NF1 Grant Review - Submission Form

Similar to the NIH grant application scoring system, we will use a 9-point scale for both overall impact scores and scores for individual review criteria. Use whole numbers only. A score of 5 is considered average. Please use the following Score Guide to assign a quantitative score to each of the five criterion sections below: 1 = Exceptional, Exceptionally strong with essentially no weaknesses 2 = Outstanding, Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses 3 = Excellent, Very strong with only some minor weaknesses 4 = Very good, Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses 5 = Good, Strong but with at least one moderate weakness 6 = Satisfactory, Some strengths but also some moderate weaknesses 7 = Fair, Some strengths but with at least one major weakness 8 = Marginal, A few strengths and a few major weaknesses 9 = Poor, Very few strengths and numerous major weaknesses Minor weakness: easily addressable weakness, does not substantially lessen impact Moderate weakness: lessens impact Major weakness: severely limits impact

- Reviewer Comments and the applicant's overall score will be shared with the applicants. Each section's individual score will not be shared. - Evaluate and score each of the following criterion, and provide an overall impact score at the end.

- Is the proposed research likely to advance therapeutic development for NF1-related MPNST? - Does the proposed research address a barrier that is preventing progress toward development of an effective therapy?

- Do the PIs have experience relevant to the proposed research for MPNST? - Is the PI capable of supervising the proposed experiments? - Does the study team/co-investigator have appropriate experience and skills?

- Does the proposed research challenge any paradigms? - Does the proposed research represent a novel approach to identifying effective therapies for MPNST (novel resources, methods, concepts, or experimental design)?

- Do the PIs articulate a good rationale, appropriate methodology, controls, analysis (including statistics, if needed)? - Are sufficient details provided? - Are expectations, plans for data interpretation, and recognition of pitfalls and alternative strategies adequately addressed? - Do preliminary data (although not required) and/or literature support feasibility? - Do aims depend on each other, posing substantial risk? - Is the proposed work appropriate for 2-year funded research program?

- Do the PI have the institutional support and resources available to complete the project successfully (e.g., animal facilities)? - Have appropriate approvals for the investigations (i.e., IRB) been submitted and approved?

Considering all review criteria, provide an overall impact score (based on 1-9 scale at top of this form, increments of 1.0). The impact score is analogous to that used in the NIH scoring system, as follows: - The impact score for an application is based on each individual reviewer's assessment of the scored criteria plus additional criteria regarding the protection and inclusion of human subjects; vertebrate animal care and welfare; biohazards,, and criteria specific to the funding opportunity. - Overall impact, for a research project, is the project's likelihood to have a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved. - Reviewers should feel free to assign the score that they believe best represents the impact of the application, and not feel constrained to limit their scores to the upper half of the score range if they do not feel such a score is warranted.