If you have been nominated to compete for a New Vision Investigator Award at the upcoming Charleston Conference on Alzheimer’s Disease (CCAD) you should have received an email with instructions on how to submit your application.  You MUST submit an application to be considered to participate in CCAD.  

All submitted applications will be reviewed by the CCAD advisory board.  Fifteen researchers will be invited to prepare and submit a proposal in the form of an NIH-R03 grant application, detailing how they would utilize $100,000 of funding to further AD research. e

If you are selected, you will receive a formal invitation to submit an NIH-style R03 grant application under funding opportunity PA-25-302. The grant will support a 2-year project with a budget of $50,000 per year.  Please keep in mind that this is intended to be a learning experience. We strongly encourage you to seek guidance from your institution’s program officers, senior scientists, and mentors as you develop your application. 

Before you begin writing, you will receive a list of fellow attendees and their research summaries. If you’re interested, you are welcome to collaborate and submit a joint proposal. Collaboration is encouraged but not required. 

Please refer to the FAQs and consider reaching out to former CCAD attendees for advice. If you still have questions after doing so, feel free to contact us—but note that we will likely direct you to those resources before providing our own feedback.

• A GUIDELINE FOR WHAT YOUR RO3 MIGHT INCLUDE. 
• HOW TO SUBMIT AN NIH-STYLE R03 (PA- 25-302). 

Before the conference begins, each participant (reviewer) will be assigned 2–3 grant applications submitted by their peers. As a reviewer, you will be responsible for reading, scoring, and writing critiques for each assigned application. Reference scoring sheet and guidelines. Check your email for submission deadlines and instructions. 

• CCAD REVIEWER ORIENTATION
• CCAD PROPOSAL REVIEW AND SCORING GUIDELINES

Each investigator will present their proposal at the conference and will have a chance to answer questions from their peers and the CCAD scientific Board.  At the conference, you will also participate in a mock NIH Study Section to review and submit final score of your peers’ proposals. Award decisions will be announced at the Saturday evening awards dinner. Ample time will be allotted for informal discussions and social interactions during the conference. All invitees are expected to attend the entire conference. If you cannot attend the entire conference, please let us know immediately. 

Thursday: Welcome Gathering & Featured Research from Previous Award Recipient 

You are expected to arrive before the welcome reception on Thursday evening, which typically begins around 6:00 PM. This informal gathering is an important part of the CCAD experience and offers a valuable opportunity to connect with your peers, meet conference mentors, and begin building your professional network. 

During the reception, you’ll also hear brief research updates from previous awardees and receive a short orientation outlining the goals and expectations for the conference. Light refreshments will be served, and we encourage you to take full advantage of this time to engage and get to know the CCAD community. 

Friday: Research Presentations 

You will present your research on Friday, and we adhere to a strict time limit. Each presenter is allotted a total of 25 minutes, which includes both the presentation and the Q&A session. We strongly recommend limiting your presentation to 15 minutes to allow for at least 10 minutes of questions. Please note that you will be given a time warning at the 15-minute mark, and your session will be concluded at the 25-minute limit, regardless of where you are in your talk. Going beyond the recommended 15 minutes will reduce time for Q&A, which we do not advise. 

To ensure a smooth transition between speakers, please submit your presentation by 10PM on Thursday before Friday’s presentations. Presentations should be submitted in PowerPoint format, though PDF files will also be accepted. 

A laptop and projector will be available with all submitted presentations preloaded for easy access. On Friday morning, prior to the start of the conference, we encourage you to check that your file opens properly and functions as intended. I.T. support will be available on-site to assist with any technical issues. 

A podium and microphone will be provided for speakers, and microphones will also be available for board members and peers to ensure clear communication during the Q&A. If you have any questions about Friday’s presentations, please don’t hesitate to contact us at admin@newvisionresearch.org.  

Saturday: Mock Study and Award’s Dinner 

An NIH mock study section is a simulated version of the real peer review process used by the National Institutes of Health to evaluate grant applications. It’s designed to help participants—especially early-career researchers—understand how applications are scored and discussed. 

Before the session, participants are assigned a few mock grant proposals to review. Each reviewer reads their assigned applications, writes brief critiques, and gives preliminary scores based on five main NIH review criteria: significance, investigators, innovation, approach, and environment. Reviewers also give an overall impact score on a scale from 1 (best) to 9 (worst). 

During the meeting, a chair will guide the process and make sure everything runs smoothly. For each application, the primary reviewer begins by summarizing the proposal and highlighting its strengths and weaknesses. The secondary and sometimes tertiary reviewers then add their perspectives. After that, the whole group joins in with questions and comments. The focus of the discussion is often on the scientific approach, but all review criteria are considered. After the discussion, each reviewer gives a final score for the application based on what they heard. 

Overall, the mock study section helps demystify the grant review process and shows what makes an application strong or weak. It’s a great opportunity to learn how reviewers think and how to write better grants in the future.