded).<\/p>\n

If there’s enough interest in the topic, I might write about the writing process itself, but here I’m going to focus on things to do before you apply.<\/strong> The tl;dr is (1) consider non-K99 options, (2) apply early in your postdoc, (3) give yourself more time than you think you’ll need, (4) be strategic about your target institution, and (5) avoid easy critiques.<\/p>\n

\"https:\/\/imgs.xkcd.com\/comics\/survivorship_bias.png\"<\/p>\n

First, a disclaimer:<\/strong> Survival bias is real \u2014 you should get advice from lots of different people (with both funded and unfunded applications). My impact score was “on the bubble” and I was very lucky. [Since several people have asked, I received an impact score of 22. Remember, this does not really mean anything year to year or institute to institute \u2014 talk with your PO as soon as you receive your summary statement.<\/em>] The dice went my way this time, but a different day, a different cycle, or a different reviewer and it could have easily gone the other way. Treat all of this with an appropriate level of skepticism. Very smart people will likely disagree with some of this advice. I try to give some reasoning below so you can evaluate if it is appropriate for you.<\/p>\n

1. Consider other options<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Don’t get me wrong \u2014 the K99\/R00 is a great mechanism.<\/strong> The K99 is the only training grant open to non-US citizens. For better or worse, K99’s are considered more “prestigious” than other K-types<\/a>, which may be helpful in a competitive job market.\u00a0Early data suggests more than 90% of K99 recipients transition to a faculty position<\/a>. Anecdotally<\/a>, K99\/R00’s make candidates more appealing as new faculty hires while also providing protection and leverage during job negotiations<\/a>. In general, K99\/R00’s offer more money over a five-year period. Whether it’s the Matthew effect<\/a> or selection bias, K99 recipients tend to convert to R01’s (or equivalents) rapidly<\/a> with a larger proportion receiving an R01 within 5 years<\/a> than recipients of other major K-types (K01, K08, K23) \u2014 despite similar publication records<\/a>.<\/p>\n

That said, if you can apply for other mechanisms, you should consider it.<\/strong> Among the four major K-types, the K99 has the highest number of submissions (Figure 1a) and the lowest overall success rate (Figure 1b). Since the beginning, NIH program directors were encouraging researchers to apply for other (non-K99) training grants<\/a>.<\/p>\n

A common argument against applying for other K-types is that the K99 receives more submissions but the general “competitiveness” of the pool is lower, and thus the success rate is artificially suppressed. If this is true, I haven’t seen evidence of it. My reasoning is that as the number of qualified applicants exceeds the number of available awards, randomness plays an increasingly important role. (See Appendix 1 of Robert Frank’s Success and Luck<\/em> for a simulation of this.)<\/p>\n

Those with clinical degrees should consider the K08 and K23 mechanisms, which have higher success rates among fewer applicants. Those with a tenure-track position or with the promise of a tenure-track position, should consider the K01.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Figure 1.<\/strong> (a) Number of applications received, by K-type, across all NIH institutes and centers. (b) Success rates, by K-type, across all NIH institutes and centers. (C) Success rates among initial submissions, by K-type, across all NIH institutes and centers. All plots are limited to the four major K-types, K01, K08, K23, and K99.<\/p><\/div>\n

Note that at most institutes, K01’s are technically<\/em> available to early career investigators AND<\/strong> postdocs<\/a> so it may be tempting to apply for a K01 instead of a K99. However, reviewers may not consider a K01 applicant competitive if the applicant does not have either (a) a tenure-track position already or (b) has a “strong letter of commitment” from their institution that includes assurances<\/a> of being promoted to such a position<\/a>.<\/p>\n