Xref: utzoo bionet.sci-resources:126 sci.research:1181
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!cmcl2!phri!roy
From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith)
Newsgroups: bionet.sci-resources,sci.research
Subject: Re: Warning: NIH font size nit-picking
Message-ID: <1990Feb22.184419.19456@phri.nyu.edu>
Date: 22 Feb 90 18:44:19 GMT
References: <1990Feb20.230208.5896@phri.nyu.edu>
Sender: news@phri.nyu.edu (News System)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Lines: 27


	In an earlier note, I discussed a recent case where a grant was
rejected by NIH because the type was too small.  Rereading what I wrote, I
realize my written words were harsher than intended.  I sympathize with
reviewers who have to read microscopic type, and understand the conflicting
goals of saving paper, saving eyes, and fully describing the proposed
research.

	The intent of my original note was not to flame NIH, but to warn
grant writers to take care to make sure they meet the type specs.  Some
people, I'm sure, intentionally use tiny type in an effort to cram every
last word into the page count.  In this case, however, it was a totally
honest mistake by somebody who probably wasn't even aware that you could
change the type size using our word processing system, or at best probably
read the "10 to 12 point" requirement, noted (or, more likely, was told)
that the default size was 10, and let it go without any further thought.
Since NIH agreed to take it back after reprinting in a larger size, no
lasting harm was done.  Just a bit of mental anguish, which will pass.

	I'm looking forward to the day when submission of grants by email is
not only possible, but standard practice.  Then, reviewers can view them
however they like, and save trees in the bargain.
--
Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy
"My karma ran over my dogma"