GUIDELINES FOR PREPARATION OF WRITTEN REVIEWS AND FOR ASSIGNMENT OF SCIENTIFIC MERIT


SPECIAL NOTE: You are requested to serve as a reviewer of CRC application(s). If you submitted a CRC, but refuse to review application(s) assigned to you, your application will be withdrawn from further consideration. In the event a co-investigator on your grant refuses to review, you will be notified so that you can opt to review in place of your co-investigator rather than have your application withdrawn.

Written Review

Please prepare review in format indicated below to achieve consistency and thus allow ease of review by CRC members.

A. Description. (INCLUDE ONLY IN PRIMARY REVIEW.) Concisely describe the objectives and procedures of the application. For revised applications indicate any substantive changes since the previous review. Do not make evaluative statements in this section.

B. Critique. (INCLUDE IN BOTH PRIMARY AND SECONDARY REVIEW.)

  1. Significance and Originality-Evaluate significance and originality of proposed study in its scientific field.
    • Assess the feasibility of conducting the study considering the state of the art.
    • Evaluate whether the study will produce significantly new data.
    • Discuss whether the new data to be obtained is pertinent to the aims of the study.

  2. Methods-Assess the soundness of the logic and methodology and the appropriateness of the procedures for the stated problem.

  3. Investigator- Evaluate the appropriateness of the skills and qualifications of the investigator to conduct the study.

  4. Resources and Environment-Comment on the availability of essential laboratory, clinical, animal, computer, or other resources to carry out the study.

  5. Budget-Determine whether all items of the budget are realistic and justified in terms of the aims and methods.

  6. Overlap-Identify any apparent scientific or budgetary overlap with active, pending or planned support.

  7. Human Subjects and Animals-Assess appropriateness of the human subject population. Assess appropriateness of choice of animal species and number involved and the justification for their use.

  8. Hazardous Materials and Procedures-Describe materials and procedures which are potentially hazardous to laboratory personnel.

C. Summary and Recommendations. (INCLUDE IN BOTH PRIMARY AND SECONDARY REVIEW.) Provide an overall evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of the application and a recommendation of APPROVAL, DISAPPROVAL and SCIENTIFIC MERIT SCORE.

Use the following description of various degrees of scientific merit in assigning a numerical score to the application. Please indicate the scientific merit rating scores on the attached rating sheet.

Scientific Merit
SCORE DESCRIPTION
1.0 - 1.4 Highest Quality, Most Meritorious (Outstanding - Excellent)
1.5 - 1.8 High Quality (Very Good)
1.9 - 2.2 Better Than Average Quality (Good)
2.3 - 2.6 Average
2.7 - 3.0 Less Than Average (Below Average)
3.1 - 4.0 Considerably Below Average (Poor)
4.1 - 5.0 Poorest Quality

Please treat the application as a PRIVILEGED DOCUMENT. No material from it should be copied, quoted or otherwise used without permission of the author, nor should the author's name be revealed in connection with this application. If you believe that a colleague can make a substantive contribution to the review, please consult me before disclosing either the contents of the application or the applicant's name. When you have completed the review, PLEASE return the application and the review sheet to the Central Research Committee in care of the Office of the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Affairs (ADRFA).

VERBATIM COPIES OF REVIEWS, RATINGS AND ASSOCIATED CORRESPONDENCES will be sent to the prinicpal investigator/project director. These copies will be edited to remove your name. Your comments and identity, of course, will be available to the ADRFA staff processing the application and to the CRC chairman. Your participation as a reviewer and the content of your review will be given maximum protection from disclosure.

The members of the CRC thank you for your participation in the peer review process. Your role is vital in developing an adequate system for evaluation of research projects at SIU School of Medicine.

For further information contact:
Nancy Austin in the Office of the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Affairs located at 801 N. Rutledge, 2nd Floor, Room 2073 or call (217)545-7936. Hours are 8:00 a.m to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Office of The Associate Dean For Research and Faculty Affairs

Last update: January, 2003