Share on:

Research Proposal Review Criteria

Your research proposal for the Postdoctoral Master's Degree Program will be reviewed by the CCaTS Postdoctoral Programs Committee using these criteria, which have been excerpted in part from National Institutes of Health (NIH) Center for Scientific Review guidelines.

  • Clinical research. Does the proposed project meet the definition of clinical research? If it's an animal model, is the significance to human disease justified?
  • 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 preventative 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? Are potential problem areas acknowledged and alternative tactics considered? Is there sufficient time to collect data and recruit subjects? Is there sufficient funding to complete the study?
  • 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)?

    Does 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? Will the scholar hold first-author status on publications resulting from the research?
  • 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. Are there adequate plans for including women, minorities and children — as appropriate — for the scientific goals of the research? If not, is there adequate justification for exclusion?
  • Scientific peer review. Is there a minute excerpt from the appropriate internal or external research committee demonstrating that peer review has taken place?
  • Institutional Review Board (IRB) review. Has IRB review taken place? (Proposals may be submitted with IRB approval pending.)
  • Feb 27, 2014
  • ART243405