Re: Internal Faculty Research Grants Eric Cottington 13 May 1994 05:56 EST
In response to the inquiry about intramural funding peer review processes: Our institution provides intramural funding for research in two categories: small project grants ($10,000 or less) and large project grants ($100,000 or less per year for up to two years). We utilize a peer review process for evaluating the scientific merit of these applications as follows: 1. Small project grants: A list of in-house reviewers is consulted and two individuals with expertise sufficient to review the application are contacted. The application is sent to them and either a meeting or conference call is scheduled for the review. I participate in the meeting or conference call as the scientific review administrator. The meetings generally take about an hour and are tape-recorded. The tape recording is then used to generate a "pink sheet" that provides substantive feedback for the investigator. The applications are either approved, deferred pending revision, or disapproved (very rarely). 2. Large project grants: These proposals are reviewed externally. The PI submits with the proposal a name or names of "reviewer nominators", individuals close enough to the research area to be able to identify competent reviewers. I contact these "nominators" and obtain the names of individuals who might be willing to review the proposal. Three individuals are selected (from anywhere in the world) and a conference call is scheduled to the review the proposal. As with the small project grants, the conference call is tape-recorded, however the reviewers are also asked independently to provide a scientific merit score on a scale of 1.00 to 5.00. A merit review summary is prepared from the tape recording and an average score is calculated. Generally, only proposals with a score below a certain level are eligible for funding. This process for reviewing intramural applications has been in place for five years at our institution. We generally review about 25 large project applications and about 35-40 small project applications each year. Although it involves considerable effort, the feedback has been positive. Most investigators appreciate the substantive merit review summary and the use of external reviewers has depoliticized the process for the large awards. Even the small projects that are reviewed internally receive an appropriate level of peer review in terms of clinical/scientific relevance and significance and the fundamental aspects of study design and experimental methods. Hope this information is helpful. Eric M. Cottington, Ph.D. Director, Research Support Allegheny-Singer Research Institute 320 East North Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15212 412-359-1510 xxxxxx@singer.asri.edu