Reviewer's Guidelines for CVM Summer Research Training Grant Competitions

The purpose of committee review of these research training proposals is to recommend for funding only those proposals that are meritorious and represent a good investment of limited funds.

Written Critiques:

Two individuals will be assigned as primary and secondary reviewer for each proposal. The primary and secondary reviewers must prepare a complete written critique of each assigned proposal following the guidelines listed below. The primary and secondary reviewers will provide an electronic version (rtf format only) of their written critiques, including those that the they judge to be in the upper or lower 25th percentiles with respect to scientific merit, to the review committee chair at least 48 hours prior to the review committee meeting. The reviewers will include along with each critique a note stating whether or not they feel that the proposal reviewed is in the upper or lower 25th percentile of all proposals, and if so, will give one to three statements justifying their position. The critiques for each proposal will be forwarded to the full committee membership, less any members having a conflict of interest with respect to consideration of that proposal, not less than 24 hours prior to the committee meeting.

Committee Review Process:

All committee members must familiarize themselves with all proposals prior to the review committee meeting. After the meeting, the committee chair will prepare a composite critique, incorporating the primary and secondary reviewer's critiques and any significant concerns raised during this committee's review, for each applicant following the review committee meeting.

At the beginning of the review committee meeting the committee chair will go over the list of proposals one by one, asking whether each proposal should be classified in the upper or lower 25th percentile. If both the primary and secondary reviewer agree, then each will make a brief statement justifying their position. If no member of the committee objects, then that proposal is assigned to either the top or bottom 25th percentile, as appropriate, with no further discussion. Objection by even a single committee member will subject that proposal to full review. Proposals assigned to the upper 25th percentile will be funded, proposals assigned to the lower 25th percentile will not be funded.

Once all proposals have been triaged in this manner, then a full committee review will be conducted for those proposals allocated to the middle 50th percentile. First the primary reviewer will critique the proposal, followed by the secondary reviewer. The reviewers should not read their formal, written critique verbatim to the committee as they will have copies of they written reviews. Instead, the reviewers should summarize the pertinent points of their critiques. Once the primary and secondary reviewers have made their case to the committee, a general discussion of the merits of the proposal will be held by the entire committee. Following the general discussion, committee members will be asked to submit a numeric score between 100 (highest merit) and 500 (lowest merit) that they assign to the proposal.

The committee ends the session by ranking the proposals and allocating positions. The committee will first allocate funds to those projects ranked earlier in the upper 25^th percentile. Then the proposals in the middle 50th percentile will be ranked by numeric score of scientific merit and the remaining positions allocated to those projects in order of final ranking until positions are exhausted. Once all funds have been allocated, committee members will be given one last opportunity to comment on the appropriateness of funding, or not funding, any individual proposal and request reconsideration of its ranking. Changes in the funding priority of an individual proposal at this time will be made only upon the recommendation of a two-thirds majority of the committee.

To provide applicants the most valuable feedback, reviewers should adequately point out strengths of the proposal and then point out weaknesses. Reviewers should be thorough in their criticism, albeit diplomatic and constructive. The purpose is to alert applicants to significant errors and/or weaknesses in their research plan to improve their project. The following format suggestions have been borrowed from NIH:

• DESCRIPTION: Prepared only by the primary reviewer and needs only be a summary since the reviewer can add to it verbally so that the other members of the committee clearly understand what is being proposed. The reviewer should clearly and concisely describe the objectives and procedures of the application and should not make evaluative statements in this section. If the applicant's submitted abstract is clear and complete, then this may be substituted for the reviewer's description.
  
• CRITIQUE: Should be comprehensive so that it clearly conveys the basis for the recommended action and the degree of enthusiasm for the proposal. Do not repeat the description in this section. The critique implies positive as well as negative comments. It is important that the secondary reviewer avoid the temptation to prepare brief written comments since there may be a difference of opinion, and the committee may adopt the secondary reviewer's opinion rather than that of the primary reviewer. The Critique section is the most important part of the written comments and major emphasis must be given to it. Provide a comprehensive evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the application. including:
  
  • Feasibility, including whether it is reasonable to expect that this project can be substantially completed during the course of 1 summer.
  • Significance and Originality. Evaluate the significance and originality of the proposed study in its scientific field.
  • Methods. Assess the adequacy of the methodology proposed to carry out the research.
  • Investigators. Assess the competence of the principal investigator and key personnel to conduct the proposed research, including their academic qualification, research experience, productivity, and any special attributes.
  • Resources and Environment. Discuss any special aspects of the facilities and equipment, as well as the extent of departmental and interdepartmental cooperation, if applicable. Comment on the availability of essential laboratory, clinical, animal, computer, or other resources.
• Reviewers should use references, if applicable, to support comments in their narrative and any such references should be complete and conform to accepted style (Author, Journal, Volume, Date); article titles are not necessary.
• Do not to use first person in the written review, i.e., "I," "in my opinion," or "it appears to me." Third person is more appropriate. For consistency, please refer to the person(s) submitting the proposal as the "applicant(s)."
• RECOMMENDATION: Should be for approval or disapproval. Please indicate the level of enthusiasm for the application and provide a priority score using the following system:
  
  Recommendations for Synonyms to Priority Scores:
  
  • Strong Enthusiasm: 100 - 150
  • Good Enthusiasm: 151 - 200
  • Above Average Enthusiasm: 201 - 250
  • Below Average Enthusiasm: 251 - 300
  • Slight Enthusiasm: 301 - 400
  • No Enthusiasm: 401 - 500

Please make your best effort to write first rate reviews of proposals submitted for this competition. By providing carefully prepared critiques to our colleagues, the applicants' chances of competing for extramural support will be enhanced.