University of Connecticut University of UC Title Fallback Connecticut

Part 4. Review Process and Guidelines

All proposals will be evaluated by a peer-review team composed of University of Connecticut faculty and overseen by the OVPR. The OVPR will select reviewers based on disciplinary areas consistent with the proposal category, previous experience as a grant reviewer, successful extramural grant activity, scholarly reputation, and whenever possible expertise and specialization consistent with the proposal topic. In some cases, external reviewers (non-UConn faculty) may be sought if additional expertise is deemed necessary. Proposals will be reviewed based on the criteria below and recommendations made to the OVPR. The Vice President for Research will make the final determination of awards.

 

Review Criteria for Science, Technology, Engineering, Math, Social Science Proposals

Using a 5-point rating scale from 1 (Excellent) to 5 (Poor), reviewers will rate and evaluate 5 criteria (Significance, Innovation/Novelty, Feasibility/Resources/Timeline, Investigators/Collaborators, and Impacts/Outcomes. In addition, reviewers will evaluate the budget and provide funding recommendations.

 Significance/Importance

    • Does this study address an important scientific or scholarly problem?
    • If the aims of the project are achieved, will scientific knowledge, technical capability, clinical practice, and/or social conditions be advanced in meaningful ways?
    • Does the proposed project significantly contribute to the concepts, theories, methods, technologies, applications, treatments, outcomes, services, and/or preventive interventions that drive the field/discipline?
    • Were the study’s hypotheses, aims, and/or goals clearly articulated, well-reasoned, and adequately supported?

 Innovation/Novelty

    • Is the project original and innovative? Does the project challenge existing paradigms, methods, approaches, applications, theories, practice and/or barriers to progress in the field(s)?
    • Does the project develop or employ novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, technologies, applications, treatments, tools, and/or interventions?

 Feasibility, Resources, and Timeline

    • Are the conceptual, theoretical, or clinical frameworks, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well-reasoned, appropriate to the aims of the project and reflective of scientific rigor?
    • Does the environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success?
    • Does the proposed project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment or subject populations, or employ useful collaborative arrangements?
    • Is the timeline adequate for achieving goals & meeting the project aims? For proposals requesting funding to exceed one year, is the request justified and supported?

 Investigators/Collaborators

    • Are the PI, collaborators, and other personnel well-suited to carry out the project?
    • Do the collaborators have complementary and integrated expertise?
    • For Single-PI proposals, does the proposed work advance the PI’s scholarship or likelihood of obtaining an external award?
    • Does the PI (and collaborators for Multi-PI proposals) demonstrate an ongoing/emerging record of accomplishments that have advanced the respective field(s)?

Impact and Outcomes

    • Is the proposed project compelling and if successful, would it make a meaningful disciplinary or interdisciplinary contribution and/or advancement?
    • Does the project address institutional, state, national, and/or global priorities?
    • Does the project have strong potential for producing valuable societal benefits?
    • Does the project have high potential for national or international recognition and achievement?
    • Is the proposal high quality and appropriate for the REP?
    • Does the project have high potential for extramural funding or disciplinary achievement?
    • Does the PI provide evidence from a previous external review that the current proposal would address a weakness and/or strengthen resubmission (e.g., previous feedback suggested additional pilot data was needed or work would be strengthened by more in depth archival analysis, etc).
    • Does the proposal contain an adequate plan or mechanism for assessing success and evaluating outcomes?
    • For Multi-PI proposals, was an external funding opportunity identified?

Budget Evaluation:

    • Is the project budget appropriate and sufficient to carry out the proposed work?
    • Are the budget requests adequately justified, clearly articulated, and necessary for the scope of work and timeline?
    • If requested, are course buyout and/or summer support vital to the project?
    • Would you recommend any reduction in the budget?

Funding Recommendations:

Reviewers will be asked to make funding recommendations based on the merits of each proposal and funding cutoffs.  Funding cutoffs will be determined by the OVPR.

 

 

Review Criteria for Arts, Humanities, Business, Law, and Engagement Proposals

Using a 5-point rating scale from 1 (Excellent) to 5 (Poor), reviewers will rate and evaluate 5 criteria (Significance, Innovation/Novelty, Feasibility/Resources/Timeline, Investigators/Collaborators, and Impacts/Outcomes. In addition, reviewers will evaluate the budget and provide funding recommendations.

 Significance

    • Does the project demonstrate intellectual significance and/or creativity including value to scholars, general audiences, and society?
    • Does the proposed project address an important scholarly problem, social condition, and/or creative endeavor?
    • Is the project’s intellectual rationale clear and persuasive?
    • Does the project engage important and critical topics and/or advance the respective field(s) in meaningful and significant ways?
    • Does the project’s conception, definition, organization, and description reflect the highest quality and excellence?
    • If applicable, is artistic excellence demonstrated by the quality of artists, arts organizations, arts education, works of art and/or services reflected in the proposal?
    • If applicable, were the hypotheses, aims, and/or goals clearly articulated, well-reasoned, and adequately supported?

 Innovation/Novelty

    • Is the project original and innovative? Does the project challenge existing paradigms, methods, approaches, applications, theories, practice and/or barriers to progress in the field(s)?
    • Is the project distinctive by offering fresh insights and new value for the field(s) and/or public through unconventional or innovative approaches, theories, discourse, interpretations, controversies, and/or methods?

Feasibility, Resources, and Timeline

    • Does the project demonstrate a sound design and/or work plan?
    • Are the conceptual and theoretical frameworks adequately developed, well-integrated, well-reasoned, and appropriate to the aims of the project?
    • Does the environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success?
    • Does the proposed project benefit from unique features of the environment such as subject populations, archival resources, special collections, technical assistance/tools, geography, translational expertise, and/or facilities support?
    • Is the timeline adequate for achieving goals & meeting the project aims? For proposals requesting funding to exceed one year, is the request justified and supported?

 Investigators/Collaborators

    • Are the PI, collaborators, and other personnel well-suited to carry out the project?
    • Do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise?
    • For Single-PI proposals, does the proposed work advance the PI’s scholarship, creative products, and/or likelihood of obtaining an external award?
    • Does the PI (and collaborators for Multi-PI proposals) demonstrate an ongoing/emerging record of accomplishments that have advanced the respective field(s)?

Impact and Outcomes

    • Is the proposed project compelling and if successful, would it make a meaningful disciplinary or interdisciplinary contribution and/or advancement?
    • Does the project address institutional, state, national, and/or global priorities?
    • Does the project have strong potential for producing valuable societal benefits?
    • Does the project have high potential for national or international recognition and achievement?
    • Is the proposal high quality and appropriate for the REP?
    • Does the project have high potential for extramural funding or disciplinary achievement?
    • Does the PI provide evidence from a previous external review that the current proposal would address a weakness and/or strengthen resubmission (e.g., previous feedback suggested additional pilot data was needed or work would be strengthened by more in depth archival analysis, etc).
    • Does the proposal provide a mechanism to assess success and provide an adequate plan for evaluation of outcomes?
    • Where appropriate, does the project provide a sound dissemination and/or access plan?
    • For Multi-PI proposals, was an external funding opportunity identified?

Budget Evaluation

    • Is the project budget appropriate and sufficient to carry out the proposed work?
    • Are the budget requests adequately justified, clearly articulated, and necessary for the scope of work and timeline?
    • If requested, are course buyout and/or summer support vital to the project?
    • Would you recommend any reduction in the budget?

Funding Recommendations:

Reviewers will be asked to make funding recommendations based on the merits of each proposal.