Page content relevant to:

    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 grantsmanship, scholarly reputation, and whenever possible with 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 (poor) to 5 (excellent), reviewers will rate and evaluate each criteria, provide an overall rating of the proposal, and indicate whether funding is recommended.

    Significance

      • 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, or social conditions be advanced in meaningful ways?
      • Does the proposed project significantly contribute to the concepts, theories, methods, technologies, applications, treatments, outcomes, services, or preventive interventions that drive the field/discipline?
      • Were the hypotheses, aims, or goals clearly articulated, well-reasoned, and adequately supported?

    Impact and Outcomes

      • Is the project original and innovative? Does the project challenge existing paradigms, methods, approaches, applications, theories, practice or barriers to progress in the field(s)?
      • Does the project develop or employ novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, technologies, applications, treatments, tools, or interventions?
      • Are the proposed outcomes meaningful and impactful?
      • Does the project address institutional, state, national, or global priorities?
      • Does the proposal have high potential for extramural funding? For multi-PI proposals, was an external funding opportunity identified?

    Feasibility and Timeline

      • Are the conceptual, theoretical, or clinical frameworks, design, methods, analyses 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 scientific environment, or subject populations, or employ useful collaborative arrangements?
      • Are the goals/outcomes clearly articulated and achievable?
      • Does the proposal provide a mechanism to assess success and provide an adequate plan for evaluation of outcomes?
      • Is the timeline adequate for achieving goals? 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 record of accomplishments that have advanced the respective field(s)?

    Budget

      • 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 buy-out and/or summer support vital to the project?

     

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

    Using a 5-point rating scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent), reviewers will rate and evaluate each criteria area , provide an overall rating of the proposal, and indicate whether funding is recommended.

    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, or creative endeavor?
      • Is the project’s intellectual rationale clear and persuasive?
      • Does the project engage important and critical topics 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 or services reflected in the proposals?
      • If applicable, were the hypotheses, aims, or goals clearly articulated, well-reasoned, and adequately supported?

    Impact and Outcomes

      • Is the project original and innovative? Does the project challenge existing paradigms, methods, approaches, applications, theories, practice 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, or methods?
      • Are the proposed outcomes meaningful and impactful? Is there potential to impact special populations, communities, or underserved populations?
      • Does the project address institutional, state, national, or global priorities?
      • Does the proposal have high potential for extramural funding? For multi-PI proposals, was an external funding opportunity identified?

    Feasibility and Timeline

      • Does the project demonstrate a sound design 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, or subject populations, or employ useful collaborative arrangements?
      • Are the goals/outcomes clearly articulated and achievable?
      • 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?
      • Is the timeline adequate for achieving goals? 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, or likelihood of obtaining an external award?
      • Does the PI (and collaborators for multi-PI proposals) demonstrate an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced the respective field(s)?

    Budget

      • 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 buy-out and/or summer support vital to the project?