Sally-
I also like this idea of reviewing rejected proposals. But how much energy do you want to spend on this? And how strong is your resolve? If a faculty member wants to know why you want certain info, how will you answer? Is your goal to catalog problems (aka assign blame)? Or will you use the data to improve revisions or even the original submissions?
Proposals for major research grant funding get rejected because the sum of APPLICANT+IDEA+PRESENTATION is not competitive. Of course, the formula is much more complex with coefficients that vary with each proposal. And, written reviews typically focus on the IDEA, ignoring or only hinting at the personal and subjective concerns. Thus, figuring out what went wrong will be tricky. But, if you do....
An APPLICANT is usually aware of problems with his/her pedigree, productivity, and experience. Not much to do there. So...are you ready to devote considerable expertise and time to critique a proposal's IDEA? Provide writing/editing/packaging services to improve PRESENTATION? Administrators trespassing into the land of academic independence should consider bearing really good gifts.
Charlie
At 02:02 PM 11/19/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Sally,
>
>I think that is a great idea. We have been doing it informally with the
>faculty we work with but the problem is that the PI gets the reviews, not
>the research office. So, we have to ask the faculty to send them or a
>copy of them to us.
>
>My feeling that what you would gain is an understanding of how the
>individual PI's do on their proposals. For instance, if a PI repeatedly
>gets comments on lack of clarity or the documentation of a literature
>search, etc. Institutionally, you may learn that the cost-sharing is too
>low or the facilities are weak for the work.
>
>Good luck with your project!
>
>Ruth
>
>Sally Rehm wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> We would like to establish some sort of formal/regular process for
>> reviewing and analyzing data on research proposals that have been
>> rejected. We are in the process now of getting input from faculty
>> and administration on our campus as to how useful this kind of
>> effort would be, what kind of data we can/should collect, and who
>> will have access to it. Has anyone out there looked at this issue?
>> What, if anything, do you do with rejected proposal review? Is this
>> something that has been useful for individual pi's, departments,
>> schools???
>> Thanks for your comments.
>>
>> Sally Rehm
>> University of Maine
>>
>> Sally K. Rehm
>> Proposal Development/Information Officer
>> Office of Research and Sponsored Programs
>> 5717 Corbett Hall, Room 420
>> University of Maine
>> Orono, ME 04469-5717
>> phone:(207)581-3014
>> fax: (207)581-1446
>> xxxxxx@maine.edu
>>
>> ======================================================================
>> Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
>> subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
>> via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
>> ======================================================================
>
>
>======================================================================
> Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
> subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
> via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
>======================================================================
>
>
**************************************
Charles B. Hathaway, Ph.D., Director
Office of Grant Support
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
1300 Morris Park Avenue
Bronx, NY 10461-1975
Phone: 718 430-3642 Fax: 718 430-8822
email: xxxxxx@aecom.yu.edu
http://www.aecom.yu.edu/ogs
======================================================================
Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================
