|Grants Review Process|
For each category identified under “Review Criteria,” below, each reviewer shall note the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal and be prepared to discuss these points during the review committee meeting. Each reviewer will also assign a numerical score of 1 to 10 for each proposal with 10 meaning the project is extremely highly recommended for funding. Because the importance of each category is not equal, reviewers are not asked to assign scores to each individual category. For example, a project may not be innovative but may nonetheless be of great importance and therefore highly recommended for funding. If the proposal is completely unsuitable, or if there is a safety concern or other serious issue, a reviewer can recommend “NFRC” (not recommended for further consideration) rather than assigning a score.
For each grant application, the committee chair will select a primary reviewer to give a brief oral summary of the proposal to the committee. The primary reviewer’s job is to orient everyone and initiate the discussion, but every member is still responsible for reading, understanding, and scoring every proposal.
Review Committee Procedure
Members will come prepared with notes and scores for each proposal. The primary reviewer will introduce the paper and share his or her assessment of its numerical score and why. The rest of the committee must say whether they agree or disagree. After discussion is complete (as decided by the committee chair), each member will announce his or her numerical score. Scores will be tallied and averaged to produce a final score for the proposal.
Conflicts of Interest
Before the committee meets, each reviewer should contact the committee chair to let him or her know if they have a conflict of interest with any of the proposals to be reviewed. During the committee meeting, before the proposal is introduced for discussion, the committee chair will ask anyone with a conflict of interest to excuse themselves from the room. Each member will be held responsible for using his or her professional judgment to determine a conflict of interest. Examples of conflict of interest include, but are not limited to: submitting investigators who are from the same organization as the reviewer, close professional associates, recent teacher or students, employers or employees, personal friends, projects in which the reviewer has a financial or vested interest, or if the submitted project closely duplicates the reviewer’s own work. Reviewers should excuse themselves if there would appear to be a conflict of interest, even if they feel their review would not be compromised.
Application materials are confidential and should not be shown to or discussed with persons outside the review committee. The ideas and information contained in grant proposals are privileged information and should not be disclosed or used by the reviewer for any purpose other than the review itself. After the review process is complete, materials related to the proposals and review should be destroyed.
Human Subjects, Vertebrate Animals, Recombinant DNA
This committee shall not forward proposals involving human subjects, vertebrate animals, and/or recombinant DNA unless the proposal has been reviewed and approved by a qualified panel or organization, such as major university, National Institutes of Health (NIH), etc.
Research involving select agents/biohazards must present a biosafety plan, and must be in compliance with biosafety recommendations of the researcher’s parent organization.
Fulfillment of Mission Statement
Â What is the likelihood of sustained, powerful influence on vector control and public health?
Does the proposed research address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in our field?
Will the results of the proposed research be applicable to all states? A large region? One district?
Are the individual(s) proposing the research well suited for the job? Do they possess the necessary experience and training? Do they have a proven record of successful research?
Does the proposed research challenge current paradigms by utilizing novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions?
Are the proposed methods, strategy, and analysis scientifically sound, well reasoned, and appropriate to the specific aims of the project?
If humans, vertebrate animals, or recombinant DNA will be part of the proposed research, is there documentation of review and approval by a qualified agency?
Is the proposed research a collaboration among researchers?
Will the institution or organization hosting the research provide adequate support, equipment, and resources?
Is the budget appropriate for the proposed research?
Do the authors identify their plans for publishing or making available the results of their work?