At 01:22 PM 4/15/2010, you wrote:
>Hello Colleagues,
>
>Our office is trying to create a standard process that a review
>committee can follow when reviewing proposals for limited submission
>competitions - particularly pertaining to criteria used for the
>review and feedback given to the PIs.
>
>A few specific questions:
>
>1. Do you have a standard review form that the review committee uses?

Cover sheet, letter from Chair (for junior faculty awards), 3 page
science write-up, 1 page refs, CV, current funding

>2. What criteria are used to review the proposals? NSF is easy since
>they have their own merit review criteria, but how about criteria
>for other federal agencies and private foundations?  Do you tailor
>the review criteria based on the proposal?

#1 is who has the best chance of getting funded; secondary considerations vary

>3. Is the review committee required to give feedback that can be
>passed on to the selected and not selected PIs - comments on why the
>proposal was/was not selected?

Only feedback is via PI conversation with Committee chair, if requested

>4. Are the proposals ranked and is this ranking shared with the selected PIs?

Ranked but ranking confidential

>5. Are selected PI names and proposal titles announced campus-wide
>or is everything anonymous?

No.  If candidate actually gets the grant, more attention is possible.

>If anybody has a standard template or criteria that the review
>committee uses to review proposals, I would appreciate it if you
>could share it.

Our Committee goes by the guidelines of the sponsor and knowledge of
the history of funding, both nationally and to our candidates.  Thus,
criteria must vary.

One particularly challenging part of all this is having candidates
understand that eligibility may not denote competitiveness.  For
example, if a foundation wants to support "junior scientists" and
specifies max number of years since terminal degree, a person may
sneak by that eligibility guideline but might not be looked upon as
favorably as the much more junior candidate.  However, some
foundations don't care as much about their guidelines as they do
about having the most superstars funded by their grants.  In these
cases, rules may be bent.  How do you know how strict the review
process will be?  Experience.  Most of our Committee members have
done this for a while and have a good sense of what works with a
given sponsor.  Still, new programs are always a mystery (and often
horribly managed).

CH

>Thank you!
>
>Madhavi (Maddy) Chokshi
>Information Specialist
>University of Central Florida
>Office of Research & Commercialization
>12201 Research Parkway
>Suite 501
>Orlando, FL 32826-3252
>Phone: 407.882.1141
>Fax: 407.882.1156
>
>Looking for funding?
>Go to http://fundingopps.cos.com/
>
>
>======================================================================
>  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")
======================================================================