Research Proposal Review Criteria
Your research proposal for the KL2 Program will be reviewed by the CTSA Postdoctoral Programs Committee using these criteria, which have been excerpted in part from National Institutes of Health (NIH) Center for Scientific Review guidelines.
- Project summary. Briefly describe the project. This can be taken directly from the proposal abstract if desired.
- Significance. Does this study address an important problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will it advance scientific knowledge or clinical practice? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services or preventive interventions that drive this field?
- Innovation. Is the project original and innovative? For example, does the project challenge existing paradigms or clinical practice, or address an innovative hypothesis or critical barrier to progress in the field? Does the project develop or employ novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, tools or technologies for this area?
- Approach. Are the conceptual or clinical framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, well reasoned and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics? (Provide comments on project strengths, weaknesses and feasibility.)
Mentors and environment. Is the mentor well qualified to provide the support necessary to complete the project? Is there evidence that he or she is willing to do so? Do the mentor and the investigative team bring complementary and integrated expertise to the project (if applicable)?
Do(es) the scientific environment(s) in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed studies benefit from unique features of the scientific environment(s) or subject populations, or employ useful collaborative arrangements?
- Appropriateness. Given the skills and experience of the scholar, will the project provide a good research training experience? Will it significantly add to the current scientific repertoire of the scholar? Will the project provide significant preliminary data and momentum for future extramural funding?
- Protection of human subjects from research risks. What is the risk to subjects, adequacy of protection against risks, potential benefit to the subjects and to others, and importance of the knowledge to be gained?
- Inclusion of women, children and minorities. As appropriate for the scientific goals of the research, are there adequate plans for including women, minorities and children? If not, is there adequate justification for exclusion?
- Overall assessment. What is your overall level of enthusiasm for the project? What are the primary reasons for this assessment? (Score according to NIH style, 1.0 to 9.0.)
Find Mayo Clinic on