search

Funding Evaluation Guidelines

The following peer review guide will ensure consistent, fair, and scientifically grounded evaluation of preregistrations. Scoring will be based on the following scale:

1 = Poor, 2 = Marginal, 3 = Adequate, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent

hashtag
Overall Impact

  • Please give an overall impact score based on the project’s novelty, rigor, reproducibility, and impact in its field. Consider the two core review factors below.

hashtag
Core Review Factors

hashtag
Importance of the Research (Significance and Innovation)

  • Assess the project’s hypothesis and/or goal in addition to the current challenges in the field and the novelty of the proposed concepts. Authors should also highlight the advantages, caveats, and limitations in addition to alternative approaches.

  • Reviewers should consider:

  • Does the project address a critical problem, gap, or opportunity in the field?

  • Are the goals novel, transformative, or likely to advance the discipline?

  • Will successful completion make a meaningful contribution?

hashtag
Rigor and Feasibility (Approach, Team and Environment, Budget)

  • Evaluate the robustness of the “research design and methods”, “timeline”, “investigators and environment”, and “budget”.

  • Reviewers should consider:

  • Are the objectives and methodology clearly articulated and logically aligned?

  • Are the study design, data collection, and analysis plans sound and reproducible?

  • Are the pitfalls and alternative approaches discussed?

  • Is the timeline reasonable and appropriately paced for the proposed scope?

  • Does the team have the necessary expertise and environment to perform the work?

  • Is the budget well-justified and aligned with project goals and timeline?

hashtag
Additional Review Criteria

If applicable, proposals with funding potential will be evaluated on these.

These criteria are not scored separately but must be addressed for the application to be eligible for funding.

  • Human Subject Protections: Assess the adequacy of protections for human participants, including risk minimization, informed consent, and data privacy measures.

  • Animal Protections: Review the justification for animal use, adequacy of veterinary care, procedures to minimize discomfort, and compliance with relevant policies.

  • Biohazards: Determine if the proposed containment and safety procedures for hazardous materials are sufficient and compliant with regulations.

  • Resubmission/Renewal/Revisions: For resubmitted or revised applications, assess the adequacy of responses to previous critiques and the improvements made.

  • Commitment to Open Science: Assess if the data or protocols are available on public platforms and if the authors set a reasonable timeline for disseminating outcomes.

Last updated