How to Review and Become a Reviewer

Best professional development in higher education!

Linda Mason, OSRHE

lmason@osrhe.edu

Grant proposals usually reviewed by several people in the field and related fields

Reviewers may be peers of the writers

Not necessary to have received a grant to be able to contribute to the review process

Guidelines vary by entity Selection criteria and scoring

Published in the solicitation and federal register

Peer review Agencies train new participants for review

panels

How does it work? Go to a location, usually DC Become very familiar with guidelines Stay for 2-3 days to review Debate your opinions with a panel of peers Work hard, maybe 12 hours/day Read and critique 10-12 proposals Total confidentiality Expenses paid, usually no or little stipend

How does it work?Review by mail/emailReceive a month before dueInclude it in your existing scheduleTotal confidentialityNo stipend

How does it work? Local agency or corporation Go to a location, usually the agency Read during the day Work with a panel of peers Total confidentiality No stipend

Questions reviewers ask? Who is affected by this request/who is the

target audience? Are these project goals and objectives

realistic? Can the timeline realistically be met? Is the submitting organization capable of

carrying out the project?

Questions reviewers ask? If the project duplicates others in the field,

what makes this one stronger? Is the cost of this project justified/realistic? If the project is to be continued after this grant

cycle, where will the organization get its funding?

Do the submitters have external support aside from the granting organization?

Questions reviewers ask? Is there collaboration involved in the project? Has the organization shown prior success? Is the staff of this organization capable and

accountable? What is the organization's board or support

composition and how involved are its members?

Why be a reviewer? Learn to write better proposals Learn about the programs of the agency Learn about the funded grants of the agency Network with others like you Provide a service

Why be a reviewer? Learn the process and improve your funding odds See what us usually missing or unclear in

proposals Clarify your communication Simplify your writing

How do I become a reviewer? The agency’s website Recipient of a grant The funder, program director, head of agency Apply online – provide a vitae and short synopsis

of why you may be of help Need not have grant experience, just content or

program expertise

Dear Program Director,

I am an assistant professor of biology at Northeastern Oklahoma State University and have 10 years of experience in teaching undergraduate students.

My research interests are with amino acids produced by toads as possible use in treating obesity. Oklahoma has the highest child obesity rate in the nation.

NSU has a student population of 28% native Americans. My experiences may be of help in reviewing grant proposals for the Summer Institute Program to Increase Diversity in Health-Related Research.

Agencies – NSF www.nsf.gov Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems -

Phillip Westmoreland pwestmoreland@nsf.gov - 703/292-8370 Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences - Kaye Husbands

khusbands@nsf.gov - 703/292-7276 Engineering Education and Centers - Mary Poats mpoats@nsf.gov -

703/292-4667 Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings - David Ucko, d

ucko@nsf.gov - 703/292-8616 Advanced Technological Education (community colleges) – Elizabeth

Teleseiteles telesejteles@nsf.gov – 703-292-8670 Alliances for Broadening Participation in STEM – A. James Hicks

ahicks@nsf.gov - 703-292-8640 Communicating Research to Public Audiences – David Ucko,

ducko@nsf.gov 703-292-8616 Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement – Myles Boylan

mboylan@nsf.gov - 703-292-4617…….and more!

Agencies – NIH – http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/guide/

NIH Grant Review Process Video - http://cms.csr.nih.gov/ResourcesforApplicants/InsidetheNIHGrantReviewProcessVideo.htm

Bridges to the Baccalaureate Program - Cathleen Cooper cooperc@csr.nih.gov – 301-435-3566

Behavioral and Social Science Research on Understanding and Reducing Health Disparities – Dr. Gabriel Fosu fosug@csr.nih.gov – 301-435-3562

Summer Institute Program to Increase Diversity in Health-Related Research - Chief, Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research Activities, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute NHLBIChiefReviewBranch@nhlbi.nih.gov – 301-435-0270…and more!

How to Review a Grant Proposal

Questions You Will Ask When You Review Grants1. Does the application respond to the criteria?2. Is the project clear and specific (not obscured by

jargon)?3. Do the ideas flow logically?4. Are activities consistent with each other? 5. Does the application explain the need for

assistance?6. Are the project objectives measurable?7. How will success or failure be evaluated?

How to Read Proposals

1. Read the entire proposal before beginning to match the criteria against the application.

2. Make your comments specific. “This is a good program,” is not helpful. Too many good programs don’t get funded.

3. Write your comments in complete sentences.

4. Don’t restate what the applicant wrote—evaluate what it says.

5. Make comments tactful and constructive.

Why do reviewers supply comments about the proposal?

To help the writer make the proposal better.

At NSF, only 20% of first time grant proposals are funded.

50% of re-submissions are funded.

Constructive Comments

When you find Weaknesses

Useful: The proposed budget categories lack sufficient detail to determine reliability. (p.41) The travel budget does not delineate the locations of the conferences.

Less useful: The budget is missing key items. (This comment is not supported with details).

Common Errors Reviewers Find

1. Trying to fit a program into an unsuitable grant opportunity.

2. Failing to answer all criteria in the RFP.

3. Using old data or insufficient data

4. Poor evaluation

5. Unqualified staff.

6. Missing budget items.

7. Unallowable, inappropriate budget items.

8. Budget items not explained in the project narrative. (Why do you need to go to the French Riviera?)

9. No plans for sustainability or explanation for why not.

10. No commitment letters to document proposed activities, partners, and resources

Common Errors Reviewers Find

Thank you.

2008 OSRHE Summer Grant Writing Institute

Linda Mason, Ed.D.Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education

lmason@osrhe.edu405-225-9486

Thanks to Gerry Cherry for her slides.