Proposal Review Comments
Lawrence Waxler
(19 Jan 2011 08:24 EST)
|
Re: Proposal Review Comments
Vogrig, Cheryl
(19 Jan 2011 08:44 EST)
|
Re: Proposal Review Comments
Mike McCallister
(19 Jan 2011 08:45 EST)
|
Re: Proposal Review Comments
McMahonM@xxxxxx
(19 Jan 2011 08:49 EST)
|
Re: Proposal Review Comments
Colin Cooper
(19 Jan 2011 10:46 EST)
|
Re: Proposal Review Comments
Mike McCallister
(19 Jan 2011 12:47 EST)
|
Re: Proposal Review Comments
Charles Hathaway
(19 Jan 2011 09:03 EST)
|
NIH Aggregate Data for Federal FY10 Posted
Aull, Robert Matthew
(19 Jan 2011 11:02 EST)
|
Re: Proposal Review Comments
rdewey@mcdaniel.edu
(19 Jan 2011 11:20 EST)
|
Re: Proposal Review Comments
Charles Hathaway
(19 Jan 2011 14:34 EST)
|
Re: Proposal Review Comments
rdewey@mcdaniel.edu
(19 Jan 2011 16:29 EST)
|
Re: Proposal Review Comments
Theresa Defino
(19 Jan 2011 11:22 EST)
|
Re: Proposal Review Comments
Ruth Tallman
(19 Jan 2011 10:49 EST)
|
Re: Proposal Review Comments Wilkinson, Judith A (19 Jan 2011 09:26 EST)
|
Re: Proposal Review Comments
Sharon Smith
(19 Jan 2011 10:16 EST)
|
Re: Proposal Review Comments
Margarita M Cardona
(19 Jan 2011 12:43 EST)
|
Re: Proposal Review Comments
Lawrence Waxler
(19 Jan 2011 12:55 EST)
|
Re: Proposal Review Comments
chowfornow
(19 Jan 2011 10:35 EST)
|
Re: Proposal Review Comments
Dennis Brewer
(19 Jan 2011 10:34 EST)
|
Re: Proposal Review Comments
Susan E Morris
(19 Jan 2011 12:31 EST)
|
Re: Proposal Review Comments
Michael Kusiak
(19 Jan 2011 13:47 EST)
|
I find the concept admirable, but the process misplaced. I do not think research administrators have the broad expertise to evaluate the science or the science writing. Unless triage relates to proposal packaging or technical errors with processing, the review belongs in a different venue. Often times schools will have an internal pre- and post- submission peer review process. This may include peers as well as a designated science writer. This seems to be a more appropriate mechanism from an academic and political viewpoint. However, that is my opinion and I could be wrong. Jude Wilkinson, JD Office of Research Fiscal Officer & Industrial Liaison Indiana University School of Dentistry 415 Lansing Street Indianapolis, IN 46202-2876 Ph:317.278.3290 Fx:317.274.5425 xxxxxx@iupui.edu -----Original Message----- From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On Behalf Of Lawrence Waxler Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 8:25 AM To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org Subject: [RESADM-L] Proposal Review Comments We are planning on implementing a formal policy which will require PIs to share reviewer comments with us. This will help us guide those who are developing re-submissions and those who have received rejections and are uncertain what course to pursue. To date, we have only asked that these comments be shared with us on an informal/volunteer basis. So, do any of you have such a policy, and how successful and useful has it been. Larry ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Larry Waxler, Director Office of Sponsored Programs University of Southern Maine 15 Baxter Boulevard P.O. Box 9300 Portland, ME 04104-9300 Telephone: 207-780-4413 Telefax: 207-780-4927 ====================================================================== 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") ======================================================================