Intrinsic scientific, scholarly, or artistic merit of the project as judged by its:
a) Importance to the field
b) Coherence and clarity of purpose
c) Apparent potential for success
d) Degree of imagination and innovation in concept and approach
Need of the applicant as judged by:
a) Availability of alternative internal and external sources of funds
b) Current resources of the applicant for all funded activities
c) Evidence of ongoing attempts by the applicant to obtain other funds
d) Previous support to the faculty member from this or other internal sources, especially in areas where outside funds are potentially available
Format for Reviews: Committee Guidelines
Description: Only a few sentences, if possible, to convey the substance of the project or basis of request.
Critique: Strengths and weaknesses that relate to timeliness, feasibility of approach, best scenario outcome, creativity.
Investigator: Indicate competence and independence.
Budget: Is it justified?
Recommendation: 1-5 for scholarly merit; A-C for financial need
Need refers to the total picture of support already available to the applicant (relative to the discipline), including start-up funds. The need score should also reflect the applicant’s effort to secure support elsewhere. The reviewer should analyze the Need Justification stated in the proposal, and previous support from the Grant-in-Aid program or other internal sources. Proposal budgets should not be included when considering need. Concerns about the adequacy of the proposal budget should be addressed in the reviews not in the need scores.
Need Score: A
- A crucial need exists; the project would not proceed without this funding.
- Alternative internal and external funds are not currently available, are restricted or are already committed to specific expenditures.
- PI has not been funded by a Grant-in-Aid award in the past five years.
- When the project is completed, potential for external funding would be high (except for category #5).
- Applicant has a track record for publishing as well as a record of submitting proposals to external agencies (whether successful or not).
Need Score: B
- A strong need exists: the project might proceed without funding, albeit not as rapidly.
- The project has received some funding already from the Office of Vice President for Research or other sources.
- Partial funding may be an option for a very high-quality project.
Need Score: C
- The need for funding at this time is marginal or below.
- Applicant has more than $50,000 of uncommitted nonsponsored/internal funding, e.g. startup, matching, Imagine Funding, funds associated with position. (The Need Justification section should clearly state why the proposed study could not be financed by startup money or other unrestricted funds.)
- Applicant has received more than one Grant-in-Aid in the past five years. Exception: Funding provided for Category 2, shared equipment, is not included in the two GIA maximum.
- Applicant has a Grant-in-Aid project in process.
- Applicants will not be penalized for having simultaneously submitted the same proposal to other sources of funding, as long as a funding decision is still pending.
Applicants will not be penalized for having simultaneously submitted the same proposal to other sources of funding, as long as a funding decision is still pending.