Guidelines. Questions 1-9 are contained in an e-Cover Sheet within InfoEd and are addressed once all the documents have been uploaded. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO UPLOAD A PAPER VERSION OF THE COVER PAGE.

Additional information for items 7 through 9 are given below.

7. Review Panel Assignment (For Large Grants only).

1. Life Sciences – generally includes proposals from faculty in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, School of Pharmacy, the three Biology departments, Marine Sciences and the Neuroscience area of Psychology.
2. Physical Sciences – generally includes proposals from faculty in Chemistry, Geography, Geology and Geophysics, Marine Science, Mathematics, Physics and Statistics.
3. Social Sciences – generally includes proposals from faculty in the Schools of Business, Education, Nursing, Social Work or from faculty in Allied Health, Agriculture and Resource Economics, Anthropology, Communication Sciences, Economics, Linguistics, Political Science, Psychology and Sociology.
4. Humanities/Fine Arts – generally includes proposals from faculty in the School of Fine Arts or from faculty in English, History, Modern and Classical Languages and Philosophy.
5. Engineering – generally includes proposals from faculty in the School of Engineering.

Please select the research area(s) that are most reflective of your Large Grant proposal and not based on your affiliation with an academic department. It is recognized that some proposals may fall into two or more research areas. Keep in mind that the membership of each review panel will be selected from academic departments that correspond to a particular research area.

8. Assistant Professors. Please provide your start date and the amount of your start up funds package (if applicable).

9. Protocol Approval. Projects requiring IRB (Institutional Review Board), IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee) or IBC (Institutional Biosafety Committee) review, must have committee approval on or before the proposal award date . For information on whether your project requires review, please refer to: IRB (use of human subjects); IACUC (use of animal subjects); IBC (rDNA and Biosafety). If you already have approval, please submit a copy of the approval letter with your proposal and note (in item 9) that your protocol has been approved. Proposals with approval pending will be entered into the competition; however, funds will not be released until final approval is granted . If approval is pending, please note “approval pending” in item 9. Proposals without this information will be considered.

10. Project Abstract. Succinctly state the objectives, methods to be employed, whether human or animal subjects will be used, and the significance of the proposed activity to the advancement of knowledge or pursuit of scholarly activities. The abstract should be informative to other persons working in the same or related fields and generally understandable to a lay reader.

11. Proposed Research (Narrative). Narrative should not exceed five (5) pages; proposals with longer narratives will not be considered. Use the headings suggested below to organize the narrative. Describe the proposed research project in sufficient detail to enable peer review. It is recommended that applicants write their proposals for a more general audience of reviewers drawn from their general area but who are not necessarily experts on the proposed research problem. Be sure to carefully link the project to the proposed time period and budget requested; do not simply attach a narrative from a larger, longer extramural proposal. Use English only and avoid jargon. For acronyms not universally understood, spell out the term the first time it is used.

• Introduction. Clearly state the project to be undertaken, the background of the work, with literary references as necessary, and the rationale of the project as you wish to pursue it.
• Methodology. Give details of the research plan, a statement of procedure consistent with the presentation in the Introduction.
• Significance of the Research. Describe the significance of this project to the field as a whole, emphasizing the potential importance of anticipated contributions. Explain how this proposal will help you move into a better position to apply for and receive extramural funding for your research and scholarly activities – be specific and identify potential sources for extramural funding. Explain the expected outcome of the research and how you plan to disseminate your findings (by publishing in a scholarly journal, presenting at a meeting, showing at an exhibit, demonstrating at a recital, etc.).

12. References. List the references used in your study in a style that is appropriate for your field.

13. Proposed Budget. The budget should, normally, not exceed $25,000. The budget will be reviewed in relation to the activity proposed. Provide details with appropriate justification for each item using the following budget format and refer to the Budget Preparation Instructions noted below.

• BUDGET CATEGORY,
• SPECIFIC ITEM AND DETAILS
• AMOUNT
• JUSTIFICATION

14. Extramural Support. List information on extramural research proposal activities for the last FIVE YEARS using the format below. Recipients of Large Grants are expected to be actively engaged in submitting proposals to extramural sponsors. In addition, if you are a Co-Principal Investigator (Co-PI) on a project, be sure to list the Principal Investigator (PI), the total budget for the project, and the total budget for your portion of the project. If you have NEVER applied for or received extramural support, please provide an explanation.

• PROJECT TITLE:
• PI or Co-PI:
• EXTRAMURAL SPONSOR:
• PROJECT PERIOD:
• DIRECT COSTS (If Co-PI, list total project costs and the costs for your portion):
• STATUS (currently active, closed, pending, not funded):
• OVERLAP WITH RAC REQUEST? (Explain if yes):

15. Intramural Support.

a. List start-up funds received (when and how much) in the last five years and indicate how these funds have been used or will be used.

b. List information on intramural research proposal activities for the last FIVE YEARS (pending, funded, not funded) using the format below. “Intramural support” is defined as support from all University of Connecticut sources, including Internal Program Support, Agricultural Experiment Station (Hatch) Awards through the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University Cost Centers and Specialized Service Facilities, Connecticut Sea Grant Program, National Undersea Research Center (NURC), and Institute of Water Resources (IWR). Be sure to include the outcome of those awards in terms of publications, subsequent extramural funding, etc. In addition, if you are a Co-PI on a project, be sure to list the PI, the total budget for the project, and the total budget for your portion of the project.

• PROJECT TITLE:
• PI or Co-PI:
• INTRAMURAL SPONSOR:
• PROJECT PERIOD:
• DIRECT COSTS (If Co-PI, list total project costs and the costs for your portion):
• STATUS (currently active, closed, pending, not funded):
• REPORT ON USE OF FUNDS ( Important, if you have previously received Internal Program Support from the Research Foundation, enclose a final report and list the extramural award applications and publications/presentations that are a direct result of the previous internal funding. ):

16. Two-Page Curriculum Vitae. Include a two-page version of your professional summary, including your most recent publications or publications most relevant to the work proposed.

17. Appendices (Optional). Most proposals will not require appendices. Such additional material is needed only when it is truly essential for adequate peer review of the proposal, [e.g., subject questionnaire, price quotation on major items of equipment, letter(s) of invitation to a sabbatical research site, or comments of peer review groups or federal agencies]. Although there is no page limit on appendices, it is counterproductive to append lengthy material.

For investigators who are applying for bridge funding, it is recommended that investigators enclose written critiques from extramural funding agencies with the proposal submission. Additionally, the review score or percentage would be most helpful in the review process. This information would be considered confidential to the individuals involved in the review.