UO Foundation Trustee Excellence Grant

Evaluation Form

2024-2025

Please base your review on the criteria below, assessing the project description, biographical sketch/CV, current and pending support, budget, and budget justification.

 
 
 

Conflict of Interest

It is the personal responsibility of the reviewer to identify any possible conflict of interest situation that may impact the review of a research grant. Reviewers have a conflict of interest if any of the following apply:


1. Financial benefit: has received or could receive a direct financial benefit of any amount deriving from an application or proposal under review.


2. Personal relationships: a parent, spouse, sibling, son or daughter, or domestic partner of the applicant or the team of investigators.


3. Professional relationships: peer reviewer is a mentor or trainee of an applicant. Other professional activities with the applicant must be disclosed at the time of review.

 

Please disclose any potential conflicts of interest below. Note that given the size of our institutions, we expect almost everyone to have some personal relationship or connection to most reviewers. If the peer reviewer is a mentor or trainee of the applicant, we will reassign the proposal. Otherwise, we will note conflicts at the time of the panel review.

 
 

Review Criteria

The form's questions use a 1-5 scale:


    1 - Excellent

    2 - Very Good

    3 - Good

    4 - Fair

    5 - Poor

 

Is the project intellectually significant? What value does it offer to the faculty member’s disciplinary field and/or general audiences?


Has the applicant clearly identified potential challenges and issues addressed by the project? Is it likely that the project will achieve the stated societal impacts?

 

Is the conception, definition, organization, and description of the project clearly articulated? Is the methodology sound and indicates project success?

 

Does the project involve undergraduate students in a meaningful way, that would contribute to their academic or scholarly growth?

 

Is the work plan and timeline feasible, appropriate, and supported by a well-justified budget? This section is weighted at 10%.

 

Is the applicant well-qualified to carry out the proposed work and have the means to do so if funded?

 

What is the likelihood of achieving the project’s final product(s)? How strong is the dissemination plan for its intended audience(s)?

 

Please summarize your review of the proposal’s strengths and weaknesses in 3-4 sentences. This text will be shared anonymously with the applicant and is intended to provide further transparency in our feedback and align our process with the peer-review procedures from federal granting agencies. We ask that you comment on the application's strengths, as well as identify clear suggestions for improvement.


Example: "The proposal is well written and articulates clearly and persuasively the intellectual significance of the proposed project. The application also provides ample evidence of the PI's qualifications to conduct the proposed research and ability to bring that research to successful completion. The proposal could be improved with a more thorough description of methodology in order to determine whether the outcomes can be achieved, and a clearer articulation of the theoretical framework."

 
 

Please provide comments on the overall strengths/weaknesses of the proposal and justify your scores above. Note this is for internal use only and will not be shared with the applicant.