Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

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)

Re: Proposal Review Comments Wilkinson, Judith A 19 Jan 2011 09:26 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")
======================================================================