Review Guidelines

Review of applications is conducted in two phases. Phase 1 is the initial in-depth screening of the applications for quality by a Primary and Secondary Reviewer. In Phase 2 the Reviewers present the applications to the entire Selection Committee. The decision on funding is made by the entire committee. Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality rules apply.

Preliminary Scan

Reviewers must scan the assigned applications as soon as they receive them to identify any conflicts of interest.

Phase 1

Conducted individually by the primary and secondary reviewer, Phase I is an individualized intensive review of each application.

The Primary reviewer is responsible for:

• Writing a brief summary of the applicant and proposal based on the reviewer’s analysis of the entire application.
• Writing a critique of the application as described below.
• Assigning a numerical score to the application.
• Writing feedback to the applicant. 

• Writing a critique of the application as described below.
• Assigning a numerical score to the application.
• Writing feedback to the applicant.  

Guidelines: Summary

The summary provides a brief synopsis of the application, and includes a description of the qualifications of the applicant, the mentor, the institution with which the applicant will be affiliated, the proposed professional development plan, and the proposed research. ONLY facts provided by the applicant are reported; evaluatory comments are included in the critique.

Guidelines: Critique

In the critique, reviewers judge the merit and feasibility of the proposal.  They use the appropriate worksheet provided to guide the process.

Guidelines: Numerical Rating

The initial review is conducted by both primary and secondary reviewers. The primary and secondary reviewers rate each assigned application a value between “1” and “4” using the following rating system:

“1” - Excellent
“2” - Good
“3” - Fair
“4” - Poor

Reviewers may differentiate between applicants with very similar qualifications by using ratings between each whole number, to one decimal place (for example, “1.3”) but NOT two decimal places (for example “1.25”).

Guidelines: Feedback to the Applicant

Reviewers prepare a BRIEF summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the application and recommendations for strengthening it.  These comments will be sent to the applicant.

Phase 2

After the review system is closed and prior to the final review and selection conference call, all reviewers will receive an electronic copy of the Applicant List on which applicants are listed in descending order based on the average of the primary and secondary reviewers’ initial scores. Applications receiving a rating of “4” from both primary and secondary reviewers will not be discussed at the meeting as they do not meet minimum standards for funding.

The Selection Committee will discuss applications in the order presented in the Applicant List, beginning with the lowest combined scores (i.e., 1).  In addition, the Committee will discuss all applicants with initial scores that diverge by 2 and any request for special consideration by a reviewer. 

The Primary reviewer is responsible for presenting an oral summary and critique of the proposal at the final review and selection meeting.

The Secondary reviewer is responsible for providing supplemental oral comments regarding the merit of the application, as appropriate.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers do not participate in the critique or review of applications that constitute a conflict of interest. No reviewer may participate in the evaluation of an application in which, to the committee member’s knowledge, any financial interest exists in:

- Self, spouse, parent, child, or close professional associates
- Any organization in which such a person serves/works
- Any organization with which any such person negotiating or has
- Any assignments concerning prospective employment or other such associations

In addition to financial conflicts, a conflict of interest also may be experienced on a personal level, such as any application submitted by one’s own student, colleague within the same institution, close associate or competitor.

If a conflict of interest for any given application is found, the Reviewer contacts the Coordinating Center immediately in order to reassign the application. Reviewers who cannot abide by the Conflict of Interest policy are asked to decline invitations to serve as a Reviewer. Members of the Selection Committee with such conflicts are expected to exclude themselves from the review and discussion of the application.

Confidentiality

Review materials and proceedings of review meetings are privileged communications prepared only for use by the Reviewers and program staff. Reviewers are requested to destroy materials at the conclusion of the review process. Under no circumstances should Reviewers advise applicants of the Committee’s recommendations. Review of an application is not considered complete until a formal announcement of approval and funding has been made. Reviewers who cannot abide by the Confidentiality policy are asked to decline invitations to serve as a Reviewer.