Review Criteria

I. QUALITY AND TECHNICAL MERIT

Does the proposal demonstrate an awareness of the state of current research?
Does the proposal describe a sound methodology, analytic or technical approach?
How feasible is the proposed project?
Does the proposal suggest an innovation and creative approach to address a problem?

II. IMPACT OF THE PROJECT

Does the proposed work hold potential for the advancement of science?
Is the proposed work relevant to policy and practice?
Is this project likely to attract additional sponsored activities?

III. CAPABILITIES, DEMONSTRATED PRODUCTIVITY, AND EXPERIENCE OF APPLICANTS

Does the PI demonstrate the ability to complete the proposed effort?
Does the applicant demonstrate a record of successful past performance?

IV. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS

Is the FIF an appropriate mechanism to advance this work?
Are the budgeted project costs appropriate for the level of effort?

Scoring for FIF Research Grants (adopted from NIH guidelines)

The scoring below indicates the priority score, descriptor and additional guidance on strengths/weaknesses.

High Impact

Exceptional - Exceptionally strong with essentially no weaknesses
Outstanding - Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses
Excellent - Very strong with only some minor weaknesses

Moderate Impact

Very Good - Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses
Good - Strong but with at least one moderate weakness
Satisfactory - Some strengths but also some moderate weaknesses

Low Impact

Fair - Some strengths but with at least one major weakness
Marginal - A few strengths and a few major weaknesses
Poor - Very few strengths and numerous major weaknesses

Definitions

Minor: easily addressable weakness that does not substantially lessen the impact of the project
Moderate: weakness that lessens the impact of the project
Major: weakness that severely limits the impact of the project

Faculty Initiatives Fund

Questions