# 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

### 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. ### Core Review Factors #### 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? #### 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? ### 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. --- # Agent Instructions: Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter: ``` GET https://docs.researchhub.com/researchhub-foundation/programs-and-initiatives/peer-review-program/peer-review-guidelines/funding-evaluation-guidelines.md?ask= ``` The question should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.