|
Example 1
The
rubric used by grant review panels at the National Institutes of Health to
evaluate research proposals
- Significance. Does this study address an
important problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will
scientific knowledge be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies
on the concepts or methods that drive this field?
- Approach. Are the conceptual
framework, design (including composition of study population), methods,
and analyses adequately developed, well-integrated, and appropriate to
the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential
problem areas and consider alternative tactics?
- Innovation. Does the project employ
novel concepts, approaches or methods? Are the aims original and
innovative? Does the project challenge existing paradigms or develop new
methodologies or technologies?
- Investigator. Is the investigator
appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the
work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal
investigator and other researchers (if any)?
- Environment. Does the scientific
environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability
of success? Do the proposed experiments take advantage of unique
features of the scientific environment or employ useful collaborative
arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support?
- Overall
Evaluation.
Score the proposal to reflect the overall impact of the project on the
field, weighting the review criteria, as you feel appropriate for each
application. An application does not need to be strong in all categories
to be judged likely to have a major scientific impact and, thus, deserve
a high merit rating. For example, an investigator may propose to carry
out important work that by its nature is not innovative, but is
essential to move a field forward.
Each of
these dimensions can be rated on the following scale:
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
Outstanding
|
Excellent
|
Good
|
Fair
|
Poor
|
|