Office of the Vice President for Research


The GrantSeekers 2.0 program is designed to give investigators the opportunity for an internal and external review process prior to submission of their NIH, VA or other proposals. While the emphasis is on NIH/DoD/VA grants, any grant will be reviewed. Initial reviews are provided via a review of an oral presentation provided by the investigator. The makeup of the review panel is determined by the investigator based on the ability to provide critical reviews for the subject matter and can include an external reviewer. Due to the success of the GrantSeekers 2.0 program over the past few years, we have developed an expanded GrantSeekers program which includes additional mechanisms to support specific experiments geared to improving the likelihood of funding for a revised proposal.

A key element to the ongoing success of the GrantSeekers program has been the input of external referees who have participated via a Go-To-Meeting web-based mechanism. Recognizing the importance of external peer review as a means to provide content expertise and mentorship that may not be available on campus, we have developed an expanded GrantSeekers program, including a mechanism to support specific experiments geared to improving the likelihood of funding for a revised proposal.

Program Description
GrantSeekers 2.0 - original, ongoing program

Goal: Peer review of proposals prior to submission to NIH, VA, or other agencies

Mechanisms: Ongoing program. Coordinated by VPR Office.

GrantSeekers during early stages of developing a proposal

Goal: Increase the competitive edge by focusing on the early stages of a grant proposal (e.g., review of study design and preliminary data and explore possible aims).

Mechanisms: Coordinated by PI developing the proposal. The VPR’s Office will provide the honorarium to external reviewers. All reviews will be oral and external reviews will participate via a Go-To-Meeting format. The PI will solicit up to 3 external reviewers and at least 2 members of the panel must be UT Health San Antonio faculty members.

Targeted pilot funding of scored-but-unfunded proposals

Goal: to provide resources to transform a score-but-unfunded application into a fundable proposal.

Eligibility: For PIs who receive a score on a NIH, VA or other application at the 50th percentile or better and who plan to skip one or two cycles to accrue additional preliminary data before resubmission.


Goal: To increase the likelihood of acceptance of manuscripts into top-tier journals.

Mechanisms: Coordinated by PI. The VPR’s Office will provide honorarium to the external reviewers. Using a format akin to GrantSeekers meetings, PIs contemplating sending their work to top-tier journals in their field, can obtain external peer review. At least 2 members of the panel should be UT Health San Antonio faculty members.

Editorial Review

Goal: Provide expert editorial service to improve the quality of manuscript and grant submissions.

Mechanism: Coordinated by VPR Office. Only for PIs who have participated in GrantSeekers or PubSeekers programs.

  • GrantSeekers scheduled an expert review panel to review and provide creative feedback. Dr. Ahuja is available to support throughout the process. GrantSeekers is the best resource of our institution for researchers to prepare competitive application.

    Muhammad Baig, MD
    Instructor/Research, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences
  • I appreciate the opportunity to participate. I think the GrantSeekers program is an outstanding resource for your investigators. I have been telling some of the leadership on our campus about it.

    Paula Roberson, Ph.D.
    Chair of Department of Biostatistics at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
  • I really appreciated your support and help in getting my first R01 funded and I found the advice and guidance I received from you and Grantseekers immeasurably helpful.

    David Libich, PhD
    Assistant Professor, Department of Biochemistry & Structural Biology
  • I finally got the help I needed. I had my ideas challenged, picked apart, revised and transformed for the better. I received honest, practical, actionable feedback. The experience was intellectually stimulating and liberating.

    Gretchel Gealogo Brown, Ph.D., RN, MHR, MSN, CMSRN
    Assistant Professor, SON, Office of Faculty Excellence