Example

Strategic Investment Fund

Evaluation Form

2023-24

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.

Proposal Scoring

Please review each proposal based on the criteria and scoring scale:


1 - Excellent

2 - Very Good

3 - Good

4 - Fair

5 - Poor

Research Project

This section is weighted at 30%.

Research Problem*

How clearly does the applicant describe the research problems or questions, including specifying the gap in the research to be addressed?

Significance and Intellectual Merit*

Please evaluate the project's significance. What is the strength of the project's intellectual merit?

Potential to Transform*

Rate the potential for this project to be transformative for the University’s research and training mission.

Approach

This section is weighted at 25%.

Aim, Goals & Methodology*

Assess the project's aims, goals and methodology. Are the overall project aim and/or goals clearly defined and reasonable? Are the methods appropriate and well-justified?

Roles and Responsibilities*

Are the roles and responsibilities of the team members well explained and justified for the proposed research?

External Funding*

Assess how well the proposal's research activities enhance the competitiveness of the project for external funding.

Researcher or Research Team

This section is weighted at 10%.

Qualifications*

Rate the PI's/ Team's qualifications and experience as they relate to proposed research objectives/goals. Do they have the needed experience to be competitive in applying for the intended solicition?

Research Agenda*

How well does the proposed research align with the researcher/ team members’ long-term research agendas?

Funding History*

Assess the past success of PI's/ team members' obtaining external research funding.

External Funding Strategy

This section is weighted at 30%.

Strategy*

Assess the plan for external funding. Does the proposal clearly identify an external funding mechanism or program? How well does the project align with the named funding mechanism(s)?

Proposal Development*

How well does the proposal describe a feasible and appropriate strategy for preparing and submitting the project for external funding?

Competitiveness of plan*

Rate how well the proposed investments represent the highest impact ways of developing a competitive proposal. Is UO well-positioned to compete for this award if the proposed activities are completed?

Broader Impact Planning*

(As applicable) Based on the PI's/Team's plan for external funding, how well do they address the funder's requirement for broader impacts (NSF); plans for enhancing diverse perspectives (NIH); or other funder-specified expectations for advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion? Are the future plans well-conceptualized?

Timeline and Budget

This section is weighted at 5%.

Timeline*

Assess the proposal timeline. Is it realistic given the goals and proposal development activities?

Budget and Justification*

Evaluate the project budget. Is it well-justified? Is it sufficient to support the development and implementation of the project?

Reviewer Comments

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 so that these comments will help faculty with future applications.

Privacy Notice|Report Abuse